Leftists Sour on Obama

Well, not all leftists have soured on him. Some idiot progs will take their dying breath defending this epic fail of a presidency.

But O's hardcore support has definitely been eroding, especially among young people and moderate- to middle-class income Americans.

At the Hill, "Liberal base sours on Obama."

Obama Faces Islamofascist Reality

The alternative information stream from Iran is truly mind-boggling. The Boston Globe is trying to catch up to the bloggers and twitterers with its photo roundup, "Iran's Disputed Election", via Memeorandum:

But Twitter is just amazing, for example, "IranRiggedElect."

But events have moved past the media's epic fail the President Obama's.

Ben Smith's got a piece up at The Politico, "Unrest in Iran Forces President Obama's Hand" (also at Memeorandum).

But International Business Daily nails it, "Helping Mahmoud":

In his inaugural address, President Obama had a message for the oppressed and oppressor alike. He said, "To all other peoples and governments who are watching today . . . know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more."

He added: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

The clenched fist of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in his suspect return to power, has not only delivered a blow to freedom-seeking Iranians; it is also knocking the Obama administration for a loop — primarily because the president has chosen not to stand with Iranians who seek "a future of peace and dignity."

The administration was obviously rooting for Ahmadinejad to be beaten by his chief rival, former Iranian prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi. The president on Friday, the day of the election, spoke of "a robust debate taking place in Iran" bringing with it "new possibilities" and "the possibility of change."

How naive those words sound in retrospect. Presidential wishful thinking has crashed head-on into Islamofascist reality.

There's more at the link. And check Memorandum for more analysis.

McCain Has No Need to Apologize

An emerging meme taking hold on the left is that the netroots has been had.

The strong version is that the McCain camp has "taken over" the liberal presence online, and that McCain's "manipulated" the press. An extension of this "we won't be fooled" discourse is that McCain's tactics are all lies, "Rovian" in nature. There's even a self-incriminating whininess to it, for example, in Kyle Moore's response to having the wool pulled over his eyes:

If the concept of the liberal blogosphere is to push back against the Mainstream Media, and much like conservative talk radio, force narratives into the main; we as a whole have embarked upon perhaps the biggest epic fail of the election season.

Instead, we have been little more than spectators with soapboxes, and from these soapboxes we have done little to elect the right candidate to the Oval Office. Compare this to the conservative side of the blogosphere which engaged in a non stop full frontal assault from day one. They didn’t even like McCain (and to a degree still don’t), and that didn’t stop them from doing their part; if they didn’t have anything nice to say about McCain, at least they could heap big old buckets of mud onto Obama.

By contrast, we rise and fall with whatever narrative we are being asked to eat, and we do this with unGodly high standards. For instance, I thought the Democratic Convention was executed to near perfection, but it took much of the blogosphere until Wednesday, and some even Thursday to catch up. Likewise, the past two weeks that have been largely beneficial for McCain seems to have sucked the life out of the netroots.

See, it's McCain who's "sucking the life out of the netroots," of course, like a "Rovian" vampire.

Chris Bowers, taking a timeout from the Rovian blame game, expresses his frustration and ignorance at McCain/Palin's success:

I feel very frustrated right now because I have a difficult time pinning down the cause of McCain's continued polling increase. Obama peaked toward the end of June, and apart from the Democratic convention, has been on a slow, downward trend ever since. I want to know why this is the case, because I want to understand how this trend can be reversed. It is only from that point that I believe I can develop better ideas on what I can do personally to help positively influence the result.

Bowers proposes that McCain's attacks are more effective (is Obama even attacking?), the impact of Sarah Palin, or even racism as explanations for Obama's collapsing polling lead. He then adds:

The truth is, it is probably a combination of several factors. The frustrating aspect is that we don't know which ones are the more important factors, and we don't know what message or strategy will turn the campaign around. This is highly aggravating, and tensions over this are boiling over online.

Talk Left even has an essay titled, "How the Media and the Left Blogs are Allowing McCain to Escape the Bush's Third Term Label."

I'm betting psychologists would call all of this psychological displacement: "One way to avoid the risk associated with feeling unpleasant emotions is to displace them, or put them somewhere other than where they belong."

The real problem, frankly, is the left itself.

Noemie Emery, in response to Joe Klein's demand for an apology from John McCain, explains the hypocrisy in all the McCain attacks, and why the Arizona Senator has no reason to apologize:

First is the fact that given the built-in media bias, complaints by the press about "mean" campaigning are a reliable sign to Republicans that their tactics are working. Democratic slurs of conservatives as liars, bigots, and warmongers, cruelly indifferent to the needs of the poor, are described as "spirited," "red-blooded," and proof that the speakers are tough enough to be leading the country. Republican attacks on liberals as arrogant, out-of-it, and too weak to be leading the country are--well, you know, mean. Not to mention that most of these "savage" attacks consist of drawing attention to things said and done by the Democrats that the media would rather ignore: Michael Dukakis defending an insane furlough program for prisoners, John Kerry testifying to Congress that his own former shipmates were criminals, Dukakis looking goofy in a tank, that he climbed into of his own free volition, Kerry saying of himself that he had voted for Iraq war funding before voting against it, Obama condescending to Pennsylvania voters who supposedly cling to guns and God out of bitterness, Kerry windsurfing in shorts . . .. Embarrassing a Democrat with his own words and actions is just--sleazy. How low can you go?

Second is the fact that the press loved "the old McCain" of 2000 for only two reasons: He ran against George W. Bush, and he lost. The best Republican of all is one who nobly loses, which is what McCain looked like doing until he picked Sarah Palin, at which point most of the media exploded in fury. How dare he pick someone who might help him win? How dare he excite the public, when he was supposed to be boring? How dare he raise up a rival to The One? Face it: The reason they loved McCain in 2000 was that his zingers were aimed at Republicans and social conservatives who were not then his constituents. But had he made it into the general, and been aiming his fire at Al Gore and at the pro-choice extremists, the press's ardor for him would have died eight years earlier, and they would have denounced him as . . . mean. McCain hasn't changed: He was always a maverick, but a center-right maverick, a Republican maverick, an American exceptionalist, a security hawk, and a social traditionalist. Against George W. Bush and others, his digressions from dogma stood out more in contrast, but against a Democrat such as Barack Obama, he stands out as the center-right hawk that he is. The press wanted him to fight against other Republicans and to lose, or, barring that, to lose to a Democrat. He isn't complying. That's their problem, not his.

Third, McCain owes the press nothing, as its treatment of him has verged on sadistic or worse. In late July in the first flush of Obama's Grand Tour of the Near East and Europe, (when it still looked like a master stroke, instead of a misstep), McCain's old admirers in the media depicted him as a loser, so old, so befuddled, so hapless and helpless, compared to the luck, poise, and grace of The Star. "You could see McCain's frustration building as Barack Obama traipsed elegantly through the Middle East while the pillars of McCain's bellicose regional policy crumbled in his wake," Klein wrote on July 23. McCain "has appeared brittle and inflexible, slow to adapt to changes . . . slow to grasp the full implications not only of the improving situation in Iraq but also of the worsening situation in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan. . . . McCain seems panicked, and in deep trouble now."

Howard Fineman in Newsweek sounded an even more ominous note. "You can't make up how bad things are going for McCain," he intoned on July 22. "As Barack Obama embarks on his global coronation tour, it's hard to imagine things looking bleaker for his Republican rival...

There's more at the link, here.

You can't make up how bad things are going for Obama and netroots, but McCain's has no need to apologize.

Bomb Suspect Was Put on Two Watch Lists

At the Wall Street Journal, "CIA, FBI Flagged Him for Concern, Raising New Questions About Missed Opportunities to Prevent Fatal Boston Attack":

U.S. authorities put alleged Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev on two separate watch lists in 2011 after Russian security agencies twice reached out to their American counterparts, raising new questions about missed opportunities to prevent the attack.

Russian officials contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in March 2011, then reached out to the Central Intelligence Agency in September of that year, citing concerns Mr. Tsarnaev might have been associating with extremists, according to U.S. officials.

The FBI has said it interviewed Mr. Tsarnaev and conducted a threat assessment, but found nothing "derogatory" that could prompt further investigation. A U.S. law-enforcement official said the case was closed after three months, after which the FBI asked Russian counterparts for additional information, but received none.

U.S. officials said Wednesday that at the request of the CIA, Mr. Tsarnaev was added to a broad database called Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, which holds hundreds of thousands of names flagged by multiple U.S. security agencies.

RTWT.

Also at the Boston Globe, "Russia alerted US repeatedly about suspect, senators say: Brothers may have planned to go to NYC next."

Plus, from Pamela Geller, "OBAMA'S EPIC FAIL: CIA WANTED BOSTON JIHADI BOMBER PLACED ON TERROR WATCHLIST."

TMZ Issues Retraction on Purported Kennedy-Nude Women Exclusive

At least they've got the honesty to admit when they're wrong. See, "Kennedy Picture -- A Fake" (via Memeorandum):

TMZ reports reports on Playboy's confirmation that the alleged John F. Kennedy-nude women photo was published in Playboy Magazine in 1967. (Check the Smoking Gun's post for more on the background, "TMZ Falls For JFK Photo Hoax.")

Now, while TMZ is perhaps the leading gossip webzine in operation today, its retraction is an excellent example of journalistic standards bloggers ought to respect.

Recall my report the other day on Spencer Ackerman's recent dismissal of al Qaeda's attempted Northwest attack as a "desperate bid for relevance." Doug Ross picked up on my reporting with his entry, "Oops. Leftist apologists for terror screw up again (Chapter 4,860)." But checking "Attackerman's" page we find no retraction of his claims, and in fact he's moved on to make preposterous allegations suggesting that Joseph Lieberman's calling for an invasion of Yemen. (William Jacobson deftly shot down that stupid meme: "Obama Already Has Started Joe Lieberman's Yemen War.")

Frankly, following TMZ's example, Ackerman should issue his own apology and retraction. I'm not holding my breath. Both Charles Cooper at CBS and Darren Lenard Hutchinson still owe me an apology for their epic-fail posts from November (the latter attacking me as "Rightwing Fecal Matter").

I'm also waiting for E.D. Kain to publicly apologize for his campaign of intimidation and threats to my livelihood after he contacted my administration to get American Power to STFU. He's flatly said he had no responsibility to air his quarrels at the his blog, although he'd done exactly that previously -- in debate with Dan Riehl -- when the stakes weren't as potentially devastating to his already sullied reputation.

I've taken down two post recently. Luckily, readers and fellow bloggers caught my mistakes before they were widely distributed around the web. Had they caught the attention of the targets, I would have published an apology. It's simply a matter of principle. Some folks have it, even those at TMZ, and some don't.

RELATED: William Jacobson on TMZ's retraction, "TMZ Experts Say Obamacare Will Reduce the Deficit and Expand Care."

UPDATE: TMZ has changed the headline of their story to read, "Man in Photo is Not JFK." Interesting that I took a screencap!

Unmasking the "Anonymous" Protest Group

UPDATE, 4:00pm, 9/18/08: Please see the my updated post on the Palin e-mail hacking case, "Epic Fail? Hackers Sought Damaging Evidence on Palin."

**********

The organization originally alleged as hacking into Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account, known as "Anonymous," has been identified as a "left wing group" by Caleb Howe (the group was videotaped staging some unusual protests at this year's Republican National Convention).

There's some question, however, as to the ideological identification of "Anonymous" as a leftist protest organization.

As one commenter at my previous post indicated:

I think calling Anonymous a group of "liberals" is a stretch. More like bored 14 year olds.

Further, according to information provided by Michelle Malkin:

Anonymous is not exactly a group. It is people using the umbrella of a web discussion board for cover to be as offensive, funny, strange, or whatever as they want.

The Anonymous hackers are associated with the /b/ message board groups of 4chan.org, an image-posting site modeled after a similar webpage in Japan. The New York Times recently published a feature story on Anonymous-style hackers, with this description:

Measured in terms of depravity, insularity and traffic-driven turnover, the culture of /b/ has little precedent. /b/ reads like the inside of a high-school bathroom stall, or an obscene telephone party line, or a blog with no posts and all comments filled with slang that you are too old to understand.

But the original agenda of Anonymous hackers in the Palin case has been to protest the tax-exempt status of the Church of Scientology, and they've recently gone public with a series wider protests against organized religion:

Hackers who launched a massive online attack against the Church of Scientology are now turning to real-world protests to draw attention to what they call a "vast moneymaking scheme under the guise of 'religion."'

The loosely organized group of hackers, who meet up and coordinate attacks through Internet Relay Chat channels, have set Feb. 10 for a wave of protests at Scientology locations worldwide.

In anonymous postings on the group's Web site, organizers said they are trying to raise awareness about the threats to free speech posed by the church's lawyers, who, the group claims, aggressively try to silence critics by threatening lawsuits. The church said its lawyers follow standard procedures for protecting copyrighted materials.

