Archive for Liberal Fascism

How Can We Miss You When You Won’t Get the F**k Outta Here?

With all due respect, of course, to the retiring (though he’s anything but) Attorney General of the United States:

In an interview with MSNBC’s Joy Reid in a replica of the bus Rosa Parks rode, Attorney General Eric Holder discussed the lack of respect shown by his political opponents and if a white attorney general would receive the same treatment as him.

“I can’t look into the hearts and minds of people who have been, perhaps, my harshest critics,” Holder said. “I think a large part of the criticism is political in nature. Whether there is a racial component or not, you know, I don’t know.”

“Do you feel you’ve been especially disrespected as attorney general?” Reid asked Holder.

“I think it’s unfortunately part of Washington in 2014,” Holder said. “I would hope that my successor would not have to endure some of the thing is did. I say endure only because I think I’ve shown respect where, perhaps, I haven’t been given any.”

Holder said there have been times when he “wanted to just snap back” and “be a lot more aggressive.”

“There are times when I’ve wanted to just snap back,” Attorney General Holder said. “There are occasions when I have. But there have been frequently more times when I’ve wanted to, you know, be a lot more aggressive in the responses that I’ve made.”

Ask John Ashcroft how it felt to be Attorney General, when almost no Democrats supported his initial appointment. Ask Alberto Gonzalez, who also got no love from the Dems, despite being the first Latino AG—indeed the highest Latino in US government to that date (just as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice had been the first black and female Secys of State respectively). Talk about your war on women, blacks, and Hispanics!

Let’s take a look at a little bit of Eric Holder not snapping back.

“A nation of cowards”:

Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.

Ever wonder why, Eric (the Red)?

Fast and Furious:

“I want to be clear: Any instance of so-called ‘gun walking’ is unacceptable,” Holder said of weapons smuggling, later adding: “This operation was flawed in its concept, and flawed in its execution.”

No [bleep], Sherlock.

Myopia:

“You constantly hear about voter fraud … but you don’t see huge amounts of vote fraud out there,’’ Holder said.

J-u-u-u-st enough, I would say:

Attorney General Eric Holder finally got fed up Tuesday with claims that the Justice Department went easy in a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African American.

“When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people,” said Holder, who is black.

“To compare that kind of courage, that kind of action, and to say that the Black Panther incident wrong thought it might be somehow is greater in magnitude or is of greater concern to us, historically, I think just flies in the face of history and the facts.”

How about due process:

“The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama Bin Laden – he will never appear in an American courtroom,” the nation’s chief enforcement officer told a stunned House hearing.

No argument from me. But isn’t that the same kind of talk that got Bush labeled a “cowboy”?

More due process:

President Barack Obama predicted that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and executed as Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed: “Failure is not an option.”

Even if a terror trial suspect were acquitted, Holder said, he would not be released in the United States.

In one of a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia, Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won’t find it “offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”

Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed’s trial. “I’m not going to be in that courtroom,” he said. “That’s the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury.”

In interviews broadcast on NBC and CNN Wednesday, the president also said that experienced prosecutors in the case who specialize in terrorism have offered assurances that “we’ll convict this person with the evidence they’ve got, going through our system.”

Holder sought to explain his prosecutorial strategy Wednesday to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where lawmakers questioned him along largely partisan lines over his decision last week to send Mohammed and four alleged henchmen from a detention center at Guantanamo Bay to New York to face a civilian federal trial in New York.

Asked what might happen if the suspects are acquitted, Holder replied: “Failure is not an option. These are cases that have to be won. I don’t expect that we will have a contrary result.”

That’s the President of the United States and the Attorney General prejudging (literally) a civilian trial. Saddam Hussein couldn’t have done better. Homosexuals in Iran are more likely to get off. (Wipe that smirk off your face, you know what I mean.)

So, farewell, then, Eric Holder. Good riddance to bad rubbish. When you finally leave, that is.

Comments

Vox Cop [UPDATED][AGAIN]

I’ve been alluding to this in earlier posts, but let’s hear from some of New York’s finest after their cold-blooded execution of two of their own.

Former commissioner, Bernie Kerik:

With the exception of September 11th this takes me back to 1988, we had two officers killed on October 18th, this reminds me of the days back in the ’60s and ’70s when we faced executions of New York City cops. In this circumstance I believe, I personally feel, that Mayor de Blasio, [Al] Sharpton and others like them, they actually have blood on their hands. They encouraged this behavior. They encouraged protests. These so-called peaceful protests that, where people are standing out there saying “kill the cops,” well, I hope they’re happy, because they got what they wanted.

