Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

Posts Tagged ‘leftists’

Poking fun at Emory University

Posted by Richard on March 27, 2016

You probably heard about the kerfuffle at Emory University, where some of the special snowflakes attending the exclusive school were upset that someone had written “Trump 2016” in chalk on various surfaces. Snopes calls much of the reporting of the incident false:

WHAT’S FALSE: “Emergency counseling” was offered to or demanded by students; Emory students complained that their “safe spaces” had been violated; students were afraid of or traumatized by the chalk markings.

Snopes’ leftist leanings have made it completely unreliable regarding anything even vaguely political. The “emergency counseling” claim may be false; regarding non-emergency counseling, it depends on whether you draw the same inferences from a student government email as Snopes.

Snopes dismisses the “safe spaces” issue because the phrase “was included as a paraphrase (meaning the purportedly oversensitive students invoking the concept hadn’t actually used the words)” in a student newspaper article. Their parenthetical claim is nonsense, and the rest of their claim is undermined by the very quote they cite, which also makes it clear that suppression of pro-Trump speech is at least one protester’s goal (emphases added):

Grievances were not restricted to shortcomings of the administration. “[Faculty] are supporting this rhetoric by not ending it,” said one student, who went on to say that “people of color are struggling academically because they are so focused on trying to have a safe community and focus on these issues [related to having safe spaces on campus].”

For a deeper, on-the-spot view, see the Weekly Standard column by Emory professor Harvey Klehr. Klehr begins by recounting an earlier “Black Lives Matter” protest on campus (I’m willing to bet many of the same people were involved in both protests). During it, protesters spoke of “the trauma of being on campus every day” and the “micro-aggressions” they endured, which left “some students in need of additional counselors in the Psychological Center specifically trained to work with black students.” Maybe that’s the source of the counseling claim in the more recent Trump incident.

But if you prefer to laugh at these ninnies instead wading through more infuriating details about them, I recommend this Atlanta Banana parody:

Emory Student Pain So Deep Heated Land Rover Seats Can’t Evaporate the Tears 

“Do you know how much it costs to get tears and snot out of a Range Rover leather seat?” bellowed Dusty Pirkins, Gender Indeterminate Non-Factual Research major. “Well, I don’t, but you can bet my Dad does!”

“We had no idea we’d be exposed to facts when we came to college,” screamed Summer Frock-Waters, basket blanket artisan. She then collapsed onto her AMG Mercedes, spilling a delicious mocha latte onto a smartphone the size of a baking sheet and howling, “My pain is so real and it’s my pain!”

RTWT. Then watch this from Comedy Central’s Nightly Show. It includes a fake student interview, the end of which reveals why this kind of nonsense tends to occur on campuses at specific times of the year.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Brussels bombings and liberal insanity

Posted by Richard on March 23, 2016

In the wake of the terrible terrorist bombings in Brussels, elements of the mainstream media and left (but I repeat myself) are doubling down on their commitment to the postmodernist belief that there are no objective facts, only their socially-constructed subjective narrative. Case in point (emphasis in original):

The knowledge that the attacks were bombings didn’t stop Atlantic Washington editor Steve Clemons, who phoned into MSNBC and was inside the country, from criticizing Belgium for their “ease of getting guns here.

See there? If, according to your subjective narrative, guns are evil and cause violence, mayhem, and murder, then you can blame guns for jihadist bombings.

Never mind that Belgium has extremely tough gun control laws (which, surprisingly, jihadists and criminals don’t always comply with).

And if, according to your subjective narrative, the real problem facing the West isn’t supremacist radical Islam’s desire to impose its 7th-century religio-political system globally, the real problem is Islamophobia, then you’ll fret not about the possibility of more terrorist attacks, but about how less enlightened people react to such things (emphasis in original):

Appearing on a special extended edition of NBC’s Today on Tuesday, Daily Beast world news editor Christopher Dickey fretted that “rampant Islamophobia” in Europe would intensify following the terrorist attacks in Belgium.