As noted, in February, the group staged protests in Boston:

A group of more than 50 masked protesters gathered yesterday outside of the Church of Scientology of Boston headquarters on Beacon Street to demonstrate against the policies of the church. Protesters said the event was part of a worldwide demonstration against the church by Anonymous, an informal Internet-based group.

Donning Guy Fawkes masks modeled after those worn in the 2005 film "V for Vendetta," or face coverings improvised with T-shirts or scarves, participants began to assemble in front of the building at the corner of Beacon and Hereford streets around 11 a.m.

The story of Fawkes, an Englishman sentenced to death for attempting to blow up the House of Lords with kegs of gunpowder in 1605, was revived in the fictional "V for Vendetta," in which a crowd of people wear identical masks to challenge the government.

The Guy Fawkes paraphernalia is important in identifying the ideological orientation of Anonymous.

As fans of the movie know, "V" is a revolutionary anarchist who dresses with a Guy Fawkes mask. The film is explicitly anti-fascist and anti-totalitarian, featuring allusions to the "warmongering" policies of the United States government (read the Bush administration).

Anarchism itself is a radical ideology favoring the total elimination of the state and the eradication of private property (a tenet anarchists share with communists). The wearing of Guy Fawkes masks by Anonymous protesters signifies a complete identification of the state as the ultimate threat to human freedom, which is combined with a revolutionary agenda toward the destruction of state institutions and the establishment of a utopian society of universal liberty and human equality.

Further, Anonymous, in its anti-Scientology program - expanded this year to include all church organizations accused of forming a "vast moneymaking scheme" - can be identified ideologically as representing radical left-wing anti-clericalism.

Anti-clericalism is an extreme left revolutionary ideology that seeks to overthrow the iron alliance of church and state in all aspects of the political and public in state-society relations. Revolutionary anti-clericalism emerged particulary during the European Enlightenment of the 16th century, and it saw the full actualization of its violent ideological program against the Catholic Church during the Jacobin stage of the French Revolution of 1792.

According to the latest Malkin report, a lone hacker is claimed to have breached Sarah Palin's personal e-mail accounts. However, at present, the identification of the attacker is unsubstantiated. As Wizbang notes:

Everyday I am learning that there doesn't seem to be a rock bottom for the scum who support Obama. Today we learned that a left wing nut hacked into Sarah Palin's private - PRIVATE - email account and splashed the contents all over the internet. Gawker is a website without any scruples and is promoting Palin's private information even though it was illegally obtained.

Even even if it turns out that the Anonymous hacker (who ILLEGALLY breached Governor Palin's proviate e-mail files) is a solo, non-ideological operator, the response on the establishment political left and the netroots blogosphere has been absolutely disgusting, and is in essence a total endorsement of the violation of the Palin family's dignity and privacy.

See, for example, Lindsay Beyerstein, at the nihilist Firedoglake:

The contents of the inbox confirm that Palin was using her private account for government business. We already knew that Palin's advisers urged her to use private accounts, a la RNC email accounts, in order to circumvent FOIA requests and skirt subpoenas.

Beyerstein apparently has no problem with the hacker's reprehensible actions, which are subject to five years in federal penetentiary upon trial and conviction.

But, of course, that's typical of those on the political left. As Victor Davis Hanson noted yesterday, the current attacks on Sarah Palin and the GOP ticket have "no parallel in modern election history."

The hacking of Sarah Palin's personal e-mail files is so far the most diabolical attack on the GOP vice-presidential nominee to date. Even if we find that a lone, totally unhinged Internet "lulz" geek got lucky in breaching Governor Palin's personal data, the failure of the left-wing political establishment to completely and unequivocally repudiate this most vile "dirty trick" of campaign 2008 reveals the total, unremitting project of ideological demonization among political actors of the contemporary left-wing Democratic establishment.

In sum, there's nothing, absolutely nothing, that's beneath the radical left-Democrat Party alliance in its sickening, immorally grotesque grab for power this year.

Majority Says Iraq War a Success, Poll Finds

Daily Kos is pumping up the results from the new Wall Street Journal poll, which finds Americans optimistic about the direction of the country, and confident in President Barack Obama's leadership abilities.

But one of the most interesting findings is that a majority says the U.S. was successful in Iraq:

There was widespread approval of Mr. Obama's plans for Iraq, with 80% approving of his move to pull out most U.S. troops within 19 months. Two in three Americans said the U.S. has accomplished as much as can be expected in Iraq, compared with 27% who said more can be done.

And the public is mostly satisfied with the results, with 53% saying the war has been successful, up from 43% in July 2008. Sixteen percent say it is very likely there will be an all-out civil war in Iraq when U.S. troops leave, compared with 40% who thought that in June 2007.

Read the rest of the poll findings here. Most of this is good news from the Democrats, certainly.

But the results on Iraq have to constitute one of the greatest partisan travesties in the history of American foreign policy. I mean think about it: Here we have Daily Kos now boasting about the success of the war on its front page, yet just months before the Bush administration committed to a new counterinsurgency plan in Iraq, Daily Kos was adamantly announcing that the United States had alreadly lost the war, "It's Not Defeat, Dammit!":

STOP TALKING ABOUT "DEFEAT" IN IRAQ. Hear it from your own thereisnospoon. Say it with me slowly, loud and clear.

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Defeat. In. Iraq.

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Victory. In. Iraq.

Get over it. Stop using those words because they are MEANINGLESS.

While I appreciate insightful diaires like L C Johnson's, talking about our "defeat" in Iraq is not only misguided and incoherent, it plays into Republican frames about how "we want America to lose", and how we're "defeatists in the face of the enemy." Which is bullshit - because I, like every other patriotic Democratic American, want America to come out a winner every time.

And it's not just diarists here. The James Baker Commission just came out and Ruled Out Victory in Iraq. Whatever that means.

The reason that terms like "victory" and "defeat" in Iraq are meaningless is because you can't "win" an OCCUPATION. Wars you can win or lose; occupations can only end in withdrawal or annexation.

We can no more "win" or "lose" in Iraq that the British could have "won" or "lost" in India, or the French could have "won" or "lost" in Algeria.

That really has to be the biggest "epic fail" post I've ever read.

And to think, just yesterday Daily Kos was still dissing the deployment, promoting an even more rapid acceleration than the 18-month withdrawal plan President Obama announced this week. The Democratic-left has for the past six years agitated, demonstrated, lobbied, and voted for an American defeat in Iraq. Now websites like Daily Kos - and no doubt the rest of the hard-left cadres of the "party of defeat" - are pumping up such triumphant poll findings as if these are some confirmation of leftist wisdom on the war. This is truly a disgrace.