JUDGE JEANINE PIRRO, FOX NEWS: And what you’re referring to, of course, last Saturday’s protest on the Brooklyn Bridge. The so-called peaceful protest where the protestors yelled, “What do we want? dead cops. When do we want it? Now.”

KERIK: We want them now.

PIRRO: And then two New York City police lieutenants assaulted, mayor de blasio comes out and says they were allegedly assaulted. They weren’t allegedly assaulted; they were assaulted.

KERIK: They were assaulted, they were beaten, their radios were taken. It — you know, I’m numb. I am numb, and you have to question whether this man, Mayor de Blasio, can actually lead this city. You have to question that. You have to wonder, how can he lead the city?

Good question:

On FOX News’ Justice with Judge Jeanine, former NYPD detective Bo Dietl called on New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to resign after two NYPD officers were shot dead execution style in Brooklyn as they were sitting inside a patrol car.

“If you look online last week gangs were posting on websites about killing cops,” Dietl said to FOX News host Jeanine Pirro. “But this Gardner thing started this whole atmosphere. First of all, the Gardner incident was not a racist thing. There was a black sergeant on the scene. I don’t want to debate that now, but for them to take it and make it a racial thing, that this mayor, and I call the mayor Big Bird de Blasio because that’s exactly what he is.”

“I was at a promotion ceremony yesterday at One Police Plaza and he got two people clapping for him. This guy is a disgrace. He’s divided this country and this punk Sharpton here marching around last week with those demonstrations. ‘What do we want, dead cops?’ Well, they got two dead cops. And you now what? This guy went to Cuba in 1994. He should take his wife, de Blasio and go back to Cuba and live there,” Dietl also said.

Dietl was referring to the honeymoon de Blasio and his wife Chirlane McCray took in 1994 to Cuba, which violated a U.S. travel ban.

“He should resign tomorrow because he can not do the job and my officers are out there. My cops — I went by the [Rockefeller Plaza Christmas] tree. I went by the tree before. These guys are incensed. They’re saying, ‘Bo, keep speaking, please, we freed [sic] a voice. We need a voice,'” Dietl said.

Here’s another voice:

PAT LYNCH, NYC PATROLMEN’S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT: Today, this police department, this city and our country is in shock and mourning. Starting today, there’s two families of hero police officers that became part of the NYPD family. Every police officer that lined these streets today with sadness in their eyes to show respect as we carried two hero police officers out of this hospital. We will shoulder the burden for these families each and every day for the rest of their lives. Generations of police officers will know their names and hold them close to their hearts and educate our children about the sacrifice they made.

There’s blood on many hands tonight. Those that incited violence on the street under the guise of protests, that tried to tear down what New York City police officers did every day. We tried to warn, it must not go on, it cannot be tolerated. That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall in the office of the mayor.

Starting today, we started the mourning for our brother police officers. They’re heroes, they’re fathers, they’re brothers, they’re children. That’s the men we lost today. So, starting in the next couple of hours and going for a number of days, New York City police officers, through their sadness, will straighten their shoulders, stiffen their backs and mourn for these families. We’ll mourn for our city, and we’ll mourn for our brothers. When these funerals are over, those responsible will be called on the carpet and held accountable. We ask every person in the city to bow their heads tonight and pray for our families, the families of our lost police officers, their families and the family of every police officer on patrol today who’s in danger.

This was a cold-blooded assassination like we haven’t seen before. So, as I said, we’ll straighten our shoulders, we’ll stiffen our backs, and we’ll wipe our tears. But when these funerals are over, we’ll raise our heads, and those that allowed this to go on will be held accountable.

Sometimes, the obvious occurs only after the fact. Cops may be armed and trained, but they are sitting ducks. They wear uniforms and ID badges, they drive in marked cars, they face investigations up the wazoo if they should ever have to draw their gun and fire.

As Ismaaiyl Brinsley demonstrated, you can execute them at your leisure.

Order his t-shirt now!

UPDATE:
Another voice heard, another finger pointed:

Former New York Gov. George Pataki pegged the shootings of two Brooklyn police officers today on the “divisive, anti-cop rhetoric” of Attorney General Eric Holder and New York City mayor Bill DiBlasio.