Talking to co-hosts Savannah Guthrie and Matt Lauer early in the 11 a.m. ET hour, Dickey warned: “It’s a huge political issue because there already was rampant Islamophobia in this part of the world. And now, you have a situation where people who were not inclined to look suspiciously at Arabs and Muslims, now they’re terrified.”

Meanwhile, our postmodernist, socialist, anti-colonial President schmoozed with totalitarian racist murderers, “welcomed” Castro’s criticisms of the U.S., and praised Cuba’s “human rights advances” in health care and education. But he did devote 51 seconds to the Brussels bombings, mouthing the usual platitudes about “thoughts and prayers,” “solidarity,” etc. And he stuck to “the Obama doctrine” on Islamofascist terrorism:

Obama explained why he attended the game as planned: “It’s always a challenge when you have a terrorist attack anywhere in the world, particularly in this age of 24/7 news coverage, you wanna be respectful and understand the gravity of the situation but the whole premise of terrorism is to try to disrupt people’s ordinary lives.”

Heaven forbid that anything should disrupt President Barack Hussein Obama’s “ordinary” life.

One of the illuminating passages in Jeffrey Goldberg’s compilation of the wit and wisdom of Barack Obama addresses the subject of terrorism. When it comes to terrorism, this is “the Obama doctrine.” Cool out and learn to live with it. His attitude is complacent. His take on ISIS to Valerie Jarrett represents it: “They’re not coming here to chop our heads off.”

Well, one of them did exactly that in Oklahoma.

Today, we got more of the Obama doctrine (emphasis added):

Speaking to reporters in Argentina Wednesday, President Obama downplayed the gravity of Tuesday’s terror attacks in Brussels by saying ISIS does not pose “an existential threat” to national security.

Earlier in the press conference, Obama showed displeasure when an Associated Press reporter asked whether the Brussels attacks “changed anything.”

I’ve got a lot of things on my plate,” he responded before assuring reporters his top priority is “to eliminate the scourge of this barbaric terrorism that’s been taking place around the world.”
Given utterances such as these from our “thought leaders” — pundits, journalists, and politicians — it’s understandable (but extremely unfortunate) that many non-postmodern Americans (i.e., the real reality-based community) find the broad-brush, over-the-top, no-nonsense rhetoric of Donald Trump increasingly attractive.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The left’s religious double standard

Posted by Richard on November 28, 2015

The echoes of gunfire at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic had barely died down before practically every leftist in the country was screaming about “white Christian terrorism”  and blaming the Project Veritas undercover videos about PP’s fetal tissue sales. Also the entire Republican Party, even though the shooter is not a Republican (I’ll refrain from commenting on Robert Dear’s designation as female on his voter registration, since that may just be a clerical error).

Of course, these are the same people who, after every mass-casualty attack by jihadists shouting “Allahu akbar,” insist that it had nothing whatsoever to do with religion and condemn any mention of radical Islam as racist (as if the desire to impose 7th-century sharia law across the globe and kill or subjugate anyone who doesn’t submit to “the will of Allah” were a racial characteristic).

There was, in fact, at least one pro-life Christian at the scene of the shootings: Garrett Swasey, the police officer who was killed while defending those inside the Planned Parenthood clinic. Four other cops were wounded.

Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson and Twinkies addict Michael Moore agree that the cops “made sure not 2 kill him” (shooter Robert Dear) because he’s white.

So there are people out there who seriously believe that the officers who watched Dear shoot five of their own spared his life out of sympathy for his whiteness.

I can’t begin to fathom how the leftist mind works. SMDH.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Leftists threaten Romney

Posted by Richard on October 17, 2012

At Infowars.com, Paul Joseph Watson collected some of the more interesting tweets from the left after last night’s debate:

 Despite numerous media outlets attempting to downplay the issue, Twitter exploded last night following the debate with new threats from Obama supporters to assassinate Mitt Romney if he defeats Obama in the presidential race.

As we reported yesterday, in addition to threats by Obama supporters to riot if Romney wins, innumerable Twitter users are also making direct death threats against Romney.

If the tables were turned and conservatives were making death threats against Obama in these numbers, it would be a national news story. Indeed, the mere act of hanging empty chairs from trees as a reference to Clint Eastwood’s RNC speech was hyped by the media as a deadly sign that conservatives were out to lynch black people if Obama won.

However, the major networks have remained completely silent on the disturbing trend of Obama supporters threatening to resort to violence if their candidate fails to secure a second term.

As Infowars has stressed, we are non-partisan and have encouraged people to vote for neither candidate. However, the hypocrisy of leftists in trying to either downplay or deny this issue altogether is jaw-dropping given how they routinely try to portray conservatives as violent and extremist by pointing to angry comments made online.

See the Watson post for a sampling of the threatening tweets and a link to many more.

In a way, this is encouraging. If significant numbers of leftist moonbats went berserk after the debate, that’s evidence that Romney won.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Another gun control hypocrite hoist by his own petard

Posted by Richard on January 28, 2012

San Francisco’s new sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, helped found the Green Party of California, worked for Ralph Nader in 2000, and was a strident advocate of gun control. Even MSNBC described him as “fiercely liberal –even in the context of progressive San Francisco.” Before being elected sheriff, he served for seven years on the Board of Supervisors, where he worked hard to strengthen San Francisco’s already-stringent gun control laws.

Recently, Mirkarimi was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence battery, child endangerment, and “dissuading a witness” (Is that like intimidating a witness, but more polite? Or just more politically connected?) for an incident involving his wife. Since the initial charges, two former girlfriends have come forward alleging that he abused them, too. And it’s been reported that Mirkarimi has a bad temper and tyrannizes his staff.

As a result of the arrest, and to the surprise of many, he was forced to surrender three handguns that he owns. According to CBS San Francisco, “Mirkarimi would not comment about any aspect of his gun ownership, where he kept the weapons or in what manner the firearms were stored.” That’s interesting because one of the gun control laws he helped strengthen last year mandates that all guns be securely locked up (and unavailable for self-defense).

David Cordrea, while not exactly sympathetic to Mirkarimi’s plight, pointed out the injustice of the laws Mirkarimi and his ilk have long supported, and which are now applied to him:

“If Mirkarimi were convicted on the domestic violence charge, he would not be able to carry a gun as sheriff,” reporter Joshua Sabatini claims.

True, but it would entail more than that. If convicted, “thanks” to the infamous Lautenberg Amendment, he would be a prohibited person under federal law, forbidden not only to carry a gun, but to own or even touch one—forever.

And a protective order is enough to disenfranchise him from his fundamental right to keep and bear arms prior to being convicted of anything.

But even if convicted, a prohibition of a fundamental natural right over a misdemeanor is overkill. …

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb was less measured:

“Mirkarimi’s case presents a massive irony,” Gottlieb observed. “Here’s a man who has supported restrictive gun control measures while on the Board of Supervisors, and yet he had three handguns. He just was elected sheriff, and now he’s accused of a crime that, if he is convicted, could cost him his gun rights for the rest of his life under federal law.

“Perhaps Mirkarimi’s biggest problem is that he is now exposed as a double-standard elitist,” he continued. “News reports about this case over the past few days suggest that he may also have an anger-management problem.”

…“Someone who has been legally disarmed over a criminal charge,” he concluded, “should not be permitted to serve as a chief law enforcement officer. Someone like Mirkarimi, who has done whatever he could to discourage others from owning firearms, should admit his world-class hypocrisy and walk away from the public arena.”

Admit his hypocrisy? I’m not holding my breath. But I look forward to hearing him argue that he can continue to fulfill the duties of sheriff without so much as touching a gun.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

UN inquiry: Israel’s blockade of Gaza is legal

Posted by Richard on July 10, 2011

Well, this is something that doesn't happen every day: a UN committee siding with Israel! Both DEBKAfiles and Canada's National Post report that the UN inquiry into last year's Gaza flotilla incident has ruled that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal and that it doesn't owe Turkey either an apology or reparations. According to the National Post's Michael Ross:

The UN investigative committee, headed by former Prime Minister of New Zealand and internationally renowned jurist, Geoffrey Palmer, actually criticizes Turkey for not doing enough to prevent the flotilla from setting sail and for also providing a somewhat anaemic and lacking investigation into the events of May 2010.

Now the part that is going to really take the starch out of the flotilla activist’s kafiyehs is that in its examination of the Turkel Committee’s report – the committee conducting Israel’s official investigation – aided by Nobel Peace Prize winner David Trimble and former Canadian Forces former Judge Advocate General, Ken Watkin QC, is its conclusion that the Israeli investigation (in stark contrast to Turkey’s) was conducted in a professional and independent manner.

For a UN report, the summary is astoundingly tepid in its criticism of Israel’s actions and constitutes a very mild slap on the wrist. The report mentions that while international law allows Israel to intercept ships far from its territorial waters, the navy would have been better off waiting until the flotilla was closer to the blockade line some 20 miles off shore. There is also the bromide of Israel using excessive force, but nobody disputes that when faced with attackers wielding iron bars, knives or axes, there is every justification for ditching the paintball gun for a real weapon in self-defence.

Greece is currently preventing this year's ten flotilla boats of "peace activists" from sailing for Gaza, so this seems to have been a bad week for leftist Hamas-lovers and Jew-haters.

In celebration, I'll repost the Latma TV Flotilla Choir's marvelous "We Con the World." Enjoy! 


[YouTube link]

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Kansas farmer puts former crackhead NYTimes columnist in his place

Posted by Richard on June 29, 2011

If you've been cruising the interwebs, by now you know about New York Times columnist David Carr's contemptuous reference to those of us in flyover country as people with "low-sloping foreheads." You may even know, thanks to Ann Althouse, that the supercilious Carr is an admitted former crackhead.

But you may have missed, in that Althouse post, the response of Kansas farmer Bart Hall. It's a doozy, and here it is (emphasis in original):

< rant > The essence of his position is that anyone voting Republican is subhuman. It's even worse when, as I do, the cretins farm for a living, or reside anywhere you actually have to drive in order to move around.

This particular "slope" of a farmer is completely fluent in three languages, quite comfortable in three more, and able to be polite in several others. How about you Mr. Carr?

I am part of a family which has brought forth officers for the defense of this nation in every generation since 1701. How about you Mr. Carr?

One of my closest neighbors (also a farmer) has two Ph.Ds. Another worked for many years as an engineer. He could even calculate the median slope of our foreheads out here.

I can grow truckloads of vegetables from a few handfuls of seed, or design and build a house from scratch. Or, for that matter work as an analytical chemist should I choose, or explore for valuable minerals. Mr. Carr wouldn't even know a monazite if it came up and bit him in the arse.

Yet Carr and his colleagues consider themselves the "creative class". Yet what do the really create apart from putrid puddles of petulant pig piffle? < /rant >

I can assure you, the chief political goal out here in the heartland is simply to be left alone. In order to achieve it, however, we must find ways of restricting the intellectual left's political power and influence to something like the 15% of society they actually represent.

And the biggest difference of all? Mr. Carr could show up at my door next week and I'd be very polite to him, feed him well, show him around, and if he got into a serious problem … do my utmost to help him out of it.

Any of my neighbors would do the same, but I doubt it would be reciprocated should circumstances be reversed.

Bravo, Mr. Hall! Mr. Carr, you obnoxious little elitist turd, you've been pwned!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Wienergate triggers time warp

Posted by Richard on June 12, 2011

(With apologies to David Spade) 1998 called. It wants its lame justification for Democratic misbehavior back.

Before I even clicked the Instapundit link (Actress defends Weiner, says 'everyone lies about sex'), I just knew it was going to be Janeane Garofolo:

A liberal actress and comedian is strongly defending embattled Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), saying "everyone lies about sex" and expressing hope he becomes the mayor of New York City.

During an appearance on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," Janeane Garofalo said, "Anthony Weiner deserves to be supported and hopefully he will be mayor of New York one day. I'm serious. He is a Democrat [who] actually fights for the things liberals and progressive and rational people care about.

"I don't know why he's being thrown under the bus. He hasn't done any — he hasn't broke any laws," she said.

What's next — the reprise of stories like this? Or maybe the MSM will offer a new, updated meme: sexting to strangers is OK sometimes, like when it's a substitute for actual infidelity (although that line may be a hard sell given the rumors about Wiener that are floating around). 

Like Glenn Reynolds, I don't recall anyone recycling the "it's just lying about sex" argument regarding Mark Foley. Or Mark Souder. Or Christopher Lee (OMG, he sent a picture of his bare chest to a woman he met on Craigslist!)? And can we ever forget all the sympathy and support Hollywood and the MSM offered to the obviously sexual-identity-conflicted Larry "wide stance" Craig

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Leftist death threats continue

Posted by Richard on April 2, 2011

The liberal talking heads continue to prattle on about the "extremism" of Tea Party members and their lack of "civility," while ignoring union thuggery and a plethora of leftist threats and intimidation.

In Wisconsin, the  teacher who threatened to kill 16 state senators and their families has finally been charged (but still not arrested):

Charges have been filed in an investigation of e-mailed death threats to Republican state Senators last month during the budget-repair debate — but oddly, no arrest has taken place. Prosecutors filed two felony counts and two misdemeanor counts against 26-year-old Katherine Windels of Cross Plains, Wisconsin, but only after the Wisconsin Department of Justice sent the district attorney a sharply-worded memo of its own, wondering why prosecutors hadn’t done anything with the referral. …

Windels claimed to have already constructed bombs. Yet the police investigators (undoubtedly members of a public employee union) to whom she confessed to making the threats a month ago did nothing. 

Gateway Pundit has more about Windels and links to yet more. 

In neighboring Michigan, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy had the temerity to send Freedom of Information Act requests to the labor studies departments of three universities for specific emails related to the collective bargaining issue in Wisconsin and Gov. Scott Walker. After various leftist "news" sources like Talking Points Memo, Rachel Maddow, and the New York Times publicized/criticized the requests, the center received "a deluge of hate mail and calls," including five messages containing death threats or bomb threats.

The center has contacted law enforcement. Good luck with that. I'm sure that, just as in the Wisconsin case, police officers who are members of public employee unions will investigate, discover that the alleged perps are on their side, and do nothing for as long as they can get away with it.

We have a serious problem, folks. The fiscal chickens are coming home to roost all across the country, and the generous pay, pensions, and benefits of public employees have become unsustainable. So we're going to see increasingly angry and confrontational battles in state after state pitting the public employee unions against the private citizens. The problem is that law enforcement, in most places, is in the hands of the public employee unions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Best line yet about Libya War

Posted by Richard on March 22, 2011

Last Saturday, I wondered when the left would declare President Obama a war criminal and call for his impeachment. The wait wasn't actually too long, but so far it's only the far left fringe, like Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich.

Cindy Sheehan made a statement, but nobody noticed. As Tommy De Seno observed, the MSM once granted Sheehan "absolute moral authority" regarding matters of war and endlessly covered her every utterance and camp-out, but today they're just not interested in her point of view:

It’s not like Cindy Sheehan hasn’t said anything yet.  Upon passage of the UN resolution for the Libyan no-fly zone, Cindy’s statement was posted at a website called “United Progressives.”  No offense to whomever they are, but I doubt they are saved in enough people’s “favorites” list to be called “main-stream media.”

While refusing to mention President Obama by name, Cindy at least continued her eloquent anti-war soliloquy by saying our leaders are “criminally insane.”  Newsworthy?

I’d give only long-shot odds that Cindy Sheehan becomes a camera magnet for mainstream media over Libya. Maybe there's just not enough time in today's newscasts to fit in a story about Cindy Sheehan, in between the ceaseless parade of liberal pundits booked to call Obama's bombing of Libya a humanitarian effort.

The best line I've heard regarding the war in Libya came from Rush Limbaugh

"Imagine how upset the left will be when Khadafy's weapons of mass destruction are not found."

That one really cracked me up. 🙂

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Michael Moore vs. Abraham Lincoln

Posted by Richard on March 4, 2011

Fat cat (no pun intended) movie mogul Michael Moore, interviewed on something called Grit TV, has declared that the money of wealthy Americans isn't theirs, it's a "natural resource" that the government should seize and redistribute. I can't help but wonder why the interviewer didn't ask what Moore has done to redistribute the tens of millions of dollars of this "natural resource" that reside in his bank accounts.


[YouTube link]

Moore and those like him are guilty of two egregious errors. The first is an error of ignorance (willful ignorance, I'm tempted to say). They seem to believe that wealth (or money, which they seem to think is the same thing) is just a fixed pile of stuff that somehow, magically, exists — and that all that's necessary is deciding how it should be distributed. 

The second error is even more egregious, and it rests on the first — because it requires one to be ignorant of (or indifferent to) how and why wealth is created and even of the fact that there are those who create wealth. It's the moral error of believing that it's OK to take wealth from those who've created it to give it to someone else. As I noted, people like Moore can believe and justify this because they don't view those who've created the wealth as its creators, and thus don't view them as its rightful owners. Wealth just exists, or appears magically like manna falling from heaven, so it's a "natural resource" that we all collectively own.

Peter Wehner contrasted Moore's perspective with that of Abraham Lincoln, and quoted Lincoln: 

I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else. …. I want every man to have the chance — and I believe a black man is entitled to it — in which he can better his condition — when he may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.

Allowing individuals the chance to better their condition is a legitimate moral claim that citizens demand of government. Government’s goal should be to ensure equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome; to work toward a society where everyone has a fair shot rather than one where government enforces equality.

This issue — equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome — is one of the great dividing lines between modern conservatism and liberalism. If given the choice between the philosophy of Michael Moore and the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln, my hunch is that the public will side with Lincoln.

I think the public sided with Lincoln in last November's elections. I think — I hope — enough people understand that increasing the total wealth of our society depends on ensuring that people have the opportunity to create wealth. And that the redistributionist philosophy of Moore and those like him destroys that opportunity. And thus makes us all poorer in the long run. 

Besides, it's not just that it would do more harm than good — it's just plain wrong. The person who creates something that didn't exist before is the rightful owner of that creation. Calling it a "natural resource" and redistributing it is theft, plain and simple. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is it cluelessness, or part of a pattern?

Posted by Richard on February 8, 2011

On Thursday, the Obama administration's Director of National Intelligence assured Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood is a "largely secular" organization that has "eschewed violence" (a "spokesman" is now backing away from those words in the most weasely way). Dr. Zudhi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy strongly denounced this nonsense:

"The Muslim Brotherhood is the antithesis of a secular organization as asserted today by James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence. Clapper's statement presents a significant concern that our primary Intelligence officer has a complete lack of understanding of an organization that presents the greatest threat to the security of the United States. The Director of Intelligence is either grossly naïve or covering up for an ideology that is in an ideological war with the United States and western society.

The Muslim Brotherhood is built on the ideology of political Islam which adheres to a belief in Islamic Supremacy. To be a secular organization the Brotherhood would have to completely disavow the very beliefs that define the organization.

Further, the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to the political process in a post-Mubarak Egypt and throughout the middle-east. Thugs like Mubarak have created an atmosphere that has allowed the Brotherhood to thrive. The United States needs to be active within the country of Egypt countering the ideology of the Brotherhood helping the people of Egypt develop liberty-minded, democratic infrastructure to secure the country's future. We need to demonstrate to Egyptians that freedom does not come in the form of Islamic law or in the rule of theocratic clerics.

Our Intelligence community cannot afford to allow political correctness or this severally mistaken understanding of the Brotherhood to enter the conversation of how we will confront the changes in Egypt."

Last Saturday, I shared Natan Sharansky's cautious optimism about events in Egypt. Today, much of my optimism has evaporated. It's become clear to me that the Obama administration, rather than supporting the forces of liberty and democracy, is either flailing cluelessly or deliberately aiding the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts to hijack this revolt against tyranny for the purpose of imposing their own Islamist tyranny.

Jamie Glazov noted that this isn't the first time that Obama has cozied up to the Muslim Brotherhood, and he argued that it's no surprise coming from America's "radical in chief":

The list of examples of the leftists engaging in political romances with tyrants is infinite: Noam Chomsky traveling to Lebanon in May 2006 to embrace Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah; Academic Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish leftist, venerating Hamas and Hezbollah; Naomi Klein calling out in a column in The Nation for Muqtada al-Sadr's killing fields to come to New York; Tom Hayden reaching the next stage of his totalitarian high by meeting Klein's hero, al-Sadr, in London; and British Member of Parliament George Galloway visiting Syria in November 2005, prostrating himself before its despot and giving a speech at Damascus University in which he denounced America and Israel and extended his support to every possible enemy of the United States – from the terrorists in Iraq to Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.

What Obama is pursuing with the Muslim Brotherhood, therefore, is simply to be expected. And in typical fashion, the left is clamoring behind him to indulge in its own romance with the Egyptian jihadist entity.

The deranged and delusional leftist support for the Muslim Brotherhood today is a replay of how the left supported the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran in 1979. And without doubt, the left's love affair with the Khomeini revolution, a well-known tragic – and grotesque – story, documented in works like David Horowitz's "Unholy Alliance" and in my own "United in Hate," served as a revealing – and horrifying – example of this progressive impulse to worship tyranny.

David Solway provided additional examples of "Useful Jihadiots" of the left and their Islamist allies who are assuring us that the Muslim Brotherhood is a benign force. And back in June of 2009, Chris Carter examined Obama's "troubling history" with the Muslim Brotherhood and provided a damning look at that organization.
 
Our government is in the hands of a group of people who at least tolerate, and perhaps admire and support, practically anyone or anything that's anti-American and anti-Western. They are at least benignly acquiescent to and perhaps aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts to take over what began as a pro-freedom movement.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

The cyber-collectivist threat

Posted by Richard on July 23, 2010

I was vaguely aware that a group of radical leftists had formed a new organization named "Free Press." And I assumed that their goal was to put control of the flow of information back into the "proper" hands. That they wanted to silence me. Well, not me specifically; they've never heard of me (let's be honest, how many people have?). But everyone like me.

I was right. Adam Thierer has the gory details (emphasis added):

There are many battle fronts in the war for human freedom, but perhaps the least-appreciated of these is the battle over America's communications and media marketplace and whether free markets or government mandates will ultimately rule them. This battle takes on added importance since all other public policy debates depend upon an unfettered press and robust, independent channels of communication.

What many on the far Left have long understood, and many defenders of freedom have failed to appreciate, is that the battle for control of media and communications policy is fundamentally tied up with the broader war for control of our economy and society. "Instead of waiting for the revolution to happen, we learned that unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution," argues the prolific Marxist media theorist Robert W. McChesney. "While the media is not the single most important issue in the world, it is one of the core issues that any successful Left project needs to integrate into its strategic program."

Normally we wouldn't need to pay attention to what unrepentant ‘60's radicals or neo-Marxist university professors think about media and communications policy. In this case, however, it is essential we pay attention. First, McChesney is right in one sense: history reveals that almost every successful effort to impose sweeping controls over an economy / society was accompanied by government efforts to control press and communication systems. If the State is going to have any luck gaining widespread and far-reaching control of an economy, gaining more control over "the Press" – which means all of us these days – becomes an essential part of the "strategic program" for control. Second, we need to pay attention to these radicals because McChesney and the group that he and John Nichols of The Nation co-founded – the insultingly misnamed Free Press – have given this fight new immediacy with their relentless agitation for media and communications policy "reform." And they are not the only ones.

Read the whole thing. Thierer is correct: control over the flow of information is critical to control over the people. And control over the people is what McChesney, Nichols, and their many friends and ideological allies in the current administration want. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Another boot on another neck

Posted by Richard on June 25, 2010

The Democrats have reconciled House and Senate financial legislation differences, crafting yet another 2000-page bill that no one has read. They're prepared to pass it next week: 

After more than 20 hours of continuous wrangling, congressional Democrats and White House officials reached agreement on the final shape of legislation that would transform financial regulation, avoiding last-minute defections among New York lawmakers that had threatened to upend the bill.

Fannie and Freddie aren't much affected — the Socialist Democrats want to regulate everything except government. I'm guessing that their friends at Goldman Sachs and other liberal-dominated, generously-contributing firms will make out OK, too. As for the rest of the financial services industry, especially the little guys buried under a new mountain of regulations and red tape, and their customers — well, I suspect this observation is accurate: 

"My guess is there are three unintended consequences on every page of this bill," Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) said of the nearly 2,000-page bill.

If passed into law, this abomination will give the Obama administration yet another boot on the neck of yet another industry. Apparently, the Socialist Democrats aren't going to rest until they fulfill Orwell's dystopian vision of a boot stomping a human face forever. 

They're calling this the Dodd/Frank Act. And they gave those two weasels, who share a significant portion of the blame for the housing bubble and resulting financial meltdown, a standing ovation. 

Patrick Dorinson had the best comment about this that I've seen: 

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

– Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the health care bill, March 2010

"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.”

– Sen. Chris Dodd, on House-Senate conference approval of financial reform, June 2010

“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

– Mark Twain

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Heads in the sand

Posted by Richard on May 14, 2010

If you think I was too harsh in Naming the enemy, you need to watch Eric Holder, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, respond to a simple, direct, and non-confrontational question by Rep. Lamar Smith. It's an amazing two minutes of video, at once infuriating and hilarious.


[YouTube link]

This pathological unwillingness to identify the root cause of the problem, to name our enemies, and to acknowledge the seriousness of the threat we face is going to get a lot more people killed. Depending on blind luck and inept bomb-making to keep us safe is a losing strategy. Pretending that the real terrorist threat comes from anti-government right-wing extremists, tea partiers, and opponents of Obamacare is … well, I don't know if it's contemptibly cynical or just self-delusional.

Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn explore this issue in depth in the May 17 issue of The Weekly Standard, noting that "success in the war on terror is not apprehending terrorists after their attacks fail. Success is preventing them from attempting the attack in the first place." I strongly suggest reading the whole thing, but here's an excerpt (emphasis added): 

So, three attacks in six months, by attackers with connections to the global jihadist network—connections that administration officials have gone out of their way to diminish.

The most striking thing about all three attacks is not what we heard, but what we haven’t heard. There has been very little talk about the global war that the Obama administration sometimes acknowledges we are fighting and virtually nothing about what motivates our enemy: radical Islam. 

This is no accident. Janet Napolitano never used the word “terrorism” in her first appearance before Congress as secretary-designate of Homeland Security on January 15, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration had dropped the phrase “Global War on Terror” in favor of “Overseas Contingency Operations.” And just last month, we learned that the White House’s forthcoming National Security Strategy would not use religious words such as “jihad” and “Islamic extremism.”

When asked why she did not utter the word “terrorism” in the course of her testimony, Napolitano explained that she used “man-caused disaster” instead to avoid “the politics of fear.” 

The Department of Homeland Security was created after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history to prevent further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. And the head of that department is worried that using the word “terrorism” is playing the politics of fear.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »