“Tax-Cutter Obama” Revisited: Daily Beast Blogger Sets a New Standard in Leftist Duplicity

Nov 09 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

The most amazing thing liberals have done is create the myth of a compliant right-wing media with Republicans badgering baffled reporters into attacking Democrats. It’s so mad, it’s brilliant. It’s one kind of lie to say the Holocaust occurred when the Swedes killed the Jews. But it’s another kind of lie entirely to say the Holocaust occurred when the Jews killed the Nazis. Ann Coulter in Godless Today we have a positively exquisite example of such a leftist lie.  Pseudo-victimhood, boldly claiming the moral high ground, projecting one side’s sins onto the other side…this one’s got it all. The author of today’s opus is Rick Perlstein, who took to the Daily Beast this weekend to bemoan the fact that Rush Limbaugh brazenly lied about Barack Obama’s record on taxes, and that our poor tax-lowering president is too polite and civil to stand up for himself: The caller quoted Obama’s words: “Because of this plan, 95 percent of the working households in America will receive a tax cut –- a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks beginning on April 1.” (Which was true: People did.) Rush responded, fluidly and without a gram of doubt. “Pay no attention to what Obama says. He means the opposite in most cases. What he says is irrelevant.” So the guy to whom all Republicans must kowtow on pain of political death had just laid down a marker that everything Obama said was a lie. PolitiFact says this promise did indeed manifest in the stimulus bill, as a $400-per-worker tax credit.  Limbaugh 0, Perlstein 1? Not quite—remember, redistributive tax credits aren’t the same as tax cuts , and the point Rush was making wasn’t that this particular policy wouldn’t happen, but that Obama was disingenuous in using it to define himself as a tax cutter, because tax hikes due to the rest of Obama’s costly agenda would easily eclipse it. Which is true—as I wrote back in September : Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on Americans making under $250,000 was undermined from the start by no less than four proposed tax increases that would hit those very Americans (letting the Bush tax cuts expire, lifting the payroll tax cap, raising capital gains taxes, and raising taxes on businesses). Since taking office, Obama has also raised smoking taxes , enacted a staggeringly expensive health care plan , supported (if not enacted) a staggeringly expensive cap and trade plan , and, according to ABC’s Jake Tapper , has proposed a grand total of nearly 1 trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade. According to Peter Roff of US News & World Report , Obama’s proposed 2010 budge was twice as costly as the 2009 one Tapper reported on—“ without taking into account the potential impact on revenues if the cap and trade energy tax ever passes.” Misleading though it may be, so far this seems like fairly standard Democrat apologetics. Perlstein then takes it to the next level by lamenting that Obama’s dogged avoidance of the “old politics of division” has made him all but powerless in the face of conservative propagandizing, and its enablers in, of all places, the media : (a) A mountebank teaches his millions of followers that everything the president says is a priori a lie; b) The mainstream media that acts as if anything his millions of followers believe is a priori deserving of respect as heartland folk wisdom (note the cover article lionizing Limbaugh in this week’s Newsweek ); That cover article , written by recent Rush biographer Zev Chafets, only “lionizes” him in the sense that it talks about how influential he is (which is true) and doesn’t actively try to paint him as a monster—helpfully illustrating, by the way, what I said in my review of Chafets’s book: to leftists, “the only good Rush book reaffirms their own prejudices.” And given that Newsweek is Perlstein’s only example of MSM Rush-worship (because that case is kind of hard to make with outlets that slander the guy ), it’s worth noting that the last major cover piece the magazine did on Limbaugh was David Frum’s infamous attack , and their archives are full of less “lionizing” stories.

Go here to see the original:
“Tax-Cutter Obama” Revisited: Daily Beast Blogger Sets a New Standard in Leftist Duplicity

No responses yet

Government doesn’t suck

Oct 27 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

You heard about the “ Government Doesn’t Suck ” rally, right? Some people who work for the government are tired of being told they suck. And they’re right: government doesn’t suck. Say it with me: government doesn’t suck. Other things that don’t suck? Stubbing your toe in the middle of the night. Hitting your funny bone. California. Massachusetts. Being hit in the face with a frying pan. Liberals. Being hit in the nuts with a baseball bat. Barack Obama. Michelle Obama. Microsoft Windows ME. MS-DOS 4. Democrats. Right turns from the left lane. Kos. Spam/UCE. Keith Olbermann. Cats in the house. Dogs in the house. Phone calls during supper. None of these things suck. They’re all awesome! And we should organize a rally to support all these awesome things.