Pataki, a Republican who is considering a run for president, tweeted:

Sickened by these barbaric acts, which sadly are a predictable outcome of divisive anti-cop rhetoric of #ericholder & #mayordeblasio. #NYPD.

By blaming Holder, Pataki would appear to be stopping just short of pointing the finger at President Obama.

I think we can read between the hashtags.

UPDATE:
America’s mayor:

“We’ve had four months of propaganda starting with the president that everybody should hate the police,” Giuliani said during an appearance on Fox News early Sunday. “The protests are being embraced, the protests are being encouraged. The protests, even the ones that don’t lead to violence, a lot of them lead to violence, all of them lead to a conclusion: The police are bad, the police are racist. That is completely wrong.”

“I think it goes to far to blame the mayor for the murder or to ask for the mayor’s resignation,” Giuliani said.

“I feel bad the mayor,” Giuliani continued. “He must be heartbroken over the loss of two police officers. I can’t believe this is what he wanted. I don’t he’s a bad man in any way.”

But, Giuliani said, de Blasio is “pursuing the wrong policies” and should not have given protesters demonstrating against the police killings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown as much leeway.

“I don’t think it goes too far to say the mayor did not properly police the protests,” Giuliani said. “He allowed the protesters to take over the streets. He allowed them to hurt police officers, to commit crimes, and he didn’t arrest them. And when you do that, similar to what happened in Crown Heights, you create a great riot. He should have known better. For that he has to take accountability.”

Comments

¿Cuba Libre?

You tell me:

Here is what the U.S. Agency for International Development, which takes its foreign policy guidance from the White House and the State Department, has to say about Cuba:

Cuba is a totalitarian state which relies on repressive methods to maintain control. Criticism of national leaders or the political system can lead to imprisonment. Members of the security forces harass and physically assault human rights and pro-democracy advocates, dissidents, detainees, and prisoners. The Cuban Government does not allow independent monitoring of prison conditions by international or national human rights groups and continues to refuse access to detainees by international humanitarian organizations (U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011).…

The Cuban Government routinely denies its citizens freedom of association and does not recognize independent associations. The Cuban Constitution prohibits any political organization that is not officially recognized. As a result, grassroots community efforts which operate in a democratic manner are extremely limited (U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011)….

The Cuban Government owns and the Communist Party controls all print and broadcast media outlets. News and information programming is nearly uniform across all outlets, and the law prohibits distribution of printed material from foreign sources considered “counterrevolutionary” or critical of the government. Foreign newspapers or magazines are generally unavailable, and distribution of material with political content, interpreted broadly to include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is not allowed and can result in harassment and even detention.

The Cuban Government controls nearly all internet access, with the exception of extremely limited facilities, where foreigners and citizens are allowed to buy Internet access cards for use at hotel business centers, where the price of Internet access is beyond the means of most citizens. Authorities review the browsing history of authorized users, review and censor e-mail, employ Internet search filters, and block access to Web sites considered objectionable (U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011).

Under the arrangement Obama has crafted, Cuba is required to do not a damn thing about reforming any of this. In “exchange,” the United States of America gives Cuba full diplomatic recognition. Plus, Obama tells the world’s other despots that a windfall from Uncle Sam could be awaiting them, too, if they abduct American citizens and hold them for ransom.

It’s true that we have diplomatic relations with just about everybody—North Korea being the only notable exception. But Havana doesn’t sound a whole hell of a lot freer. Pyonyang with an extra ration of fried plantains. Beijing with palm trees.

Cuba’s current sugardaddy, Venezuela, is in its own circle of Hell. If there was ever a time to squeeze Cuba for human rights concessions, this was that time. I guess human rights are just another first-world, colonial imposition on the indigenous proletariat of the world, and Obama says [bleep] that noise. Besides, Major League Baseball could do with a few more power pitchers and right-handed bats.

Comments

King Hussein

As the affronts and outrages pile up, it’s hard to remember which affront is the most outrageous.

This one is:

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: There is an issue whether the judge reached a bit too far from the case at hand. This really wasn’t a direct challenge to the immigration action taken by the president but it is scathing and the judge is touching on many complaints that have been raised in other lawsuits that do directly challenge these actions.

What’s a serious question here is the president’s decision to go it alone, not just in this area but other areas. We don’t have a license to go it alone in the United States. The scope of this type of action is legislative. It’s huge. It affects millions. But more importantly, it requires both the federal and state government to spend a great deal of money to support something that didn’t go through the legislative branch. And what people miss, and I think what this judge is trying to establish, is that that process of legislation is the very touch stone of our system, it’s what brings stability to our system. We have to agree, we have to compromise with legislation. When a president does it unilaterally, it takes that whole system off line. And that could be a dangerous thing.

