I guess traffic is down at LGF. So it must be time for Charles Johnson to post a substance-free entry in order to induce a lot of people to link to him.

I avoided this all day. I know that a lot of people are going to click over, and thereby reward him for doing nothing more than putting up a juvenile insult. All I can say is that you can't comment there -- you're either already banned, or will be banned the moment you comment -- so what is the point of clicking over?

If you "want to read the commenters," oh, for God's sake, what do you think the comments say? Charles Johnson only permits his most trusted cultists to post, so all the comments are of this variety:

nice snag Charles...maybe there is a future for your research skills at the Library of Congress!...this little blurb is a great context observation...what goes round, comes round

...

[From Johnson himself, adding some much-needed nuance:] The only difference between this slogan and the religious right's current slogans is that they've learned not to use the term "race mixing."

...

Rotten. It drives me crazy that we still have the same kind of loons we used to have when my father was a kid. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

...

[Johnson again:] I've posted dozens and dozens of photos of Tea Party signs that are every bit as disgusting as the signs you see above.

But hey. Let's just forget about all that. Right?

...

[When someone objects that he shouldn't make the case that all tea partiers are anti-race-mixing racists, Johnson claims he hasn't:] And that's why nobody has made such a case.

...

Thanks for posting this, Charles. I'm sure you'll get a lot of hell from the people who think Limbaugh and RSMcCain don't have a racist bone in their bodies.

Particularly since the spitting/racial slurs episode, the baggers really have started to resemble previous angry mobs--lynch mobs, segregationist mobs, anti-immigrant mobs.

And so on. The tongue-bathing continues (with management's compulsion of tongue-bating, of course), all for a childish link-bait post that contains a single stupid thought -- and a though that the "brave" blogger Johnson immediately disowns to boot. Remember, right after posting a blogpost claiming that Tea Partiers were the new anti-miscegenationists, he immediately disclaims any intent to make that case at all.

So it's a post that not even Johnson will stand behind.

Here's the post in its entirety, so you don't have to click over, but of course you will, because so many of you are on pins and needles about what unexpected insight Sharmutra and Kilgore Trout will have about Johnson's post:

Tea Partiers, Circa 1950

WINGNUTS | Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:56:58 pm PDT

This didnÂ’t start with Barack ObamaÂ’s election.

Oh, and remember, Johnson continues utilizing the very special talents of noted censor/racial-slur-artiste Kilgore Trout, who spams the n-word on other people's sites when he's not busy banning anyone who disagrees with Mad King Charles.

And remember too -- what Johnson finds so positively reprehensible is people carrying Obama=Hitler signs, but apparently slurring the right as Hitleresque... I guess it's elevated or something.

What some stooge puts on a sign, Charles Johnson puts on his blog, but he calls himself clever for doing so.

There's an old saying that success is like a fart, only your own don't stink. So it is with political extremism, especially as practiced by paranoiacs like Charles Johnson. He lectures others on civility and moderation while sticking his face in his ass and burbling over how sweet his own farts smell.

I don't mind a bit of extremism here and there, but please, save us the lectures.

Incidentally, it's sort of time to note once again that all Charles Johnson ever did was take someone else's newsworthy work (Buckethead from FreeRepublic) and make a gif out of two bits of text. That bit of theft is his claim to fame.

I should also note -- this is a bit late, but what the hell -- that Johnson had a bad reputation among right-of-center bloggers. If you sent Charles Johnson a tip, he rarely gave you a prominent link for it. What he tended to do is steal the guts of your tip -- your story, your find, even your analysis -- and put it all up on his blog with only a perfunctory hat-tip at the end. Taking the whole guts of what you'd sent him and putting it up on his site, leaving nothing behind for anyone to click on with that useless hat-tip at the end.

Your tip, his traffic. Pretty much he's built his blog on stealing stuff from his betters. (And then, later, slandering his betters.)

Posted by: Ace at 03:22 PM | Comments (238)
Post contains 784 words, total size 5 kb.

Shockingly enough, it turns out that "someguy" isn't pleased today. We're all letting him down -- myself first and foremost -- but seriously, none of you is earning gold stars from him either.

It's kind of a pointless isn't it?

The media is biased towards Democrats? Do fucking tell!

It's not fisking. It's whinging.

They're winning, and we're whining about it. The "fisk" is the equivalent of a schoolyard loser yelling "no fair!" I want to win ... not whine.

