Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
I'm not seeing much exciting political news, other than the latest polling showing the forthcoming Democrat train wreck. Well, there's also the leaked e-mails showing that Sarah Palin's indeedplanninga White House run for 2012 (and this is news?). And this is interesting --- an update on the Zionist media cabal, at NY Post:
Former CNN anchor Rick Sanchez apologized to comedian Jon Stewart for calling him a "bigot" in radio interview last week, Sanchez's wife revealed Monday.
"Rick apologized to jon stewart today," Sanchez's wife, Suzanne, wrote on her Facebook page Monday -- adding that her husband's tough work schedule caused him to "mangle his thought process" and make explosive remarks during the now infamous Thursday radio interview.
"They had a good talk. jon was gracious and called rick, 'thin-skinned,'" she wrote.
"His exhaustion from working 14 hr days for 2 mo. straight, caused him to mangle his thought process inartfully. he got caught up in the banter and deeply apologizes to anyone who was offended by his unintended comments," added the stay-at-home mom -- who has four children with Sanchez.
My daughter is looking through college-recruitment materials, and pretty much all of them go on at great length about "diversity." To judge from the brochures -- not only the text but also the relentless photos of ethnically diverse students in various settings -- it's apparently the single most important thing that any institution of higher learning can offer.
But though the photos contain representatives of almost every group imaginable, I don't see any students in military uniform.
That's because most of the "high-end" schools mailing us bulletins don't offer ROTC -- a failure of diversity that just attracted comment from Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
In a recent speech at Duke University, Gates noted that, since the end of the draft and the growth of the volunteer army, America's military has grown increasingly distinct from those who view themselves as our nation's intellectual leaders.
Gates chose Duke for his speech, presumably, because it's one of the very few top schools to offer multiple ROTC programs. Elsewhere -- at Harvard, for example -- ROTC has been banished for decades.
Although Harvard expelled ROTC over the Vietnam War four decades ago (after antiwar students burned down the ROTC center), it now gives as a reason for not reinstating the program the military's adherence to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- though that program was instituted under President Bill Clinton, who has not been similarly barred from the Harvard campus.
Nor has Harvard Law alumnus Barack Obama, who has maintained the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy -- and who has urged Harvard to end the ROTC ban.
President Obama's other alma mater, Columbia University, booted ROTC from its campus in 1969 and also hasn't reinstated it. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who tortures and imprisons bloggers and other critics, is welcome at Columbia but not a program to train officers for the US military.
Yet the campus ROTC bans aren't just a reminder of the political pettiness that still plagues America's "top tier" universities; they also have serious costs for the nation.
This video was posted at a hate site dedicated to threatening and smearing Pamela Geller. I did not want to link to the hate site, so I am reposting this video here for reference. I believe that it is vitally important to document and bring to public attention the viciousness and hatefulness of Islamic supremacists and their allies in the U.S., and the danger they pose to free citizens. This video illustrates all of that with revolting and chilling vividness.
Check the whole thing. It turns out that Daisy Kahn has allegedly received one death threat, by phone, and the New York media has been all over the story with front-page news. Pamela, on the other hand, is the target of an endless campaign of eliminationist threats, and media coverage? Not so much.
you will burn in hell and suffer a painful torment for making Islam (the religion of God All Mighty) seem as tho it is an evil religion when in fact it is a religion of peace. I pray you see your torment in this life your next life is for certain fire. and it is a painful abode
salaam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh
*****
YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT CUNT FOR REINFORCING THE PERCEPTION OF AMERICA AS A TERRORIST NATION BY YOUR FUCKING LIES ABOUT THE "GROUND ZERO MOSQUE." YOU ARE THE BIGGEST ASSHOLE I HAVE SEEN AT WORK IN A LONG TIME. ARE YOU PROUD OF YOURSELF????? YOUR ACTIONS HAVE PUT OUR TROOPS ABROAD IN MORE DANGER AND OUR CIVILIAN POPULATION AS WELL -- ONCE THEY READ WHAT YOU SAY AND THE SHITSTORM YOU CREATED, THEY WILL ADD MORE FUEL TO THE FIRE IN THEIR WAR AGAINST AMERICA.
YOU ARE A FUCKING CANCER!!!!!!
BITCH!!!!! CUNT!!!!!!!! ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*****
GRAND JEW KILLER (kill-the-jews@hotmail.com) has left you a comment :
kill all the jew asswipes. bomb entire israel. they dont have a place on earth, they should live in hell. all supporters of the jews all u motherfuckers go to hell!!!