I highlighted the main point. The Constitution assigns powers, not the president. Obama does not have the power to execute what he has so far merely spoken (but which is being executed nevertheless). How does that happen?

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Congress may try legislative fixes and fiscal blockades, but the very act(s) itself is invalid. It does not carry the weight of law because it is not law. He has appropriated what does not belong to him, only unlike looters taking flat screen TVs or 12-packs of Miller, he has made off with powers assigned to the legislative branch of the government. And no one is lifting a finger to stop him.

TURLEY: The key to a Madisonian system is that nobody has enough power to go it alone, that was the genius of James Madison. But we’re seeing the rise of a new model of presidency and I believe that supporters of President Obama will rue the day when they stay silent in the face of this kind of concentration of power. This is the very danger that the constitution was designed to prevent, the concentration of power in one person’s hands or one branch…

Correction, Professor Turley. Supporters of President Obama will never “rue the day when they stay[ed] silent in the face of this kind of concentration of power”. If some day the tables are turned (as with the filibuster in the Senate), they will rue nothing. They will shout, declaim, cry, and caterwaul for “fairness” and “justice” until they get their way.

They believe in winning—even more, they believe in the other fellow losing. I thought the Constitution protected us against people like that, but I guess that’s where I was wrong.

Comments

Hangin’ With My Homies

College campuses are reliably leftist, and they don’t come more leftist than Berkeley.

Which is why we’re not surprised:

Effigies of black lynching victims found hanging on a Northern California college campus have sparked debate over whether the images are powerful protest art or just plain tasteless and racist.

The photographic images were found Saturday morning hanging at two prominent spots on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley. They were discovered a few hours before a demonstration against police brutality organized by a black student union was to start. Police are investigating, but officials say they still don’t know who hanged the images or the motivation.

“It’s unclear if this is racially motivated effort or an effort at something else,” campus spokeswoman Claire Holmes said.

Do you think if these effigies had been displayed at, say, Bob Jones University, there would have been a question about the “motivation”? Why give the benefit of the doubt to the socialist redoubt in the Bay Area?

Because there is a “motivation”, however “queer”:

Sunday Dec. 14, 5 p.m.: An anonymous artists’ collective has taken responsibility for the effigies strung up in nooses at UC Berkeley on Saturday.

The statement from the collective:

“We are a collective of queer and POC artists responsible for the images of historical lynchings posted to several locations in Berkeley and Oakland,” reads a notice the group found posted on campus Sunday. “These images connect past events to present ones – referencing endemic faultlines of hatred and persecution that are and should be deeply unsettling to the American consciousness. We choose to remain anonymous because this is not about us as artists, but about the growing movement to address these pervasive wrongs.”

“For those who think these images are no longer relevant to the social framework in which black Americans exist everyday – we respectfully disagree. Garner, Brown, and others are victims of systemic racism. For those who think these images depict crimes and attitudes too distasteful to be seen .. we respectfully disagree. Our society must never forget. For those under the mistaken assumption that the images themselves were intended as an act of racism – we vehemently disagree and intended only the confrontation of historical context.”

“We apologize solely and profusely to Black Americans who felt further attacked by this work. We are sorry – your pain is ours, our families’, our history’s. To all, each image represents a true life ended by an unimaginable act of ignorance and human cruelty: Laura Nelson, George Meadows, Michael Donald, Charlie Hale, Garfield Burley, Curtis Brown. We urge you to further research the lives and deaths of these individuals. History must be confronted.”

POC means persons of color, I take it. Not colored persons, but persons of color. Nice of them to apologize, though. Five words out of 230, buried deep within the screed, directed “solely” at 13% of Americans.

Some of whom aren’t buying:

Berkeley Pastor Michael McBride told the Oakland Tribune that he sees no redeeming quality to the display.

“This is racial terror they are experiencing,” said McBride, who is also co-director of Intervarsity’s Black Campus Ministries at UC Berkeley. “I don’t care if it was a white person, a black person, a blue person, if it was an adversary or ally, these images strewed across campus have terrorized my students.”

I followed the suggestion of the “queers” and POCs and looked up every name they listed. All but one were lynched over a century ago. Hanged by the neck until dead by a terrorist mob yes, but none more recent than 1911. Did the queers and the POCs think we didn’t know that happened? And why equate murdered innocents with two people, Michael Brown and Eric Garner, whose actual law-breaking led people to call the cops?