Republicans have to put up or shut up. Buy these companies and fire these people. That's the Chicago Way. That's how you get Capone.

You put theirs in the morgue.

Or you can be a crybaby.

Your choice.

He elaborates:

No fair!

What does that sound like to you? How did the pussy yelling "no fair" in the schoolyard come off to you?

My point isn't that the analysis is faulty. It is that it is pointless and wastes time and energy better spent. It doesn't really break any new ground; doesn't convert any undecided voters. And it stands in the place of commentary that could convince voters that America is on the wrong track ... such as a discussion of the media prepping the landscape for a VAT tax by interviewing Paul Volcker.

Or 20% unemployment.

That's what we should be analyzing today. Not whining about media bias. Everybody who cares about media bias is already aware of media bias..

Rob Crawford observes:

"someguy" is a champion of liberty who spends his time telling other people how they should spend their time.

But true as that is, I am creating this thread so that "someguy," who never relents in shaking his head in disappointment and instructing everyone else "You're doing it wrong," to explain the great contributions he has made to the cause today.

Since he is obviously so expert at politics, philosophy, marketing and organizing, I trust this list will not only be rather long, but also be real-world actions, rather than just whining like a bitch on the blogs of his betters.

I sincerely hope that this tremendous asset to the cause, who has nothing but terrific ideas about how to advance our agenda, is actually heeding his own advice, and not "wasting time and energy" pissing and moaning in blogs' comments.

So, someguy -- please do tell. Tell me what you've accomplished today. Have you even managed to put positive distance between your fat useless ass and your bedpan?

Oh -- I Guess That's a Pretty Good List After All. "Someguy" always gets very quiet when I ask him to stop ordering people to do things and ask him for a list of things he's actually done himself -- I presume this is due to modesty -- but "Sgt. Fury" steps in and gives "someguy" the credit he's too humble to give himself.

Sumguy Action Items Completed April 7, 2010

1. Called Lib brother in law and told him Obama Sucks! Then hung up! HA!

2. Concerned Trolled Daily Kos for 3 hours. HA!

3. Coffee with a nice danish and a change of the colostomy bag.

4. PUNCHED UP FOR TWO FUCKING HOURS!

5. LOL'd at stupid conservatives punching down, EVERYWHERE!

6. Logged onto AofSHQ and gave them the what for!! HA HA HA!

Posted by: Ace at 01:14 PM | Comments (386)
Post contains 581 words, total size 3 kb.

"I'm in favor of higher taxes on people like me," declared Eric Schoenberg, who is sitting on an investment banking fortune. He complained about "my absurdly low tax rates."

"We're calling on other wealthy taxpayers to join us," said paper-mill heir Mike Lapham, "to send the message to Congress and President Obama that it's time to roll back the tax cuts on upper-income taxpayers."

--------------

With April 15 a week away, many Americans are feeling right about now that they are paying entirely too much. But the millionaires say they see the beginning of a grass-roots movement of the angry under-taxed wealthy.

Ummm. Yeah, this sounds like just the sort of popular message that's going to spread like wildfire among the rich. The ones who don't really understand how they became wealthy in the first place, that is. And who believe the government is rilly rilly ethical about how they handle money, and also super-competent at helping people n' stuff.

Idiots, in other words.

The article mentions that these folks can make as big a check to the United States Treasury as they wish without fear of having it returned (hah), but as always with liberals, the idea is to expend money and effort to force everyone else to do what the liberals won't even willingly do now.

At the end of the article, we learn that the folks interviewed are all pretty much a generation or more removed from actual labor as most of us perceive it.

That explains their tranquility about money, but doesn't excuse them from this wrongheaded folly; every dollar they possess represents actual work done by someone. To just hand it over to be pissed away by government when it could be put to better use employing people in the US economy...there are no words for how fucking stupid this is.

You, super wealthy lady. Your self-flagellation is not admirable. It's alarming and counterproductive.
You want to help people? Don't give it to the politicians who will raid it to help their friends, just like they did with every other pot of cash they've ever been entrusted with.

Buy another boat. Give your gardener a raise. Put an addition on the pool house.

Thanks to Eddiebear.
And while you're over at DoublePlusUndead, don't forget to go HERE and pretend to completely lose your shit over the Scrabble rule change.

Posted by: LauraW at 01:01 PM | Comments (87)
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

We always loved you guys! I guess maybe you got the wrong idea or somethin' that we didn't like you.