Read more:
Government doesn’t suck

No responses yet

Red Eye: Gay Saudi Seeks Asylum, Rauf Silent

Sep 14 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Protesting a mosque makes Feisal Rauf sad. Gay muslims being killed? Not so much. On the most recent episode of “ Red Eye ,” host Greg Gutfeld and guests discussed a Saudi diplomat asking for political asylum in the United States as his government has discovered he is gay and also has a Jewish, female friend. The diplomat now fears for his life. Ground Zero Mosque Imam and lover of peace, Feisal Abdul Rauf , immediately condemned the Saudi government as bigoted and warned of a violent homosexual backlash should the diplomat’s request not be granted. Except, of course, he totally didn’t. According to British news site, Mail Online The diplomat, which NBC identified as Ali Ahmad Asseri, the first secretary of the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, reportedly told U.S. federal officials that Saudi officials refused to renew his diplomatic passport and terminated his job after they discovered that he was gay and was close friends with a Jewish woman. ‘My life is in a great danger here and if I go back to Saudi Arabia, they will kill me openly in broad daylight,’ Asseri told NBC in an email message. Asseri posted a letter on a Saudi website criticizing his country’s ‘backwardness’ as well as the role of ‘militant imams’ that have ‘defaced the tolerance of Islam,’ NBC said. A member of a foreign government is claiming he will be murdered if he returns home, and that “militant imams” have enough control of the country to enforce these backward rules. Meanwhile, important sociopolitical commenter, Lady Gaga, is protesting America’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays serving openly in the military. Because nothing says “accept gay people” more than a dress made out of meat . Have people gone completely insane? As Gutfeld astutely pointed out (and I paraphrase due to lack of DVR) I would like our activists to stand up [for gays] in other countries. Talk about what happens there. According to the Left , peaceful protests of a mosque are bigoted and hateful. Being against gay marriage or gays serving openly in the military is bigoted and hateful. Threatening violent Muslim backlash when it’s convenient is just fine. Kill a gay Arab? No problem. It’s just their culture . If the mainstream media can speak out against conservative Americans with such vitriol for daring to stand peacefully for their most fundamental beliefs, why can’t they muster one whit of self-righteous anger toward countries where human rights abuses are the status quo? Clip the clitorises of young African women? Meh. Burn a book? Death to evil Christian radicals! The moral relativism stops. Now. If it is wrong to discriminate against gay people, then killing them is worse. If protesting a potential building is wrong, then flying planes into real ones is worse. I would much rather live in a country where the biggest social problem is whether or not to allow gay marriage than one where I might be hung by the neck from a tree. Apparently, so would at least one Saudi diplomat, not to mention countless Muslim immigrants and refugees who flock here to partake of our freedoms. I hope Asseri is granted asylum, if only so we have one prominent Muslim voice willing to speak openly about the horrors committed in the name of Allah. As “Red Eye” guest Jim Norton stated with regard to Saudi Arabia Why is that horrible country one of our closest allies? They stink. They’re barbaric! Of course, Norton is white and probably a conservative. Therefore, he’s obviously a racist homophobe. No matter he’s actually right. I am one small blogger, and these posts are my peaceful, American backlash. There will be many more to come. — Chris Barnhart is a conservative social and political blogger . He can also be found frequently haunting Twitter .

Read the original here:
Red Eye: Gay Saudi Seeks Asylum, Rauf Silent

No responses yet

Nepal, Maoists Debate Fate of U.N. Mission

Sep 13 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

The Nepalese government and Maoist opposition continued to debate the future of the U.N. Mission in Nepal, whose mandate expires this week. Both the Maoists and Kathmandu would like the mission to continue for at least four more months, but both have submitted letters to the U.N. requesting different terms for the extension. The largest point of divergence is the Maoists’ request that UNMIN continue to monitor the activities of the Nepal Army, which the government suggested is no longer necessary. The U.N. has conditioned the mission’s extension on the two reaching a consensus.

Continue reading here:
Nepal, Maoists Debate Fate of U.N. Mission

No responses yet

Memo to conservative activists: A governing majority without RINOs is impossible

Sep 13 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress, Presidential Elections, Senate

Dan Calabrese So you support “true conservative” Christine O’Donnell over dastardly RINO Mike Castle in the Delaware Senate race, because you won’t be satisfied with a Republican majority. You want only real, rock-ribbed conservatives in the Republican caucus. And some day, because of your brave, principled stand, we will have a governing majority of conservatives running this country. That’s your plan, is it? Good luck. The ascension of such an ideologically monolithic governing majority is impossible. Not just here, but anywhere that has free elections. It will never happen. Delusion. That doesn’t mean key conservative priorities can’t be passed. But it can’t be done by electing only pre-approved ideological purists to office, because that can’t be done. Ask our allies. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party has to cobble together a majority that includes the Labor Party in order to govern. In Great Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron would not be prime minister at all if he had not reached a deal with the Liberal Democrats to join his government. That’s because Cameron’s Tories didn’t win a majority of the seats in Parliament, and they had to find a coalition partner. Do you ever wonder why all this “cobbling together” is always going on around the world? Why these coalitions are necessary before parties in parliamentary systems can form governments? It’s because most countries are ideologically divergent, and their political parties even more so. That makes it almost impossible to elect a majority of legislators from one party. There is basically no such thing as a governing majority that hasn’t been cobbled together from among ideological groups who have fundamental differences, but, for the sake of governing, can find enough common ground to reach a deal and form a coalition. In the United States, where we have only two competitive political parties, one of the two always has a majority, but that doesn’t mean you have a governing majority of people who all think alike. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are home to a widely diverse group of ideological perspectives. As the Democrats have discovered since last year, you can have enormous majorities in both houses of Congress, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy to just pass whatever you want, because a) your members have a wide variety of different points of view; and b) a lot of them come from districts that will turn them out of office if they go too far in supporting an ideological remaking of the country. That’s why we got ObamaCare, but haven’t gotten Cap and Trade or Card Check. We have Democratic majorities, but we don’t have a liberal governing majority. American conservatives, smelling the coming Republican monsoon in this year’s November elections, are not satisfied simply to see Republicans take control. They want only “true conservatives” with a rating of 98 or more from the American Conservative Union. And even if they nominate a “true conservative” who has almost no chance of winning the general direction, like Ms. O’Donnell in Delaware, that’s somehow better than electing a RINO like Castle because it will maintain the purity of the Republican caucus. It will also ensure that the Republican caucus remains in the minority – forever. It can advocate the right things forever. It will never achieve any of them. The last few presidential elections have shown us that America is a 40-20-40 country. About 40 percent of Americans will almost always vote Republican. About the same number will always vote Democratic. The other 20 percent decide the elections. So let’s consider the 40 percent who vote Republican. Of those, the vast majority are probably pretty conservative, but not all of them. Some of them don’t like the idea of a Democratic president, but aren’t opposed to electing a Democrat to the House or Senate, perhaps as a check on a potentially too-conservative president, or perhaps because they vote Republican mainly because of national security, and they don’t have to worry about their senator being commander in chief. Either way, you don’t have anywhere near 50 percent of the electorate embracing the mantle of so-called true conservatism. And in certain states – like Maine, Delaware or Massachusetts – you might have a shot at electing a Republican once in a blue moon. But it won’t be someone like Jim DeMint. It will be someone like Olympia Snowe or Scott Brown. Or Mike Castle. Now, this doesn’t sit well with you, because these RINO jerks don’t support your conservative agenda. Aside from voting with the Republican caucus for the purpose of organizing the chambers, what good are they? Well, that’s where you come in. Moderates, for the most part, go with public opinion. What are the biggest conservative priorities right now? Getting spending under control and repealing ObamaCare? Those would be my choices. So what you need to do, then, is create a political environment in which the likes of Snowe, Brown and Castle can’t help but vote for those things. Can that be done? Sure it can. But you have to get more of the nation – particularly that 20 percent who will always be independents – so see the wisdom of the conservative position. Then, the RINOs will support your agenda because you’ve turned it into a mainstream agenda. To my way of thinking, there is nothing radical about sharply reducing the size of government or even privatizing entitlements. I think it’s radical not to do these things, because when I look at the long-term costs of these programs, it scares the living daylights out of me. The larger general public might be getting there, but it’s not there yet. Conservatives, here’s your task: Bring the public along, and then all the RINOs will follow suit. You can’t build a governing majority without some RINOs, however much you may hate them, and however much Mark Levin tells you you’re a detestable sellout if you believe me. And you can’t govern without the consent of the American people, no matter how big your majority is. Ask President Obama about that. So no, defeating Castle in the primary and sending Christine O’Donnell to be slaughtered in the general is not a moral victory, nor is it a victory for principle. It’s no kind of victory at all. It’s your refusal to understand that governing majorities are always cobbled together, and successful governance follows when effective leaders get the people behind what needs to be done. Don’t worry. The RINOs will get on board. But a Democrat never would. Become Dan’s friend on Facebook . Become a fan of The North Star National on Facebook . Buy Dan’s novel, Powers and Principalities. To book Dan as a speaker, contact Lourdes Swarts at Speakers Access.

Read more:
Memo to conservative activists: A governing majority without RINOs is impossible

No responses yet

10 Arguments to Shut Down the 9/11 Truther Crackpots

Sep 12 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Yesterday an acquaintance of mine decided it was an appropriate time for him to start pushing his braindead “inside job” theories of what actually happened on September 11, 2001. I shut him down right away — and encourage NRB’s readers to be equipped to do the same It seems like a good time to revisit my “Crackpot Chronicles: Van Jones, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Rorschach, the Truthers, And Me” series. I’ve highlighted the 10 arguments. First published here on October 4, 2009. Coming up in multiple discussions of late has been the subject of “Conspiracy Theory.” Former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones was primarily pushed out of his post because he signed a statement sympathetic to those who preach that the government was somehow involved in orchestrating 9/11 . More recently in the debate over Glenn Beck, the talk show star’s opponents (both on the left and the wimpy right ) have tried to suggest that the problem with the media sensation is that he’s a “conspiracy theorist” or that he cavorts with those who harbor such sympathies . And who could forget the waves of “Birthers” who show up to bug us with their inanities every time one of our bloggers dismissively mentions their pet conspiracy? But what are we actually talking about here? What is conspiracy thinking? And what about conspiracy thinking makes it a dangerous logical fallacy that American Patriots should reject? To answer this question, I present an email dialogue I stumbled into with a 9/11 Truther who started emailing me after NewsReal Blog ‘s Chris Yogerst delivered a full-throated rebuttal to this particular variety of conspiracist nonsense. The value in this dialogue to our present discussions comes in several ways. First, we see that conspiracy thinking is a specific mindset which can be analyzed and understood. Second we see that Beck is not possessed of it. Third, we see that Jones is. ( If you believe in conspiracy theory, you believe in more than just one . Jones embraced not just 9/11 Truther conspiracy gargbage but also Mumia Abu Jamal conspiracy garbage and “racist corporations poisoning black people” conspiracy garbage.) Fourth, it’s entertaining reading. Or at least I think it is. What if 9/11 was not as advertised? [He then provided a link to his conspiracy blog which I won't be including here.] E. V. [Not his real name] I have a basic canned response to every conspiracy theorist who emails me or comments on the blog. I’m going to encourage them to read Bob Shea and Robert Anton Wilson’s satire of conspiracy thinking The Illuminatus! Trilogy . Here’s a book you should read . Thanks, David Looks like an interesting book. However, I am looking for someone who is absolutely convinced of the governments’ accounting of events on 9/11) to explain the appearant discrepancies I have observed, with repect to certain videos provided by the authorities. Have you seen them? What are your explainations of said videos? Thanks. This seemed like an odd question for him to start with. Who has such blind faith in the government these days? What moron would be absolutely convinced of the government’s accounting of any event? One needn’t believe everything the government says or have an answer to ever Truther’s argument to reject the absurdity of claiming “inside job.” I recommended you read Illuminatus! because every person who appreciates conspiracy theory (and I consider myself an aficionado) needs to encounter Robert Anton Wilson’s work. Once you have, it’s impossible to take conspiracy theory seriously ever again. Also, upon spending a little time out in the world, one realizes just how incompetent and corrupt human beings are . The idea of “great conspiracies” quickly becomes absurd as soon as someone gets an idea of human nature and human weakness. The more humans conspire to do something, the more they screw it up. William of Ockham has a good answer on this subject as well. Further, I don’t “believe” in anything. I accept all ideas and propositions on a sliding scale of probability for truth. On the subject of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the possibility that our government was involved in some fashion is certainly possible, however ridiculously improbable . So I feel little need to spend my time wading through Truther arguments. -D