Less than a month before the midterm elections, the political landscape remains strongly tilted toward Republicans, although Democrats have made modest improvements with voters since their late-summer low point, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Democrats have cut in half the GOP's early-September advantage on the question of which party's candidates voters say they will support on Nov. 2. They have also made small gains on the question of which party people trust to handle big issues, such as the economy and health care.
Voters give Democrats a significant edge as the party that would do a better job in helping the middle class, which has been a key campaign message from the White House in recent weeks.
President Obama's approval rating has rebounded to where it was in July after hitting an all-time low a month ago. Also, in some state races, Democratic candidates have taken the lead over their Republican opponents or narrowed GOP advantages.
Despite these apparent signs of improvement, the new Post-ABC poll suggests that Democrats remain at a significant disadvantage. Their hopes of holding down losses depend more on the performance of individual candidates than on dramatic changes in the overall climate.
That's Repsac3 (banned at American Power, although he continues to harass this blog in the comments), calling me a racist and a liar. Yeah. That's all they got --- again!
And no, despite Repsac3's protests, not to mention Roy Edroso's, the photoshop is not RAAAAACIST. It's hilarious. And yes, I'm paraphrasing Fox Nation, despite Reppy's claim that there's "nothing at Fox Nation ..." Blah. Blah. For example:
Meanwhile, this excerpt has quickly made its way to one of the GOP's terror dungeons, Fox Nation, which posts it under the headline, "President of the United States Loves Gangsta Rap." It makes for a lively discussion in the comments, with what we'd imagine to be constant scrubbing from moderators. Here's "eagletimberwolf," however.
SINCE HE AIN'T IN THE ALOHA STATE ANYMORE, HE HAD TO TRADE IN THE COOL BREEZE, TASTY WAVES, AND FATTY BLUNTS FOR MENTHOL CIGARETTES, A CRACK PIPE AND GANGSTA RAP TO GET THROUGH THE HEAVY DAYS. HOPE HIS GIRLS DON'T TURN INTO RUMP SHAKIN' BACKUP DANCERS...
And personally, I don't care if these commie freaks wanna holla RAAAAACISM!! and LIAR!! It's paraphrased. Funny too. Now blow chunks down your failcommie stinkhole.
I was about to post David Bowie but found Bauhaus' interesting "Ziggy Stardust" cover. I saw the band in about 1982, shortly after the release of their LP "The Sky's Gone Out." The show was memorable for the band's intense audience-unfriendliness, especially that of singer Peter Murphy. He mocked the L.A. crowd and the band refused to play their biggest hits. They never played "Ziggy Stardust," which I thought was a flat out bummer. Either way, good or bad, I'm glad I saw them. At the time their music made me think, a lot, about philosophy and existence, especially on their earlier album, "In the Flat Field."
Reading this endorsement is one long trail of cobblestone steps to the Democrat-Socialist utopian nightmare:
Boxer supported the healthcare reform enacted into law over hysterical Republican objections about the evils of Obamacare, and helped secure a compromise in a dispute over abortion coverage that threatened to derail the legislation. Fiorina would repeal the reform. Though far from perfect, the new law lays the groundwork for improvements in the quality of care and its availability, while promising at least some cost savings ....
Boxer believes that women have a right to choose abortion. Fiorina describes herself as pro-life and opposes the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision. She says she doesn't support the criminalization of abortion, but at least in some states that would be the likely consequence of repeal. Even if Roe vs. Wade weren't overturned, Congress could continue trying to put obstacles in the way of women seeking to exercise their rights. Boxer can be trusted to resist such legislation.
Boxer believes that same-sex couples should be able to enter into civil marriage and supports repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Fiorina opposes same-sex marriage while supporting civil unions.
More old-fashioned Democrat-Socialism at the link. And the Times' editors claim they like Boxer because she stands for the " values promoted by this editorial page ..." And that's why I rarely read "this editorial page" any more.
For its next governor, California is in dire need of a dynamic and optimistic grownup, one with the personality, perspective and presence to remind voters that theirs is a fabulously wealthy state and not the downward-spiraling mess that national media reports delight in comparing to Greece or Portugal. We need someone with a Reaganesque talent for revealing to ourselves our own exceptionalism and dismissing the self-doubt of the last decade. We need a Pat Brown or Earl Warren-style focus on our future, with investment in education and infrastructure. And we need a leader deft and clever enough to move Californians away from a three-decade pattern of undermining our own government, checking and counterchecking ourselves with selfish initiatives to lock up special program spending, lock out political decision-making and accountability and lock in a perpetual and destructive budget standoff, year after year.
Fate presents the state instead with two candidates who fall well short of our current needs. They come to us from the partisan political version of Central Casting. Republican Meg Whitman, utterly devoid of background or experience in state government or policymaking, rarely deigning to cast a vote, moves toward the Nov. 2 election on the power of millions of dollars of personal wealth. Whitman argues that her role as chief executive of the online auction website EBay somehow makes her the right person to govern the nation's most populous state, yet her slate of policy positions is seemingly more calculated to win the approval of angry voters and profit-seeking business leaders than to address the actual problems facing the state. Then we have Democrat Jerry Brown, the governor of California's baby-boom youth, now seeking the office again more than 30 years after his first run, having advanced on a personal and public journey that made him at times a gadfly outsider, a stolid party leader, a spiritual seeker, a presidential candidate, a nuts-and-bolts mayor of a troubled city and the senior statesman of Sacramento.
We will have to wait for the governor with the talent and courage to shake the state loose from the structural dead-ends into which voters continue to push it. In the meantime, we must choose between Whitman, with her disappointing and empty policy approaches and her assertion that having no experience in government is the best experience, and Brown, whose nonlinear, unscripted style sometimes leaves his listeners wondering what exactly they're going to get. Again, Brown is not the ideal candidate for California, but what he does bring is the reality-based, seen-it-all-before wisdom of a political veteran, and of the two candidates before voters in November, The Times endorses him without hesitation.
More at the link. I'm still not sure if I'll vote in the governor's race. I don't like Meg Whitman, although she's hammered Jerry Brown for months with a string of killer ad buys:
It's unfortunate that this will be Christine O'Donnell'sfirst ad buy. But it could be a smart move. She looks a little too vulnerable, but maybe that will play well with the voters. Doug Mataconis lays it plain out: "Will it work?" There's a good chance it will, but there's not much time. And if leftists keep digging up new oddities about her background, well, at some point it's hard to rebound. And rest assured, the left will keep digging until they can destroy her. Mark Leibovich reports that he confirmed, back in 2006, that O'Donnell's father once worked as Philadelphia's Bozo the Clown. But some crazed Democrat refused to believe it and demanded "proof":
The Bozo bombshell was first reported by The News Journal of Wilmington in November 2006, during one of Ms. O’Donnell’s previous Senate campaigns. The detail was included in a profile of Ms. O’Donnell that I wrote for Saturday’s Times. Ms. O’Donnell’s older brother, Daniel, confirmed in a phone call that indeed his father had played Bozo.
“Bozo the Clown is a franchise, and back then, every major city had their own Bozo,” said Daniel O’Donnell, the brother, who is a business manager at a car dealership in Trenton. “He was Philly’s Bozo for a time.” Daniel O’Donnell, the father, declined to comment for that article.
On Saturday morning, I received e-mail from a reader questioning whether this claim was true based on the absence of any “Daniel O’Donnell” listed on the ultimate authority on all things, Wikipedia. The reader demanded proof about Mr. O’Donnell’s Bozo bona fides and a level of specificity and documentation that I was not prepared to provide. My answer – that I had verified the Bozo fact with the O’Donnell family – was woefully unacceptable to her, a position that she laid out in a way that soon convinced me that devoting more time on the subject was not how I wanted to spend my Saturday.
There are much stranger things in life than for one's father to have worked as a circus-style entertainer. But for the left, the tiniest eccentricity is fuel for the "oddities" campaign they're waging in the absence of any credible public policy record to run on. This is what's become of American politics under the Democrats. It's pretty sad. But at least we know that yes, no matter what happens, Christine O'Donnell is me. She's you. She's a regular American.
