Susan Rice Defends the Indefensible

At IBD, "Susan Rice Defends Lies From Herself and James Clapper on '60 Minutes'":

The diplomat who blamed four American deaths in Benghazi on a video claims the denials by the director of national intelligence of blanket surveillance of Americans were inadvertent false representations.

It might have been slightly more credible had Pajama Boy appeared on CBS' "60 Minutes" broadcast on Sunday instead of Susan Rice. The current national security adviser and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations participated in a puff piece that might have been an episode of, "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?"

For viewers, it was deja vu all over again.

Rice went on five Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16, 2012, five days after an al-Qaida-linked terrorist attack killed four Americans — including the first U.S. ambassador to die on duty in three decades — to parrot the administration lie that it was a spontaneous demonstration provoked by a video. This time, she claimed she had no time to revisit a "false controversy" about talking points, or, as President Obama has described Benghazi, just one of many "phony scandals."

Rice did have time, though, to repeat the line that she subbed for Secretary Hillary Clinton that Sunday because Clinton "had just gone through an incredibly painful and stressful week" and "had to reach out to the families, had to greet the bodies upon their arrival at Andrews Air Force Base."

Part of that stressful week in September 2012 included Clinton repeating the video lie to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, one of the four killed in Benghazi, in front of his son's casket.

"Her countenance was not good, and she made this statement to me . .. she said we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted," he told radio host Glenn Beck.

Continue reading.

Leftist Character Assassins Now Remorseful Over Destruction of Mitt Romney

The fact is, Mitt Romney was one of the most decent men to ever run for the presidency, and his character assassination by Team Obama and the administration's despicable minions is one of the most vicious, lowdown political smears in the history of presidential politics. And now that it's all over, leftists grudgingly admit, "Gee, Romney was actually a pretty decent guy."

See the ultimate regressive asshole Paul Waldman, at the American Prospect, "New Documentary Threatens to Make You Like Mitt Romney: He was, after all, human":

During the 2012 campaign, I, like every liberal writer whose job it is to comment on politics every day, wrote many unkind things about Mitt Romney. Much of the time I found him more sad than despicable; politicians who nearly reach the pinnacle of their profession while being manifestly awful at politics are a rare and curious breed. Like Al Gore before him, Romney's discomfort with the requirements of campaigning was so close to the surface that he couldn't help but inspire a kind of pity. That isn't to say that I didn't find plenty of his statements and policy positions contemptible, because I certainly did, and said so without hesitation. But in the end, Romney wasn't as easy to hate as some other politicians might be.

So a year after he joined that small, melancholy club of presidential losers, it's time that even those of us who thought it would be a terrible thing if he became president can see Romney as a human being. In January, Netflix will be releasing a behind-the-scenes documentary called "Mitt," and the preview is surprisingly endearing...

In other words, "we f-ked that guy over more ruthlessly than one of R. Kelly underage sexual assault victims."

But continue reading (via Memeorandum).

So far it's just Waldman saying Romney was "human after all," but expect more "nice things" to be said about the former GOP standard-bearer --- as leftists have no more utility in their disgusting attacks on Romney and his family. The Democrat henchmen did their job. Obama won his reelection, and the country is suffering just as Romney himself predicted during the campaign. It's enough to make you hate politics, or something.

Poor Black and Hispanic Homosexuals: The Face of AIDS — And the Left

There's blood on the hands of Democrat Party progressivism. I reported previously on the AIDS resurgence among gay men resulting from the careless death-wish ideology of sexually licentious progressivism. See, "Defiant Promiscuous Homosexuality: Surge in Barebacking Threatens Resurgence of AIDS Epidemic."

And now the New York Times provides an even more immediate report on the crisis, "Poor Black and Hispanic Men Are the Face of H.I.V.":

The AIDS epidemic in America is rapidly becoming concentrated among poor, young black and Hispanic men who have sex with men.

Despite years of progress in preventing and treating H.I.V. in the middle class, the number of new infections nationwide remains stubbornly stuck at 50,000 a year — more and more of them in these men, who make up less than 1 percent of the population.

Giselle, a homeless 23-year-old transgender woman with cafe-au-lait skin, could be called the new face of the epidemic.

“I tested positive about a year ago,” said Giselle, who was born male but now has a girlish hair spout, wears a T-shirt tight across a feminine chest and identifies herself as a woman. “I don’t know how, exactly. I was homeless. I was escorting. I’ve been raped.”

“Yes, I use condoms,” she added. “But I’m not going to lie. I slip sometimes. Trust me — everyone here who says, ‘I always use condoms’? They don’t always.”

Besides transgender people like Giselle, the affected group includes men who are openly gay, secretly gay or bisexual, and those who consider themselves heterosexual but have had sex with men, willingly or unwillingly, in shelters or prison or for money. (Most of those interviewed for this article spoke on the condition that only their first names be used.)

Nationally, 25 percent of new infections are in black and Hispanic men, and in New York City it is 45 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the city’s health department.

Nationally, when only men under 25 infected through gay sex are counted, 80 percent are black or Hispanic — even though they engage in less high-risk behavior than their white peers.

The prospects for change look grim. Critics say little is being done to save this group, and none of it with any great urgency.

“There wasn’t even an ad campaign aimed at young black men until last year — what’s that about?” said Krishna Stone, a spokeswoman for GMHC, which was founded in the 1980s as the Gay Men’s Health Crisis.

Phill Wilson, president of the Black AIDS Institute in Los Angeles, said there were “no models out there right now for reaching these men.”

Federal and state health officials agreed that it had taken years to shift prevention messages away from targets chosen 30 years ago: men who frequent gay bars, many of whom are white and middle-class, and heterosexual teenagers, who are at relatively low risk. Funding for health agencies has been flat, and there has been little political pressure to focus on young gay blacks and Hispanics.

Reaching those men “is the Holy Grail, and we’re working on it,” said Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of H.I.V. prevention at the C.D.C. His agency created its Testing Makes Us Stronger campaign — the one Ms. Stone referred to — and has granted millions of dollars to local health departments and community groups to pay for testing.

But he could not name a city or state with proven success in lowering infection rates in young gay minority men.

“With more resources, we could make bigger strides,” he said.

Continue reading.

This is precisely the demographic the left purports to champion --- yet poor minorities are wallowing in a deathly downward spiral of AIDS-related hopelessness:

Among the poor, untreated or inadequately treated H.I.V. is the norm, not the exception, said Perry N. Halkitis, a professor of psychology and public health at New York University. According to the C.D.C., 79 percent of H.I.V.-infected black men who have sex with men and 74 percent of Hispanics are not “virally suppressed,” meaning they can transmit the infection, either because they are not yet on antiretroviral drugs or are not taking them daily.

It's the freakin' norm!

And progressives don't even care. Obama-style "gay rights" activists are all about homosexual marriage and LGBT activism, and yet here we are with this disgusting crisis of sick homosexual metastasis at the core of a vulnerable generation.

And it will get worse, because disease and sickness can only get worse as the Democrats continue to chip away at the decency and health of society. This is what happens when defiant promiscuity and progressive politics combine. More people die. And the so-called compassionate political party doesn't do jack.

Defiant Promiscuous Homosexuality: Surge in Barebacking Threatens Resurgence of AIDS Epidemic

This is what it's all about.

This is what the left's depraved homosexual agenda is all about, destroying decency and tradition, breaking down hetero-normative discourses of hierarchical oppression.

The left's rimstation radicals are bringing back AIDS for the masses, but hey, don't judge, or you'll be attacked by the regressive-left's thought police as "homophobic."

At the New York Times, "Rise in Unprotected Sex by Gay Men Spurs H.I.V. Fears":

Federal health officials are reporting a sharp increase in unprotected sex among gay American men, a development that makes it harder to fight the AIDS epidemic.

The same trend has recently been documented among gay men in Canada, Britain, the Netherlands, France and Australia, heightening concerns among public health officials worldwide.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of men who told federal health investigators that they had had unprotected anal sex in the last year rose nearly 20 percent from 2005 to 2011. In the 2011 survey, unprotected sex was more than twice as common among men who said they did not know whether they were infected with H.I.V.

Being tested even once for H.I.V. is associated with men taking fewer risks, whether the test is positive or negative, health experts say. But the most recent survey found that a third of the men interviewed had not been tested in the past year.

The findings are worrying because “unprotected anal intercourse is in a league of its own as far as risk is concerned,” Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, director of the disease centers, said on Wednesday as the figures were released.

The data, published in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, do not explain why unprotected sex has risen so rapidly, but a leading hypothesis, Dr. Frieden said, is that more men are “sero-sorting” — that is, those who are uninfected (“H.I.V. seronegative” on lab reports) try to sleep only with other men who are uninfected, or who hope they are, or who merely promise they are.

“The problem with sero-sorting is that it’s really easy to get it wrong,” Dr. Frieden said. “When one-third of men aren’t even tested in the last year and a tenth of those who thought they were negative were actually positive, you don’t want to risk your life on a guess.”

Other hypotheses, say Dr. Frieden and Dr. Jonathan Mermin, the disease centers’ director of H.I.V. prevention, are that many young men have never known anyone dying of AIDS and so do not fear it, or that they believe that they can easily stay on antiretroviral drugs for life.

Two leading independent AIDS researchers agreed only partly with those explanations.

“Young guys are less worried,” said Alex Carballo-Diéguez, a researcher at the H.I.V. Center of the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University who has studied gay men’s behavior since the 1980s. “H.I.V. has become a chronic disease, and everyone knows some behaviors are bad for you, like smoking and trans fats. But in the moment of excitement, they’re going to do what they enjoy.”

Look, the real explanation here is that homosexuals have always said f-u to the norms of monogamy and prudence. This was the revolutionary barebacking promiscuity of the gay liberation era, and it's never gone away, despite the mainstream media's whitewashing of death-wish regressivism. Again, this is what leftists are all about. Forget values, decency, and cleanliness. Just screw the hierarchies of oppression with bareback licentiousness and death.

RELATED: "Paris Hilton Apologizes for Slamming Homosexual Men as Disgusting Pervs Probably Infected With AIDS."

No need to apologize. Obviously, she was right all along.

Millennial Moochers: A Record 21.6 Million Young Adults Lived at Parents' Home in 2012

The detritus of the Obama economy.

Here's the report at Pew Research, "A Rising Share of Young Adults Live in Their Parents’ Home: A Record 21.6 Million In 2012."

And at the clip, I'm going to credit Christy Setzer with making some decent points, but there's no doubt the current administration's policies are severely hampering the life chances of younger people. It's pretty sad, too, since these are the same people who were hoodwinked by the despicable Hopenchange lies.

Obamaphone Blowout!

On Hannity's last night.

"Let Me Finish, Then You’ll Be Educated On Something!"



FLASHBACK: "Free Obama Phones."

Found: Barack Obama 'HOPE' Poster Dumped for Trash Pickup

What a metaphor.

At Twitchy, "Photo of the day: Hope down in the dumps."

Guy on Reddit takes one of the most iconic pictures ever taken: pic.twitter.com/QAXpibKUpT

— Adam (@GPIA7R) June 27, 2013

Susan Rice to Replace Tom Donilon as National Security Advisor

At WSJ, "Rice to Succeed Donilon as National Security Adviser." And at Memeorandum.

Failing upward.

See, "Ambassador Susan Rice Appeared on Five Sunday Talk Shows on September 16th to Claim Libya Attack Was 'Spontaneous'."

This is the most despicable administration in history.

PREVIOUSLY: "Obama Names Samantha Power as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations."

The Obama Breakdown

An outstanding commentary from Fred Barnes, at WSJ, "The Decline of the Obama Presidency":

John Dos Passos, the novelist and historian, once said: "Often things you think are just beginning are coming to an end." His observation was made in the 1960s. But it's true today of Barack Obama's presidency and the promise of a bright future for his second term.

Mr. Obama's re-election stirred grand expectations. The vote heralded a new liberal era, or so it was claimed. His victory was said to reflect ideological, cultural and demographic trends that could keep Democrats in the majority for years to come. His second four years in the White House would be just the beginning.

Now, six months later, the Obama administration is in an unexpected and sharp state of decline. Mr. Obama has little influence on Congress. His presidency has no theme. He pivots nervously from issue to issue. What there is of an Obama agenda consists, at the moment, of leftovers from his first term or proposals that he failed to emphasize in his re-election campaign and thus have practically no chance of passage.

Continue reading.

Hateful Anti-Semitic Ghoul Walter James Casper III Tweets Jew-Bashing Attack on Pamela Geller — and Israel!

Flashback to 2011, "Racist Walter James Casper III Doubles-Down on Endorsement of Revolutionary Anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street":

Racist Repsac3 has a big butthurt post whining about how he's not really a racist anti-Semitic Jew-basher, despite endorsing a movement that was founded on property expropriation, revolution, and anti-Jewish and anti-Israel eliminationism.

Oh, and the anti-Semitic Hatesac denied he hates Israel.

Right.

"Not hating" Israel no doubt explains why the despicable Hatesac's tweeting out this heinous attack on Pamela Geller, which includes an endorsement of the genocidal Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions program:

Why Pamela Geller's Hate Speech Should Be Barred — But BDS Allowed jd.fo/e1hh#.UWrMDaQv… via @jdforward
— J. Casper (@repsac3) April 14, 2013

And by the way, the lies in that Forward piece are so mendacious as to border on criminal insanity. Seriously. You can't take this argument seriously, unless you're a piece of inhuman refuse like Walter James Casper III:

Pamela Geller preaches venomous hatred of Muslims. She is one of the leading voices promoting the idea of “creeping Sharia” in the United States. Claiming that Islam, as a religion, is dedicated to eradicating Jews and eventually turning all others into Muslims by whatever means necessary is the very definition of hate speech. One might oppose BDS, consider it unfairly anti-Israel, or even consider it an unjust and threatening movement. But it is not hate speech, it is a political point of view.

Lies. All of it.

Pamela Geller rejects Islamic jihad not Muslims. Indeed, she's saved Muslims from honor killings. She's the ultimate advocate for the value and protection of human life. And of course, there is no such thing as "hate speech" in the United States. All political speech is protected short of advocacy of imminent violence. If anything, it's the BDS stormtroopers who fit the "hate speech" bill, if there ever was such a thing. The BDS program is truly genocidal, calling for the complete elimination of the Jewish state through the scam of the "right of return" of "Palestinian" refugees. This is Middle East Politics 101. See the Tablet, "NY Times, MSNBC Whitewash BDS":

Omar Barghouti, one of the Brooklyn BDS panelists, is on record saying that an end to occupation and settlement would not end the call for BDS, that he opposes the two-state solution, and that the right of return is the movement’s “foremost demand.” As he put it in 2001, Israel “was Palestine, and there is no reason why it should not be renamed Palestine.”

But RTWT.

None of these facts will matter to the literally demonic Walter James Casper III. Truth is no corrective to moral depravity --- which is why he was banned from this blog ages ago.

GOP After-Action Report Calls for Major Changes

Pardon my language, but the Republican Party is f-ked.

The New York Times reports, "G.O.P. Report Is Blunt in Its Call for New Direction."

And at Townhall, "Post Mortem: RNC Report Calls for Major GOP Overhaul":

Republicans have gotten their backsides kicked in the last two presidential election cycles, which are essentially the "Super Bowls" of American politics. The party's standard-bearers have lost the popular vote in five of the last six contests, with the lone exception of President Bush's 2004 re-election. Bluntly stated, the GOP's national political model is broken. The Republican National Committee has just published an exhaustive report about what went wrong in 2012, when a Democratic president with mediocre approval ratings and historically poor economic indicators won a second term by a comfortable, 3.5 million vote margin. The political bubble and its inhabitants are infamous for self serving ass-covering, which is why the RNC's new autopsy deserves significant credit for its refreshing -- and at times startling -- frankness. Though various elements within the conservative coalition will surely identify elements to criticize, the 100-page report advances some hard, unvarnished truths about the party's deficient mechanics, assumptions and strategies -- as well as the changing face of the electorate. It draws conclusions based upon raw data and feedback from tens of thousands party organizers, political practitioners, pollsters, candidates and elected officials, technology experts, grassroots activists, and swing state focus group participants.

Here's the report: "Growth and Opportunity Project."

More at WSJ, "GOP Issues Scathing Self-Analysis." (Via Memeorandum.)

And see especially, at the Washington Examiner, "RNC chief retreats after report endorses immigration reform." Like I said, these people are completely screwed.

Establishment Hack Karl Rove Lashes Out at Sarah Palin

This story was trending yesterday at Memeorandum. Here's the clip:

He's an ass. An ultimate ass.

Republican Ana Navarro on Rob Portman Conversion: Homosexual Marriage is All About Family Values

Listen to this clip featuring blithering idiot Ana Navarro blabbering like a fool about how Sen. Rob Portman's support for homosexual marriage is just really all about how Republican policy has always favored same-sex marriage, or something. Truly bizarre. And stupid. It's not even been six months yet since Romney's meltdown and GOP consultants act like bathhouse bunghole jumpers are a key conservative constituency:

Jimmie Bise Blasts Epic Manifesto of Youth Empowerment and Independence on Twitter

I mentioned that someone needed to curate this, and I don't see that anyone's done it, so here goes:

I have been talking, pleading, coaxing, begging about this for a long while. Conservative have nothing like it. At all. legalinsurrection.com/2013/02/upwort…
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

"GReen" politics isn't anti-capitalism. It's anti-you. "Green" zealots want you to live in cold, dark places, eating cold, horrible food.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

You see someone who wants you to give up light bulbs and warm houses? Laugh at them, then make sure they never touch political power. Ever.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

You know those people who want to raise the minimum wage? They don't want young people in the job market. They want them dependent.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Why on Earth do you think the same "raise the minimum wage" people also want to keep people locked into their parents' health insurance?
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

It's not because they're being *kind*. It's because they get a few more years of control. They are control-freaks. Power-hungry tools.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Take a good look some time at what the minimum wage has done to employment rates of young people. It's brutal.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

But once those entry-level, "learn as you earn" jobs get priced out of the market, what's left? College. Specifically, college loan debt.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

And who just spent a couple years putting college loans in the hands of the same government that jacked up the minimum wage? *DING DING*
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

So, the very same people who ran young people out of entry-level jobs and pushed them into college also took control of college loans.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

And those *very same* people are locking young people into their parents health insurance plans until they're 26. Well, hmmm...
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

What might a reasonably intelligent person say about someone who did all three of those things in the past four years? Come on. Think.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

For goodness' sake, think like a politician who just shunted young people into *at least* a decade of debt for which they hold the note.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Think like the political who holds paper on how many college graduates who also depend on that politician's lackeys for health insurance.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

For Pete's sake, THINK!!
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

But wait, you say! I can open a small business, you say. Maybe do some grunt work to pay off that debt, you say. Haul junk. Landscaping.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

*BUZZ!!* No dice, dude. you don't get to do *any* of that without at least two permits from, guess who, MOAR BUREAUCRATS!
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

So now they control your debt, your health care, your job prospects, and your ability to work for yourself to pay off the debt.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Now here's the funny part, really. Okay, not so much funny as heart-breakingly sad. Ready? Listen closely. Bend in so you hear it.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

YOU VOTED FOR THESE PEOPLE!!
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Do you feel like a sap? No? Well, you will, in just a couple years when the bills come due. Oh, wait. Did I mention bills? Hang on.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

I have one more thing about those bills. See, it's about that health care. You know, the police you're on with your parents? Yeah.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

The second you get off that policy, you're going to have a choice. You can buy a policy of your own, approved by the bureaucrats, or...
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

...you can pay a fine. Umm...I mean a tax. See, the government says you *have* to pay them even if you don't want. Even if you don't need.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

You can't just set money aside in case something bad happens, and pay the bill with your savings. Oh, no. You have to pay every year.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

And you're not paying for you. You won't use as much health care as you pay for. You'll pay for the health care of -- TA DA -- your parents.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

So that policy you rode on until you were 26? Congrats. You'll be paying for it once you get off it. More than you want or need.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

But this isn't about your need. It's about control, and you are not your own person any more. You're not in control any more. You're a cog.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

You're a little cog in a huge machine and you have a job. Work. Work every day. For someone else. Not for you. Never for you.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

This is your life now. You belong to THE MAN. Youtake THE MAN's wage, go to THE MAN's doctor, retire when THE MAN says.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

You buy what THE MAN allows you to buy, drive the car THE MAN wants you to drive, watch movies THE MAN says get made.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Sucks, huh? Sucks hard. Well, you did choose it. You liked it on Facebook and RTed it on Twitter, and up-voted it on Reddit.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

You sucked down the happy juice and shared it with all your friends and now...what? What's it look like for you?
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Look, I'll be honest. This new world THE MAN has put together, it's pretty good for folks like me. I'm heading into the sweet spot.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

I'm about in my mid-40s now. I should be starting businesses and hiring you guys and setting you up for your own businesses and success.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

I should have loads of disposable income on which I can shower you. Buy your stuff. I'm tech-savvy. I want your apps and tunes and movies.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

But that tax bite is tearing me down, setting me up for when I'm in my 60s and you're paying my freight. I hate that.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Let me say that again. I hate that. With a passion you can't even begin to imagine. I want it to be different. I want to help you succeed.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

I want to teach you every single trick I know and I want you to rock the whole freaking planet. I want you to invent and cure and live.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

I want to kick this world in its ass and get it moving then hand you the torch so you can light the fuse and make it really take off.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

I can't do it without you, though. I need your help. I need your enthusiasm, energy, humor, and savvy. I have lots of my own. I need more.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Seriously, we can fix this. We can make things right. We can put the country back in your hands and in mine. We can. WE CAN!
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Listen to me. WE CAN DO THIS.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

You have to stop buying the hype. You have to push your friends and family to stop buying the hype. I promise I'll do the same. Promise.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

I will not leave you hanging. I will not abandon you. Get right beside me and let's do this. Let's throw those control freaks out. Every one
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

I don't give a rat's ass what their party is. Democrat, Republican, don't matter. If they want to control your life or mine, they're done
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Washington can not make the calls anymore. They're blown it. Wrecked the whole thing. Look around. See the #Fail.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

They blew it and they don't get a second chance. End their careers. Throw them out and all their puling little bureaucrat buddies.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Get on my shoulder. We will handle our business. We got this. You know we do.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Really, the only question today is: ARE YOU READY TO DO THIS? I think you are. Let's go.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

BY the way, I'm not telling you to follow me. I'm not even asking. CRap, the last thing I want is for you to follow me. Stop following.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Following is what got us into this godawful mess. We follow too much. We get in line too often. Don't follow me. Do. Not.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Get beside me. Cover my flank. Get my back. Get your friends' backs. Cover each other. Everyone moves forward. Lead. Go. Do.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

Don't ask permission from anyone. Not me. Not a politician. Not a so-called leader.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

You like what I'm doing? Share it. Make stuff like it. Share that. Build your own groups. You do it. Yes, you.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

You're not a leader? Cool. Neither am I. I don't know what I am. I'm just a guy. I blog. I write. I do a podcast. I tweet.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

But I figure if there are enough of us who look at the control-freaks right in their beady, greedy eyes and shout "NO!!!!!", we'll win.
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

So, there. That's all. :)
— Jimmie (@jimmiebjr) February 17, 2013

I caught Jimmie posting this manifesto midstream, but if that top tweet is any clue, it's William Jacobson who got him going: "Upworthy — or, How we are losing the internet to lowest of low information young liberals."

Jimmie's manifesto is a thing of beauty, and since I had the time to curate it, I thought, "Why in the heck not?"

The New #CPAC Schedule is Here!

I'm not joking with "The Jerk" headline at top.

Rachel Maddow starts out her sensational report on CPAC 2013 with a Steve Martin clip. She then cherry picks a few of the more offbeat panels to highlight --- wait for it! --- just how filled with fringe freaks are the CPAC conferences.

Robert Stacy McCain had more on this propaganda earlier, "Another Controversial CPAC Scandal!™":

How long have I been covering the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)? Forever, it seems, and every year the liberal media find some reason to denounce CPAC as extreme, fringe, controversial.

From my perspective, the biggest CPAC controversy this year is that they moved it from the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in northwest D.C. — near the Adams-Morgan district and a short taxi ride from downtown — to the new Gaylord National Harbor resort, eight miles south of town in Prince George’s County, Md.

I could think of a dozen arguments against this move, and have heard only one argument in favor of it: They got a great rate.

Well, so much for my CPAC controversy. The really big controversy according to liberal Sarah Reese Jones is this:

CPAC: White Supremacists and Wayne LaPierre are Welcome, but GOProud is Banned

Students of propaganda techniques should ponder how Jones manages to suggest that Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association is somehow as controversial as “white supremacists.”

But wait a minute: Who are these “white supremacists” being welcomed at CPAC? Looking over the announced schedule, I don’t see any, unless Sarah Reese Jones is using the liberal definition of “white supremacist” as “someone who didn’t vote for Obama.”

Continue reading.

The real conspiracy is how the progressive collectivists have perverted the culture to fool a majority of Americans that the left's Marxist agenda is mainstream. But they thrive on propaganda and Maddow's show is one of the left's top propaganda outfits.

What is 'Natural Born'?

I'm not sure why it's important, but William Jacobson feels he must respond to attacks from "birther" conspiracy-mongers. I guess these are not infrequent, as William explains, "This will be dealt with."

Read it all at the link above. The email William posts in pretty fascinating:

JACOBSON: First you display your inexcusable contempt for the law by keeping the fact of Obama’s ineligibility from your readers, for whatever discreditable reasons. Now you double down and defend and promote the candidacies of two more ineligibles, Rubio and Jindal. (The reason the Democrats have to paint Rubio and Jindal as crazies is because they know that thanks to people like you, the Republicans would actually put up an ineligible candidate.) What is wrong with you? Don’t you have any respect for the Constitution? Or for a government of laws? You enable, aid and abet lawbreakers. You are a Professor of Law and your conduct is so egregious you are an indelible stain on the profession.

Debate me, defend your conduct in any public setting. Or defend in writing your enablement of Obama and promotion of other ineligible candidates. You can’t, can you? There is no honorable defense, is there? No. You and your ilk are largely responsible for Obama’s tremendously destructive foreign and domestic policies of the past four years. Had you and your colleagues in the Conservative MSM spoken up four years ago, the Federal Courts would have removed Obama and avoided so much damage done and so much damage yet to be done.

Such lawlessness. Such dishonesty. Such cowardice.

I can't comment on Jindal et al.'s eligibility just yet, but if folks are making a natural born case against Obama then they're accepting as fact that he was born in Hawaii (which would confer automatic eligibility under the 14th Amendment) but that it takes two American parents for a child to be considered natural born (and that's apparently regardless of the same birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment). I always thought the question of Obama's birth certification by the State of Hawaii a bit fishy, and Obama hasn't helped matters by refusing to release his full authenticated birth certificate (with vital medical information, witnesses, etc.) rather than the cheap-ass computer print-out claiming "certification of live birth." (Obama is all about hiding who is he, on his academic transcripts, as another example; the left fears the truth, while the right has obsessed over it.) No matter. The courts ruled against challenges to Obama's eligibility and after awhile it gets to be a bit like Captain Ahab. In any case, William must be facing a lot of hostility because he's researching it and will post his findings for the record. A quick search turned up some information, which is interesting, no matter how you view the issues: "Birther Claims Debunked: Two Citizen Parents." What's also interesting is that this president has engendered so much hatred, so much conspiracy theorizing, that no matter how deranged it is, there's some kind of weird legitimacy to the movement in the sense that Obama really is "post-American" in his ideological outlook and Marxist orientation to the state and political culture. It's definitely a unique manifestation. It's what drives most of our polarization. The question is centrally about the meaning of being an American and living under the law and according to a traditional set of values that are exceptional. The left has abandoned that exceptionalism. The president is the standard bearer for the destruction of that decency and history. All of this was inevitable when the Democrat Party ended up nominating Obama and when the American people bought the lies and elected him. We'll be digging out from this monstrosity for decades, if we ever fully recover.

As for the citizenship thing, at this point it's moot, in any case. Barack Hussein ain't going anywhere. So I'll be interested to see what happens with Jindal and the others. Stay tuned as far as that goes.

Americans Were Under Attack. Then: Nothing

I haven't blogged about Benghazi much lately, mostly because the political system's largely moved on. Hillary Clinton smoked her congressional testimony. And the press treats this administration as if it were royalty. There have been a few exceptions, but most in the MFM didn't think Benghazi rated investigative coverage. Indeed, if it wasn't for Fox News, we would have had a couple of perfunctory reports on the networks and the remaining cable channels and that would've been it. Sure, CBS's Sharyl Attkison was pressing hard against the administration's cover-up, but for her probing she was soon shut out of the press loop.

No doubt the scandal remains politically potent, if enough attention can be paid. And recent testimony has shed some unwanted light, from the administration's perspective, on the events of September 11, 2012. But at this point, I suspect people are moving on. Anointing Hillary is more important than getting to the bottom of things.

In any case, see William Kristol and Peter Wehner, at the Wall Street Journal, "The Absentee Commander in Chief":

We've both had the honor to work in the White House. We've seen presidents, vice presidents, chiefs of staff and national security advisers during moments of international crisis. We know that in these moments human beings make mistakes. There are failures of communication and errors of judgment. Perfection certainly isn't the standard to which policy makers should be held.

But there are standards. If Americans are under attack, presidential attention must be paid. Due diligence must be demonstrated. A president must take care that his administration does everything it can do. On Sept. 11, 2012, as Americans were under attack in Benghazi, Libya, President Obama failed in his basic responsibility as president and commander in chief. In a crisis, the president went AWOL.

Thanks to the congressional testimony of outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey late last week, we know they met with President Obama on Sept. 11 at 5 p.m. in a pre-scheduled meeting, when they informed the president about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The meeting lasted about a half-hour. Mr. Panetta said they spent roughly 20 minutes of the session briefing the president on the chaos at the American Embassy in Cairo and the attack in Benghazi, which eventually cost the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, security personnel Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and information officer Sean Smith.

Secretary Panetta said the president left operational details, including determination of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us." We also learned that President Obama did not communicate in any way with Mr. Panetta or Gen. Dempsey the rest of that evening or that night. Indeed, Mr. Panetta and Gen. Dempsey testified they had no further contact at all with anyone in the White House that evening—or, for that matter, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

That's not all we discovered. We now know that despite Gen. Dempsey having been informed of Ambassador Stevens's repeated warnings about the rise of terrorist elements in Benghazi, no forces were put in place or made ready nearby to respond to possible trouble. It also seems that during the actual attacks in Benghazi, which the administration followed in real time and which lasted for some eight hours, not a single major military asset was deployed to help rescue Americans under assault.

And we learned one other thing: Messrs. Panetta and Dempsey both knew on the night of the assault that it was a terrorist attack. This didn't prevent President Obama, Secretary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice from peddling a false version of events in the days and even weeks that followed, as the administration called the incident spontaneous, said there was no evidence of a coordinated terrorist attack and blamed the violence on an anti-Muslim video. So the White House, having failed to ensure that anything was done during the attack, went on to mislead the nation afterward.

Why the deception? Presumably for two reasons. The first is that the true account of events undercut the president's claim during the campaign that al Qaeda was severely weakened in the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden. The second is that a true account of what happened in Benghazi that night would have revealed that the president and his top national-security advisers did not treat a lethal attack by Islamic terrorists on Americans as a crisis. The commander in chief not only didn't convene a meeting in the Situation Room; he didn't even bother to call his Defense secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not a single presidential finger was lifted to help Americans under attack.

Continue reading.

FLASHBACK: "Benghazi Reveals Obama Is a Coward and Disgrace."

GOP Leaders Search for New Strategy

At the Wall Street Journal, "Republican Leaders Search for New, Winning Strategy."

And then see the Washington Post, "Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal: GOP must stop being 'stupid party'," and "Bobby Jindal speaking truth to GOP power."

Obama's Spending Will Require Massive Tax Hikes on the Middle Class

It's harsh, but at some level I hope people really get socked and feel it. Maybe that's what it will take to wake people the f-k up.

At IBD, "Now They Tell Us: Obama's Tax Promises Were Bogus":

Remember all those mainstream news reports before the election about how President Obama's expansive spending plans would require massive tax hikes on everyone, not just millionaires and billionaires? Neither do we.

But somehow after the election, reporters are finally admitting that Obama's budget numbers simply don't add up and that new taxes on the middle class — including a European-style value added tax — are "inevitable."

New York Times columnist Eduardo Porter, for example, wrote this week that the $620 billion in tax hikes on the rich that Obama secured as part of the fiscal-cliff deal are "hardly enough to stabilize the nation's debt in the next 10 years, let alone deal with the long-term budget deficit."

Fortune senior editor-at-large Shawn Tully wrote last week how "steep deficits and mountainous debt will rise even after the new revenue is counted."

An article on CNBC's website in early January noted that the fiscal-cliff deal "merely masks the bleak long-term outlook for the country."

These stories go on to say that there's no way Obama can finance his ambitious plans without raising taxes on everyone.

The Financial Times ran a piece shortly after Obama signed the fiscal-cliff deal noting "that maintaining a basic welfare state . .. implies higher taxes for the middle class as well as for the rich."

Targeting The Middle

CNN reported that while "President Obama wants to balance spending cuts with tax increases ... experts say he can't do that without hitting the middle class."
That story quotes Concord Coalition Executive Director Robert Bixby saying that "it's hard to make the numbers work" if you exempt "the middle class from any pain."
Hmm.

As we recall, Obama endlessly promised the country that he could spend — sorry, "invest" — more on roads and education while cutting the deficit simply by trimming some fat out of government programs and asking "millionaires and billionaires to pay just a little bit more."

No one in the mainstream press seriously challenged Obama on this at the time, even though it was painfully obvious to anyone who looked at the budget forecasts that Obama was peddling fiscal snake oil.

Continue reading.

Here's that Eduardo Porter piece, from the New York Times, "Higher Taxes on Everyone Could Ease Spending Cuts."

I'm going to read around at some of those additional reports cited by IBD. The Obama campaign was one big lie after another. My favorite? "Al Qaeda has been decimated!"

Obama Inauguration T-Shirt Touts Second Term as 'Earned, Not Given'

Via Garance Franke-Ruta, whom I tweeted:

@thegarance Would that they felt the same about individual success and upward mobility! #Obama #Inauguration #Dependency
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) January 20, 2013

RELATED: At Weasel Zippers, "Inauguration Poster Likens Obama to Jesus…"