There was a time, oh, a week or two ago, when the mainstream media portrayed the tea-party movement as an assortment of crazed angry extremist redneck racist idiots. What changed?

The headline we've given this column is a phrase coined by the conservative writer Tom Bethell to refer to the media's attitude toward conservatives who veer leftward. What we're about to describe is a bit different: more an epiphany on the media's part than a change in the object of coverage. It seems unlikely that the tea-partiers have suddenly become mainstream.

Yet that's what you'd think from reading some of the recent coverage. The Christian Science Monitor, which a month ago baselessly labeled Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell a "right-wing extremist," begins a Saturday story by rehearsing the stereotypes but then cautions that "political experts say that many such criticisms are near-sighted, if not outright inappropriate--and ultimately may miss the point[."]

Let's take a look at that Christian Science Monitor article. Before reading it, I assumed that the Monitor would use the passive voice in reporting the slurs against the Tea Party -- saying the Tea Party "have been called" racist, instead of identifying who called them that. As in, "Democrats frequently call the Tea Party racist" or "the media, including this very newspaper, frequently call them racist."

I was right.

Their faces sometimes twisted in anger, 'tea party' followers have been called neo-Klansmen and knuckle-dragging hillbillies.

Note right from the jump the choice of the word "followers" -- one who follows -- over the more generally accepted word "activist" -- one who acts. It's all the stranger a word choice given that there is no person called "Tea Party" to actually follow. One can say "Barack Obama's followers" or "Sarah Palin's followers" -- at least there there is an actual person to follow -- but how on earth does one "follow" oneself?

The word "followers" echoes the Washington Post's notorious description of the religious right -- "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command."

(Also note that while the media could say "followers of Barack Obama," in fact, they wouldn't -- they'd call them "supporters" or "activists." "Followers" they would reserve for Sarah Palin's supporters. Easy to command, you know. Without independent thought.)

Even as the CSM pretends to play nice-nice they use the least complimentary word choices possible.

Back to the article:

To be sure, angry town halls, the N-word thrown at black congressmen, and signs comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler play into the hands of the movement's critics. And demonizing tea party activists tends to energize the Democrats' left-of-center base.

There continues to be a $10,000 bounty for anyone producing evidence of these slurs. The CSM assumes them, because the source is impeccable -- a black liberal. Might as well be the Pope of Knowing Stuff.

But political experts say that many such criticisms are near-sighted, if not outright inappropriate – and ultimately may miss the point. Indeed, polls suggest that tea party activists are not only more mainstream than many critics suggest, but that a majority of them are women (primarily mothers), not angry white men.

Here they slip in the "angry white men" stereotype without acknowledging who it was who so stereotyped them. It just seems to have happened without author or agency.

What's more, the release this week of the top three planks of the "crowd-sourced" Contract From America project, to some activists, shows a maturation from sign-wielding protesters to a political reform movement grounded in ideas.

It doesn't really show a maturation of the Tea Party. It shows a maturation of the media's nasty, sneering juvenile reportage of the Tea Party. The Tea Party has always been idea-oriented. But the CSM missed that because they were too busy calling them racists.

...

Still, many critics look at a tea party crowd and just see a "fantasy-based" movement of "angry white people," as Monitor Facebook commentator Bill Downey points out.

Again, no acknowledgement that these "many critics" are exclusively Democratic politicians and flacks and the liberal whore media.

CNN also takes a stab at curing these "stereotypes" which apparently self-organized out of aether and dreamstuff without any human intervention whatsoever:

But hereÂ’s what you donÂ’t often see in the coverage of Tea Party rallies: Patriotic signs professing a love for country; mothers and fathers with their children; African-Americans proudly participating; and senior citizens bopping to a hip-hop rapper.

Last week, I saw all of this during a five-city Western swing as the Tea Party Express national tour made its way across the country. CNN was along for the ride, and I was charged with planning CNNÂ’s coverage for five stops in two states: St. George, Provo and Salt Lake City, Utah; and Grand Junction and Denver, Colorado. Â…

Together, we beamed out images of the anger and the optimism, profiled African-Americans who are proud to be in the Tea Party’s minority and showed activists stirred by “God Bless America” or amused by a young rapper who strung together rhymes against the president and Democrats. …

Being at a Tea Party rally is not quite like seeing it on TV, in newspapers or online. That’s the reason CNN is covering this political movement — and doing so in ways few others can or choose to do.

It is important to show the colorful anger Americans might have against elected leaders and Washington. But people should also see the orange-vested Tea Party hospitality handlers who welcome you with colorful smiles.

"Being at a Tea Party rally is not quite like seeing it on TV, in newspapers or online." -- Um, why is that, exactly? Isn't the goal of reportage to accurately portray the subject? Why is that TV and newspaper coverage has been deficient and skewed?

This guy pretends it was just a procedural glitch -- see, we didn't embed with them before, and now we are; just a mistake of process, you see. We're only guilty of an error of resource allocation!

Nonsense. It was deliberate and calculated decision, made at the highest editorial levels, with the singleminded goal of destroying the movement at the outset in order to increase the political fortunes of Barack Hussein Obama and the Socialist Demcoratic Party.

Taranto sums up:

Reader Taylor Dinerman notes: "Part of the function of a political media operation is to make the other side despair, lose hope, feel bad, etc. It's one of the reasons I gave up reading the New York Times. In one of Isaac Asimov's Empire series, he describes a drug called 'desperance' whose function is to make whoever takes it despair and be ready to kill or commit suicide. The bad guys feed it to someone they intend to use to murder the galactic emperor."

Tales of tea-party racism could have been calculated to demoralize America's anti-ObamaCare majority by presenting them with an ugly choice: accept the fate the Democrats have imposed upon us, or side with (as the Christian Science Monitor puts it) "neo-Klansmen and knuckle-dragging hillbillies." The strange new respect for the tea-party movement suggests that this approach is too invidiously partisan even for the mainstream media.

Taranto's wrong -- that approach is not too invidiously partisan for even the mainstream media (a term, by the way, I don't use anymore, as they're not mainstream at all, as Bernard Goldberg noted, but radical and leftist). The media was more than willing to throw every stereotype and slur at the Tea Party, including graphic sexual ones.

They are walking it back not because they've suddenly developed ethics but because it wasn't working and in fact was costing them audience and influence. Much has been made of a recent poll finding that something like 71% of Tea Partiers get their news from FoxNews, as if that proves some kind of fringe agenda. No -- it proves what is already known (that they lean conservative) and furthermore it proves that people don't like having sexual slurs meaning "ball-sucking" tossed at them by their media sources.

Does that occur to anyone? Maybe they watch FoxNews partly because it's the only news outlet that's not going to unprofessionally accuse them of indulging in deviant sexual habits for shits and giggles.

I think far more likely than Taranto's What Color Are the Skies On Your World thesis of a media suddenly concerned with objectivity is a a simple recognition that the old tactics weren't working.

The media has treated the Tea Party as if the media were a hostile, alien occupying force engaging in psychological operations against an indigenous peasant rebellion. (Which actually isn't far from the actual situation, is it?)

What's the first line of attack? Attempt to contain the "disease" -- the viral outbreak of Tea Party rebellion -- by innocculating the population against it. Feed them every slur about the rebels -- call the queers, deviants, racists, ugly, uneducated, dangerous -- in an effort to make the movement unappealing to the majority. Limit their numbers by painting them with such ugly colors that recruitment becomes difficult for them.

Containment didn't work. So they turn to the next step in the counterinsurgency playbook -- cooptation. Unable to limit the numbers in the resistance, their new strategy is to pretend they were with them all along, and attempt to manipulate the movement to their own ends. If you can't stop a movement, pretend to be an ally of it in order to pervert its goals.

The next step? The media will denigrate the movement less and instead play to its populist discontent -- but will start offering up bogeymen favored by the left wing for the Tea Party to focus its anger on.

Expect the media to start talking up the broad-based anger of the movement, while emphasizing the leftist-bait they hope can turn the Party into a less coherent movement -- hey, look at those damn bankers! If only they hadn't been so greedy, we might never be in this situation. And GM? Its smug, fatcat management sort of forced poor populist Obama to take over a couple of car companies, didn't it?

That is my belief -- and yeah, I really do think it's a genuine conspiracy at this point. I do think the media coordinates these stories, coordinates its angles, coordinates its spin. Some of them engage in this conspiracy halfway oblivious -- they are so stupid and without critical thought it doesn't even occur to them there's another legitimate viewpoint counter to their own -- but most know exactly what they are doing. They are not reporters, they are informational bagmen for the corrupt Democratic Party.

They are nothing short of the disinformation and propaganda organ of a corrupt, hostile, anti-american force. Just as terrorist groups invent "legal" fronts to be their legitimate spokesman -- Yasser Arafat invents the PLO to be the propaganda arm of Black September -- the media is nothing more than the supposedly-independent propaganda arm of Obama's Organizing for America.

But I think the media is going to find out that the right they so despise is not quite so "uneducated and easy to command" as they might think.

Posted by: Ace at 12:10 PM | Comments (245)
Post contains 1891 words, total size 12 kb.

Is this something?

I see miracles all around me,
stop and look around it's all astoundin'
fire water air and dirt
fuckin' magnets -- How do they work?!

I don't know this band, so I don't know their sense of humor. Is this a complete parody, a half-parody where they are trying to seriously convey the idea but through humorous, self-spoofing lyrics, or what?

There's magic everywhere in this bitch. Indeed.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:01 AM | Comments (263)
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

What a surprise.

The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee has said he has no plans to delay the hearing on the abortion advocate President Barack Obama selected for an appeals court position. Sen. Patrick Leahy made the decision even though Goodwin Liu failed to complete 117 items on his Senate questionnaire.

As LifeNews.com reported yesterday, Senate Republicans called on Leahy and committee Democrats to delay the hearing because of the lack of a response.

Leahy replied in a statement today, saying “At the time of Professor Liu’s twice-rescheduled hearing, Committee members will have had more than seven weeks to review the nominee’s record, and two weeks to review the materials submitted to the Committee on April 5."

“I see no reason to further delay this nominee’s opportunity to appear before the Committee and respond to the questions its members may have," he added, chastising Republicans for refusing to "put political rancor aside."

The planned hearing for April 16 will now likely move ahead as planned.

If confirmed by the Senate, Liu would serve on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers pro-life legislation and lawsuits related to California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Hawaii and Montana.

Conservative writer Ed Whalen wrote at National Review that Liu's omissions form his questionnaire are important.

"Did Liu try to hide some of the most controversial aspects of his record from the Senate?" he asked.

"I believe that there is a disturbing pattern that LiuÂ’s most inexplicable omissions contain some of his most controversial and incendiary comments and that this pattern reasonably invites the suspicion that Liu was indeed trying to hide aspects of his record from the Senate. Indeed, given what I've heard about White House chief of staff Rahm EmanuelÂ’s initial opposition to nominating Liu, I have to wonder whether Liu was equally eager to hide these aspects from the White House," he wrote.

All seven of the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked for a delay when officials discovered the omissions.

I think -- or maybe just hope -- that this candidate will be filibustered by the 41 Republicans. Sure, it would be difficult to get the Maine Sisters and Scott Brown on this, but this isn't just about abortion or an extreme left wing record.

It's also about the integrity of the process and Senators' ability to make considered judgments on nominees in light of all the evidence. If Liu is permitted to deliberately conceal his record and then get to a top court by running out the clock, that establishes a precedent and a huge incentive for other nominees to do likewise.

After all, if you succeed in hiding your records, you get approved; and even if your concealed records come to light, you pay no penalty whatsoever for the concealment. There is, therefore, no downside to lying and hiding records, and only upside.

Even Senators who are more left-leaning should be able to comprehend that allowing Liu to profit from his deception will only encourage more of that.

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Comments (80)
Post contains 551 words, total size 3 kb.

Color me shocked.

Acknowledging it would be a highly unpopular move, White House economic adviser Paul Volcker said yesterday the United States should consider imposing a "value added tax" similar to those charged in Europe to help get the deficit under control.

A VAT is a national sales tax that, like state and city sales taxes, would be collected by retailers.

Volcker, at the New-York Historical Society, told a panel on the global financial crisis that Congress might also have to consider new taxes on carbon and energy.

Who is Paul Volcker you might ask.

Well, he was appointed head of the Federal Reserve by Jimmy Carter (and reappointed once by Reagan before being ditched for Alan Greenspan). More to the point, he's the head of Obama's tax policy commission.

It's all coming. And you know what? It was part of the plan. You simply can't spend all of this money when you are already so far in debt and not have Democrats start clamoring for more taxes. Like the proverbial scorpion, it's who they are.

The worst part of it is, it won't work. As we all know, taxing your way to prosperity is simply a fairy tale Democrats tell their kids and their base to make them feel better yet it only destroys growth and actual prosperity.

Assuming the Republicans have control of at least one house of Congress when the bill comes do at the start of next year, what are they going to do? Become the tax collectors for Obama's euro style social-democracy or take a knife to the budget? And by 'knife' I mean 'nuclear powered jackhammer'.

Cute little trap The Won has set.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:19 AM | Comments (171)
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

With smiles and thank you emails.

Being at a Tea Party rally is not quite like seeing it on TV, in newspapers or online. That's the reason CNN is covering this political movement -- and doing so in ways few others can or choose to do.

It is important to show the colorful anger Americans might have against elected leaders and Washington. But people should also see the orange-vested Tea Party hospitality handlers who welcome you with colorful smiles.

There were a few signs that could be seen as offensive to African-Americans. But by and large, no one I spoke with or I heard from on stage said anything that was approaching racist.

Almost everyone I met was welcoming to this African-American television news producer.

And though speakers railed against the "lame-stream media," activists and their leaders praised CNN, especially for being the only national media outlet riding along for the post-weekend stops. Some of them e-mailed me after my trip, thanking our crew for fairly giving them a voice.

Read the whole story. Aside from repeating the slander about the racial insults allegedly shouted at black congressmen on the day of the health care vote, it's a remarkably fair positive piece.

Now, it's nice that there's a blog post like this but I'm not sure how much it will change CNN's idiotic coverage of the Tea Party folks in general. I'm sure once they hire a non-ideological news pro like David Shuster, that will help.

Still, kudos to Mr. Travis for daring to step outside the approved narrative. For his sake, I hope his resume is up to date.

Via The Washington Post's new anthropological blog dedicated to covering that strange species, American Conservatives.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:49 AM | Comments (218)
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

Hey, it's just words, right?

President Barack Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."

..."You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, 'We're building you a hospital so you don't become terrorists.' That doesn't make much sense," said National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy.

Ramamurthy runs the administration's Global Engagement Directorate, a four-person National Security Council team that Obama launched last May with little fanfare and a vague mission to use diplomacy and outreach "in pursuit of a host of national security objectives."

Just curious but who exactly are our troops fighting in Afghanistan? A militant splinter group of the Knights of Columbus?

So much for the reality based Spock like Obama. This guy has an amazing willingness to ignore the facts when they don't suit his narrative. He's constantly going on about how nuclear weapons don't serve Iran's goals. Funny thing is, the Iranians have made it clear they do just that. Inconvenient facts don't get in the way for these clowns.

None of this is surprising given that in his Cairo speech Obama said

And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

Funny but I can't find that in my copy of the Constitution but whatever. I'd be more willing to deal with his little campaign to fight "negative stereotypes of Islam" if he would also deal with the realities of it as well. Instead he's going to continue with his fictionalized version of the world.

This isn't just some fun tweak at Obama, this stuff matters. Democracies fight reluctantly and generally want out as quickly as possible. We've been at this going on 9 years now and it's hard to keep people focused at the best of times. By mushing up the reasoning behind our actions and the continued sacrifices of our troops and their families, Obama makes it harder for the nation to continue to bear the necessary costs, financial and more importantly in terms of casualties, that come with this fight.

Also, our armed forces are all volunteers. While there are many reasons people sacrifice to serve our nation, clearly defending it is an important part of their choice. If people are going to continue to volunteer to fight wars, they need to understand why and who they are fighting.

I have no doubt our troops know exactly who they are fighting and it must be discouraging for them to hear their Commander in Chief so disconnected from their realities.

Related enough...Muslim students have at one Texas college have a deletion they would like made from their diplomas. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 07:18 AM | Comments (153)
Post contains 756 words, total size 5 kb.

Wow, does Professor Liu think his confirmation is such a foregone conclusion that he can just blow off the Senate Judiciary Committee? Or is he stupid enough to think that, even after his reparations coments, Republicans wouldn't be scouring his record for more unacceptable leftism?

Both?

Liu, in his letter to Leahy on Monday providing the additional material, offered a "sincere and personal apology" to the entire committee, but said nothing was left out intentionally.

"I made a good faith effort to track down all of my publications and speeches over the years," he wrote.

Uh huh.

The complaint came after Liu, a Berkeley law professor, gave the Senate Judiciary Committee a bundle of supplemental material that contained 117 things he left out after his February nomination.

Among the items disclosed were several speeches on affirmative action and his participation at an event co-sponsored by the Center for Social Justice at Berkeley and the the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group.

Wasn't it a La Raza event that tripped up Justice Sotomayor? If this is a fine organization, why does every leftist candidate for the judiciary try to hide their association with it? People who do the right things have no need to hide it.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:27 AM | Comments (159)
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.