If you ask me, and I don't claim any particular expertise on Islam, I'd say that Christiane Amanpour seems to have a crowd full of jihadi-enabling Muslims, and between Daisy Kahn and the Muslim cleric down front, all you're going get is the "we're moderate, were so American, blah, blah ..." No one's really digging down deep, which is that Imam Rauf has praised sharia and alleged that America deserved it on September 11. Frankly, Rauf is not much different than Anjem Choudary, the unapologetic jihadi and Islamist activist (at about 11:00 minutes). He says U.S. bombings of Sudan, etc., are to blame for 9/11, as well as American support for the "pariah state" of Israel. Daisy Kahn offers a half-hearted rebuttal. But that's the standard line among "moderate Muslims: Deny the radical agenda while simultaneously funnelling money to Hamas, global jihad, etc., through terrorist front organizations like Holy Land. And here's this from Choudary's Wikipedia page:
Choudary is a vocal critic of the UK's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has praised the terrorists involved in the attacks of 11 September 2001, and 7 July 2005. He believes in the implementation of Sharia Law throughout the UK, and marched in protest at the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy, following which he was prosecuted for organising an unlawful demonstration. He was also investigated, but not charged, for his 2006 comments regarding Pope Benedict XVI. Choudary has received little support from the mainstream UK Muslim population, and has been largely criticised in the media.
The show's a setup. And as far as "moderate Islam" goes, I don't believe a word from Daisy's mouth. I've been busy over the weekend blogging the socialist rally in D.C., and I missed the Sunday morning screening of This Week. But Pamela's been all over this, here and here, for example. And she's got an interesting piece at Big Journalism as well: "My War Against the Mosquestream Media."
This is guerrilla warfare in the information battlespace, in the war of ideas. These media opportunities were hardly perfect, but they were something. Why make perfect the enemy of the good? They were better than the traditional blackout on our freedom- defense initiatives. It was a shot, and I was taking it and running with it, no matter how disgusting it all was.
From the media’s perspective, the Ground Zero mosque was an historical phenomenon. For the first time, a major news story became the most important national and international news story without the media. Think about that. Unlike the fringe pastor in Florida, who tweeted a Qur’an threat and the media descended like locusts to a Florida backwater to create a news story, a narrative, the Ground Zero mosque was not shaped by the media, not covered by the media — not at first anyway.
It’s hard to know what to make of a serious short film in which a teacher blows up children as young as ten for disagreeing with climate change activism, with their blood and guts splattered over terrified class mates. It’s not a question I ever expected to have, until the “10:10” campaign released just such a video this week.
The video consists of four scenes. In each, a teacher, a company manager, a soccer coach, and a sound producer breezily intone an audience to reduce their carbon emissions. The target is a ten per cent reduction over twelve months beginning in 2010, which is the thrust of the 10:10 global campaign. They close with what turns out to be a menacingly sarcastic caveat “no pressure,” which is also the title of the film. In each scene the majority of the audience enthusiastically pledges to reduce their emissions, but one or two refuse or are indifferent. The scenes end with the authority figure pushing a red button that detonates the dissenters to a puree. Their blood covers the hysterical survivors.
After less than a day, the campaign took the movie off their website and issued an apology. The film is still available elsewhere.
I’d like to think that the film’s makers are fringe players in the global community of climate change activists or that they didn’t really believe it would help their cause, or that they just have a better sense of humour than I do. Let us test some of these possible escape hatches from the charge that this is actually the rotten core of the whole climate change activist movement.
For a fringe campaign, 10:10 has been remarkably successful. Around 100,000 people from 152 countries have signed up. Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged the entire British government to participate. Large companies are associated with 10:10, including Britain’s Royal Mail, the electronics giant Sony, and Facebook. The United Nations backed Climate Neutral Network is one of its many “partner” organisations. The World Wildlife Fund for Nature and Greenpeace are supporters through their proxy the Global Campaign for Climate Action.
So 10:10 is not a fringe organization. They’re widely trusted in the global climate activist community. Whether these adherents will now denounce the campaign for its tasteless exercise in arrogance and sadism remains to be seen. Let’s hope so, but it seems unlikely for the following reason ...
I haven't had time to follow this too closely, but a mighty unit of Canadian bloggers has forced a cancellation of an Islamist mainstreaming event at Canada's Department of National Defence.
Through the mighty Blazing Catfur™ and others, an IslamoFascist brainwashing Muslim cultural event will NOT be happening at the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND)– also thanks to the cojones-enabled Minister of National Defence, Nova Scotian MP Peter MacKay (here’s his e-mail).
The Elmasry-created CIC (Sue Mark Steyn!™, All stinking dog-ape Jews Israelis over 18 are great for target-practice!™) a.k.a. the Canadian Islamic Congress (a big name for a small but influential pro-terror stealth-jihad group) was to hold a special food & dance & hate-imam event by the CIC-created ‘You Will Be Our SlavesIslamic Heritage Month‘ observances at the Department of National Defence headquarters in Ottawa.
Oh NO You Don’t!
Some attentive & quietly heroical member of the forces got the official e-mail regarding said event, and fired it along to several bloggers. That got online, which got to the Minister in charge by various routes, and that, dear readers, got the CIC dumped & the event cancelled ASAP. Victory dance ensues!
I regret to say that the Government of Canada has chosen to reward the Canadian Islamic Congress for its attempt to constrain what freeborn peoples can say. This year the Department of National Defence is celebrating "Islamic Heritage Month" with the very group that tried to criminalize my writing in the Dominion and force Canadian liberties to submit to the strictures of Islam. There is barely any point in complaining about this. You can measure the state of Her Majesty's northern dominion by asking yourself this: Who's more likely to wind up in the Order of Canada - Ezra Levant or Imam Zijad Delic? Come to that, who's more likely to end up as Governor-General?
I am so fucking tired of hearing - from both sides of the spectrum - that something needs to be done about "jobs."
FUCK "JOBS"
Jobs are a byproduct of healthy industry. They are not a goal in and of themselves and they most definitely are not something the government itself should be trying to encourage or create.
Jobs are what happen when someone has too much work to do by himself, so he gets someone to help. If you want to work, GO FUCKING WORK. Start a fucking business. Find something that you can do and do it and sell the product of your labor to others.
What? You don't want work for yourself? You want to work for someone else? Fine, but it's not businessowners' responsibility to employ people and its not the federal governments responsibility to somehow force them to. If you want a fucking job, then AGITATE THE FUCKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO EXPAND BUSINESS AND "JOBS" WILL COME. Make it easier for the people who actually do business and jobs will come as a byproduct. Jesus Christ, and you're also asking for higher taxes on the very people you need to create your precious JOBS? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
WHAT THE FUCK HAS HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY? Why does everyone want to be treated like a child? And the goddam federal government ENCOURAGES this shit.
I am so fucking tired of this straight out of Marx shit that somehow the people are just entitled to share in someone else's fortune and capital in the name of "jobs." GO MAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING JOB.
Businesses aren't in the business of making "jobs," they're in the business of CREATING VALUE FOR THEIR OWNERS. When you say that a business should be making more JOBS, you are saying that the capital of those business owners should not actually belong to them and belongs to the "workers". Thanks a fucking lot, Stalin.
"Fund Jobs Not Wars"
Has it every occurred to these people that only one of those is actually the responsibility of the federal government to fund, and its not "JOBS".
After the 10-2-10 Rally this weekend I decided it was necessary to point out how much of a Liar and Propagandist Ed Schultz is. He is not interested in helping people on the left prosper, he is merely a mouthpiece for the extreme left with absolutely no factual ground for anything that comes out of his face.
Here is a quick clip of his opening speech from the One Nation Rally on the Mall.
“We as one nation, must stand together, must fight the forces of evil – the conservatives in this country”.
This one was caught on tape. Who knows how many additional altercations weren't recorded? These people are thugs. From Jason Mattera:
A liberal protester at the “One Nation Working Together” march physically assaulted a HUMAN EVENTS reporter who was videotaping Rep. Charlie Rangel (D.-N.Y) at the event at the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
The reporter, Emily Miller, was first hit from behind while she was taping Rangel as the Harlem congressman glad-handed supporters in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Miss Miller is heard on the video saying, “Please don’t hit me.” The protester proceeds to yell at the reporter, “Well get out of the way! What do you think this is? A--hole.” The activist was attempting to meet Rangel herself. Miss Miller continued videotaping the event, when suddenly the same unhinged protester lunged at her, hit her on the arm, and yelled, “Don’t take my picture.”
It's nothing new, of course, but the media's campaign to downplay the left's communist-dominated "One Nation" protest yesterday needs to be highlighted nevertheless.
The first thing to notice is this photograph on crowd size comparisons from "Restoring Honor" and "One Nation" (via Old Retired Petty Officer).
Crowd estimates have an "outsized" importance when the press and leftist blogs seek to minimize and ridicule the tea parties. But as soon as Democrat-Socialists march on D.C., wild claimsof "double" the size of the Glenn Beck rally get wide play. Tom Maguire reports on the widely divergent crowd-size estimates, as well as systematic efforts to withhold on-the-ground reports (MSNBC edited out AP's first-hand report indicating that "Saturday's crowds were less dense and didn't reach as far to the edges as they did during Beck's rally"). And while some lefty blogs continue to pump up bogus "larger" crowd numbers, some have scaled back their claims as the facts have become available. The Political Carnival, which posted two entries yesterday boasting bigger numbers for "One Nation," has now issued a hilarious retraction, asking "Does Size Matter?" Well obviously it did yesterday, but now we have this: "While it is a visual indicator of enthusiasm and support, the size of a crowd isn’t as important as the content, message, and tone of the event."
Even more disturbing are the reports from the major newspapers. Under the guise of "objectivity," the main outlets have played up the "challenge to the tea parties" and the enthusiasm of "liberal" constituencies of the Democrat Party. At the New York Times, for example, the headline reads: "Liberal Groups Rally, Challenging Tea Party." The notion that today's Democrat Party is a "liberal" party is one of the biggest lies the press perpetuates in contemporary political reporting. As so many bloggers have reported, yesterday's event marked a major collaborative effort by the left's neo-communist institutions and the mainstream elements of Democrat organizations. For example, check Marooned in Marin's first-hand report, "'One Nation' (Of Commies, Unions, & Other Leftist Extremists)...Trashing The Mall." And see especially, Looking at the Left, "Democrats, Union Workers, and Communists Rally Together in Washington":
The lines between the Democratic Party, labor unions, socialist and communist organizations, were blurred at the One Nation Working Together rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday. It was organized by One Nation Working Together, which is headed by the cream of the Democratic Party.
National Campaign Manager of One Nation Working Together, Leah Daughtry, was CEO and top organizer of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver Colorado where Barack Obama was nominated to be the parties candidate for president. Many of the top organizers have been Democratic candidates for office, or work for Obama for America.
The page on the National Education Association’s website inviting its members to travel to the rally quotes its president: “NEA is proud to be standing with our brothers and sisters in the labor and social justice movement …”
And some pictures of communist groups from the post:
Across the web, since yesterday morning, bloggers have been posting untold numbers of images of every kind of "progressive" activist group under the sun. The event was a union-astroturfedneo-communist protest-a-palooza.
But readers opening the old dead-tree newspapers this morning weren't getting the full picture. A particularly egregious example is from my own Los Angeles Times, which is still delivered to my driveway each morning (for nostalgia purposes nowadays, more than anything else). Looking at the front page of the paper readers will notice the picture at bottom of flag-waving protesters, with a caption that reads: "IN WASHINGTON: Participants in the 'One Nation' march gather at the Lincoln Memorial." The apple pie imagery continues at Page A10, where we see the second photograph below with the two women holding Barack Obama signs. The caption reads: "ON A MISSION: Thousands, including labor and civil rights activists, gathered for the 'One Nation Working Together' rally." The Times' article is here. Reading the report there is no mention of the deep bench of neo-communist organizations that organized and attended the rally. The discussion is on the event's goal of energizing "liberal" voters for the November elections. Toward the end we hear from some of the "progressives" who were appalled at the tea parties and the people "riding the anti-Obama train." Even more interesting to me is that not only does the Los Angeles Times completely whitewash any signs of the event's neo-communist penetration, but when it comes to discussing the upcoming congressional races, the "extremists" in the tea party movement get front-page treatment. Notice at the picture below, on the left of the newspaper, where we see the article, "Making An Issue of GOP Words." The heading at the Times' website puts it more bluntly: "Democrats Use Oddball Remarks Against GOP Rivals." And here's this from the report:
An odd assortment of issues, including witchcraft and the president's religion, have proved distracting as candidates head into the heated final stretch of the general election campaign.
But it's not merely a case of media nitpicking or YouTube moments. In some cases, the side issues have begun to affect races.
The situation is in large part a result of a Democratic strategy aimed at changing the conversation from voters' frustration with Democratic leaders in Washington to a portrayal of tea party Republicans as extremist. The tactic was one of the few available to Democrats saddled with a national political climate decidedly turned against them and a stubbornly slow economic recovery.
The remainder of the article cherry-picks obscure statements by candidates, some over a decade old, in a clear effort to bolster the desperate last-gasp campaign ploy of Democrat hopefuls. It's all pretty pathetic. But as I've reported at this blog many times, Americans are denied genuine news from today's MFM establishment. The savior of the republic is found in the legions of citizen-journalists who work hard to get the facts out there.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Thank you for shopping through my links.