What can you do, I guess? The most signal achievement of the Bush administration - preventing another Vietnam - has resulted in a strange historical twist of not only helping to elect a Democratic administration in the first place, but in propping up the new aministration in foreign policy as well.

Of course, just in case anything goes wrong - like a new round of terrorist attacks at home - leftists are already preparing talking points to blame Republicans for "intelligence" failures.

In any case, stay tuned ...

And here's a big thanks, irrespective of politics, to America's service personnel in all of wars abroad.)

Obama Sues to Strike Down Arizona's SB 1070

William Jacobson's posted a copy of the complaint. The administration claims Arizona's law preempts federal authority and violates the "Supremacy Clause" of Article VI of the Constitution.

And here's this, from ABC News, "Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Challenging Arizona Immigration Law: Suit Says Arizona Law Treads on Federal Authority":

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit today challenging Arizona's new immigration law, which takes effect July 29.

The suit challenges the law on the grounds that immigration is under the purview of the federal government and that Arizona has overstepped its bounds. Justice also claims that the law is too broad and could result in racial profiling and discrimination.

The lawsuit names Arizona and state Gov. Janice Brewer as the defendants.

While the legal challenge had been expected, signaled by Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama in statements soon after the statute was enacted, the lawsuit is sure to set off a firestorm of debate pitting the federal government against Arizona.

Michelle's got some links as well.

I doubt the feds can win on the racial profiling charge, although I suspect there's a pretty good case under doctrines of national supremacy (I'll look into the case law precedents). I'm interested to see what Gov. Brewer's attorney's have prepared to defend the law in court. The State of Arizona should prevail, I'd think, since it's clear by the nature of the legislation that all the authorized actions under SB 1070 are the same as those under federal law. I also can't see how challenging the law helps the Dems in November (huge majorities approve the bill), so obviously Obama's looking to beef up the Hispanic vote for 2012. He's certainly going to need it, considering how epic fail his administration's been so far.

And by the way, I'll check, but I'll bet there's going to be some big pro-SB 1070 rallies in AZ soon, and I'd like to head back out there for some additional coverage. I'll

James Carville Stars in New RNC Ad Hammering Obama's Oil Spill Response

At Weasel Zippers, "New RNC Ad Uses James Carville Against Obama, Asking “What Took You So Long?” – Video":

Also, at OTB, "Obama Oil Spill Speech Reax: Epic Fail" (via Memeorandum). And RWN, "The Right Side of the Blogosphere’s Reaction to Obama’s Speech."

The Press No Longer Loves Obama? Well, No ... Still the 'Lightworker', Actually

It'd be tempting to take Howard Fineman seriously, given the president's epic fail. See, "Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: The press finally falls out of love with Obama." (Via Memeorandum.) The only problem? It's a false meme, perhaps designed to take pressure of the press itself for the years-long free-ride Obama's enjoyed.

Indeed, if the New York Times in fact remains the country's "unofficial newspaper of record," I'd say the reports of the death of the media's love affair with Obama are premature:

You might say that NYT's still into the whole "lightworker" deal.

I noticed the "enlightened" image this morning, but Pamela didn't delay busting the Times' Obama-worshipers. See, "Oganda."

Democrat Targeting of Tea Party Groups is Part of the Left's Long-Time Assault on the First Amendment

From Bradley Smith, at the Wall Street Journal, "The IRS Attack on Political Speech":

The Internal Revenue Service's scandalous targeting of tea party and conservative groups refuses to die, as one by one the administration's explanations prove untrue.

We were told that the White House, like the rest of the country, learned about the program on May 10 through a planted question asked of then IRS official Lois Lerner at an American Bar Association conference. Turns out the White House knew earlier. We were told the targeting was the work of a few rogue IRS employees in Cincinnati. Then those employees insisted that they were being managed from Washington.

We were told that no political appointees were involved, but now we know the scandal goes at least to the office of Obama appointee and IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins. We were told that liberal groups were targeted, too. But then the IRS's inspector general, whose report exposed the harassment, clarified that only conservative groups were targeted.

Now the administration line is that the scandal is nonetheless "phony." That assertion is part of a Democratic counteroffensive contending that the tea party and conservative groups applying for "charitable" tax status never should have sought such IRS approval.

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D., Calif.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, argued on "Meet the Press" on May 19 that conservative groups were, "under the guise of a charity, [using] undisclosed millions of dollars to do political campaigns." At a May hearing, Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.) claimed that the groups were supposed to spend their money on "charitable activities," and demanded of the IRS, "How could you all in the IRS allow the tax breaks funded basically by the taxpayer [to be spent] on these political campaign expenditures?"

Liberal columnist Jeffrey Toobin has also taken up the theme that the groups were seeking improper tax advantages. Writing in the May 14 issue of the New Yorker, Mr. Toobin argued that if approved by the IRS, the tea party groups would not pay taxes on contributions received. "In return for the tax advantage," he wrote, these groups "must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates."

This attack is wrong on the law, and cynical as politics. As these IRS apologists well know, liberal groups, such as Moveon.org, have long had the same tax status as that requested by the tea party and conservative groups—and that status is not of a "charity."

Charities fall under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, and they include the Red Cross, Boy Scouts, churches, private colleges and even overtly agenda-oriented organizations such as the NAACP and the Sierra Club Foundation. Contributions are tax deductible to the donor, and for that reason the organizations are prohibited from engaging in political activities.

Yet conservative groups targeted by the IRS did not seek tax status as charities. They were applying for designation as nonprofits operating under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, for "the promotion of social welfare." Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are not tax deductible, so there is no "tax break" for their donors. Nor do the groups themselves get a "tax advantage." Mr. Toobin argues that these groups should be reclassified under Section 527 of the tax code. More on that below, but 527 organizations also pay nothing in taxes. So there is no "tax advantage" to operating as a 501(c)(4).

So why was the IRS involved at all, and why does it matter? The answer is that the IRS scandal is part of a long-term assault on First Amendment rights. Thanks to "campaign finance reform," citizen groups must navigate a maze of government paperwork and apply to the IRS for a tax license to speak on politics. People literally need a lawyer to figure it out, and not just any lawyer, but one from the highly compensated and mostly Washington, D.C.-based bar practicing "political law."

Continue reading.

Smith's a former chairman of the FEC. He knows whereof he speaks. Frankly, this is the most lucid discussion of the "Section 500" tax categories I've read. Especially good is how he calls bull on all the fat-ass leftists defending the administration's authoritarianism. But this stuff has to come out in a political campaign to really pick up traction. The facts of Barack Obama's authoritarianism and corruption should be the centerpiece of a renewed conservative drive for Congress and the presidency. The scandals along with ObamaCare should be a perfect storm of disaster for Democrats seeking election. But the disgusting JournoList media bolsters the epic fail party in power, so it's a hard road ahead, either way.

So, I continue to stand in dissent and rebellion against the leftists destroying our once great country. But I'm still optimistic that the forces of good and decency can pull us back from the brink, and drive the Democrat-Socialists into long-term oblivion. God willing.

Reliable Sources Debates Erin Andrews: Geraldo Rivera Airs Nude Clip Again; Long National Nightmare Winds Down Amid Lingering Moral Hypocrisy

London's Daily Telegraph has a late report out today, "US Sports Reporter to Sue Over Naked Internet Video." But with Sunday's Reliable Sources on the Erin Andrews controversy, we're finally seeing our long national nightmare fade from the media cycle.

Here's the transcript.

Even Christine Brennan is in damage control after her unambiguous statement blaming the victim for the peephole privacy invasion:

KURTZ: So, are the media exploiting this sick act even as they supposedly decry it?

Joining our panel now, Christine Brennan, sports columnist for "USA Today" and a contributor to ABC Sports.

Christine, should "The New York Post" and "Fox & Friends" and others reporting on this outrage have used those screen shots of a very nude Erin Andrews?

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, "USA TODAY": Absolutely not. It is despicable behavior. It's what I said on the first radio interview I did, that what happened to Erin was just gross and despicable.

And, you know, it seems to me that what they're doing -- and I got dragged into it by being quoted completely out of context -- what they are trying to do then is create a story line so that then they can show it again. And, of course, what they'll do in the case of Fox is say, oh, this is terrible, this is awful, get that off the air, as they've shown it again and again.

And think about poor Erin Andrews and what she's going through. And that, to me, is just shoddy journalism.

ASHBURN: It's prurient; right? And we're not as journalists in the porn business. And, well, even if we were, we couldn't find the video right away. It was pulled ....

KURTZ: All right.

Christine, you mentioned an interview that you did this week that drew some controversy. This was with a Raleigh, North Carolina, radio station. It was replayed on "Good Morning America."Let me roll some of that and we'll talk about it on the other side.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) BRENNAN: If you trade off your sex appeal, you trade off your looks, eventually you're going to lose those. She doesn't deserve what happened to her, but part of the shtick, seems to me, is being a little bit out there in a way that, then, are your encouraging a complete nutcase to drill a hole in your room? (END AUDIO CLIP)

KURTZ: Some people jumped on that, as you know, and said it was some version of, well, she kind asked for it.

BRENNAN: Right. There's a sound bite there that's missing, Howie. I said, "And I want to have a long career." I was talking about myself. That was taken out of those clips.

KURTZ: Yourself as a female sportswriter...

BRENNAN: Absolutely.

KURTZ: ... and you're covering a male-dominated sports world?

BRENNAN: Exactly. I mean, so, that first part of that, I was talking about myself. And that was literally taken out of the clip. Also, if I may say, that in the course of that interview, nine minutes and 20 seconds with that North Carolina station, the first words out of my mouth were that this was gross and despicable. And eight times in that nine and a half minutes I said she didn't deserve this, it's wrong, it's terrible.

KURTZ: But what about the part about creating a climate that encourages the nut cases of the world? Creating a climate by flaunting sex appeal?

BRENNAN: I was again talking about myself. The question was about the larger issues of women...

Actually, she wasn't talking about herself, and she was called out for her sexism, rightly so. It turns out this isn't the first time for Brennan either. See, "Remember, Christine Brennan Hates Good Looking Female Journalists." (And see Howard Kurtz at this morning's Washington Post, "Howard Kurtz Discusses the Media and Press Coverage of the News.") Added: Deadspin, "Christine Brennan Continues Her Erin Andrews Smarm Offensive."

Plus, it turns out that Geraldo Rivera also featured a debate-panel on the controversy on Saturday, "Erin Andrews Peephole Video, Photos Shown Again."

As any student of the media knows, Geraldo Rivera's name is synonymous with sensationalist-smut journalism. Like Bill O'Reilly, Rivera aired lengthy clips of the Andrews nude peep video. It comes as no suprise. Rivera's list of controversial broadcast-outrages is virtually unmatched. And he remains a national media personality with a powerful reporting platform. Yet conservatives might recall, in 2007, Rivera threatened to spit on Michelle Malkin for her views on immigration, calling her "the most vile, hateful commentator I've ever met in my life." Malkin subsequently announced that she'd no longer appear on The O'Reilly Factor. (See Michelle's report on that incident here; she also called out Christine Brennan as well, "USA Today Columnist Blames Peeping Tom Victim.")

Here's how one commentator described Rivera's coverage of the Andrews controversy:

FOX's Geraldo Rivera is obsessed with ESPN sportsbabe Erin Andrews and that naked video and how it came to be. Geraldo July 25th: "She's holed up in her house until September... I think she's going to huge. I never heard of her before."

Rivera beats himself off under the desk for eight minutes:

So, where are we now, as a culture and a nation? For almost two weeks now we've had this wrenching national debate on the limits of propriety in mainstream reporting and commentary. But as someone who wrote early on this - and under absolutley no false pretenses - it could be argued that America's abject moral hypocrisy is a crime tantamount to the original hole-carved peeping incident. In yet another commentary, this article summed it up best, "Peeping Erin’s Andrews":

Every article you read about Erin Andrews and her peephole video reads the same. Every story has to use the word “creepy” or “disgusting” or “low-down” or some adjective either directly before or after referencing the video as an over-the-top attempt to try to convince the reader that they didn’t spend all afternoon frantically searching Google and using “happy tissues” like they were going out of style. But, masturbatory habits of the average sports fan aside, the real question that everyone wants to know is Who’s to blame?

Read the whole thing for one of the better compilations of the tragedy of a national moral epic fail. We're all to blame, of course, Heaven forbid.

And speaking of "masturbatory habits," let me close out my daily coverage of the Erin Andrews controversy with some belated - and hopefully final - commentary on the "Rule 5 community."

I announced my retirement from "Rule 5" blogging at Saturday's post, "Erin Andrews Internet Traffic Report."

I should note that I couldn't have been more clear in my motivations for writing my original Erin Andrews Google-bomb entry. But let me reiterate a couple of the main points:

* I have NO PROBLEMS with operationalizing my own egoistic-rational self-interest in testing Robert Stacy McCain's model of traffic-generating nude-pic scandal opportunism. As the TrogloPundit once exclaimed, "It works! R.S. McCain is a genius!" And I would add that R.S. McCain's been an amicable fellow through all of this. Good luck on his continued success!

* And to be clear again, I am NOT PASSING MORAL JUDGMENT on others who have sought to achieve their own self-interest by shamelessly exploiting the objectification of women to increase blog traffic and to build a lowest-common-denominator readership. Despite protests to the contrary, my comments in previous posts have been simply observations all along. But being a blog flame-war, participants have conveniently ignored the facts at hand. It's certainly understandable. Like Dorothy's frail old wizard, it's not flattering when the curtain is finally drawn away. Frankly, we all do it. And since Stacy made the reference in his post last night, I don't mind citing Jesus' words, King James Bible, John 8:7, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." (And don't miss Stacy's whole post, "'That's Just the Rule 5 Way It Is!'" And Stacy's now-famous Google-bomb masterpiece is here: Carrie Prejean Nude Pic Scandal.")

And given all of this, folks might think it just a bit amusing to find Cynthia Yockey jumping on the moral condemnation bandwagon. I love the title of this post: "I Am With Little Miss Attila in Villainous Company to Challenge American Power." The entry includes some "I can haz faux moral condemnation":

Look, I've been reporting real news on this story for over a week. So, if readers will pardon my language, Cynthia doesn't know WTF she's talking about. Indeed, she'd be better off frankly to just SDASTFU.

You see, Cynthia's a perfect example of a traffic-slutting "Rule 5" acolyte (NTTAWWT!!). Cynthia's claim to fame is her classic Bea Arthur exploitation post, " ‘Symbolism Was My Life’." And as she admits at her eminently "villainous" post:

Now, “nude Bea Arthur” was not a picture and key phrase that I expected to generate a lot of traffic. However, until my Web host changed my blog’s URL without my understanding how much that was going to screw up my standing in Google for the pictures indexed from my blog, I was getting just over half of my daily traffic just from the nude Bea Arthur portrait and my Bea Arthur eulogy post, “Symbolism was my life.”

Hey, more power to you, sweetie! Bea Arthur had a huge rack! I hope your traffic numbers rebound, but to borrow from Stacy's favorite line, "don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

Also, after my Saturday entry, the hapless Joy McCann was moved to respond, TWICE: Donald Douglas Would Like Some Attention," and "Cynthia Takes the Wood to Donald Douglas." And in a twist, Joy found a way to plug her husband's work in the "Freakazoid" franchise while simultaneously attacking my family name:

Actually, my main criticism of Donald Douglas is his name. He sound like a Freakazoid! character. What is he?—the Freaka-cousin? Sheesh. Change your name, Bud. Or use a nickname as a first name—one that doesn’t begin with a “D.”

How about “Frank”? Or “Goofball”? Or “Butch”?

Image Credit: Wikipedia (Fair Use Citation)

Actually, no.

That's not Joy's main gripe. Men are assholes, remember? Yep, Joy took issue with the Erin Andrews posting and in her pathetic refusal to take responsibility for her shameless "Rule 5" chubby-building exhortations she instead went for the cheap personal attacks in smearing my family name. Real classy, Joy, that one. Sexy smile though, I must admit!

Husband John's blog is here (he's a real looker; but Joy apparently still needs to post an extra hunk of beecake now and then, NTTAWWT!!) Strange, in any case, all of Joy's fulminations - but it's better not to judge, remember?

Okay, let's not forget Cassandra at Villainous Company. I pretty much said my piece with Cassandra already, but you might want to check her additional comments at the thread.

I think Cassandra's a good woman, and my sincere hope is that after all of this blows over we can still be friends.

Cassandra's problem is that she's way too quick to condemn others for the very same traffic-grabbing exploitation techniques she's not above deploying. (See also, Wikipedia: "Psychological projection.") And I'm not just talking about her hot laced-garter pinup across her blog's banner. No, Cassandra's a huge booster of Project Valour-IT, a veterans' fundraising drive that has helps provide laptaps, game-systems, and GPS devices to returning soldiers. If I'm not mistaken, the major milbloggers have some sort of contest every year to see who can drum up the most contributions. Castle Argghh! has a big thank you to supporters. Cassandra gets a big mention there. And while I'm not at liberty to discuss her methods, I do know that Cassandra's not above hawking some skin in order to get the big blogs on board for promotion (i.e., images, but not of her, as far as I know). But readers will have to check with Cassandra for the details. While I have no problems exploiting a peep scandal for traffic, I'm not going to betray personal confidences, as juicy and damaging as those might be.

So that's it. This story's spent, and my daily Erin Andrews reporting ends here. I will, of course, update with major breaking news if things develop. I will also be watching Erin Andrews' return to sideline reporting in September, if that works out for her. We'll see, and don't be ashamed to stay tuned for updates.

And with the exception of something really egregious, I don't expect to engage in any more flame wars. I've sought no enemies through all my reporting, and I stand by my motto of "no enemies on the right." No doubt some bloggers would rather never speak to me again. That's fine. I understand. Others will continue to flood my e-mail inbox as if nothing ever happened. That's fine too.

And of course, "Rule 5" blogging will continue without a moment's genuine introspection among most of the participants. Joy McCann barely batted a mascara'd eyelash in posting some hot beefcake this morning (see, Oh, Yeah. I Got Your Rule 5 Right Here"); and Chris Wysocki's got a big entry up for some full-steam-ahead babelicioius action: "Donald Douglas and the Rule 5 Identity Crisis."

My only advice is for folks not to get down on themselves - and have fun! Remember, I'm a political scientist. I study political culture AND human interest. I find it extremely interesting that folks are horrified at how I could justify my posting on Erin Andrews on rationalist grounds. In testing Robert Stacy McCain's Google-bomb theory, I acted on a rational egoist premise holding my own utility-maximizing self-interest as the determinant of what's good or bad. Such a position should be no secret to students of rational-egoist epistemology. And among Ayn Rand fans, I'd be particularly suprised to see objections, for Rand's method is pure self-interest maximization:

When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man’s self-interest - which he must selflessly renounce. The idea that man’s self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness, who proclaim their desire to achieve the brotherhood of men. And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept “rational” is omitted from the context of “values”, “desires”, “self-interest” and ethics.”

In citing this I readily affirm my guiding theme of honesty and integrity, but also moral clarity. (WYSIWYG!!) Would that so many others shared it. This is not say that an added cost/benefit analysis taking in other emotive-spiritual-non-rationalist factors is to be completely abjured. It's simply to point out that my blogging has always been guided by a foundational set of beliefs, and nothing's changed.

If readers continue to have a problem with my self-interested blogging, perhaps they might enjoy joining the comment boards at Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos or Firedoglake. Leftists despise self-interest maximization. And so, for those who first attacked me with the line, "I can't belive he's a conservative," and for those who eagerly hopped on the bandwagon, I propose that these folks know nothing of where they speak, nor of any system of integrated values upon which they stand.

And if any readers still haven't gotten enough of Erin Andrews, check Coed Magazine's totally opportunistic, "The Complete Erin Andrews Web Photo Index."

Plus, more exploitation at Mediaite, "Erin Andrews Most Influential TV Reporter? What Her Top Ranking Really Means." Also, my previous coverage is available here.

**********

UPDATE: Dan Riehl get chivalrous here, "Short Sighted Bloggers Busted In Cloakroom Circle Jerk." He touts traffic impressive traffic numbers, here, but leaves out a key comment at my post, where I note, upon mention of my retirement rom "Rule 5" blogging, "I'm still learning about all the deceit and double-standards" in bloggging and media worlds (Dan would know, of course).

I'll add updates here if anything else comes up. Dan Riehl's a good guy, not too smart, but solid nevertheless. (You can't police the Internet all by yourself, Dan; but hey, knock yourself out trying.)

Also, interesting commentary, from Michael-Louis Ingram, on ESPN's handling of the controversy, "Sending In The Clowns??? Don't Worry, They're Already Here at ESPN."

Captain 'Sum Ting Wong'

OMG, this is just way too much, via iOWNTHEWORLD, "‘Sum Ting Wong’ ‘Wi Tu Lo’ ‘Ho Lee Fuk’ and ‘Bang Ding Ow’."

ADDED: More information at Blazing Cat Fur, "Epic KTVU Fail: Anchor Reports Pilot Names Including ‘Sum Ting Wong’ and ‘Wi Tu Lo’."

Plus, Politico's Seung Min Kim is freakin' pissed off on Twitter: "BULLSHIT apology." More here, here, and here. I don't think she's done ranting. Definitely an epic racist fail at that network.

6:15pm PST: More weird all the time, but the NTSB confirms KTVU's claim of confirmation of the pilots' names. See, "NTSB statement on erroneous confirmation of crew names":

Earlier today, in response to an inquiry from a media outlet, a summer intern acted outside the scope of his authority when he erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew on the aircraft.

Madcap Martin Longman, a.k.a. @BooMan23, Provides Epic Election Projection Lulz — FTW!

Our good old friend Martin Longman is almost as narcissistic as The One, and just like president loser, it all came off the rails Tuesday night at the Booman Tribune.

Here's Martin's midterm projections, "2014 Senate Forecast." The dude's a rank and useless hack. He had Democrats winning Senate races in Kansas, North Carolina, and Alaska --- and he expected Georgia to go to a runoff with Michelle Nunn picking up the seat.

Well, let's just say, er, major fail brother. Republicans flipped all those seats (although the dirtbag Begich in Alaska has so far refused to concede).

But wait! There's added lulz in that our crack election-projection master's calls for the governors' races around the country. Well, they're not actually "calls," but Madcap Martin thought the Republicans were going down hard among the following:

1. Paul LePage of Maine
2. Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania
3. Rick Snyder of Michigan
4. Scott Walker of Wisconsin
5. Sam Brownback of Kansas
6. Rick Scott of Florida.
7. Sean Parnell of Alaska

With the exception of Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania and Sean Parnell in Alaska (where they're still counting ballots), the GOP took all the remaining states Booman expected to go to the Dems. And Rick Scott in Florida and Scott Walker in Wisconsin are especially demoralizing wins for the GOP. Indeed, Walker was automatically propelled to the front ranks of the 2016 GOP presidential field. And Florida will remain one of the biggest of battlegrounds heading into the next election, to the epic consternation of the dumbshit Democraps.

.@BooMan23 I'm drinking your tears, Martin. You're one of the very bastards I wanted to see crushed. Congratulations.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) November 5, 2014

.@BooMan23 You suck, Martin.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) November 5, 2014

By that time, perhaps Madcap Martin will have honed his projection methods a bit more. Priceless, either way. Behold the wallowing Booman here: "I Lost the Argument With Myself."

More later...

'You Can Keep Your Plan' — The Left's #ObamaCare Lies

Following up from yesterday, "Leftists Cheer as Anthem Blue Cross Boots Michelle Malkin From Company's Individual Insurance Market."

I'd be remiss if I didn't update with the clip from Linkmaster Smith, at the Other McCain, "Mrs. Malkin Misapprehends: The Underside of the Bus *IS* Your Healthcare Plan."



Keep in mind this "you can keep your plan" lie is just one lie in an epic campaign of lies designed to socialize and destroy the American healthcare market.

Leftism is predicated on lies. Most everyday citizens have little time or inclination to do the enormous fact-checking required to fully expose the deceits of the left. But it is being done by patriots who saw this coming a mile away. Of course, the leftist cluster-k media keeps the lies going for the Democrat-Socialist usurpers -- the clusterf-k media is key to the entire Big Lie deception underwriting the left's totalitarian project for the fundamental transformation of America.

It's all lies. Anti-Americanism and lies. And that's why no matter how successful are the defunding efforts this week, the long-term project of exposing Democrat lies never ends. Patriots will turn this around. So much of the system is working to screw the average person, and the smokescreens of "fairness" have been spread so far and wide that it takes a Herculean effort to bust through. But it's happening. The health care law is a miserable failure. Only epic Orwellian lies have been keeping it going. But we're approaching the reckoning. And patriots don't give up. We can see the whites of their eyes now.

More from Darleen Click, at Protein Wisdom, "#ObamaCare — designed to fail."

The Obamafication of Great Power Arms Control

Conservatives knew Barack Obama lacked gravitas over two years ago. And now we're starting to see the rest of the country catch on. Folks are getting hip to the Democrats' epic electoral fail of 2008.

Recall, during the first Democratic debate, in April 2007, "Obama failed to cast himself as a forceful commander in chief." As one headline reported at the time, "Lightweight Senator Overwhelmed By Grown-ups at Adults-Only Function." And who can forget Obama's Berlin speech last summer? Der Spiegel asked, "Is Obama Speech Site Contaminated by Nazi Past?" And we saw this from Michelle Malkin, "Next Stop, Germany: Ich bin ein beginner!":

So, let's just consider President Obama's U.S.-Russia summit this week. It's one more indication of the woeful unseriousness of this man and his administration. The highlights are at Memeorandum. CNN has a story on Sasha and Malia Obama, "Obama Girls Take Russia by Storm." Plus, the New York Times follows up with, "Family Night for Obamas Miffs Some in Moscow."

It turns out that the Russian people haven't lost their faculties over this American president. As Fausta indicates, "The Russians ...having lived with centuries’ worth of narcissistic egotists passing as heads of state, were underwhelmed by Obama..."

The president himself remains inside a narcissisitic bubble and the rest of the world can only watch dumfounded as this administration sleepwalks through history.

Compare that meme to this article on earlier eras of superpower arms control, "U.S.-Russia Talks Yield No Breakthroughs":

There was a time when an American president would travel to Moscow for a summit and the world watched intently to see if history would be made.

These days, most people seem prepared to settle for more modest outcomes.

That was the ambiguous result of Barack Obama's first trip as president to meet with his Russian counterparts. Obama came away from two days of talks with important, if not momentous, agreements to renew nuclear arms talks and allow U.S. warplanes to fly through Russian airspace on their way to Afghanistan.

But long-standing differences -- on U.S. missile defense plans, human rights and the response to Iran's nuclear ambitions -- remained unbridged.

Nor was it certain that Obama succeeded in his attempt to overcome years of deteriorating relations and alleviate wider Russian mistrust of U.S. aims by speaking over the heads of the country's elite to those outside the realm of power.

In a bit of characteristic stagecraft, the president took his message to a large assembly of the young and educated, speaking at the commencement ceremonies of the New Economic School. He reminded Russians of their nation's shared sacrifice with the United States in defeating fascism in the mid-20th century, and said that 21st century America was not trying to hold the country back.

"Let me be clear: America wants a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia," Obama said. "This belief is rooted in our respect for the Russian people, and a shared history between our nations that goes beyond competition."

But none of Russia's domestic television channels carried the speech live. And the event was more heavily attended by Western-leaning intelligentsia and business community representatives than by members of Russia's ruling elite. News programs later played clips of the speech -- with newscasters adding pointedly that Obama's arrival onstage interrupted the distribution of diplomas to the school's students.

Behold the Obamafication of great power arms control.

The Russians don't care about this man, despite the president's displeasure at not being feted like a Victorian-era European head of state.

Meanwhile, the enduring logic of international politics continues its unavoidabe grind: "Russia Itches for Another Georgian War."

Election 2012 can't come fast enough, especially for those who called this a massive presidential fail before the Democrats sealed the deal.

Clean Up in Madison Today — UPDATE!

I reported earlier that Wisconsin's GOP Senator Glenn Grothman "went on MSNBC last night and rebuked the filthy dirtbag protesters as a bunch of slobs" (video here). That was a response to progressive cobag Thers at Whiskey Fire, who claimed, after an anarchist mob nearly lynched Grothman, "that this is a damned disciplined protest." Well checking over at Firedoglake last night, it turns out that cobag Thers, one of Hamsher's Henchmen, took another dishonest dump on conservatives with this screed: "At Least We’re Not the Ones Trashing, You Know, The Planet..." Look, you gotta give it up for Thers just for the lulz. What's always interesting with Thers and the FDL demons is how liberal the F-Bomb is thrown around as a source of neo-communist authority. Of course, I've smacked down Thers mercilessly, in his own comment thread, after he self-douched himself with some lame attempt at debunking the progressives' big lie. But here's the gist from last night, in any case:

In a fascinating yet idiotic development, the “Wisconsin Tea Party” has decided that they are going to descend upon Madison and “Take Out the Trash.” You see, the tea-morons are convinced the labor rights protesters are filthy disgusting hippies who have littered the capitol with discarded Marijuana Roaches and used Kotex products. The reason the tea-morons believe this is that they are nitwits who not merely believe inane Fox News propaganda, but masturbate to it.

And in a fit of crazed neo-communist self-congratulation, Thers cites Ann Althouse as an authority on how "clean" the progressive scumbags have kept the Capitol, only to turn around and slam her as demented:

Hell, even noted wingnut-celebrated birdbrain Ann Althouse says there’s no trash, contra the Kotex-mongering of a certain famous hard-right slob of a junkie sex-tourist deejay. And Althouse is opposed to the protesters to the point of dementia! (Though dementia is, of course, the mental region she typically inhabits anyhow.)

Right. Thers is fail.

Senator Grothman nailed it when he called these freaks out as a bunch of pigs. And Chicks on the Right sums up:

Those idiots in Madison took SHARPIE MARKERS to the marble in the statehouse, you guys. What a bunch of freaking animals.

Anyway, Althouse just updated. Meade's been to the Capitol and we should have some fresh reports out of Madison shortly. Look for updates:

UPDATE: Athouse updates, "What the hell is "It's Time to Take Out the Trash Day"?":

I assume "take out the trash" is intended as a double entendre, and the person who named this group intended to call the protesters "trash." They are not trash. They are people you disagree with, who have chosen a means of expression that you disagree with.

Now, it's a great idea for Tea Party folk to come down to the Capitol to express themselves and to pick up any litter that they find around the place, inside and out. That doesn't take any special expertise. But if you believe the place is strewn with litter, you are just plain wrong. Meade and/or I have been down there every day for the 2+ weeks, and we're not seeing trash. I have been blogging about this for many days, after a picture of mine showing litter on one of the first days went viral on the internet. The protesters got the message and were extremely diligent picking up trash after that point. Not knowing that makes you look ignorant.

It'd be nice to be in Madison for a direct report, but I'm going to disagree slightly with Althouse. Fact is the double-entendre works perfectly for me --- the protesters are trash. Senator Grothman nailed it initially when he hammered the anarcho-commies as scumbags and slobs. Frankly, they probably wouldn't have been cleaning up their junk had not Althouse called them out in the first place. What's even better, though, is getting cobag Thers all riled up. I mean, for someone who always calling out tea partiers as, if you'll excuse my language, "fuckety, fuck fuck fuck fucked," you gotta love how the douche cites Althouse in a fit of righteousness:

Fail yourself, dumbass. "But if you believe the place is strewn with litter, you are just plain wrong."

The Althouse pictures you post are from February, though above them you take care to say she "just updated."

You're even a bigger clown than Althouse. Congratulations.

Hey, you gotta love it. Citing a demented clown to attack an even bigger clown who's got your number.

Man, that's gold!

THERS = EPIC SELF-DOUCHE COMMIE SCUMBAG.

The best!

UPDATE II: I've got a new post, "Bwahahahaha!! THERS = SELF-DOUCHE Got Da Althouse Fevah!!!"