Like Slimey Cockroaches & their crooked President, Liberals Spread Disease

[Warph]

        

25 Examples Of What America Would Be Like If Everyone Was A Liberal


by John Hawkins

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/08/28/25_examples_of_what_america_would_be_like_if_everyone_was_a_liberal/page/full/


1) America's credit rating would get so low that it would force President Dennis Kucinich to petition the UN for donations to pay for Social Security, Medicare, and his newly implemented 350 weeks of unemployment plan.

2) There wouldn't be a Pledge of Allegiance said in schools, no one would sing the Star Spangled Banner before any sporting event, and no one would celebrate the 4th of July.

3) Gas would cost $9 a gallon. Liberals would consider this a plus because it would cause more people to get tax credits to buy government subsidized $40,000 electric cars.

4) Seven year olds would be able to vote. Free candy and endorsements from cartoon characters would become a staple of campaigning.

5) The corporate tax rate would be 15 percent higher, most American workers would be unionized and tax rates would soar. As a result, our economy would be stagnant and our unemployment rate would permanently be in the 10-20% range.

6) Prison sentences would be short, crime would be rampant, and the police would be so undermanned and tied down with regulations that they wouldn't even bother to lock people up for committing crimes like burglary..

7) There would be price controls on electricity, gasoline, and most household goods. Of course, there would also be regular shortages of electricity, gasoline, and most household goods.

8 ) Children would be taught to be androgynous, gender-confused weirdos in school rather than risk exposing them to "gender stereotypes."

9) Conservatism would be considered hate speech that could draw a massive fine or even jail time for repeat offenders.

10) The good news is that housing would be free. The bad news is that it would mostly be in ugly cement buildings with drug addicts, former homeless people, the severely mentally ill, and career criminals peppered all through the complex for the sake of "diversity."

11) Wearing a cross, mentioning the Bible, or advocating Christian beliefs anywhere outside of a church would be illegal because it might "offend people."

12) Meat, 32 ounce sodas, and trans fats would be illegal. Crack, meth, and heroin would be legal.

13) America's military would be so weak we'd have to rely on Mexico and Canada to defend us from potential threats.

14) The Israelis would be driven into the sea, Taiwan would be swallowed by China, and Russia would begin to gobble up the countries that broke free after the Soviet Union fell.

15) Not only would partial birth abortions be legal, but a mother would be allowed to kill her child for three months after he's born without penalty.

16) Stopping sex offenders from teaching school or adopting children would be considered discriminatory.

17) Activists would be able to sue on behalf of individual plants and animals in court.

18) The government would control health care top-to-bottom. It would take six months to get an operation, which would be considered a feature, not a bug because a lot of old people would die in the interim and save the government money.

19) Only government employees would be able to legally own guns.

20) Income inequality would be nearly eradicated after all the rich Americans and big corporations fled the country rather than pay confiscatory tax rates.

21) Wal-Mart would only be allowed to hire union employees and completely coincidentally, their prices would double.

22) We'd have open borders and so many illegal aliens in the southern United States that California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas would end up being ceded back to Mexico.

23) There would be a free, in-house abortion clinic in every junior high in America.

24) President Kucinich's new idea to help deal with the soaring jobless rate? Paying workers the new minimum wage, $80,000 a year, to dig holes and fill them back up.

25) The federal government would spend 134 billion dollars replacing the current Presidents on Mount Rushmore with Gloria Steinem, Harvey Milk, Cesar Chavez, and Margaret Sanger

[Warph]

    


 25 Examples of What America Would Be Like if
We Were All Christian Conservative Tea Partiers

by John Hawkins

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/08/03/25_examples_of_what_america_would_be_like_if_we_were_all_christian_conservative_tea_partiers/page/full/

If every American was a Christian conservative Tea Partier...

1) ...There would be fewer regulations, lower taxes, a business-friendly environment, and a much smaller government that would lead to considerably stronger economic growth and job creation. In fact, we'd probably have to dramatically increase the number of work permits we hand out to foreign workers, not because there are "jobs Americans won't do" (which don't actually exist), but because so many Americans would be employed that we'd have to bring in more people to do all of the available work.

2) ...The richest Americans would have more money. Of course, so would the middle class and the poor. In fact, the only Americans who wouldn't benefit economically would be the Americans who spend their lives relying on the government, instead of their own effort, to pay their bills.

3) ...We'd have some form of a Balanced Budget Amendment to insure that we don't have a deficit or a debt.

4) ...We'd have a much flatter, simpler tax code that you could fill out on a single sheet of paper.

5) ...Welfare and food stamps would still exist, but there wouldn't be as much need for them, it would be considered shameful to take either, and you can be sure that people would have to work for every hand-out they receive.

6) ...Social Security would be privatized and invested. That means the people who put nothing in would have nothing to take out, but the people who do pay in would have a lot more money to withdraw.

7) ...We'd still put some research money into alternative energy, but we'd also work to build a lot more nuclear power plants and we'd encourage private industry to produce more clean coal and natural gas. Oil would also be much cheaper because we'd have already drilled ANWR, the keystone pipeline would be built, and we'd be opening up federal land to environmentally responsible drilling at every opportunity. This would lead to much lower energy bills for the average American.

8 ) ...We'd have the same sort of "loser pays" legal system that's practiced in much of the rest of the civilized world. That would dramatically reduce the number of lawsuits and the cost of legal insurance.

9) ...There would be a lot less government workers and the ones we'd have would make less on average than the taxpayers paying their salary.

10) ...Health care would be much cheaper and more efficient because you could buy insurance across state lines; we'd have tort reform, health care savings accounts, and tax credits for health care would go to individuals instead of companies, which means that you wouldn't lose your insurance if you lose your job.

11) ...The fence would be built, the border would be secure, anyone who overstayed his VISA would be tracked down and deported, and illegal aliens who did make it into the country would be forever barred from visiting here legally or becoming citizens.

12) ...Legal immigration would be faster, cheaper, and much more efficient. We'd also be selecting new American immigrants based on merit instead of rewarding people for breaking our laws or allowing them to come here because their son or cousin already managed to become a citizen.

13) ...English would be the national language.

14) ...People would look at you like you're an idiot, as they should today, if you suggest that the Constitution is a living document. You'd also see a lot more Constitutional amendments because the Supreme Court would stick to the law as written unless it was amended.

15) ...The crime rate would be so low because of the lack of criminals and the prevalence of guns that in much of the country, people wouldn't bother to lock their doors.

16) ...The death penalty would be applied much more liberally for terrible crimes and it wouldn't take 15 years of appeals to carry it out.

17) ...All people would be welcome to practice their religious faith with no official state-run religion, just as the Founding Fathers intended. So, yes, you could have a manger in front of the town hall at Christmas and the Ten Commandments on a court house wall, and teachers in public school could teach from the Bible in class when it was appropriate.

18) ...Not only would there be no gay marriage, we'd be taking steps to strengthen marriage -- like getting rid of no-fault divorce and it would be acknowledged that a mother and a father would do a better job of raising kids than any other combination.

19) ....Children would be taught abstinence in school, having kids out of wedlock would be frowned upon, and abortion would be legal only in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.

20) ...Kids would start out school with the Pledge of Allegiance and a daily prayer.

21) ...We'd have school vouchers so that we could introduce competition into our school systems and allow all parents to send their kids to the same kind of schools that the rich do today. We'd also spend a lot more time teaching kids reading, writing, arithmetic, history, and economics and spend a lot less time worrying about their self-esteem.

22) ...You wouldn't have terrorists, communists, and people who hate America teaching at our universities.

23) ...Racism would practically be non-existent, there would be no need for the NAACP, LA RAZA, or Affirmative Action and people would, "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

24) ...We'd have safe water, safe food, clean air, and a clean environment, but we'd put an end to the years of legal challenges to new building projects and people having their land declared a "wetland" because the ground gets soggy for a few days a year.

25) ...There would be no public unions. Private unions would, of course, still exist, but no one would be forced to join and employers, if they so desire, would be able to fire everyone in the union and get a new work force.

[Warph]

Bozell Battles Media Elephant in the Room

By Jeffrey Lord on 8.28.12 @ 6:08AM


Media Research Center' Truth project exposes liberal media bias in 2012 campaign.

It's the elephant in the room.

The elephant in the room as in the obvious truth that is being ignored. The "room" defined as the 2012 fall campaign.

That elephant in the room.

The elephant in the room with which Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center are doing daily, quite vivid battle -- and winning. As a matter of fact, anticipating that the Obama campaign would be little more than a slug fest of personal attacks rather than policy debates, Bozell announced a "Tell the Truth" campaign -- way back in January of this year. Long before there were Obama campaign commercials accusing Mitt Romney of killing a steelworker's wife or insisting Romney was a felon, the 25-year old MRC -- 25 this year -- had a website in place to keep Americans fully informed of just how the media bias game is being played on both videotape and audiotape as well as in print.

As with all elephants in a room, the obvious truth of the 2012 campaign is begging and trumpeting to be ignored. With reason. Like real elephants, this particular elephant in a room is big -- huge. It's also determined, motivated, ruthless, capable of sudden rage -- and it never forgets. It will trample on anyone and anything that gets in its way or is perceived in the slightest degree to pose a threat to the elephant's agenda. Most importantly it lived for a very long time with a unique ability to be both highly visible -- while being invisible at the same time.

The latter trait -- being visible but invisible at the same time -- is now lost as a direct result of Bozell's work. Added to the invention of Fox News, talk radio, and the Internet -- Bozell and his colleagues have made it absolutely impossible for the elephant to be invisible ever again.

So the elephant isn't happy. In fact, it's furious that its rampages are now reported instantly.
Take this snappy little video that the Media Research Center has put out showing the elephant doing its thing.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2012/08/27/media-vs-gop-intolerant-anti-women-and-always-too-conservative

An amazing sight, no?

So how long has this elephant been hanging around, you ask?

This elephant that you see in that MRC video originally appeared in what is still known today as the first modern presidential campaign. The first campaign filled with television cameras, jet planes, computers and all the trappings that are now not only standard fare in 2012 but are refined in spectacular fashion.

That campaign: 1960.

The candidates: Republican Vice President Richard Nixon versus the Democrats' Senator John F. Kennedy.

The frontrunner was Nixon.

In 1960, Richard Nixon was, next to the popular President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the most famous politician in America. Senator Kennedy was the surprise nominee of the Democrats. A surprise because, at 43 a young man and a Catholic to boot (there had never been a Catholic president), JFK had bested four older and much better-known Democrats whom political observers of the day thought had an infinitely better chance to take on Nixon. One by one, whether in primaries or convention, the young and relatively unknown Kennedy had bested Senators Hubert Humphrey (MN), Stuart Symington (MO), Lyndon Johnson (TX) -- the latter the powerful Senate Majority Leader -- and two-time presidential nominee and perennial liberal favorite Adlai Stevenson.

By Labor Day the 1960 fall campaign had begun in earnest, the race narrowed to just Nixon and Kennedy.

Or was it just Nixon and Kennedy?

For the first time in a modern presidential campaign, a third contestant was on the playing field.

That would be the elephant in the campaign room. This contestant was, as mentioned, both highly visible every day -- yet totally invisible at the same time.

Here is author Theodore H. White's description of this third contestant in White's Pulitzer Prize --winning book The Making of the President 1960:

By the last weeks of the campaign, those forty or fifty national correspondents who had followed Kennedy since the beginning of his electoral exertions into the November days had become more than a press corps -- they had become friends and, some of them, his most devoted admirers. When the (campaign) bus or the plane rolled or flew through the night, they sang songs of their own composition about Mr. Nixon and the Republicans in chorus with the Kennedy staff and felt that they, too, were marching like soldiers of the Lord to the New Frontier.

The elephant in the room was, of course, the press -- as it was called in 1960. The media, as it is known today.

And the press in 1960 was anything but impartial.

The institutions represented and run by these correspondents and their editors of print and television took great care to present themselves as impartial recorders of fact. Their visibility -- on television screens for three networks (there were only three -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- in 1960) and in the pages of such print vehicles as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, or Newsweek magazine (to name but four -- there were many, the print press providing both fodder and story cues to the television editors) -- was off the charts.

These were the institutions that were supposed to be providing the facts and nothing but the facts about Kennedy and Nixon to the American people.

Alas, as White would write, it simply wasn't so.

In fact, as White records, these people regarded themselves as "marching like soldiers of the Lord to the New Frontier." Every political and cultural bias that could be had in 1960 and tilted toward John F. Kennedy was put into play. They weren't about the truth -- they were about advancing the liberal narrative.

And the problem grew worse. Much worse. As the years unspooled, there were sins of omission and a growing list of sins of commission, a number of them discussed here in this space.

All of which made one thing vividly clear to millions of Americans. From zero stories in the day about JFK's mistresses (one of which was shared by a Mafia mobster -- the same Mafia being investigated cautiously by JFK's Attorney General brother) to zero stories about John Edwards having an affair while touting his loyalty to his wife (the National Enquirer broke that one) -- from a media willingness to link Barry Goldwater to Nazis and an unwillingness to report on the left-extremist leanings of Obama administration staffer Van Jones -- the situation grew worse. And worse and worse and worse.

Enter Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center. The MRC (which correctly calls itself "the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias") formed its NewsBusters blog in 2005 with some help from Matthew Sheffield of Dialogue New Media.

It is the MRC's NewsBusters that now has its recording equipment going 24/7 with an instant capability of exposing the elephant in the room. It is the MRC scanning every media outlet findable to expose the bias of "journalists" who obviously feel they are the professional descendants of those Teddy White long ago described as "marching like soldiers of the Lord."

Let's go to the video tape, shall we? Let's see some Truth Telling.

And let's start with that wonderful clip above.

There is the elephant in full view.

Known by specific names like Lesley Stahl of CBS, Lynn Sherr of ABC, Katie Couric of NBC and later CBS, Charles Kuralt of CBS, Tom Brokaw of NBC, Bill Moyers of PBS, Candy Crowley of CNN, Bryant Gumbel of NBC, Charlie Gibson of ABC, Dan Rather of CBS, and Tom Brokaw of NBC.

There they are -- seen repeatedly from 1988 through 2008. Twenty years-worth of being soldiers for unrestricted abortion. Twenty years of insisting that all women must be seen through the prism of the upper class liberal women who are their friends.

Rape is mentioned in a clip from 2000 -- called by Brokaw an "epidemic" in America. But the onus is on the GOP in terms of abortion. Note that Brokaw doesn't dare mention the words "rape" and "Bill Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick." Also note how the Equal Rights Amendment is cited as a cause women favor. This, mind you, years after the Equal Rights Amendment failed -- with the votes of women like Phyllis Schlafly leading the charge to defeat it. The Amendment failed outright to gain enough states to ratify it as a constitutional amendment. That was in June of 1982. And two years later? Ronald Reagan -- running on a platform that never mentioned the ERA-- was re-elected in a 49 state landslide.

But hey... who cares about the political facts.

The game afoot here is to shape a narrative... a moving negative narrative of conservatives and Republicans that is molded afresh every night and every day. With an accompanying positive narrative of all things liberal and of Democrats.

To do in today's campaign of 2012 just exactly what Teddy White saw with liberal journalists plying their trade to help Jack Kennedy in 1960.

So let's run through some examples NewsBusters has captured of the elephant in the room at work:

· Here's Chris Matthews of NBC playing that old favorite of Democrats -- the race card.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/08/27/unhinged-matthews-welcomes-gop-ranting-about-romney-playing-race-car


· Here's George Stephanopoulos of ABC and Bob Schieffer of CBS marching for the liberal narrative, insisting on focusing on Missouri's Todd Akin and abortion rather than the economy.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2012/08/26/stephanopolous-hypes-political-hurricane-todd-akin-while-barbour-scolds


· Here's Newsweek's Eleanor Clift lavishing praise on Obamacare.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/08/26/eleanor-clift-election-day-voters-will-be-saying-praise-lord-about-ob


· Here's NBC's David Gregory asking if Paul Ryan isn't too "incendiary" to be vice president.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/24/david-gregory-paul-ryan-little-too-incendiary-be-vice-president#ixzz23GIjCk7I


· You think the liberal media attacks on Paul Ryan are new? Here's NewsBusters compiling a video series of clips attacking the last four GOP vice-presidential nominees -- Dan Quayle, Jack Kemp, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2012/08/13/ryan-s-not-first-media-s-history-trashing-gop-vice-presidential-picks


· You think ABC's George Stephanopoulos and Brian Ross are alone in linking a violent shooting to conservatives based on zero evidence? As they did here?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/07/20/abc-links-colorado-mass-killer-tea-party


Here's a NewsBusters clip of MSNBC going to it in the aftermath of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. As with Ross and the Batman killer, there was -- and remains -- zero evidence linking any conservative to either event. , as they did here

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2012/07/20/brian-ross-just-latest-liberal-reporter-impugn-conservatives-after

One could go on endlessly with all the material NewsBusters and the Tell the Truth campaign has already provided on issue after issue and how the liberal media goes out of its way to pretend to objectivity when, of course, they are not.

Bozell appears regularly on Sean Hannity's Fox News show to do a Media Mash segment. As Hannity describes it this segment regularly features all the ways the liberal media seeks to spin the liberal world view in the world of television.

Simply put, these Media Mash segments with Hannity and Bozell are priceless in capturing liberal bias.

· Check out Charlie Rose and Brian Williams spinning away here on Obama's "you didn't build it" routine and Romney's releasing of taxes and Romney's trip to Europe

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2012/07/27/you-didnt-build-edition-media-mash


· Here's an entire edition displaying the attacks on Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. (Without a trace of irony, there is CBS's Bob Schieffer telling Bachmann that her critics accuse her of "playing fast and loose with the truth.")

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/06/30/media-mash-gaffe


· Here's Hannity and Bozell reporting on the media's rush to judgment over the Trayvon Martin incident, with NBC deliberately editing a police tape to give the impression Zimmerman is a racist.
Again, one could go on endlessly here -- and NewsBusters is constantly on the job providing the video tapes that in the past were used to hide the elephant in the room.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2012/03/29/bozell-irresponsible-media-skewing

So.

Why is this so critical in 2012?

Remember that story about ABC's Jake Tapper carefully admitting to George Stephanopoulos that well, yes, in 2008 "You had the media, perhaps, tilting on the scales a little bit"? What Tapper was saying was a bland and polite way of acknowledging the elephant in the room that was and will be again liberal media bias in yet another presidential campaign.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2012/01/08/tapper-acknowledges-2008-media-tilted-scales-little-bit-obama


Just as Teddy White quite accurately reported of a campaign that took place some 52 years ago -- the media, the liberal media -- has chosen sides. Whether they were marching as soldiers for John F. Kennedy in 1960 or for Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012, they have not the least intention of reporting the news objectively. They have zero intention of being fair and balanced. They are about one thing and one thing only -- advancing the liberal/left-wing narrative.

No matter the issue -- economics, national security, or social issues like abortion, race, same-sex marriage or whatever -- the goal always and forever is above all to advance the liberal narrative.

They are players. Not umpires. Participants. Not Referees.

Does this make a difference?

Not anymore.

Because thanks to NewsBusters and the Tell the Truth campaign -- not to mention talk radio and Fox News -- the idea that no one will notice the elephant in the room that is liberal media bias in the 2012 campaign is done.

The liberal media monopoly is toast. Over.

To see visually just how the game that was being played by the national press all the way back in 1960 is now being run? To see exactly how it looks everyday in the 2012 campaign?

That place would be NewsBusters.

The place to go when you want to see what the elephant in the room in the 2012 campaign really looks like.

And to see what it's like when someone really Speaks Truth to Power.

[Warph]

                         
               
Obama Haunts Fright Night at the Movies

By Quin Hillyer on 8.29.12 @ 6:08AM
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/29/obama-haunts-fright-night-at-t

The scary back-stories, and current effects, of Obamamania.  Three movies, three views of Obama.  All frightening.  All justly so.


One walks away from the movie "2016: Obama's America", the growing box-office bonanza by Dinesh D'Souza and Gerald Molen, wondering why in tarnation it took so long for anybody to put Barack Obama's views into their proper context. Then again, 2016 provides only part of the context; another important part of it came four years ago, when Citizens United released Hype: "The Obama Effect "-- a powerful but far-too-little seen piece of film-making that nailed much of the essential Obama before the misery of the past four years, while indeed predicting a fair amount of what The Self-Anointed One has inflicted upon this fair land of ours. This week, Citizens United completes the circle with "The Hope and the Change," which features a one-hour collage of ordinary citizens, Obama supporters in 2008 and almost all Democrats (with a few independents thrown in), who now are experiencing severe buyer's remorse.

All three perspectives are important. All three pound home the message that Barack Obama never should have gotten anywhere near the Oval Office.

Let's start with the box office hit, 2016. D'Souza, a brilliant conservative controversialist of long standing, and Molen, the producer of Schindler's List, Rain Man, Jurassic Park, and other popular movies, have done a superb job presenting D'Souza's thesis that Obama is motivated primarily by an (outdated) "anti-colonialist" worldview that sees the United States as a deeply flawed nation that needs to be tamed from without or, in this case, from within. They posit that far too little attention has been paid to the themes from Dreams from My Father, Obama's semi-fictionalized, rather pretentious autobiography. Too little also is commonly made, according to this thesis, of the marked "otherness" of Obama's childhood away from the U.S. mainland, both in Hawaii and in Indonesia.

While D'Souza's armchair psychologizing may be a little too speculative for some tastes, it should be almost beyond debate that Obama idolized a mythic image of his father (he pretty much says so in Dreams) -- and that he made a conscious decision to adopt some of his late father's (presumed) resentments.

While 2016 does not prove its case in a fashion airtight enough to withstand rigorous academic peer review (for instance), it more than persuades a fair-minded viewer that Obama's outlook on the United States is rather alien to that held by a reasonably solid majority of Americans. (It probably was once not just a reasonably solid majority, but an overwhelming one -- but some our populace has not been as well rooted in our wise and humane traditions as we all once were.) This man Occupying the Oval Office is, in short, not a lover of America but one bent on radically remaking America. As such, he is profoundly dangerous.

By some lights, oddly enough, D'Souza might be being too generous to Obama. So eager is the author to shoehorn the winner of the Nobel Prize for Outsized Arrogance (or was it some other category?) into the "anti-colonialist" construct that he neglects some other key elements of Obama's background and worldview. Interestingly enough, Hype: The Obama Effect does the converse: It quite explicitly said early on that the key to understanding Obama is not to look in Hawaii, Indonesia, or Kenya, but instead to look to Chicago. Back when the rest of the media was trying to explain away and mostly ignore the Obama connections with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, crooked financier Tony Rezco, and domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Citizens United was not only digging deep into these sickening Obama ties, but putting them (and others) into the context of a truly radicalized, hard-left worldview. Mixed in with all of this, the movie rightly notes, is the (Lucifer-inspired) anarcho-troublemaking of yet another Chicagoan, Saul Alinsky.

Methinks Hype was a powerful and farsighted piece of work in 2008, but it also missed a few things: first, it gave short shrift to the realm mined so well by D'Souza, namely Obama's childhood and his father's roots; second, it also seemed uninterested in Obama's experiences at Columbia, where he probably first encountered Ayers and Dohrn and where he almost certainly fell under the sway of Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, whose evil strategy for forced governmental debt overload seems to be incorporated into Obama's fiscal policies.

But put Hype and 2016 together and watch them back to back, and -- even allowing for the exaggerated impact of a the talented propagandist's art -- the viewer can't help but be struck by just how strange and, well, not-American (as distinguished from the loaded "un-American") Obama is. He also comes across as woefully ill-prepared for the presidency, even if one does give him the benefit of the doubt for his worldview and intentions.

                     

Into this maw enters The Hope and the Change, receiving its grand premiere this week in conjunction with the Republican National Convention. When the media didn't do its job in 2008, and perhaps some voters also willingly let themselves be fooled, the majority of Americans did indeed grab for the "hope" offered by Obama's vapid slogan. Citizens United has rounded up a host of these former Obama voters who really regret the ballot choice they made in 2008. The interviews with them provide a very practical, real-world grounding for the sometimes hyper-theoretical themes of the other two movies.

Herewith, a very few selected quotes from those interviewed in movie: "When I hear the phrase 'hope and change,' I definitely feel 'bait and switch.'" It was "false hope." "It's kind of like buyer's remorse." In his golfing and his hobnobbing in Hollywood, among other things, "Obama now is all about Obama." Unlike what happened with banks and car companies, "Nobody comes around to help bail me out." "I don't know where this money [government spending under Obama] is going." "I don't think that I got what I was expecting."

Well, of course not. That was the point of Obama's sloganeering: to put a honeyed glaze on the sour recipe he was actually cooking up for us. In that effort, of course, he had the absurdly fawning help of the establishment media. One little snippet, early in the Hope and the Change, captures just this aspect of the story of how Obama was inflicted upon us. It was election night, 2008, and Brian Williams of NBC came back from a break with words so crazily over the top as exceed even Dan Rather's exultation during the 1992 Clinton victory night that "this is all so exciting, my ear wax is popping out." Said Williams: "[This is] the most exciting and important election night in several lifetimes."

Yes, lifetimes. Talk about "hype!" One can only hope we change from this sort of idiocy long before 2016. The dreams from Obama's father are a nightmare for most of us, a nightmare played out in everyday lives, not just on the silver screen.

[Warph]

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Torn To
Shreds Over False Claims by Anderson Cooper


             

Paul Ryan Destroys Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
                 in Obamacare Debate


             

Michelle Malkin slaps down Ignorant Leftist
               Joy Behar on "The View"


               

[Warph]

Obama's Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax

By Michelle Malkin
8/29/2012


While all eyes were on the Republican National Convention in Tampa and Hurricane Isaac on the Gulf Coast, the White House was quietly jacking up the price of automobiles and putting future drivers at risk.

Yes, the same cast of fable-tellers who falsely accused GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney of murdering a steelworker's cancer-stricken wife is now directly imposing a draconian environmental regulation that will cost untold American lives.

On Tuesday, the administration announced that it had finalized "historic" new fuel efficiency standards. (Everything's "historic" with these narcissists, isn't it?) President Obama took a break from his historic fundraising drives to proclaim that "(by) the middle of the next decade, our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It'll strengthen our nation's energy security, it's good for middle-class families, and it will help create an economy built to last."

Jon Carson, director of Obama's Office of Public Engagement, took to Twitter to hype how "auto companies support the higher fuel-efficiency standards" and how the rules crafted behind closed doors will "save consumers $8,000" per vehicle. His source for these claims? The New York Times, America's Fishwrap of Record, which has acknowledged it allows the Obama campaign to have "veto power" over reporters' quotes from campaign officials.

And whom did the Times cite for the claim that the rules will "save consumers $8,000"? Why, the administration, of course! "The administration estimated that the new standards would save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs," the Times dutifully regurgitated, "resulting in an average savings of more than $8,000 a vehicle by 2025."

The Obama administration touts the support of the government-bailed-out auto industry for these reckless, expensive regs. What they want you to forget is that the "negotiations" (read: bullying) with White House environmental radicals date back to former Obama green czar Carol Browner's tenure -- when she infamously told auto industry execs "to put nothing in writing, ever" regarding their secret CAFE talks.

Obama's number-massagers cite phony-baloney cost savings that rely on developing future fuel-saving technology. Given this crony government's abysmal track record in "investing" in new technologies (cough -- Solyndra -- cough), we can safely dismiss that fantasy math. What is real for consumers is the $2,000 per vehicle added cost that the new fuel standards will impose now. That figure comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

War on Middle-Class Consumers, anyone?

Beyond the White House-media lapdog echo chamber, the economic and public safety objections to these sweeping rules are long grounded and well founded.

For years, free-market analysts and government statisticians have warned of the deadly effect of increasing corporate auto fuel economy standards (CAFE). Sam Kazman at the Competitive Enterprise Institute explained a decade ago: "(T)he evidence on this issue comes from no less a body than the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report last August finding that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year. Given that this program has been in effect for more than two decades, its cumulative toll is staggering."

H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis adds that NHTSA data indicate that "322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles." USA Today further calculated that the "size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths."

These lethal regulations should be wrapped in yellow police "CAUTION" tape. The tradeoffs are stark and simple: CAFE fuel standards clamp down on the production of larger, more crashworthy cars. Analysts from Harvard to the Brookings Institution to the federal government itself have arrived at the same conclusion: CAFE kills. Welcome to the bloody intersection between the Obama jobs death toll and the Obama green death toll.

[Warph]

       

The MSM's Hyper-Racial RNC Coverage

By Guy Benson
8/29/2012

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/29/the_msms_hyperracial_rnc_coverage

You're already aware that MSNBC -- America's self-appointed racist dog whistle truth squad -- oddly chose not to air numerous speeches delivered by racial minorities at last night's Republican convention.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/08/28/pathetic_msnbc_cuts_speeches_given_by_minorities_at_rnc_from_coverage


They have a narrative to protect, and all that.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/29/msnbc-protects-their-meme-any-way-it-can/


But the Left-wing cable news channel isn't the only outlet following Chris Matthews down the path of unhinged and shameless race-baiting.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/27/exclusive__priebus_spitting_chris_matthews_the_biggest_jerk_in_the_room


The LA Times gets in on the act with an editorial cartoon and column accusing Republicans of using their convention to put a "brown face" on their racist, white party:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-white-party-20120828,0,7089439.story?track=rss



Republicans are racist if they don't include people of color, but when they do include people of color, it merely highlights their broader racism. See how this works? Meanwhile, other news outlets are content to simply invent instances of bigotry:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/liberal-journalists-finding-i.e.-making-up-republican-racism-everywhere/article/2506319#.UD4bG0SghOg


[A]s a Puerto Rican party functionary—Zoraida Fonalledas, the chairwoman of the Committee on Permanent Organization—took her turn at the main-stage lectern. As she began speaking in her accented English, some in the crowd started shouting "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" The chanting carried on for nearly a minute while most of the other delegates and the media stood by in stunned silence. The Puerto Rican correspondent turned to me and asked, "Is this happening?"

Tim Carney explains what was actually going on (hint: a floor dispute with zero connection to race):

http://washingtonexaminer.com/liberal-journalists-finding-i.e.-making-up-republican-racism-everywhere/article/2506319#.UD4xdESghOh

Here'swhat happened, Jack:

RNC Chairman Reince Preibus had called for a voice vote to approve the Credential Committee's report. Ron Paul delegates objected, because the committee had refused to seat half of the Paul delegates. When the voice vote came, the "Noes" clearly were louder than the "Ayes." (Ron Paul backers are pretty good at shouting.) Preibus ruled that the Ayes had won, and then he ignored many yells of "Point of Order." The Paulites began chanting "Point of Order," trying to stop the proceedings so they could have a roll-call vote or even a debate. They also chanted "Seat Maine Now," in this period. Some Romney backers from delegations near Maine responded – for better or worse – by chanting "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" over the Paulites' chants.