I will give them full credit for re-exposing one lynching we may have wished to forget. That of Michael Donald in 1981.

Berkeley, man. No [bleeping] wonder.

Comments

BTL Going on the Lam

You’ll never take me alive, coppers!

A group of Americans academics issued a call for the US and Europe to impose personal sanctions on Israeli politicians who promote the Israeli annexation of the West Bank and further settlement activity.

Scholars for Israel and Palestine (SIP) published a call, on the website of the anti-BDS organization, The Third Narrative, for punitive measures “on a cluster of Israeli political leaders and public figures who lead efforts to insure [sic] permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and to annex all or parts of it unilaterally in violation of international law.”

SIP points to four prominent Israeli figures who fit this description: Economy Minister and head of the Jewish Home party Naftali Bennett, Minister of Construction and Housing Uri Ariel from Jewish Home, Likud MK Moshe Feiglin, and the head of the settler movement of Gush Emunin “Amana” and former Jewish Underground member, Zeev (Zambish) Hever.

The four are singled out by SIP for pursuing “unjust, unlawful, and destructive policies in their most extreme and dangerous form.”

Those are some bad hombres, all right. A real pack of desperados—among whom I would be proud to count myself.

Our crime?

“Annexationist policies pursued by these four individuals, and others like them… slam the door not only on peacemaking at present but for the foreseeable future. It is not sufficient to reiterate calls for negotiations. It is equally and urgently imperative to oppose the occupation itself, and especially those policies that seek to make it permanent and irreversible. It is necessary for the U S and the EU to go beyond verbal protest… [and] take active measures to penalize lawbreakers,” the call read.

The real crime is in the writing. These guys are academics? That paragraph would get an F in Freshman Comp. “Annexationist”? Call it a word if you like; I call it the hideous spawn of Satan. “Foreseeable future” is a hackneyed phrase (and I know hackneyed phrases). The linking of “not sufficient” and “equally and urgently imperative” is illogical: how can something that is not enough be a rallying cry for action? And can they lose the passive voice—“it is” this and “it is” that? You got something to say, say it. Oh yeah, saying something is “permanent” pretty much covers “irreversible”; and “taking measures” doesn’t need “active” to modify it. I can’t imagine an inactive measure taken.

Who are these nincompoops?

The 20 signatories of the petition include distinguished professors from UCLA, Columbia, Syracuse, Stanford and Princeton. Among the mainly Jewish academics is the renowned political theorist Michael Walzer.

Columbia. Figures.

Now that we’ve discredited these academic jackals, let’s read the lurid crimes of which they accuse Moshe “The Masher” Feiglin et al of committing.

Bennett is cited for continuing to “press strongly for a policy of creeping annexation” and leading the struggle against the 2010 10-month settlement freeze when he was head of the Yesha Council. The freeze was called by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an incentive to the Palestinians to negotiate. It failed.

Ariel is criticized for promoting a one-state solution, also known as a binational state, being a “consistent advocate of accelerated settlement building,” announcing construction tenders at inopportune times and calling for the building of the Third Temple on the Temple Mount.

Feiglin is blasted for his “straightforward and undisguised extremism” and for an “annexationist program [that] goes beyond Bennett’s,” while Hever is described as “one of the most persistent and influential organizers of settlement construction,” and is accused of building homes in outposts even the Israeli government considers illegal.

Our academic friends want to throw us in jail for the crime of housing starts. Which changes this scene from Witness to R-rated, if not X.

That’s me, the third Amish from the left, hiding out from the authorities for pursuing “unjust, unlawful, and destructive policies in their most extreme and dangerous form.” Approach with caution.

Comments

Ferguson is Just Another “Crisis” Obama Won’t Waste

Let him tell you:

I think Ferguson laid bare a problem that is not unique to St. Louis or that area, and is not unique to our time, and that is a simmering distrust that exists between too many police departments and too many communities of color. The sense that in a country where one of our basic principles, perhaps the most important principle, is equality under the law, that too many individuals, particularly young people of color, do not feel as if they are being treated fairly.

Are we dealing with facts or feelings here? Nothing factual about the incident between Michael Brown and Darren Wilson supports anything like this sort of talk. What facts prove that Brown was not treated fairly under the law? And if there is “simmering distrust”, aren’t both sides at fault? Why focus solely on the police? Did the police riot and loot?

But Eric Holder does Obama one better:

“This presents this nation with, I think, a unique opportunity,” Holder said. “And I think it’s incumbent on all of us to seize this opportunity to deal with issues that for too long have been ignored.”

Never let a crisis go to waste. Even if you’ve been in office for nearly six years, pretend like you just got to town. And for heaven’s sake, don’t define the crisis, or “issues”. The vaguer you are, the more you can get away with.

Holder further bloviated:

Like millions of Americans, I know many of you have spent the past few days with family members, friends, and loved ones, giving thanks for the blessings of the past year – but also mindful of recent news, the anguished emotions, and the images of destruction that have once again focused this country’s attention on Ferguson, Missouri.

Is this where he comes down hard on the rioters and looters, the professional agitators, the Panthers?

Not exactly:

Like you, I understand that the need for this trust was made clear in the wake of the intense public reaction to last week’s grand jury announcement. But the problems we must confront are not only found in Ferguson. The issues raised in Missouri are not unique to that state or that small city. We are dealing with concerns that are truly national in scope and that threaten the entire nation. Broadly speaking, without mutual understanding between citizens – whose rights must be respected – and law enforcement officers – who make tremendous and often-unheralded personal sacrifices every day to preserve public safety – there can be no meaningful progress. Our police officers cannot be seen as an occupying force disconnected from the communities they serve.

Responding to a convenience store robbery—in a black neighborhood—is occupation?

Move along, nothing to see.

But the issue is larger than just the police and the community. Our overall system of justice must be strengthened and made more fair.

That’s right, make a spurious point and then move on. To an even more spurious point.

[I]n the coming days, I will announce updated Justice Department guidance regarding profiling by federal law enforcement, which will institute rigorous new standards – and robust safeguards – to help end racial profiling, once and for all. This new guidance will codify our commitment to the very highest standards of fair and effective policing.

Again, he’s been Attorney General for nearly six years! If racial profiling is so bad, what’s he been doing all this time? Obama should sack him for indifference or incompetence.

But of course he won’t:

Eric Holder is going to be working in parallel with the task force to convene a series of these meetings all across the country, because this is not a problem simply of Ferguson, Missouri, this is a problem that is national. It is a solvable problem, but it is one that, unfortunately, spikes after one event and then fades into the background until something else happens. What we need is a sustained conversation…

We keep trying, but no one answers us.

Holder has already announced his resignation; I thought he couldn’t wait to get out of there. Now he’s point man on a nationwide initiative? What are these creeps up to?

But enough with the questions. You come here for answers.

This is all about politics. Obama is not playing to America. He’s playing to a subset of Americans with a gripe. We can argue about the validity of that gripe, but this is not how you “bring people together”. The vast majority of Americans think justice was done in Ferguson—until the rioting and looting started, that is. They look at the mayhem in Ferguson, they listen to Obama and Holder, and the two do not match. Neither do the vast majority of Americans support amnesty for illegal aliens. But with the same self-righteous pontificating, Obama assured us he was acting unilaterally (and illegally) out of fairness.

It took some doing, but Obama has lost the middle-class white vote for Democrats. But that’s okay because he’s leaving them with a new coalition. Latinos legalized by an invalid diktat, and African Americans united by a fiction (“hands up, don’t shoot”), plus the usual collection of kooks, cranks, and Kool-Aid drinkers that remain loyal to the Party—these ain’t your daddy’s Democrats. But they’re Liz Warren’s. The Class Warfare will commence shortly.

Comments

Left Wing Civility Watch

I knew I had used this post title before, but this is the 22nd time:

The real haters are in the media, some of them the openly left-leaning media and some of them claiming to be mainstream. But oh, how vilely they spew their hatred.

They accuse us of being “haters.” They, by contrast, are rational, fair-minded, and kindly. Really, they are. Consider, for example, the gentlemanly Chris Matthews on Hardball on October 27, speaking of the Republican nominee for Senate from North Carolina: “What’s worse: Thom Tillis, or Ebola?”

Here’s Andrea Mitchell reporting on MSNBC on Election Night about why Republicans were winning: “It was a scare tactic by the Republican opponents of Democratic incumbents, who tried to focus on ISIS and Ebola in the scariest, most nonfactual ways.”

Here’s Alan Pyke, deputy economic policy editor for the far-left Think Progress blog in reaction to the Fox News Channel’s coverage of the unrest in Ferguson: “I hope Roger Ailes dies slow, painful, and soon. The evil that man has done to the American tapestry is unprecedented for an individual.”

Matthews (again), with regard to conservative support for voter-ID laws: “Believing they can’t convert the African-American vote, they’ve decided to slaughter it. . . . This is murder in broad daylight.”

But at least our economics aren’t lethal — merely bigoted. Just ask MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, who on April 30 discerned our real motives: “I think not raising the minimum wage is a racist policy. . . . Not raising the wage, the minimum wage, is every bit as racist as comments made by Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling. It’s just displayed in a different way.”

Charles Pierce, who wrote this blog post about Palin’s speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference: “[Senator John] McCain should pay a heavy price for unleashing this ignorant, two-wheeled bilewagon [Sarah Palin] on the country’s politics. If you think she’s a legitimate political leader, you’re an idiot and a sucker, and I feel sorry for you. . . . She is the living representation of the infantilization of American politics, a poisonous Grimm Sister telling toxic fairy tales to audiences drunk on fear and hate and nonsense. . . . It was the address of a malignant child delivered to an audience of malignant children. If you applauded, you’re an idiot and I feel sorry for you.”

Compared with that, MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski was quite kind to Palin, calling her merely “a multimillion-dollar moron selling a message.”

Max Brooks on HBO with Bill Maher pretended to be a Deep Thinker delivering a sober analysis. The rise of the Tea Party “has happened before in history,” he sagely intoned. “In Germany in the ’20s and ’30s…

Gawker’s staff writer Adam Weinstein shared this bit of policy advice:

Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars. . . . Denialists should face jail. They should face fines. . . . I’m talking about Rush and his multimillion-dollar ilk in the disinformation business. I’m talking about Americans for Prosperity and the businesses and billionaires who back its obfuscatory propaganda. . . . Those malcontents must be punished and stopped.

In case anybody missed the point, the blog post’s headline was “Arrest Climate-Change Deniers.”

These are talking heads, but are they any different from our co-workers, our acquaintances, our family members? We called it Bush Derangement Syndrome back when Bush was president. But Bush hasn’t been president for almost six years. It should have been called Liberal Hate Syndrome, and there is still no known cure. (Of course, the first step is wanting to be cured.)

Comments

Putting His Money Where His Mouth Is

Liberal law professor ain’t that liberal:

Speaker of the House John Boehner has hired Jonathan Turley, a renowned liberal law professor, as his lead counsel in the House’s lawsuit against the Obama administration’s delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate.

Turley is a law professor at the George Washington University, frequent legal commentator and self-avowed liberal. He may be the perfect pick for House Republicans — Turley is not only a liberal, but is friendly toward Obamacare itself, according to his writings. But he’s vociferously pushed back against President Obama’s generous use of executive action in the past and has hit the administration for its implementation of the health-care law and he said he jumped at the chance to represent House Republicans.

“It is a great honor to represent the institution in this historic lawsuit and to work with the talented staff of the House General Counsel’s Office,” Turley wrote at his blog Monday. “To quote the movie Jerry Maguire, the House ‘had me at hello’ in seeking a ruling to reinforce the line of authority between the branches.”

“The question presented by this lawsuit is whether we will live in a system of shared and equal powers, as required by our Constitution, or whether we will continue to see the rise of a dominant Executive with sweeping unilateral powers,” Turley continued. “That is a question worthy of review and resolution in our federal courts.”

As we quoted Turley yesterday:

“What the President is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the constitution. We have a separation of powers that gives us balance and that doesn’t protect the branches. It’s not there to protect the executive branch or the legislative branch, it’s there to protect liberty. It’s there to keep any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty.

That post was titled “The Fascist President”. Anyone still care to argue that?

While Turley may be a good fit for House Republicans, they’ve had trouble retaining counsel in the past. Two Washington, D.C. law firms backed out of representing the House thus far — first attorney David Rivkin of BakerHostetler and then Bill Burkc of Quinn Emanuel Urquhuart & Sullivan.

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog, is seeking information from the White House on whether administration officials pressured the firms into dropping the case. A Boehner spokesman told Politico last month that political pressure form “wealthy, Democratic-leaning clients” was a factor in the firms backing out.

That sound you hear is the sound of a democratically elected republic slipping through our grasp.

Comments (2)

The Fascist President

Why be coy?

And why say it myself when I have my own liberal law professor to say it for me?

“No president can take on the power of all three branches and that’s what he seems to be doing. He certainly seems to be taking on legislative authority. He isn’t be particularly coy about this, you know he says ‘this is what I wanted to get out of legislation and I’m going to do it on my own’ and that does become a government of one.”

Actually, I have said that. Exactly that. But it’s nice to get the affirmation. But I then asked: what happens next? If the act is invalid—a president cannot make law—how is it enforceable? And if he violates the Constitution, isn’t his removal from office and deposit in the dustbin of history compulsory and inescapable?

Yet someone has to act to make these things so. Even an invalid, unconstitutional act by a criminal president has authority merely from the respect of the office (if not the man) from which it comes. How can a diktat with no legal authority be acted upon as if it were “the law of the land” (to coin a phrase)? As the old robot in Lost in Space used to say, “that does not compute”.

Anyway, Turley had more to say:

“It’s a very sad moment but it’s becoming a particularly dangerous moment if the president is going to go forward, particularly after this election to defy the will of Congress yet again. I can understand the frustration, these are two political parties that cannot get along but as you said, we have a Democratic process and a Congress that’s coming in with the full voice of the American people behind them, that’s what an election is, you may disagree with the outcome, but you have to respect the outcome,” Turley continued. “What the President is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the constitution. We have a separation of powers that gives us balance and that doesn’t protect the branches. It’s not there to protect the executive branch or the legislative branch, it’s there to protect liberty. It’s there to keep any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty.”

“I always tell my friends on the Democratic side, we will rue the day when we helped create this uber presidency,” he said. “What the Democrats are creating is something very very dangerous. They’re creating a president who can go at it alone and to go at it alone is something that is a very danger that the framers sought to avoid in our constitution.”

Uber is German, by the way, as in deutschland über alles. Just pointing it out.

So, this self-described liberal says Obama’s behavior is a “threat to liberty”. I don’t want any harm to come to any of the Obamas—not George, way over there in his dusty hut, not even Uncle Omar, bagging six-packs of Coors up on the North Shore—but this man needs to be stopped.

Who’s going to do it, and how?

PS: I describe his behavior as fascistic, but any fascist worth his salt has the military at his beck and call. I don’t think Obama can count on that. Not when the going gets tough.

Comments

Epiphany

Who does Jonathan Gruber think is stupid – the Conservatives who never believed a word of ObamaCare nonsense or the NPR/NY Times/Boston Glob crowd who licked up every syllable and accused those who didn’t believe in it of racism? When he says that the American voter is stupid, he means them. Because the Limbaugh crowd and the Wall Street Journal crowd and the Libertarians and Fox News and the small business community and the Tea Party all knew that he, Obama, Reid and Pelosi lied about this every time they spoke. It was the Charlie Rose crowd, the Terry Gross crowd, the earnest little twits who gobbled this nonsense up with a spoon. No wonder the MSM isn’t covering any of this. It’s embarrassing.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

See No Evil, Hear No Evil

So, now that all hell has broken loose with Jonathan Gruber’s disgraceful, arrogant, elitist remarks about how ObamaCare was passed as the Law of the Land only by way of lies, obfuscations, and evasions…sorry, what did you say?

All hell hasn’t broken loose? The mainstream media are not touching it?

Not CNN? Nope.

The New York Times? Nope.

NPR? Nope.

USA Today? Nope.

NBC, CBS, ABC? Nope, nope, and nope.

You’ve all seen and heard the remarks. Not only did he call the American people a bunch of dopes, he called ObamaCare supporters a bunch of dopes. They bought it; the rest of us knew they were lying. We all said so at the time. (How dumb must Chief Justice Roberts feel right now? Not half as dumb as he should feel.)

It even turns out that Gruber made a habit out of bragging how smart he was, and how dumb we were.

And not one word in the “respectable” media. (To its immense credit, the Washington Post has plenty.)

I do try to keep hyperbole to a minimum (oxymoronic as that may sound), or at least tongue in cheek, but I do not inhabit the same world as my neighbors anymore. I may not be smarter (or dumber), but I know things they can’t even imagine. The most terrifying of which is that the institution of the press is as corrupt as any medieval pope or Roman emperor (or Massachusetts Speaker of the House). We are just as dumb as they want us—I never said Gruber was wrong.

PS: Gruber did appear on local PBS with liberal lioness, Emily Rooney. You won’t last past the sickening question, trust me, so it won’t take long.

Comments (1)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »