Obama's Pitbull Media

I think "lapdog media" is too mild. Obama's press flacks are pitbulls, and they're lethal.

See Mona Charen, "The Obama Press Votes Early":

“Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring.”  — Ann Romney

Mrs. Romney’s exasperation with conservative critics is understandable. The mainstream press has been like a school of piranhas swarming around her husband. To receive fire from her own side as well — even constructive advice — may seem too much to bear.

Mitt Romney is facing perhaps the most corrupt and tendentious coverage in presidential history as members of the fourth estate eschew any semblance of integrity in their attempt to skew interpretations in favor of their pinup, Mr. Obama.

The examples would fill volumes....

In the first hours of the violence that engulfed U.S. embassies on September 11, Romney was lambasted by the press for criticizing a sitting president and for issuing a statement prematurely. Of course, when Obama criticized Bush in 2007 for an attack on a base in Afghanistan, he received no such condemnation.

We are now witnessing the slow-motion implosion of the Obama-administration narrative about what happened in Benghazi. Not only did the Obama administration insist, from the beginning and before ascertaining the facts, that the attack on our ambassador and three other Americans was a case of a protest gone wild over an Internet movie, they maintained this obvious deception for nearly two weeks.

As early as September 12, Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.) and officials at the Defense and State departments were questioning the White House version. “This was a coordinated attack, more of a commando-style event. It had both coordinated fire, direct fire, indirect fire,” Rogers commented the day after the attack.

Yet four days later, Obama sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to the Sunday-morning political shows to insist that the attack on Americans was basically a negative movie review. Some news organizations are reporting that there was no protest over the Internet film in Benghazi at all, just a coordinated terror attack featuring a former Guantanamo detainee. Do not expect days or weeks of coverage about what a scandal this represents, about the administration’s failure to provide adequate security to American diplomats, about the administration’s persistence in a lie long after it was obvious that the attack in Libya was a terrorist strike.

There's more at that top link. I'm almost in shock thinking of how reprehensible the Libya debacle is, and that's without even factoring in the administration's cover up and the media's enabling. Team Romney should not let this story fall by the wayside. It's a story of perhaps the most corrupt and incompetent foreign policy in American history, made worse by the fawning Obama-media.

What Do Radical Islamists and Progressives Have in Common?

From Donald Thornton, at ThyBlackMan, "Radical Islamists and Radical Leftists: The eerie similarities" (via Instapundit):

These events [across the Mulsim world] have shed light on a disturbing parallel that I believe must be examined. The eerie similarities between radical Islamist all over the world and radical Leftist that reside right here in America. Because their ultimate goals are synonymic. A nation; dare I say a world, under submission to their will.

I believe these two ideologies are clear and present dangers to America and the world at large. Because both; at their core seek to suppress any speech or expression that is contrary to their worldview. Free speech has to be the first and most protected foundational pillar of any new nation.  And it must be re-enforced perpetually in any existing nation that has adopted it.

The ideology of radical Islam has no place for dissent, compromise, freedom of expression or speech. It seeks to rule by the sheer force of fear, intimidation, criminalization and tyranny. Terrorism is its dominant mode of operations. It will not tolerate any opposing views or critiques. To say or do anything that it deems insulting of its worldview is worthy of imprisonment or even death. Its influence is so strong that it persuades the emotionally unstable to commit horrific acts terrorism. Its desire is total submission to its will.

Likewise in the same way contemporary liberalism/progressivism uses the same M.O. The ideology of the radical Left has no place for dissent or freedoms that do not comport to their worldview. It seeks to intimidate via boycotts, petitions, protests’ and lawsuits.

Dare to speak ill about or challenge any of its holy doctrines, which include: Abortion on demand, Gay Rights/Marriage, Evolution, Unions/Collective Bargaining Rights, Open-ended Civil Rights, Global Warming, Reducing Social Programs, just to name a few…

And the campaign of policing, isolating and ideologically terror begin with a vengeance, a type of jihad against those who oppose its failed worldview.