It's revealing that "the media stood by in stunned silence," instantly and erroneously imputing racial nastiness to RNC delegates during this fracas. Their default assumption was that Republicans were maliciously drowning out an Hispanic woman. Why bother, you know, reporting on an occurrence when meme-fueling conjecture is so much easier? Unsurprisingly, some media outlets are wildly hyping an odious, isolated incident of genuine racism, for which an unidentified convention-goer was expelled last night:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/an-ugly-incident-in-tampa-133600.html

But I somehow I suspect you won't hear much about this story because, you see, deranged racist liberals don't count because...well, just because. Shut up. Thus the MSM race obsession rolls on.

http://twitchy.com/2012/08/29/sick-wikipedia-entry-calls-mia-love-dirty-worthless-whore-and-house-nigger/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/28/chuck_todd_gop_putting_minorities_in_front_at_convention_to_appear_diverse.html


I'll leave you with three items:

(1) NBC News embedded several clips of "notable speeches" from last night on its website. What do almost all of these speakers have in common? I guess the journalists of NBC believe John Boehner's unremarkable comments are more "notable" than anything Mia Love, Sher Valenzuela, Brian Sandoval or Artur Davis had to say.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/28/13532831-video-tuesday-nights-rnc-speeches

(2) "Hot mic" audio of ABC News employees laughing about Republican racism (vis-a-vis Isaac) when they thought no one was listening. The reflexive, anti-Republican bias in the mainstream press is pervasive and real:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/08/29/abc-news-romneys-happy-have-party-when-black-people-drown

(3) The speech MSNBC talked over:

[/font][/size]

[Warph]

         

For openers, I don't believe any national poll that claims Obuma is running ahead of Romney.  For one thing, Obuma has been in office for nearly four years.  As the incumbent, if he's not scoring above 50%, it's highly unlikely he is going to carry the state.   Right now, his poll numbers are below 50% in 37 states, and hover at only 51% in Washington and 50% in Minnesota.

Another factor that must be considered is that a lot of people still don't know his opponent.  Right now, Romney's poll numbers are lower than they should be simply because a lot of people are judging him on no other basis than Obuma's negative ads.

But, after the GOP convention and especially after the presidential debates, when people will have a chance to compare the two men side-by-side and not only see that Romney is taller, better-looking, smarter, speaks better, but see for themselves that the words "smug" and "arrogant" only apply to one of them, the Obumas will be wise to call Bekins and not wait until the last second to start planning their move back to Chicago.

There will be so many reasons to celebrate their departure, I hardly know where to begin.  For one thing, if Obuma were to be re-elected and if the Democrats were, God forbid, to regain control of the House, guess who would be the chief financial legislator in Congress.  Why, none other than Maxine Waters, who should have been booted out of office for using undue influence in securing a $12 million TARP bailout for a bank in which her husband was a director and they were both shareholders.

To get the full impact of that, think of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the SEC, the NY Stock Exchange and the FHA, being overseen by a blacker version of Chris Dodd or a slightly less feminine version of Barney Frank.

Another reason to anticipate Romney's victory is that it will mean Valerie Jarrett will also be packing her bags and returning to Chicago.  In case you haven't been paying attention, Ms. Jarrett is the Rasputin-like figure who apparently has the ear of both Obumas.  It was apparently she, who, on three separate occasions, persuaded Obuma not to go through with the attack on Osama bin Laden lest he suffer political blowback if the mission failed.  It was only after military advisors warned him that word would inevitably leak out if he didn't green light the plan that he finally caved to the anti-Jarrett faction in the White House.

I'm sure that Jarrett and her two charges, the czar and czarina, would be welcomed back to their hometown with a parade and a brass band because they so obviously reflect those Chicago values we've heard so much about from Rahm Emanuel.  I found it interesting, but not surprising, that a day or two after Mayor Emanuel announced that Chick-fil-A wouldn't fit well in a city that has become the murder capital of America, he had only good things to say about professional anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.  At least now we have a handle on what constitutes Chicago values.  Apparently, it's okay to deride Jews, despise white people, promote Islam and openly denounce America, but stay far away if you oppose the travesty known as same-sex marriages.

I find it almost amusing that Democrats take it so much to heart that Romney hasn't disclosed a hundred years of income tax forms, but take it in stride when Obuma won't even offer up his college application.  They are outraged that the Romneys own a fancy horse, but utter not a word about the millions of our tax dollars the First Lady squanders on vacations.  They are apoplectic about Romney's being a devout Mormon, but accept Obuma's claim that he doesn't attend church because he doesn't want his presence to be an annoyance to others, although that never prevents him from tying up rush hour traffic in a hundred different cities when it comes to raising campaign funds.

I also find it mysterious and offensive when people of any political persuasion condemn Romney's faith.  Every religion has elements in it that strike other people as nonsensical, and Mormonism isn't an exception.  However, if I am shopping for a president, I'd want one whose faith emphasizes family, charity, honesty and personal achievement.  And if, as they say, the proof is to be found in the pudding, I think you'd have to look long and hard to find a better pudding than the Romneys.

All I ask of Romney is that five minutes after he eliminates ObumaCare, he announces that we are withdrawing from the United Nations.

Finally, it's no wonder that the Senate under Harry Reid's leadership doesn't get anything done.  I mean, it would be nice if they finally got around to passing a budget, but Reid is obviously too busy huddling with Team Obama and getting his marching orders from David Axelrod.

But I have to wonder if even Axelrod seriously believed that old Harry would actually take to the Senate floor to spread the foolish rumor that Romney hadn't paid 10 years of income taxes.  I have a feeling that when he heard that, Axelrod smacked his forehead and said, "I assumed the old fart knew I was joking."

Just for the record, let us keep in mind that Reid hadn't ever said a word about Timothy Geithner and Charley Rangel not paying their taxes, so who would have guessed that he would say something so dumb that even Jon Stewart would take him to task.

I, myself, have heard rumors that Harry Reid owes his entire political career to Vegas casino owners and the thugs who run Nevada's public sector unions.  Oh, wait a second, those aren't rumors.

It would only be a rumor if I said that the reason Harry Reid sounds so much like a mortician is because his favorite hobby is grave robbing.  Naturally, I don't have proof of this, but if the Senate majority leader can get his information from "reliable sources" I figure so can I.

[jarhead]

Another great post Warph---just like we have come to expect from you.
Thanks

[Warph]

                  

Why 'Mystery Speaker' Clint Eastwood Loves the GOP

by Miranda Green Aug 30, 2012 7:34 PM EDT


'Dirty Harry' star Clint Eastwood is making a surprise appearance at tonight's national convention. Miranda Green on how the movie star earned his Republican stripes.

Actor and director Clint Eastwood may be best known for his "tough guy" roles in westerns and in Dirty Harry, but the California native—and tonight's not-so-mysterious speaker at the Republican National Convention—is no stranger to politics. And despite the primetime spot at tonight's hyperpartisan event, Eastwood's own ideology isn't as easy to pin down: he registered as a Republican in the '50s in support of Dwight Eisenhower, supported ex-California governor and Democrat Gray Davis, and carried out a largely nonpartisan agenda as a mayor himself in the 80s.


California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, right, congratulates actor-director Clint Eastwood as one of the first 13 inductees into the California Hall of Fame, during a ceremony in Sacramento, Calif., on Wednesday, Dec. 6, 2006. (Steve Yeater / AP Photo)


As he prepares to take the spotlight, here's a brief tour of Eastwood's political evolution:


Middle-Class Roots
Eastwood was born in San Francisco to a middle-class family. His mother was a factory worker and his father a steel and migrant worker. When he was drafted to the Korean War, young Clint got placed as a lifeguard and swimming instructor at a base in California. In 1952, soon after his time with the U.S. Army, he registered to vote for the Republican Party and Dwight Eisenhower, a  moderate conservative and previously a five-star general. About a decade later, Eastwood made his first major foray into acting in the television western series Rawhide, eventually making a name for himself as a master of the genre with early starring roles in a Fistful of Dollars and Hang 'Em High.

Straight-Talkin' Mayor
In 1986, having established himself as an A-lister, Eastwood ran for mayor of his hometown Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif., winning handily with 72 percent of the vote. During his one term, the movie star pushed through a nonpartisan agenda focused on fixing problems in the oceanside town and getting "things built." (Sound familiar?) One of his biggest achievements was erecting a library annex that had needed to be completed for 25 years.

"I approached it from a business point of view," Eastwood said of his time as mayor, "not a political one."

His second excursion into politics was in 2001 when he was appointed to the California State Park and Recreation Commission by Gov. Davis, a Democrat, and then again by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.

Crossing the Aisle
After throwing in his lot with Republicans during the Eisenhower era, Eastwood stuck to the Republican Party line, becoming a vocal backer of Richard Nixon during his 1968 and 1972 campaigns and much later endorsing John McCain for the 2008 presidential race.

But Eastwood sometimes crossed the aisle in his political support. In 2002, he endorsed Gov. Davis's reelection bid, and again supported him during a 2003 recall that Davis ultimately lost. (Davis had appointed Eastwood to the parks commission before the endorsements.)

Eastwood has maintained that he is not a traditional conservative, at points labeling himself a moderate. He told Playboy in 1974 that he was a "liberal on civil rights, conservative on government spending."

He also told the magazine his philosophy on government intrusion: "I think the attitude that Big Daddy's going to take over has become a kind of a mental sickness. I don't think government programs should be designed to encourage freeloading," he said. "The government has to help people, to some degree, but it should be encouraging people to make something of themselves."

His opinions today continue to mirror those of a fiscal conservative and social liberal. He told GQ in 2011 that he doesn't "give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else," following up with, "We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of." In the article, Eastwood alluded that he thinks more in line with libertarians than any other political party.

He's No Hawk
Although Eastwood has become well known for his war films, such as Letters from Iwo Jima, he has vocally denounced every war the U.S. has been involved with since the war in Korea. In fact, many of his films have largely been seen as critiques of war, illustrating the horrors and moral repercussions of combat—a stance that likely earned him some friends among liberals.)

In his interview with Playboy, Eastwood confirmed his antiwar political outlook: "The U.S. should not be overly militaristic or play the role of global policeman," he said.

In fact, he said, his feelings on war directly influenced his decision to vote for McCain. Eastwood told the British newspaper The Daily Mail in 2011 that he thought McCain would "understand the war in Iraq better than somebody who hadn't [been through war]," but that he didn't "agree with him on a lot of stuff."

Why Not Obama
Eastwood has never been shying about voicing his lack of faith in President Obama because of what he sees as the president's fear to make bold moves that will fix the economy. Despite having wished Obama well after he won the election, Eastwood says he is disappointed with what he has achieved.

"I loved the fact that Obama is multiracial. I thought that was terrific, as my wife is the same racial makeup. But I felt he was a greenhorn, and it turned out he didn't have experience in decision-making," he told The Daily Mail.

His opinions haven't changed much since 2010, when told Katie Couric at CBS that he doesn't think Obama is "governing."

"I don't think he's surrounded himself with the people he could have surrounded himself with."

As for his thoughts on presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, Eastwood was spotted earlier this month at a lavish fundraiser for the candidate—and tonight's appearance at the RNC is sure to put to rest any speculation of which candidate he is voting for.