Corsi: End of Federal Subsidies = Tax Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Sept. 28 WorldNetDaily article promoting the latest Jerome Corsi Red Alert newsletter asserts that "President Obama declared war on oil and natural gas." How so? by allegedly wanting to end tax subsidies for fossil fuel production:
The Environmental Law Institute estimated that in the U.S., the biggest fuel subsidies are tax breaks, the foreign tax credit and the credit for production of nonconventional fuels that added up to $72 billion over the seven year period studied, 2002 to 2008.
"Should Obama succeed, the end result will be tantamount to imposing a new tax on oil and natural gas production, with the outcome being that U.S. energy consumers will see energy price increases," Corsi warned.
[...]
Corsi said he believes Obama may be desperate for tax revenue to cover the projected trillion-dollar federal budget deficits the administration is planning to incur in the foreseeable future.
"Yet, eliminating fossil fuel subsidies as part of a global-warming ideological agenda seems a particularly strange way to stimulate the economy out of a recession," he wrote. "Eliminating tax provisions that encourage U.S. investment in oil and gas technology, exploration and production will certainly increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil, with the resultant negative impact on our already negative balance of international trade."
That's right -- according to Corsi, ending a federal giveaway to oil and natural gas producers is the same thing as a tax increase for them.
Funny, we thought right-wingers like Corsi opposed federal subsidies. Shouldn't he be demanding that the fossil-fuel industry pay its own way instead of relying on government handouts?
John L. Perry's Greatest Obama-Hating Hits Topic: Newsmax
John L. Perry's Newsmax column advocating a military coup against Obama was merely the latest and most extreme example of Perry's hatred of the president.
Perry has long bashed Obama, beginning after Obama's 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention. Perry wrote:
Think, also, what license the dyslexic rent-a-crowd poster-scribblers will have with Barack Obama's moniker. Seemingly endless permutations off the letters spelling Obama are good for many a quality-time family-values game of "Anagrams."
Top of the Charts
Already you can hear rappers ranting out best-seller CDs without once repeating themselves:
"Obama, Boama, Amabo, Maboa.
"Oamba, Bamoa, Abamo, Maoba.
"Oabam, Baoma, Amoba, Moaba.
"Obaam, Bamao, Aobma, Mboaa.
"Obmaa, Bomaa, Aobam, Maaob."
Captures the very heart and soul of America, doesn't it?.
Everybody Sing Now
"We're Barack Obama bound!
"There'll be no heebie-jeebies hanging 'round.
"All aboard Barack's Express!"
When the 2008 election rolled around, Perry was ready to attack again:
Will an Obama victory be the dawning of the socialist revolution in America the far left has been panting for and working so hard all these years to bring about?
How soon will the masscomm egomaniacs fall out of love with this new administration? (And they will. They always do. The only thing they are truly in love with is themselves.) How will blacks respond to that?
It’s not a very pretty prospect any way you look at it. The world is about to see whether Americans are ready yet for self-government.
If elected president of the United States, Obama would bring his extensive management inexperience directly into the White House with him on his very first day in the Oval Office, the command post of the world’s most-powerful executive.
Talk about on-the-job training!
And speaking of talk, what has Barack Obama ever run — except his mouth?
The time for liberals to save their own political skins is now, before Nov. 4. They have an honorable, patriotic duty to stand up and say to America, “Stop right here! We want off this bus before it goes over the cliff. We were wrong about this Obama fellow. The evidence is now pouring in that he is not what he led us to believe. He is no liberal. He is a far-left radical and a mortal danger to this republic. Don’t give him your vote. He’s not getting mine.”
Will any of the leadership liberals do that? Do pigs fly? Do bears go in the middle of Times Square?
They’ve never tried.
If liberal Democrats fail to put country above party on Nov. 4 and if Obama wins, they can kiss their Democratic Party goodbye. They will deserve the political hell-fires they have stoked for themselves.
Like the Yorkshireman, Barack Obama burst upon the scene from obscure lineage — his emanating in disparate continents, Africa and North America.
Arms extended, Obama still circles the arena. Cheers continue, but slacken. His ill-timed effort to spread his wings across Europe, so congenial in leftist venues he courted, turned into a trans-substantial continental flop.
High-flying oratory proved utterly inefficacious in winning any major foreign-policy result he set himself to bring home in triumph. Obama’s personal diplomacy never took off.
Insightful, delightful humorist James Thurber once wrote, “You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.” Are you listening, Barack Obama?
The new president purports to be in affinity with Abraham Lincoln, who made a lot of sense a lot of the time, including one time when he said, “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.”
Using Lincoln’s maxim as his caliper, Obama has built a career slipping through a lot of the time with as much … well, call it foolery … as he could get away with at any given time.
[...]
Thurber’s humor was delicious, none of it built around narcissistic self-aggrandizement. What he had to say, what he wrote, what he drew in his near-blindness with a lump of charcoal was of lasting enrichment and enchantment.
On the other hand, Obama’s teleprompted words, before which his leftist adulators in the media fawn and grovel so, are blowing in the wind.
Absolutely, you can fool too many of the people too much of the time.
Time is not with Barack Obama. Even for him, there’s a limit of available fools.
Now that he’s president, Barack Obama has new clothes, even if they don’t always fit. What he still lacks is class. Tailors can’t fix that.
Before, during, and since the president’s elevation to his stratospheric altitude in the vault of the heavens, he has been adorned in an unprecedented array of resplendent raiments of praise befitting his One-ness.
[...]
Under those conditions, how, if the president has no class, is his populace to know what he’s doing that is classless? It’s a bit like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s celebrated dictum non-defining hard-core pornography: “I know it when I see it.”
So, the answer is that if the president’s classlessness is observed, it must be without comment about:
The way he walks, the way he talks, the way he looks down his nose.
The way he hasn’t learned to tie a four-in-hand necktie like the men do.
The way he smirks in public gatherings at crude, inappropriate humor.
The way he sulks or huffs like a spoiled child when disputed or denied.
The haughty way he fakes erudition off his teleprompter screens and proffers profundities on subjects in which he lacks credentials.
The way he says, “as I’ve said before,” when he hasn’t.
The way he jumps down, spins around, picks a new position when the one he holds drifts downstream toward the unpopular.
The way he tries to straddle two horses racing in diverging directions.
The way he concocts ever-shifting lexicons for marketing distasteful policies when public perceptions catch up with reality.
The way he can’t seem to avoid the first-person singular with almost every breath.
The way he behaves not only as if it’s all about him but also as if he’s all about all that is.
The poor fellow is classlessly infatuated with his reflection in the gazing pool of media adulation. Narcissism was never remotely emblematic of a class act.
Even to allow Obama’s socialist programs a mere toe in the water could prove to be too late. These programs are like flypaper or unspeakable social disease. The elevator to the hell of a Marxist society goes in only one direction – ever higher into costs taken from appropriations of individuals’ earned incomes.
[...]
It won’t be enough for Republicans just to be “the party of no” and stop there. They will also have to propose national alternatives that begin all over again where Barack Obama first seduced America into his leftward-spiraling, all-consuming maelstrom of latter-day Marxism.
If they fail, this nation will be down on its hands and knees for decades, scouring floors in an Augean stable where no one-time sluice will suffice to eradicate the bacilli of socialism from forever attempting a comeback.
Perry seems to be turning into the new Norman Liebmann, the former Newsmax columnist known at the time for his hateful smears of the Clintons and others he didn't like (such as Arabs).Liebmann quit Newsmax in 2004 after it allegedly refused to publish a virulent anti-gay rant of his. These days, Liebmann is mostly confined to his own website, where he's being just as hateful toward Obama.
Obama-Nazi Reference of the Day Topic: WorldNetDaily
The Nazis had a word for what Barack Obama declared in the United Nations General Assembly last week.
When a city or a district or a nation was "clean of Jews," it was pronounced "Judenrein."
The goal of the Nazis was, of course, for all of Europe to be cleansed of Jews – then the whole world.
[...]
In other words, Barack Obama is in favor of an ethnic-cleansing operation – one that will eventually require the forcible removal of all Jews, no matter how long they have lived in these areas, no matter what they paid for their properties, no matter what.
That's because the monsters who control the Palestinian Authority, even the so-called "moderates," demand that all Jews leave. Jews will simply be unwelcome in this future Palestinian state. End of story. It's a non-negotiable demand.
[...]
I know Americans have their own problems with Obama, but why are we sitting around quietly while he embraces policies that would reduce Israel to Auschwitz borders?
It's this simple: If ethnic cleansing is wrong, so are Obama's policies in the Middle East.
Newsmax Quotes Congressman Saying Something His Spokesman Said Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax's headline on a Sept. 29 Associated Press article reads, "GOP Rep.: Obama Enemy of 'Unborn Humanity'." But as the article details, that's not what the congressman said -- it's what the congressman's spokesman said he meant to say:
A Republican congressman who called President Barack Obama an "enemy of humanity" says he should have made clear that he was referring to the president's policies related to abortion.
Trent Franks of Arizona said in a speech to conservatives Saturday in St. Louis that Obama's decision to fund international family planning organizations that support legal abortion shows "he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity."
Bethany Haley, spokeswoman for Franks, said the congressman was referring to "unborn humanity" and should have clarified his statement.
The AP headline on the same article: "GOP lawmaker clarifies remarks critical of Obama."
Newsmax Flees From Coup-Advocating Column Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has issued a statement -- released to TPM and Media Matters, not to its readers on its website, where it would be more appropriate -- regarding John L. Perry's column rooting for a military coup to deal with the "Obama problem," which Newsmax has since deleted from its website (though we still have a copy):
In a blog posting to Newsmax John Perry wrote about a coup scenario involving the U.S. military. He clearly stated that he was not advocating such a scenario but simply describing one.
After several reader complaints, Newsmax wanted to insure that this article was not misinterpreted. It was removed after a short period after being posted.
Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.
Mr. Perry served as a political appointee in the Carter administration in HUD and FEMA. He has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger.
Interesting that Newsmax makes a point of highlighting that Perry worked in the Carter administration, as if it somehow proves he's not really a right-wing nut. And its dismissal of Perry as nothing more than an "unpaid blogger" is a tad disingenous since Perry has been writing for Newsmax since 1999 and Perry's Newsmax bio touts how he "contributes a regular column to NewsMax.com."
WND Still Obfuscating on Andersen's Claims Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Sept. 28 WorldNetDaily article touts how "Christopher Andersen said on a radio program today he had two sources of information for his new book confirming former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers played a large part in the writing of Barack Obama's 'Dreams from My Father.'" But the article obfuscates more than it illuminates.
The article states that "radio host Mancow Muller arranged for" WND columnist Jack Cashill -- the chief promulgator of the conspiracy theory that Ayers wrote the Obama book -- "to question Andersen about the book":
Andersen described how Obama was "hopelessly blocked" in writing his book then turned to Ayers for help.
When Cashill inquired about the sources for the book, Andersen said he had two separate sources "within Hyde Park" but would not elaborate. Andersen insisted he made no claim Ayers wrote "Dreams," but he did not deny Ayers' deep involvement.
He said "Dreams" is significantly different – and better – than Obama's other book, "Audacity of Hope," from 2006.
Notice anything strange about that section? There are no direct quotes of significance -- only the words "hopelessly blocked" and "within Hyde Park." Everything else is a paraphrase. There's no evidence that Andersen supports Cashill's claim of "Ayers' deep involvement" in Obama's book -- indeed, as we've detailed, Andersen has specifically distanced himself from claims that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama's book, as Cashill has claimed.
The article does not provide or otherwise link to audio or a transcript of the Cashill-Andersen conversation. The audio archive on Mancow's website is behind a subscription wall.
One has to wonder, given the absence of any meaningful direct quoting of the Mancow interview, if WND and Cashill are overstating what Andersen said. Unless they can provide an audio link and a verifiable transcript, it has to be assumed that they did.
The Washington Independent's Dave Weigel also highlights Cashill's overstatement of what Andersen is claiming: "But Cashill’s argument has not been the “informal editing service” argument. It’s been that Ayers wrote “the better part” of “Dreams From My Father,” something not even Andersen suggests."
Newsmax Deletes Column Advocating Military Coup Against Obama Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has quietly removed without explanation John L. Perry's column advocating a military coup against President Obama. Newsmax has offered no explanation or apology.
New Article -- Out There, Exhibit 50: The Secret Hirsen-Gibson Connection Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax writer James Hirsen runs a foundation that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to help Mel Gibson's father found an ultraconservative Catholic church -- but readers of Hirsen's fawning coverage of Gibson don't know that. Read more >>
WND Buys Into Bogus Breitbart Claim Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Sept. 29 WorldNetDaily article hypes a video, promoted by Andrew Breitbart's video site, that claims to "shows leaders of a Chicago-based community organizing group called the Gamaliel Foundation held a rally shortly after President Obama's election and 'prayed' to him, seeking his intervention in their difficulties."
The problem? It's clear that nobody's "praying" to Obama.
Breitbart himself has walked the claim back, appending an editor's note that acknowledges the likelihood that the group is praying to God rather than Obama -- though not before numerous members of the right-wing media joined WND in hyping it.
Obama-Nazi Reference of the Day Topic: WorldNetDaily
Many people, including some conservatives, have been very impressed with how brainy the president and his advisers are. But that is not quite as reassuring as it might seem.
[...]
Make no mistake about it, Adolf Hitler was brilliant. His underlying beliefs may have been half-baked and his hatreds overwhelming, but he was a genius when it came to carrying out his plans politically, based on those beliefs and hatreds.
Starting from a position of Germany's military weakness in the early 1930s, Hitler not only built up Germany's war-making potential, he did so in ways that minimized the danger that his potential victims would match his military build-up with their own. He said whatever soothing words they wanted to hear that would spare them the cost of military deterrence and the pain of contemplating another war.
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it.
But Perry certainly seems to be advocating just that farther down in his column:
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
Walsh again asserts dubious numbers as fact, claiming that "30 million illegal aliens ... are balkanizing the United States." In fact, most experts say there are only 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. He then quickly descends into paranoid ranting:
They are aided and abetted by liberal Democrats, radical Hispanic groups such as La Raza (The Race), leftist academicians, the liberal media, and groups financed by the likes of George Soros –– elitist billionaires who would buy their way into an oligarchy.
Add to this list the America haters, those individuals who choose to see only evil in their homeland. The strategy of these latter-day one-worlders is to foist an image of a morally bankrupt nation, something that America has never been, from its Paleo-Indians to its patriotic legislators struggling against agents of change in Congress –– agents that would destroy the nation to achieve globalist goals.
The Obama administration is intent on reshaping the demographics of the United States by way of open-borders immigration. Poorly educated, easily led, illegal aliens will be naturalized by a looming Obama amnesty. Thus it is not a lie when the president says that no illegal aliens will be covered by Obamacare. His intent is to naturalize them all.
Walsh alludes to the alleged utopia of pre-1965 immigration laws, stating that "For the past 44 years, Congress has jumbled the nation’s immigration laws by catering to immigrant special interest groups rather than to the citizens they allegedly represent." But as we've detailed, those highly restrictive immigration laws were driven by racism and eugenics.
Walsh also goes on a mini-rant against public education, claiming it is "busy instilling in U.S. youth a self-loathing that ridicules the nation’s ethos and its record of bloody sacrifice for the nation and the world." He adds, "In lock-step, the liberal news media demonizes the United States and spins the news to meet its goals." As if his employer, Newsmax, doesn't spin the news to meet its own goals.
WND Follows the Herd, Selectively Edits Quote Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Sept. 28 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh follows the lead of Fox News and the Washington Times by uncritically repeating their claims that "radical homosexual activist" Kevin Jennings, President Obama's safe school czar, "violated a state law" by failing to report that when he was a high school counselor, he "was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an 'older man.' At the very least, statutory rape occurred."
In fact, the evidence cited by the Times and Fox News, which Unruh uncritically repeats -- an audiotape of Jennings relating the story of the student in question during a 2000 speech -- was edited by both organizations to omit the fact that Jennings expressed concern to the student over sexually transmitted diseases because, he said, "my best friend had just died of AIDS the week before." Further, the audio cited by Fox and the Times does not specifically indicate, as they suggest, that the teen was involved with an "older man" or that sex between them actually occurred (though that can be plausibly inferred).
Horowitz Declares War on Marc Lamont Hill Topic: Horowitz
For reasons clear only to him, David Horowitz has felt the need to smack down Marc Lamont Hill.
In a Sept. 25 Newsreal post, Horowitz declares Hill -- a frequent guest on "The O'Reilly Factor" -- to be "an embarrassment to his own standards and an insult to the intelligence of African Americans particularly and his entire audience generally." Why? Because, Horowitz writes, "Hill is an expert on “hip-hop culture,” i.e., rap music. His academic degree is in education. What are his views on foreign policy worth, unless putting him on was designed to show up the shallow views of the left?" Horowitz continues:
I wonder if O’Reilly understands that putting on such a lightweight feeds the racism of low expectations. There are very intelligent blacks (and leftists) who could provide an interesting foil for conservative views if that was the agenda. Having a Columbia professor of rap music comment on the foreign policy views of Karl Rove (who was featured in the preceding segment) is demeaning to Rove and embarrassing to every African American watching. First we have a figure involved in every major foreign policy decision of the Bush administration who happens to be white. Then we have an aficionado of rap music who happens to be black? What does that say to the television viewer?
If O’Reilly wants to bring Hill on to defend Ludacris or some other morally-challenged rapper then fine. If he is the best defender that ACORN can get, then fine too. But spectacles like tonight’s segment are like circus sideshows that reflect poorly on the judgment of the Factor’s producers and are unworthy of the Factor itself.
Of course, O'Reilly himself has no particular experience to draw on that would give him expertise in discussing foreign policy. But Horowitz doesn't seem bothered by that.
Needless to say, Hill was not happy with this unprovoked attack, responding on his Twitter account, writing among other things: "David Horowitz has made his career calling people communists and/or anti-semites. He sees no irony in challenging credentials, while exercising the freedom to talk about whatever he wants with NO training at all. How does his Masters in literature allow him to write books on Islamic radicalism? "Furthermore, why hasn't he challenged Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh's ability to analyze politics and lead the GOP w/ HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMAS?"
This, of course, merely set up Hill for more abuse from Horowitz. In a Sept. 27 FrontPageMag article headlined "Fox’s Affirmative Action Baby Whines," Horowitz again sneered that "Hill’s expertise, such as it is, is hip-hop culture — the very low end, in other words, of popular music which is better known as rap," adding, "With an expertise in rap music, Hill has a professorship at Columbia University, illustrating my often made observation that our liberal arts colleges have fallen to their lowest intellectual level in 100 years." Horowitz asserted that "a rap professor pontificating about geopolitical issues" feeds "the soft racism of low expectations and that it was in fact an insult to all those black academics who would actually have had something intelligent to say about the Iran crisis."
Horowitz went on to complain that Hill's use of Twitter to respond to him was "bad judgment" because it revealed that "His Twitter web page is wall-papered with one of his heroes, Assata Shakur — a fugitive killer, wanted for the cold-blooded murder of a New Jersey state trooper in 1973." Horowitz then expanded his smears of black liberals:
Marc Lamont Hill, out of all the black intellectuals available, to talk about cultural issues (let alone international affairs.) Hill is one of a community of black intellectuals promoted well beyond their abilities — Michael Eric Dyson and Cornel West are two obvious others — who are poisoning the minds of black youth with the idea that politically correct murderers like Assata Shakur are heroes, and patriotic Americans are devils incarnate. Of course confronting O’Reilly — and cherishing his air time and Fox stipend — Hill is far more moderate on TV than he probably is in his classroom or at the public speaking venues his gig on Fox makes possible.
Horowitz also gets pedantic about what Hill actually wrote:
Hill’s second complaint is that I wrote a book called Unholy Alliance about radical Islam but I’m not an expert in Islam. This is supposed to take the heat off him for making inane comments on the Iranian crisis. Actually, my book — which he obviously didn’t read — is about theAmerican left — not Islam — and is an attempt to explain its tacit alliance with the Islamic totalitarians of al-Qaeda and Hamas. This is a subject I happen to be an expert on. I have studied the American left longer and know more about it than Professor Hill does about hip-hop culture or, for that matter, about me.
Horowitz doesn't address Hill's point about conservative radio hosts who pontificate about geopolitical issues with no college degree at all.
Remember, this is all happening because Hill is a black liberal who likes rap music -- and therefore, in Horowitz's eyes, isn't qualified to talk about anything else.
And Horowitz is the one complaining about others' "soft bigotry of low expectations"?
UPDATE: Cliff Kincaid follows Horowitz's lead by complaining in a Sept. 28 Accuracy in Media column that Hill is allowed to comment "on issues that go far beyond his expertise on hip-hop culture."
Graham Offended That Ruddy Stopped Hating Clinton Topic: NewsBusters
Newsmax's Christopher Ruddy has renounced his membership in the He-Man Clinton-Haters Club, and club member Tim Graham doesn't like it, not one bit.
In a Sept. 28 NewsBusters post, Graham notes a Washington Post article on the newfound friendship between Ruddy and Bill clinton -- which we reported on two years ago -- to lament: "Which statement here is weirder? Newsmax boss Christopher Ruddy now declaring that Bill Clinton was a 'great president'? Or Clinton telling him he did a 'good job' hounding him in the 1990s?" Graham adds: "If this deep bow is what it takes to gain access for an interview with the former president, the price is too high. It sounds a lot like Joe Scarborough apologizing all over Hillary Clinton a few years back."
Apparently, Graham believes that the Clintons must be hated at all costs. Graham also overlooks the fact that Newsmax hasn't actually eliminated Clinton-bashing.
By the way, in that Washington Post article, Ruddy is quoted as saying of Newsmax: "We are the heart and soul of the Republican Party and not out to demonize people." Barack Obama would begtodiffer.