Lock up that thought criminal.

Karl Rove Breaks Down the Obama-Enabling Public Opinion Polls

From O'Reilly's show last night:

That New York Times poll is a disastrous outlier. I wrote about it here: "Skewed and Unskewed Polls." The race is going to tighten, but again, I'm looking for a Mitt Romney lead in some of these surveys. Once you throw out the bad samples, Obama's still leading. The Republican ticket needs a game changer. And that's got to be the debates or it's simply over.

But check back for more...

Obama Administration Knew It Was al-Qaeda Within 24 Hours

This story is not new to me, since the word's been out for awhile, but the coverage is getting wider and more critical.

From Eli Lake, at the Daily Beast, "U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates."

At the video is Rep. Buck McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He's outraged at the incompetence and fraud this administration's foisting on the American people:

That clip's from last Friday, but Ed Morrissey has an update from yesterday, "House Armed Services chair: Obama admin hiding truth on Libya until after election."

This is the scandal of the Obama administration's tenure in office. The administration lied to the American people, and top officials told reporters to "f*ck off" when questions starting getting too hot. The press is behind the curve, but can't let it go forever. The New York Times has this out in today's paper, for example, "Clinton Suggests Link to Qaeda Offshoot in Deadly Libya Attack."

I'll have more...

In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man

I'd post every single entry at Atlas Shrugs if I could. Pamela's blog is off the charts with moral clarity. Head over there for an historic tutorial on freedom of speech and moral backbone in the face of totalitarianism.

These Are Not 'Bumps in the Road'

An excellent ad.

Also at the Los Angeles Times, "Romney hits Obama for calling Middle East troubles 'bumps in road'."

President Obama Speech to U.N. General Assembly, September 25, 2012

The full speech is here.

And Jennifer Rubin just rips into Obama, rightly --- and righteously --- so, "Obama’s speech at the United Nations":

President Obama is so soaked in the State Department/Western European/ leftist intellectual goo of moral relativism and disdain for core American values that I doubt he understood how offensive were his remarks at the United Nations today.

After fessing up that our embassy people were killed by terrorists (he doesn’t say what kind, however) and reciting that violence is never justified he then once again denounced the anti-Islam video. And he delivers this:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shia pilgrims. It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi, “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”

Together, we must work towards a work where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies. That’s the vision we will support.

Where to begin?

Continue reading.

Michelle Malkin Slams Shameless Lying Liar Stepanie Cutter's 'War on Women' Lies

Michelle's on fire, as usual:

Sarah Shahi

Via Maxim:

GOP Bid for Senate Control Fading?

I don't know actually if the GOP's lost all hope on regaining the Senate, but this piece at the Los Angeles Times is reasonable: "Democrats gain favor in battle for Senate."

One thing noted there (and elsewhere recently) is that there's a noticeable uptick in voter optimism on the economy, which should dampen prospects for Republicans a bit. I'm reminded of 2008 and the financial crash of late October. McCain was still running strong in the race and I thought he might still win. But his campaign imploded and got all off track --- with the candidate suspending his campaign to return to the Senate to work on a bailout package that ended up not being the final bailout package --- and economic issues sealed the election for Obama and the Democrats. This year unemployment rates and presidential approval ratings were trending against Obama's reelection, but O's been seeing his approval ratings spike up around 50 percent in most recent polls. While there's some debate on the accuracy of the polls, it's clear that we're not in as deep a trough of pessimism that would elevate the GOP ticket to an easy win. There's still pessimism --- Americans still think the country's on the wrong track --- but that pessimism isn't as pronounced as it's been in earlier months.

More on all of this as we go along...

Joe Compton, 11, Struck by Lightning in Swindon, England

I imagine this is everyone's worst nightmare, and it's happened to an 11-year-old boy in Britain.

See Telegraph UK, "Weather: boy, 11, struck by lightning in front of classmates leaving school." He'd be dead if it weren't for the paramedics, who, on the scene quickly, were able to revive him. And yet he's still fighting for his life. I'll be saying prayers for him.

Also at London's Daily Mail, "Schoolboy, 11, left fighting for his life after being struck by lightning outside his school."

Skewed and Unskewed Polls

I mentioned this morning that I'm not going to engage in conspiracies about how all the polling is biased toward Obama and the Democrats. Some polls are biased because any poll will have a systematic error as a feature of the methodology. Whether there's an actual demonstrable left-wing tilt to a survey will depend on a lot of factors. Polling organizations will adjust their poll samples to reflect larger census data for various demographic groups, for example. A survey can adjust samples to reflect partisan identification trends for some earlier time period, like the last election. A lot of conservatives, Ed Morrissey comes to mind, likes to compare polling samples to the level of partisan turnout in previous elections. That makes sense but such analyses rely on conjecture and estimation. The factors that contributed to turnout in a prior election may or may not recur in the upcoming election, so estimating polling bias against present trends such as voter enthusiasm is basically unscientific. There's some excellent learned guesswork going on, but conclusions are unsystematic.

So again I'm interested in all this right-wing angst at the current polling trends. My recent piece at PJ Media piqued my interest especially, since the comments there were decidedly unhappy with the suggestion that Romney was imploding, an argument based on actual campaign flubs as well as a growing gap in most of the recent polls. The fact is, President Obama's bump after the conventions has been significant and sustained. That should be non-controversial. That said, any poll putting Obama up by 9 or 10 points over Romney in the swing states is likely an extreme outlier, as Reliapundit argued today, "MORE BS POLLS FROM THE LEGACY MEDIA: NYTIMES HAS OBAMA NEARLY 10% UP IN OHIO AND FLORIDA." Other polls show those states as closely fought, within the margin of error. I expect at this point Obama is up in both those states by just a couple of points, and if so, GOP voter enthusiasm could indeed put Romney ahead on election day. So it ain't over until its over, no doubt.

That said, let's check in with Jay Cost, at the Weekly Standard, "Are the Polls Tilted Toward Obama?"

I can't get a pullout quote from that, so read it all. Cost first touches on some of the points I've raised above about weighting and estimation of previous voter coalitions. But the more interesting thing is Cost's historical analysis of partisan retention. The GOP has a stronger record of keeping partisans in its column on election day. If those trends hold for 2012, then as we get closer to election day, the Obama convention bounce should largely evaporate and Romney should hold a slight advantage if partisan defection rates are factored in. All of this assumes that survey samples are not biased towards Democrats, and that "true partisanship" is teased out with follow up questions for those who first identify as independents. The Monkey Cage has a worthwhile post on that, "Polling Biases and Their Potential Impacts."

So basically, all this big hubbub about 10-point Obama margins in Ohio and Florida is indeed bullshit. But those polls showing Obama with a slight edge are probably accurate, especially when compared to polling trends over the last few months and when compared to contemporaneous surveys. As I said this morning, I'll be more excited when I see some polls with Romney holding a slight edge rather than Obama. So far Romney hasn't been able to pull up neck-and-neck in the horse race. That's what should be worrying conservatives --- Romney's year-long failure to secure an edge in the polls --- not the so-called huge left-wing bias to the entire polling universe. I just don't think there's that big a leftist bias, and I'm surprised to see some on the right entertaining conspiracies. On that point I don't normally refer to Erick Erickson, who I personally think is an asshole, but on this he's right, "On Polls and Polling":

I do not believe the polls are all wrong. I do not believe there is some intentional, orchestrated campaign to suppress the GOP vote by showing Mitt Romney losing. I actually believe that Mitt Romney trails Barack Obama. I think Republicans putting their hopes in the polls all being wrong is foolish. But I also believe the polls are reflecting a bigger Democratic strength than is really there.

More at the link.

And check Allahpundit at Hot Air for the backlash he's getting for posting polls critical of the GOP ticket, "Which polls are, or aren’t, legitimate?" Allah's describing the kind of harsh response I got at PJ Media last week.

No doubt there'll be more to this story, but I'll close with some red meat for the hyper-partisans looking to utterly destroy the Dems on November 6. It's Dick Morris with an extremely bullish take on the race, which has even Sean Hannity saying, nah (via Nice Deb):

Latest New York Times Poll Shows Obama Pulling Out Huge Lead in Ohio and Florida

I'm expecting the race to tighten, especially in the swing states, but NYT indicates that O's pulling out a commanding lead.

What's up with that?

Astute Bloggers has the lowdown, "MORE BS POLLS FROM THE LEGACY MEDIA: NYTIMES HAS OBAMA NEARLY 10% UP IN OHIO AND FLORIDA":

THE SAMPLE DOESN'T REFLECT THE LIKELY TURNOUT AT ALL.

THE SAMPLE HAS 9% MORE DEMS THAN REPUBLICANS, AND GIVES OBAMA A 9% LEAD.

IF THE DEMS TURNOUT LIKE THEY DID IN THE LAST ELECTION, THEN OBAMA LOSES.

OBAMA'S WEAK FUNDRAISING AND SMALL CROWDS OFFERS INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT HE IS NOT AS POPULAR NOW AS HE WAS IN 2008.

THE 2010 ELECTION PROVES THE GOP IS MORE ENERGIZED - AS DO ROMNEY RYAN CROWDS AND FUNDRAISING.

That's solid, although I'm interested to see some comparative polling data. The Florida Times Union has this, for example, "President Obama holds slight lead over Mitt Romney in Times-Union Florida poll" (via Memeorandum):

Overwhelming majorities with black and Hispanic voters have helped President Barack Obama to a slim lead in the Times-Union’s Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion Research Florida Presidential Poll released Tuesday.

Among likely voters, 49 percent favor Obama for November’s election and 46 percent like Mitt Romney.

One percent backed other candidates and 4 percent were undecided.

The poll of 540 Floridians has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

A Washington Post poll, also released Tuesday, shows Obama leading Romney, 51 percent to 47 percent among likely Florida voters. Among all registered voters in the state, the poll shows Obama up by 9 points.

Well now, that's not quite so dramatic.

That said, I'm not going to freak out with those right-wing polling conspiracies that have been making the rounds in the conservative fever swamps. Romney's trailing. He's been trailing for a long time. We need to see some swing states polling with Obama trailing before I'll be real confident about the GOP's prospects.

More at Memeorandum.

Elizabeth Warren Not Licensed to Practice Law in Massachusetts

William Jacobson has been on fire with his huge scoop on Elizabeth Warren's likely criminal misrepresentations while holding her teaching position at Harvard.

See, "Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem."

And the story's getting national coverage, which is great! See, "Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem on Fox News today."

BONUS: Idiot faux-libertarian Mark Thompson tried to smack down William, at the laughable League of Ordinary Gentlemen, "No, Elizabeth Warren Did Not Engage in the Unauthorized Practice of Law."

And in response, William made mincemeat of that idiot Thompson, "No, Mass. Board of Bar Overseers has not exonerated Elizabeth Warren."

EXTRA: IBD weighs in, "Elizabeth Warren Busted Defending Big Corporations Without Law License":

Warren is a proven liar, hypocrite and fraud, and ought not darken the halls of the U.S. Senate as an expert witness let alone a member of that august body.

Ouch.

The 10% President

Be sure to read this phenomenal editorial at the Wall Street Journal: "The annotated Obama: How 90% of the deficit becomes somebody else's fault."

Mona Eltahawy Defaces Pamela Geller's 'Savages' Ad at New York's Times Square Station

The New York Post reports, "EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Woman defaces 'anti-jihad' ad in Times Square station."

And there's more at Pamela's, "Mona Eltahawy Arrested for Assaulting Pro-Freedom Blogger While Defacing AFDI Pro-Freedom Ad." (Via Memeorandum.)


Eltahawy said she had a right to deface the advertisement, claiming that her actions were protected as "free speech." The police were obviously not pleased.

NFL's Substitute Officials Are a Joke

According to Bill Plaschke, at the Los Angeles Times, "NFL losing credibility with each blown call by replacement refs":

Hail Mary. Holy hell.

On the final play of the final game of one of the most shameful weekends in NFL history, a last-gasp pass from the Seattle Seahawks fell from the sky into the arms of the Green Bay Packers on Monday night.

Touchdown, Seattle. Chaos, NFL.

Three weeks of gross incompetence by unqualified replacement officials crystallized in two moments Monday night that pushed the league's integrity to the brink.

In one moment, Packers safety M.D. Jennings clearly intercepted a final-play pass while falling upon Seahawks receiver Golden Tate in the end zone, preserving an apparent 12-7 Green Bay win.

In the next moment, the replacement officials ruled that Tate had made the catch, and upheld that ruling after replay review, giving the Seahawks a 14-12 victory.

Said Packers Coach Mike McCarthy: "I've never seen anything like that in all my years in football."

Hall of Fame quarterback Troy Aikman tweeted: "These games are a joke."

It's finally happened. After three weeks of forgetting the rules, losing track of the ball, and haphazardly administering this country's national pastime as if they were salesmen on vacation from Foot Locker, the replacement officials have finally done serious, irrevocable damage. The arrogant NFL's middle-school and small-college substitutes for the locked-out regular officials have finally, actually, literally made one wrong call that decided the outcome of a game.

It was one of the worst calls in the history of the league, yet it might turn out to be one of the best calls if humiliated Commissioner Roger Goodell was listening to the message it sent.

Give it up. Settle this labor dispute. Settle it now. Your power play didn't work.

That's a great piece. RTWT.

Plus, I guess it's no surprise, but the despicable progressives are trying to score political points on this, and over unions too. Amazing. See the consistently dishonest Steve Benen at Maddow's blog, "Scott Walker discovers the value of union workers." And at the anti-Israel, Soros-backed hate-site Think Progress, "Paul Ryan Demands Return of Unionized NFL Referees: ‘It Is Time to Get the Real Refs’." (At Memeorandum.)

For some reason I don't think there's an accurate comparison between the NFL officials' union and, say, public sector teachers unions. But then again, folks like Steve Benen and the Think Progress anti-Semites probably back public teacher sexual predators over abused children and their parents. Because that's what's happened to the public unions these days. They've been horribly denuded of any basic decency from the constituency they ostensibly serve. They're completely unaccountable, and they're literally harming children. It's the other way around with the NFL's temporary referees. They're harming the game and they're on the way out.

But the idiot progs don't care about excellence. They only care about union power. Screw 'em.

The Democrats' Ronald Reagan

You can't beat this, at Weasel Zippers, "Newsweek: Trig Truther Andrew Sullivan Declares Obama “The Democrats’ Ronald Reagan”…":

Another Newsweek slobber-fest courtesy of Andrew Sullivan. Nice to see Newsweek embracing a paranoid conspiracy theorist as its favorite columnist...

A slobber-fest, no doubt. From the article:

If Obama wins, to put it bluntly, he will become the Democrats’ Reagan. The narrative writes itself. He will emerge as an iconic figure who struggled through a recession and a terrorized world, reshaping the economy within it, passing universal health care, strafing the ranks of al -Qaeda, presiding over a civil-rights revolution, and then enjoying the fruits of the recovery. To be sure, the Obama recovery isn’t likely to have the same oomph as the one associated with Reagan—who benefited from a once-in-a-century cut of top income tax rates (from 70 percent to, at first, 50 percent, and then to 28 percent) as well as a huge jump in defense spending at a time when the national debt was much, much less of a burden. But Obama’s potential for Reagan status (maybe minus the airport-naming) is real. Yes, Bill Clinton won two terms and is a brilliant pol bar none, as he showed in Charlotte in the best speech of both conventions. But the crisis Obama faced on his first day—like the one Reagan faced—was far deeper than anything Clinton confronted, and the future upside therefore is much greater. And unlike Clinton’s constant triangulating improvisation, Obama has been playing a long, strategic game from the very start—a long game that will only truly pay off if he gets eight full years to see it through. That game is not only changing America. It may also bring his opposition, the GOP, back to the center, just as Reagan indelibly moved the Democrats away from the far left.

I read the whole thing.

This kind of story would have never been published back when I started out in college. It's a partisan puff piece. RAWMUSCLEGLUTE is creaming all over Obama. It's perverse. And it's riddled with errors, naturally, but we won't see a full-court press to get an apology and retraction, as was the case with Niall Ferguson's recent cover story slamming Obama. The left went batshit crazy over that one, Paul Krugman especially. But Ferguson had the facts down cold, literally unassailable, which further enraged the netroots buttfreaks. They're literally a mob.

Million-Dollar View? Try $90 Million

This is something else, at the New York Times, "Rising Tower Emerges as a Billionaires' Haven'":

One57, a 1,004-foot tower under construction in Midtown Manhattan, will soon hold the title of New York’s tallest building with residences. But without fanfare from its ultraprivate future residents, it is cementing a new title: the global billionaires’ club.

The buyers of the nine full-floor apartments near the top that have sold so far — among them two duplexes under contract for more than $90 million each — are all billionaires, Gary Barnett, the president of the Extell Development Company, the building’s developer, said this week. The other seven apartments ranged in price from $45 million to $50 million.

The billionaires’ club includes several Americans, at least two buyers from China, a Canadian, a Nigerian and a Briton, according to Mr. Barnett and brokers who have sold apartments in the building, at 157 West 57th Street. Mr. Barnett said that at least a few buyers were “significant Forbes billionaires.”

Since late last year, the “trophy” end of New York’s real estate market has been recording eye-popping sales that seem to have little basis in reality. The signed contract for the nearly-11,000-square-foot duplex on the 89th and 90th floors of One57 that sold for about $95 million topped the record sale in March of a penthouse at 15 Central Park West to a Russian billionaire’s daughter for $88 million. In June, Steve Wynn, the Las Vegas casino magnate, paid $70 million for a duplex penthouse apartment above the Ritz-Carlton.

Individual sales aside, it is the sheer concentration of wealth in One57, a $1.5 billion development, that is raising the eyebrows of some longtime market watchers.

More at that top link.

Plus, "Two Billionaire Buyers Revealed at One57."

Iran Says Israel 'Threatening' U.S. With Allegations of Iranian Nuclear Weapons

At the Washington Post:

NEW YORK — Israel is bullying the United States over the alleged threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, using the prospect of an Israeli military attack on Iran to force the hand of its much larger ally, Iran’s president said Monday.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the idea that Israel might attack on its own, over the objections of the United States, and said Israel is an inconsequential interloper with no rightful place in the Middle East.

“I look at it from the outside, and I see that a few occupying Zionists are threatening the government of the United States,” Ahmadinejad said during an interview with American editors and reporters.

“Is it the Zionists who must tell the United States government what to do, such as form a red line on Iran’s nuclear issues, and the United States government must make such vital decisions under the influence of the Zionists?” Ahmadinejad said, using the Iranian regime’s term for Israel. He spoke through an interpreter.

Americans should be insulted if their government takes marching orders from Israel, Ahmadinejad added.

The two-term Iranian leader spoke on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly. The gathering this year is colored by the politics of the U.S. presidential election and by the possibility of an Israeli military strike on Iran.

The Obama administration is chafing under increasingly direct pressure from Israel to declare “red lines” in Iran’s nuclear development that would trigger a U.S. attack. President Obama, who is scheduled to address the United Nations on Tuesday, has said he would not tolerate an Iranian nuclear bomb. He has threatened a military strike if there is no other option to prevent Iran from getting a bomb, but he has not publicly set a deadline for diplomacy to run its course.

Also at Weasel Zippers, "Ahmadinejad: Zionists Control The U.S. Government…"

More at CSM, "Iran's Ahmadinejad says that Israel will be 'eliminated'."