More here:
10 Arguments to Shut Down the 9/11 Truther Crackpots

No responses yet

Bully Program Alright

Sep 11 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Would early teaching of alternate lifestyles to children help bullies understand their victims, thus cease their bullying? What about non-gay victims, say kids who are alternate in other ways because of glasses, braces or just plain overweight? Not every bully victim is homosexual or a minority. While gays are statistically singled out the most, should the solution also single gays out? Or is there a solution for all victims? The issue here is not sexuality, but low self-esteem. Bullies are often victims themselves of an abusive parent or relative. The resulting abuse fosters self-loathing. But rather than internalize it, they externalize it by victimizing another. The worse they make you feel, the better they feel. The bully misplaces his hatred. Step one would be to teach the bully self-worth, maybe even jail the abusive relative and you’ll stop bullying. Then there’s the victim. Teach the abused self worth to overcome the bully by themselves. Remember the movie “My Bodyguard” with Matt Dillon who plays “Moody” the school bully? Eventually the hero realizes by showing the bully he’s not a victim, he stopped becoming one. That and breaking Matt Dillon’s nose. (Part two could have been Moody the bully learning self confidence and self worth to overcome his abusive parent.) Frankly, all kids suffer low self-esteem, even without a bully to instigate. The oppressor to overcome is themselves. Anybody remember growing up? The worst day in your life was getting a pimple! But at some point, you grow up and become so confident with yourself to mow your lawn wearing dress socks like your Dad and scratch himself while yelling over the mower’s roar, “Who cares what others think?” State anti-bully programs, with good intentions, are self affirming for the program creators not the kids themselves. In enforcing their view the bodyguard becomes the bully. Perhaps they could benefit from a little self worth and self confidence class. Self-esteem, like consumer demand or private jobs, is yet something else the government cannot create. It’s something you create for yourself. Kids need to be taught how to fish and not handed a fish by the government to deal with Moodys. They’ll eventually need that lesson later in life when we start mowing their lawns in dress socks.

See the original post:
Bully Program Alright

No responses yet

Red Eye: To Burn or Not To Burn – Radicalism Explored

Sep 10 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Now THIS is a radical. Remember that nutty pastor in Gainesville, Florida who was going to commemorate the anniversary of 9/11 by burning copies of the Qur’an? Terry Jones is calling off the event after speaking with various members of the government, including Robert Gates. “ Red Eye ” host, Greg Gutfeld , said in a special supplementary Greg-Alogue Obama said the act would incite terrorists “to blow themselves up.” Maybe. Remember when an Imam was going to build a mosque near Ground Zero and the government stepped in because they feared the emotional reactions of everyday Americans would incite violence and lead to people “blowing themselves up?” Me neither. Gutfeld continues but… nobody burned Korans before 9/11, or the first World Trade Center attack in 93. To me, the definition of radical extremism, is that its viciousness exists independent of anything you or I do. Radicals blow up nice people and jerks – and that includes innocent Muslims who coveted their Korans. There was no Koran barbecue prior to terror attacks in Argentina, Kenya, Greece, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, London, Lebanon, Italy or Germany. The victims there didn’t ask for it. And that defines an extremist. Yet, I’ve grown up with images of burned American flags, dead American hostages, our troops dragged through streets, and psychotic masses of angry chanters preaching our death. And I haven’t killed anyone. That’s not how the main stream media portrays things, though. While they busily try to tie Timothy McVeigh to every Tea Party member, it has fallen out of fashion to link radical, faith-based acts of terror on … not the Jews or the Christians. You know, the other ones. This double standard doesn’t stop with the leftist media. It goes all the way to the White House. Some of you may remember Eric Holder’s almost constitutional inability to say “ radical Islam .” (Watch Eric Holder refuse to say “Radical Islam”) But sneeze in the vicinity of a burka and – presto! – you’re an “Islamophobe.” Welcome to newspeak. I mean, the new world. Remember that horrible scene in “Saving Private Ryan,” where the German soldier sneaks up the stairs and quietly buries a knife in the chest of an American soldier, all the while making comforting shushing sounds? I can’t get those images out of my mind. Except, when the scene plays in my head, the free world is the American soldier, radicalized Islam is the German soldier, and the American political Left is the knife. Playing on the Left’s gullibility and political correctness , radical Islam has convinced them there’s nothing to fear. No one’s really bad , after all, just tragically misunderstood. Except white conservatives. They’re pure evil. Wielding the leftist media like a well-honed blade, Islam tries to lull us into compliance and submission with buzz phrases like “Religion of Peace” and “tolerance.” It’s not working like they’d hoped, however. More and more, Americans are seeing the difference between peaceful protest and flying planes into buildings. Gutfeld is right. No one burned a Qur’an before 9/11. We hate what radical Islamists do. They hate what we are. We fight terrorism. They fight freedom. We look down on someone who would burn the flag. They threaten to kill anyone who offends them. Their radicals are not like our radicals. Yet the Left continues to allow itself to be used as a tool of the very extremism it plays down. Burning the Qur’an is offensive. Threatening to kill innocent Americans because of it is hateful and immoral. Trying to treat the two as if they were the same thing is evil. — Chris Barnhart is a conservative social and political blogger . He can also be found frequently haunting Twitter

View post:
Red Eye: To Burn or Not To Burn – Radicalism Explored

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »