Let’s hear it for objectivity! AP’s big story on “lone wolf” terrorists dutifully lists all three recent lone wolf killings: The jew-hating white supremacist in DC, the anti-abortion murderer in Kansas and even the “militant Muslim” in Arkansas.

Hooray. Here’s today’s lesson in objectivity: It is not comparable to fairness or balance. Let me illustrate.

The number of words in the story related to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad total 16: “A young man in Arkansas pulls the trigger outside a military recruiting office” and ”one a militant Muslim.”  Muhammed is never even named in the story.

Let’s contrast that with the number of words the article heaps upon racist angry white men.  It begins similarly with 19 words, “An elderly man enters a crowded museum carrying a rifle and begins shooting,” and “One gunman was a white supremacist.”  After a couple general paragraphs about the “lone wolf” phenomenon, the writers, Devlin Barrett and Eileen Sullivan, dedicate most of the remainder of the article – 17 paragraphs! – to James Von Brunn and other angry white men. Excerpts:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks white supremacists, says the number of hate groups in the United States has risen 54 percent since 2000, fueled by opposition to Hispanic immigration and, more recently, by the election of the nation’s first black president and the economic downturn.

“Today the vast majority of domestic terrorist attacks are in fact lone wolf or so-called leaderless resistance attacks,” said the center’s Mark Potok. “There are very few ways to prevent them … short of assigning a police officer to every person in America.”

The number of angry white men in America is getting larger, said Chip Berlet, senior analyst with Political Research Associates in Somerville, Mass., a think tank that studies right-wing extremists.

In particular, the heterosexual, white, Christian men in America feel they’ve been pushed out of the way, Berlet said. Attacking the Holocaust Museum is a no-brainer, he said, because white supremacists blame Jews for the advancement of black people.

“The idea that blacks are put in positions of power by crafty Jews is central to their conspiracy theory,” Berlet said.

We are told that the number of angry white men in America is getting larger, but no studies are cited, no data is provided.  And, of course, the article does not provide any estimate of the number of angry Muslim men in our country. No experts on domestic jihad are cited, nor or any of the numerous recent examples of lone wolf or small group jihad or attempted jihad in America cited.  Certainly they outnumber angry white man violence.

To its credit, the Southern Poverty Law Center has published several articles on the links between radical Islam and white supremacy, but if Mark Potok mentioned this to the AP reporters, they didn’t include it in their article.

We are left with a picture of how white extremists think and enough fear about them to justify, in some “liberal” minds, increased invasions of their privacy of the sort they howled about when applied to domestic friends of Islamic terrorist.  We are not left with any greater understanding of the nature or size of the threat posed by lone wolf jihadists.

But hey, the article passed journalism’s objectivity test with flying colors simply because it clearly identified each of the three recent shooters.  Fairness should be the media’s standard, but reporters and editors conveniently opt for sloppy objectivity so they can justify intolerant, hate-stoking garbage like this.

No Comments yet »

Conservatives were outraged. The chairman of the Republican National Committee denounced the report as an attempt to “segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration” and label them as terrorists.

But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.

T

hat’s the lead of Paul Krugman’s column in the NYT today – a column you just knew was coming.  You can imagine the gleeful smirk on his face as his fingers smashed away at his keyboard.  But Krugman’s just turning over his liberal outrage engine; the howling rpms build from there, as he rushes to build the “conservative political establishment” as junior Von Brunns:

There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

Interestingly, Krugman’s column is almost identially mirrored by Alex Kingsbury in U.S. News:

A month before a suspected white supremacist walked into the Holocaust Memorial Museum in downtown Washington and opened fire, the Department of Homeland Security warned that domestic right-wing extremism was the most pressing domestic terrorist threat that the country faced.

Conservatives were outraged that the DHS analysts had singled out antiabortion and antitax radicals for scrutiny. But the report was part of a series that DHS compiles on domestic dangers from all sides of the political spectrum, an area that’s taken a back seat to overseas threats.

A series of recent incidents shows the prescience of those reports and illustrates the worrying reality that terrorism often comes from inside the homeland.

And that’s hardly the end of it.  Just check out the piling on by the Left at Memeorandum.

While Kingsbury mentions the assassination of Pvt. William Long, an act of terror most mainly marginalized media managed to report without mentioning the word “Islam,” Krugman fails to mention Long at all.  To his credit, Kingsbury approached the subject pretty fairly and didn’t go on to condemn mainstream Republicans, as Krugman did.  I thought this excerpt from Kingsbury’s piece was particularly even-handed:

In another recent high-profile incident, George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who performed legal abortions, was shot and killed last Sunday as he stood in the aisle of his church. Scott Roeder, the man charged in Tiller’s murder, echoes the DHS report on right-wing extremism. Believed to have been a member of an antigovernment militia in Montana during the mid-1990s, Roeder had a history of railing against taxes and abortion, according to news reports. “We can see from these incidents that the U.S. is not immune from these types of attacks and that a lone gunman or cell can kill just as effectively,” says Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. “But it also shows that those operating outside an organized terrorist network lack the training and tradecraft to make their attacks either sustained or a systemic threat.” After the killing, the U.S. Marshals Service was instructed to increase security at the country’s abortion clinics.

There was no call to reinforce security at military recruiting stations, however, after Abdulhakim Muhammad allegedly shot two soldiers smoking cigarettes in the parking lot of an Army center in Arkansas. Pvt. William Long was killed and another soldier was wounded. Muhammad was reportedly angry over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Tuesday, he pleaded not guilty to murder charges.

Kingsbury should have reported that Muhammed has said his act was jihad, and he (Muhammed) should not be deemed guilty because Islam requires such actions.  Still, he’s no Krugman.  Here’s the NYT columnist’s evidence that we are dangerous:

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

Where was Krugman for the last eight  years?  Where was his concern when the Left called Bush a baby killer? When they launched conspiracy theories from Haliburton being behind the war in Iraq to Bush being behind 9/11 – the same whacked out theory that was part of Von Brunn’s lunacy? Did he condemn the film about Bush being assassinated?

No. When the Left attacks the Right, it’s all good, justified and exactly the sort of thing Jefferson was thinking about when he wrote that a little revolution is good and necessary from time to time.  Let Code Pink harrass military recruiters and block the entrance to recruiting stations, but never, never, allow abortion protesters to be anywhere near an abortion clinic.  This is logic, leftist style.

Krugman has particular villification for Glenn Beck, but probably has never written a critical word of Keith Olbermann.  He says Rush Limbaugh has “joined hands with the lunatic fringe.” He accuses the R.N.C. of of somehow being unstable because it wants to change the leadership of the nation.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  So he’s a hypocrite.  So he can’t stand looking in mirrors.  So he trumps up fear where no fear need be.  No matter.  He’s got a trump card:

What will the consequences be? Nobody knows, of course, although the analysts at Homeland Security fretted that things may turn out even worse than in the 1990s — that thanks, in part, to the election of an African-American president, “the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years.”

And that’s a threat to take seriously.

Oh, yeah.  We’re all racists and we wouldn’t be so angry if Obama were just white.  What a masterful example Krugman has given us of the Left’s ability to use hate speech in order to ignore the issue at hand – whether it was global jihad under Bush, or unconstitutional economic lunacy under Obama.

3 Comments »

D

espite the never-ending whining of the race victimhood lobby and the shrill bitching from the feminists, America is no longer a country that needs to cut special deals with minorities and women because of our racist, sexist ways.  (As Sonia Sotomayor may soon find out.)

The case-closer to the unhappy era of affirmative action in America is, without a doubt, Rear Admiral Michelle Howard.  “Michelle Howard who?” I thought when I first heard the name via Huffpo this a.m., after which I quickly clicked through to a lengthy profile on Essence. (Can’t leave HuffPo fast enough!)

Rear Admiral Michelle Howard is, to dispense with the blather quickly, the U.S. Navy’s first black woman admiral. Yay.  Now we won’t have to ever use that discriptor again; she’s euthanized it.  Here’s the more important part, from the Essence piece:

Rear Admiral Michelle Howard awoke on April 8 to sunshine, the rolling swells of the Indian Ocean, and the beginning of another day looking for pirates. No one could have predicted just a few days later she would be embroiled in a major international crisis, and saving a man’s life from the deadly forces of Somali pirates.

Howard, 49, had just officially transitioned from a desk job in Washington, D.C., where she was senior military adviser to Donald Winter, secretary of the Navy, to the helm of the USS Boxer, a large deck assault ship patrolling off the Gulf of Aden, otherwise known as “Pirate Alley,” in the Arabian Sea.

Now the Boxer had become Howard’s flagship, where she is the first African-American woman and second female to head a Navy strike force. And in this role she oversees a dozen warships and a contingent of 1,000 Marines, as well as runs the international Combined Task Force 151 with another 14 warships.

When Howard received word that the containership Maersk Alabama had been attacked and boarded by pirates and its American captain, Phillips, was taken hostage, she immediately devised a tactical plan with her team to save his life.

When the Navy Seal snipers took out Capt. Phillips’ captors, they were under the command of Adm. Howard.  And when Capt. Phillips returned home to the embrace of his wife and kids, it was because of the tactical plan Adm. Howard had devised.  And I don’t know about you, but I never heard peep one about this until today.

Now, I suppose there are some crazed leftists out there that will confront this same set of facts and scream hysterically that America is a sexist, racist country for not glorifying Adm. Howard’s role in these dramatic events.  But they miss the point. To us, Adm. Howard is just Adm. Howard, a consummate Navy professional doing the job she was sent out to do, and doing it as a Navy officer, not a black woman Navy officer.

She has made me prouder to be an American, because her quiet, competent work shows that we are the world leader in utilizing the talents of our best, no matter what their race, gender or heritage may be.

No Comments yet »

M

ilk, nominated for best picture. Sean Penn, nominated for best actor in Milk. Josh Broslin for best supporting actor in Milk. Milk – also nominated for best original screenplay, best costume design, best director, best editing, best original score.

Hollywood, land of the freaks and home of the gays, bestowed on Milk eight Oscar nominations. The movie about the murder of Harvey Milk, the first politician out of the closet, might have gotten more were it not for the fact that it wasn’t really in the running for best actress or best supporting actress.  I’m sure it’s well written and well acted, but I don’t know because I haven’t seen it yet.  I might still, like I finally saw Fahrenheit 9/11.

But that’s neither here nor there.  I’m not arguing that Milk didn’t deserve recognition; I’m arguing about what wasn’t nominated, not what was.  I’m writing about something else, which the LA Times handily dismissed with this:

Clint Eastwood fans who had been hoping the veteran would get an Oscar nomination for lead actor for “Gran Torino,” which is shaping up to be the 78-year-old icon’s biggest box office hit, were undoubtedly disappointed.

That’s like saying fans of Sean Penn would have been disappointed if Milk had gotten skunked the way Gran Torino did.  Milk’s nominations had little to do with how well Penn acted and everything to do with the passage of Prop 8 and a groundswell of pro-gay rights, anti-straight sentiment in Hollywood.  Hollywood is still seething over the passage of 8 and the disestablishment of gay marriage in California, and is still hateful of anyone who supported it, no matter how mildly, as evidenced by the recent kerfuffle over Rick Warren’s invocation at the Obama nomination – and more significantly, the numerous hate crimes and ubiquitous hate speech that’s come from the No on 8 bunch ever since Nov. 5.

Consequently, like I knew they would, the members of the Academy fell all over themselves (saying “You look ravishing!” as they did) to vote for Milk and its story of a murdered gay San Francisco supervisor and his crazed, straight killer. Every vote for Milk carried with it an artistic appreciation of film, I’m sure, but undeniably, it also carried a political anger that needed venting.

The failure of Gran Torino to win a single nomination is no less about Eastwood than Milk’s best film best screenplay, best score, best supporting actor votes, etc., nominations are about Penn.  I’m hardly a Clint Eastwood fan, although I appreciate his many good works.  I would have been pleased with a nomination of Eastwood for best actor, but that’s not the point; the point is that his film wasn’t nominated for best screenplay.

It wasn’t nominated for that award – or any other awards – because the gay activists and gay sympathizers that are the Academy did not want to honor a character who did, in fact, stand up for the rights of others, but in a ramrod straight, gun-toting, ethnic smear-muttering, flag-waving way. Eastwood’s Walt Kowalski didn’t just stand up for rights – he sacrificially stood up for other people’s rights, people who needed someone to stand up for them.  It wasn’t about him at all, unlike Milk, who stood up as much for his own freedoms as for the freedoms of other gays. Every step Milk took forward benefited Milk. Every step Eastwood took forward alienated him from his entire past; everything but his honor, and honor was, at the core, what Kowalski was made of.

The Gran Torino screenplay deals with issues that are central in today’s America:  immigration, assimilation, multiculturalism, political correctness, bigotry, gang violence, the transformation of established neighborhoods, the aging of the Baby Boomer’s parents.  The Milk screenplay, as near as I can tell from what I’ve read, is about gay rights and bigotry. Eight to two in favor of Gran Torino.

The skunking of Gran Torino was Hollywood’s rejection of one of its own because he dared to ignore political correctness and tell a realistic story of America as it is: diverse, suspicious, dangerous, but ultimately righteous, God-fearing, honorable and self-sacrificing for the betterment of others.  Anyone who has lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan will stir with pride as Kowalski puts his life on the line to confront evil head-on, ready to give his all for a principle worth fighting for.

I doubt very much if they’d be so stirred by Milk.  That’s a compelling argument for most of us, but members of the Academy won’t be influenced much by it.

3 Comments »

J

eremiah Wright, tune up your pipes. You’ve got a whole new reason to hate white America and tell the world about it, and we know it’s true because a black man said it:

The Zimbabwean government on Saturday accused the West of deliberately starting the country’s cholera epidemic, stepping up a war of words with the regime’s critics as the humanitarian crisis deepened.

The state-run Herald newspaper said comments by the U.S. ambassador that the U.S. had been preparing for the outbreak raised suspicions the West had waged “serious biological chemical war.” …

The Herald quoted the information minister, Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, as blaming cholera on “serious biological chemical war … a genocidal onslaught on the people of Zimbabwe by the British.”

“Cholera is a calculated racist terrorist attack on Zimbabwe by the unrepentant former colonial power which has enlisted support from its American and Western allies so that they invade the country,” Ndlovu was quoted as saying.

Never mind that Zimbabwe’s leader Robert Mugabe has never taken blame for any of the evils carried out in his name.  Never mind that he’s had better things to do with his country’s resources than provide his people with clean water. Never mind that he shoveled the country’s resources into his own pockets trying to satisfy an insatiable and damning greed for wealth and power.

A black man said it, it damns the white man, so it’s perfect for the next sermon from the reverend hate-monger who mentored our president-elect for 20 years.

Meanwhile, the Zimbawean leadership continues to leave its people starving, without clean water and – not that it’s particularly important if  you’ve got no food or are dying of cholera – no freedom or truth.  Many will die, some blaming us, some seeing a lie for a lie, but many will die as Mugabe continues to reign, unaffected by their cries.

3 Comments »

T

he name of the author of the Newsday piece Entrenched Majority and Obama cracked me up: Les Paine. This black columnist is definitely not ready for less pain in America, and he’s swinging with big roundhouse punches:

After voting heavily against the first black U.S. presidential candidate, the white majority in this country seems bent now on declaring Sen. Barack Obama’s victory as the end of racism in the republic.

As the world celebrates this historic ’08 election, the media downplay the fact that were it left to whites alone, John McCain and Sarah Palin would be heading to the White House, accompanied, we assume, by Cindy McCain as first lady. [We assume? What the heck does that mean?] Instead, pollsters and pundits seem hell bent on placing on the defensive those blacks and Hispanics who voted for Obama in record numbers.

Paine dismisses a 96% black vote for Obama as the continuation of a strong Dem minority vote – 90% for Johnson some 44 years ago and 88% for Kerry, for example. That’s defensible to an extent, but in presidential elections nowadays, swings of one or two percent are significant, so a bump of 8% in four years cannot be so easily dismissed as being wholly without racial motivation.

Paine assures us blacks aren’t racist – but whites most definitely definitely are:

“In four Southern states, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi,” [Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies pollster David] Bositis said in his prepared remarks, Obama “received a smaller share than John Kerry received in 2004. Given the political environment of 2008, those declines can only be attributed to race.”

Only. Attributed. To. Race – in the four most southern of southern states. Worries about Obama’s associations or inexperience had nothing to do with it? If Bositis is as “respected” as Paine says he is, then the pollster would have weighted his conclusions with data on the comparative experience of the long-termer Kerry and the neophyte Obama. But no. (The Joint Center, BTW, is a think tank dedicated to providing services to black elected officials – a group that happily plays the race card whenever and however it suits their re-election or political purposes.)

Bositis refused Paine’s requests to call white voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina racist, even though they voted in the majority for McCain/Palin? No, “those whites’ voting for Obama was cause for optimism.”

I don’t get it. If Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas whites vote McCain, it’s racism, but in other states where the same phenomenon occurred, there’s optimism to be found in the whites who voted there for Obama. My only conclusion: Paine is right – America is a racist country, and the effort to keep it that way is being led by Les Paine, Jeremiah Wright and others who loudly protest calling the election of a black president proof that the old American racism is dead or dying.

hat-tip: RCP

5 Comments »

B

arack Obama, the president who, if nothing else, proved America is not a racist nation by showing that anyone who chooses to use his gifts to advance can do so, probably wasn’t even asleep yet after giving his acceptance speech when:

Some fired gunshots, a felon accused cops of arresting him “because a black man won for president” and a teenager standing with throngs of passionate revelers used the opportunity to slap a police officer, Cook County prosecutors said.

“White bitches. F— McCain. You white police can’t do nothing,” 19-year-old Celita Hart taunted officers as she stood with a throng of Obama supporters in the 6900 block of South Western Avenue, Assistant State’s Attorney Lorraine Scaduto said in a court Wednesday. At some point, authorities said, Hart left the crowd, which had been chanting “Obama, Obama,” walked up to a squad car, and smacked a male officer in the face.

What were those words? You know, the two words Obama used all the time? Yeah, that’s right: Hope … and Change.

Not off to a good start.

No Comments yet »

T

his effigy of Sarah Palin hanging by a noose from the roof of a West Hollywood home is not a hate crime, according to the LAPD.

“I’m not defending this; I’m not criticizing it. It doesn’t rise to the level of hate crime,” said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, who said he went out to the house himself to look at the display this morning. “Now, if there was a crime against bad taste…” (LA Times)

The mayor of West Hollywood sees it more correctly:

“While these residents have the legal right to display Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin in effigy, I strongly oppose political speech that references violence – real or perceived.”

But the readers of the LAT’s Comments Blog showed their overwhelming double standard in an on-line poll. Tell me that fears of being called racist haven’t skewed this entire election:

If the hanged effigy represented Barack Obama, do you think law enforcement would respond differently?

Yes — law enforcement would force the homeowner to remove the display 79% (992 votes)

No — the same rules protecting freedom of speech would apply 11% (139 votes)

Don’t know <1% (12 votes)

Who cares — it’s just Halloween decorations! 9% (116 votes)

So, according to the Obamaniacs who populate LA, law enforcement can be anti-racist but can’t be anti-misogynist?  Interesting … I didn’t know we already lived in an Islamic country.

But, if you want to see the double standard at its baldfaced extreme, check out this video.  No time to click? Here’s the goodies:

Announcer:  Some residents say Palin would find the murder mock-up funny.

Woman:  She loves to kill stuff and you know, with a gun, and she’s a, you know, she’s a bad-a$$.  And so, I think she’s got a good sense of humor.

Announcer:  What if it was a Barack Obama?

Woman:  Uh … I’d light the house on fire.

Got it.  Only the GOP is interjecting race into the campaign.

6 Comments »

UPDATED

S

canning the home page of Real Clear Politics this morning, I find 11 references to Joe Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber. It just might be the most significant news day of the campaign, the day a plumber from Ohio ushered John McCain into the White House.

McCain has been ineffective thus far in his efforts to paint us a picture of the real Obama. He’s terrified of being called racist, so he’s completely backed off from Obama’s 20-year worshipping in Jeremiah Wright’s black liberation church. He’s made Ayers a discussion of associations instead of one on education policy. He has barely worked the Obama-ACORN-Fannie-Freddie association for what it’s worth. It’s not surprising the smiling cypher from Illinois is ahead.

Then along comes one man with the guts to get in Obama’s face like McCain should have, not taking the glib “don’t bother me” answers Obama gives, and pushing, pushing, pushing for the truth until Mr. Smooth finally delivers it: 

“I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

McCain didn’t press as hard as he could or should have, letting Obama slither away from the hard hits, but it didn’t really matter because John had Joe in his corner. Look at that mug! That’s a guy you want on your side: Tough, straightforward, no nonsense.

(By the way, free advice to Joe: Don’t worry about who gets elected; buy the company. After last night, when you rename the company “Joe the Plumber” and put your mug on the side of all the trucks and in all the ads, you’re going to have more business than you can handle.)

Joe has focused America on Obama’s tax and spend big government welfare wet dream in a way McCain has been unable to do, which is why Obama’s minions are scared – very scared – of him.

The NYTimes editorial page somehow managed to conjure up the idea that McCain referring to Joe was “nasty.” Huh?! Heck, you can even buy a “Joe the Plumber for Obama” T-shirt, another leftist lie in immoral service to The One.

Joe is definitely not for Obama, as he told the Toledo Blade last night after the debate:

Mr. Obama didn’t win Mr. Wurzelbacher’s support on Sunday, and he didn’t change his mind last night.He did allow, “Obama, you can’t take away that he’s a damn good speaker.”

Overall, though, Mr. Wurzelbacher was pleased with Mr. McCain’s performance.

“McCain was doing much better this time,” he said.

“McCain came across with some solid points. I like his tax cuts.”

But he said Mr. Obama’s health-care plan scares him.

“It’s just one step closer to socialism,” he said.

According to Nexis, this morning there are 168 MSM news stories this morning about Joe the Plumber and the debate – and that’s not counting most broadcast and all radio outlets. It does include the wire stories that are being read in smaller papers all over the country this morning.  Joe is news.  Joe crystallizes the issues. Joe speaks to America and for America. Let’s hope that he’s OK with having his mug splashed over coast-to-coast TV ads for McCain for the duration of the campaign.

UPDATE:  Ask and you shall receive.

[Back to previous post]

Just one word of warning: You know what the left is going to say next. Uh-huh, you’re right:

Joe the Plumber was the estrella of last night’s debate, with his name being thrown around left, right, and sideways. CBS interviewed the man of the hour, Joe the plumber and it turns out he’s kind of racist, no? I mean I know “tap dancin around an issue” is a figure of speech pero then when he adds the whole Sammy Davis Jr. line into it, no se, it kind of takes it to a different level.

Or as Talk Left hopefully (prayerfully, if they believed in such stuff) put it:

Bye, Joe. I think your 15 minutes are up.

They will try to embarrass Joe into hiding because they know Obama can’t stand up to him. They cannot be allowed to slime and lie and character-assassinate their way out of this one.

(By the way, how many famous white tap dancers can you name?)

1 Comment »

T

oday in the Chicago Sun-Times, Andrew Greely has a comment recommended by 11 nitwits that is not dissimilar to yesterday’s rant in the Boston Glob (not a typo) by Derrick Jackson. You know, the Republicans are poisoning the campaign because one guy stood up at one Palin rally and shouted “Kill him!” Here’s Greely:

She can stir up crowds to shout “Kill him!” at the mention of the presidential candidate of the other party a couple of weeks before the national election.

Greely is lying of course, as is the wont of the wags on the Left. Palin was not speaking of Obama at the time; she was speaking of Ayres. The “kill him” was directed at an unrepentant domestic terrorist, not a Dem candidate for president. [Update:  Actually, there was no "Kill him!" yell.] That doesn’t make the sentiment right, but it certainly doesn’t justify this:

It is all part of a plan cooked up by John McCain to turn the major issue in the election from the economy to the character [as you'll see, he means "race"] of the Democratic candidate. … Playing the race card explicitly merely guarantees what I have thought from the beginning — racism in this country precludes the possibility of a sepia-colored man becoming president. However, the last-ditch attack on him guarantees that McCain and Palin will be blamed as the candidates who were content to hear crowds calling for the death of Obama.

There’s that lie again. But it’s hardly the big lie. The few decorum-breakers on the right, who are frightened by the prospect of a hard left, even socialist, president being elected, can’t hold a candle to the hatred of the left, which even Greely espouses.

He calls Palin “an All-American girl as racist, this time a racist with her eye on the White House.” He makes no effort to prove her a racist beyond the one person shouting “kill him.” And if these numbskulls are going to insist that “hockey mom” is racist, isn’t “All-American girl” just as racist as “hockey mom?” It certainly is dismissive and misogynistic, ignoring Palin’s accomplishments and passing her off as some bimbo white chick.

Worse, he calls McCain “an angry, befuddled cancer survivor,” and says he is “troubled and distracted.” Greely is an ageist, holding McCain’s age against him and mischaracterizing this very robust and sharp individual who just happens to be 73 as an Alzheimer’s sufferer unable to function.

But Greely is a cupcake. A stupid, biased cupcake that can’t see the reality before him because he is steeping in his own ugly biases against conservatives, Christians and Republican women, but still a cupcake when compared to what the pillars of the left are now offering up.

Wake Up America found the picture I was looking for. I’m going to put a page break in here to protect any kiddies that might be hanging around while you read this. Plant them in front of the TV and then click the “continue reading” header. Continue Reading »

No Comments yet »