White House Party Crashers Are Muslim Extremists

The New York Times reported (on its website), then deleted the story that Tareq Salahi and his wife, the party crashers at the White House earlier this week, have ties to radical elements of Islam and is a board member of the "American Task Force on Palestine," a group that seeks the annihilation of Israel and the support of Palestinian terrorists.

This story reminds us that the New York Times and the rest of the leftist media will fail to report Islamic terrorist connections, even when those connections could potentially place the President in danger, and they will actively hide and delete all references to these facts.

The End of Meritocracy

The Today show has hired Jenna Bush Hager to do a monthly feature story on education. This seemingly innocuous announcement prompted one of the sillier recent outbursts of liberal hand-wringing. The New York Times's Opinionator blog collected some of the left-wing commentary under the title "There Goes the Meritocracy." If irony was intended it was too subtle for me to pick up.

Rather, the Times seems to take seriously various liberal commentators' claims that NBC's hiring of Ms. Hager, the author of two best-selling books for children, has some baleful significance: it's a sign that our nation is in its "late empire" phase, with "white Russians" dominating our political and media classes, and a symptom of our "national disease." Above all, the fact that NBC hired Ms. Hager indicates that our "great meritocracy" is a fraud.

If Ms. Hager had been hired to perform neurosurgery, this hand-wringing about "meritocracy" might have some force. But doing a once-a-month feature on a soft-news TV show? Good Lord, get a grip!

The old sock-puppet Glenn Greenwald, who apparently is still around, uses Hager's new job as the occasion for a broadside against the political and media industries:

They should convene a panel for the next "Meet the Press" with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency.

That's almost clever, except that if you're going to list politicians who have no apparent claim on office other than their names, it is ludicrous to omit Ted, Joe and Patrick Kennedy; not to mention Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, and numerous others on both sides of the aisle. But what, really, is the point? It's true that there are quite a few politicians who are the sons or daughters of politicians, but so what? That is true of most occupations. If your father is a doctor, you are more likely to become a doctor. If your father was a lawyer, you are more likely to become a lawyer. It happens a lot. I've seen no data suggesting that it is more common in politics (or journalism) than anywhere else. And politics is relentlessly competitive; even the worst candidates, like Joseph and Patrick Kennedy, take office only if most voters vote for them.

Two of the liberals quoted in the Times story somehow bring the conversation around to Sonia Sotomayer. It still isn't clear to me how she relates to Jenna Hager. Seemingly the idea is that because she came from an undistinguished background, we conservatives were obligated to support her nomination. Sure: just like liberals backed Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, right?

The TImes gives the last word to the ever-hysterical Andrew Sullivan, who attacks the "nepotism" of Hager's hiring as symptomatic of our "late empire" status. I'm sure grand theories have been hung on a more slender thread, but I can't think when offhand.

Actually, though, it isn't nepotism. Neither President Bush nor any other of Jenna's relatives works for NBC News, and I think it's a safe bet that nearly all of the relevant people at the Today show and NBC detest Jenna's father.

I haven't read Sullivan for a long time, but the snippet quoted by the Times reminds me how unintentionally entertaining he can be: because NBC is hiring Jenna Hager--hey, he drew the connection, I didn't--the United States is on the verge of becoming "17th century Spain." Oh, sure. We understand, Andrew. We think you're sane, really we do.

So: do we have a meritocracy? Of course we do. If you doubt that, apply to medical school. Or try to rise in a sales organization without, you know, making sales. Is our meritocracy imperfect? Of course. Like every other human institution. Is Russia's meritocracy perfect? France's? Cuba's?

Is it a good thing to have a father who is President? Of course. Do you suppose Malia Obama will have some good opportunities one of these days? (As, by the way, her mother has already.) On the other hand, does having a President for a father guarantee success in life? Amazingly enough, in our great meritocracy it doesn't.

Our republic has survived many ups and downs. I predict, confidently, that it will survive Jenna Hager's monthly reports on education issues.

Times Touts Economic Momentum

The front page of the New York Times is filled with hope about the nation's economic situation. The lead story, "Job Losses Slow, Signaling Momentum for a Recovery," reporting a decline in the unemployment rate from 9.5 percent in June to 9.4 percent in July, begins by declaring that, "The most heartening employment report since last summer suggested on Friday that a recovery was under way -- and perhaps gathering steam."

"Employers are no longer in a panic," one expert tells the Times. The paper reports that Obama administration officials "credited the stimulus package" for the improvement, and "some said" job losses would be far worse had the $787 billion stimulus not been passed. The paper quotes President Obama saying his administration has "rescued our economy from catastrophe."

Put that together with earlier data that the economy shrank at a one percent annual rate in the second quarter, and the Times reports that the news has "convinced many forecasters that when the history of the Great Recession is written, these summer months will be the big turning point, when the economy started to grow again." Of course, there's some "unsettling information" in the new economic data, but overall, the message of the Times story is: Good news -- the recovery is underway.

The Times hasn't always been so optimistic when it comes to one-tenth-of-a-point declines in the unemployment rate. On this very day in 1992, in the midst of the presidential campaign between George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the government also reported that the unemployment rate ticked downward by one tenth of a point, and the Times' treatment was far more restrained.

"Jobless Rate Dips a Notch to 7.7% in Mixed Showing," was the front-page headline of the August 8, 1992 Times. "The nation's jobless rate improved marginally last month, edging down to 7.7 percent from 7.8 percent," the Times reported. "But the improvement was not enough to signal a stronger economic recovery or to help President Bush as he heads into the Republican National Convention." Even though the number of jobs actually went up in July 1992 (as opposed to the decline of 247,000 jobs in July 2009), the 1992 Times reported that the economic news "gave no suggestion that the economic recovery was breaking out of its painfully slow pace or, more important, that the job growth was picking up enough to push the unemployment rate down significantly before the election in November." Pollster Peter Hart told the paper that, "There couldn't be worse political news for George Bush."

Under the sub-headline "Stagnant Period Seen," the Times reported that "most forecasters" predicted "more of the same: an economy that is just muddling along." The Times looked deep into the data to find "disappointing" numbers everywhere; many of the new jobs were in the service sector, there weren't enough construction jobs, some of the improvement was the result of a government program. (The Times appeared less enthusiastic about government stimulus back then.)

As it turned out, the one-tenth-of-a-point drop in the unemployment rate in July 1992 signaled the end of the increase in the jobless rate. Looking at this table from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you can see that at the very moment the Times was declaring a period of stagnation, the unemployment rate was in fact beginning a long decline that would extend through the Clinton years.

Of course, the Times' editors and writers didn’t know that then, and they stressed the negative aspects of the economic news. But they don't know what's going to happen now, either, and they're filled with hope. Quite a difference.

Work It, Girl

There were a lot of high profile, potentially world-changing stories that came across the news wires this week. The stories ran the gamut from the sublime to the ridiculous. In Iran, people have been taking to the streets in protest of their presidential election shenanigans. Many of them have been murdered. After the 2000 American presidential election, the worst example of “protest” was Al Gore growing a beard. In North Korea, resident madman Kim Jong Il is threatening to launch a nuclear war, because it is much more important to rattle a saber instead of say, feeding your people. Oh, and President Barack Obama fired an Inspector General who was investigating one of his supporters. Nothing to see there.

Naturally, one would think that the above stories would be of utmost importance. However, one would be wrong. See, there is a much more pressing issue that affects each and every person on this big blue marble we call Earth.  At least according to many media sources, which buried the stories mentioned above but highlighted the one mentioned below.

The Council of Fashion Designers of America held its annual awards on Monday night. Who is the Council of Fashion Designers of America? Members of the Council are like the Jedi Council, but instead of lightsabers, they wield hatpins. They protect and defend the rights of clothes-wearing citizens everywhere. In short, they are the fashion police.

Most of the awards were bestowed upon the giants of the industry. Apparently, the CFDA believes that First Lady Michelle Obama is one of these giants. That’s right; Michelle Obama – the woman who wore the curtain from the old Merv Griffin Show to the Inauguration – is being recognized as a fashion icon.

Michelle Obama, are they kidding? Last week, this woman was seen wearing something from the Cyndi Lauper Collection: a white top with multi-colored fabric wrapped around her stomach. It was an abomination that even Peg Bundy would not be caught in at her insane, inbred family reunion. What’s next for the First Lady, feathered boas?

(For more, including pictures, see this previous post.

Obama and Media Laugh Together

At the 65th Annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner this week, President Barack Obama bragged about his "celebrity status" and joked about being in bed with the media who gave him that status. In a tasteless joke, Obama said after "tossing and turning" he "rolled over and asked Brian Williams what he thought."

Our president is joking about being in bed – literally – with the anchor of NBC News. Ha ha. That's hilarious. And the state-run media laughed on cue.

But not everyone is laughing. Despite the love affair the media has with Obama that inspired the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle to suggest they "get a room," and Newsweek's editor calling him "god," Rasmussen reports that the media-made celebrity has finally fallen out of favor with America – more of whom strongly disapprove of him than approve.

Maybe some of those who are awakening are, uh – were – owners of car dealerships before Obama came in and took them over. Wasn't it hysterical how the "powerful celebrity" Obama joked about giving everyone a car company under their chair? "Ha ha. Look at how powerful I am, watch me take over the free market and laugh about it." And the "watchdog" media howled.

Then Obama asked himself: "WWLD?" What would a wise Latina do? Ha ha. Racism. Isn't that funny? His nominee for the Supreme Court is a racist. But because she downgrades white men and non-Latina women, she gets a free pass to the highest court in our land.

Then he joked about how Sonia Sotomayor wants to rip off the blindfold of justice and make her policy from the bench by way of empathy (but he understands how we feel about that.) Empathy. Emotion. Bias. Just what you want when it comes to the rule of law. Rule in favor of the one for whom you feel most sorry.

That's a lot like the Senate Judiciary Committee, which wants to give their favorite politically correct people more legal protection than the rest of us. In a hearing this Thursday, watch the Democrats as they clamor to give homosexual activists and other sexual deviances – itemized in an APA list of "sexual orientations" that's 547 long – special favor. Forget about equal protection. Forget about free speech. Their goal is to give more legal protection to the ones the Democrat majority likes the most. The ones they must reward for their campaign contributions.

Barack Obama wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. So much for standing for marriage between one man and one woman as he promised during the campaign. And while marriage is under attack, in the Midwest and especially in the Northeast many are asking, "What can we do"

Now, Obama and the Democrats are trying to ram through socialized medicine to take our minds off the trillions they've already added to the national debt.

Nothing takes your mind off credit card debt more than going shopping!

Maybe Obama's poll numbers will fall even more when doctors see an end to their freedom of conscience as this administration tries to turn them into executioners by forcing them to perform abortions or leave medicine. Maybe they'll drop even further when America waits in long lines for health care like they do government cheese.

And now ABC is moving into the White House to film an infomercial to help force Obama's multi-trillion dollar socialized medicine down our throats.

After Obama's own personal "Saturday Night Live" Routine, not surprisingly, the media stood to give Obama a standing ovation, just like they do every day with the news they "report." It was a chance for them all to sit back and laugh at America.

But this isn't funny any more.

NYT/CBS Poll "Generated" to Show Americans Want Health Care

In a not-so-surprising story, newsbusters uncovered the following (which should be a scandal, but won't be):

Realizing that Barack Obama's healthcare initiative has hit some roadblocks in Congress, the good folks at CBS News and the New York Times figured they'd help it along by creating a new poll on the subject that WAY oversampled people who voted for Obama.

Although the then junior senator from Illinois received 53 percent of the votes last November, NYT/CBS surveyed almost twice as many Obama voters as McCain voters.

Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.

Actually, as Bruce Kesler cleverly discovered, what the poll really found was that most Obama voters support substantial changes to healthcare and are willing to pay higher taxes for a government run system:

[A]ccording to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama.

As can be plainly seen on page 7 of the poll's data, only 73 percent of respondents divulged who they voted for last November. 48 percent said Obama, 25 percent McCain.

What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain.

As the final tally last year was 53 percent to 46 percent, this poll WAY oversampled Obama voters.

And you wonder why the survey found so much support for Obamacare?

Honestly, stuff like this should be illegal and any news organization found doing it should be significantly fined.

In any industry you could name, such deception of the public would meet with very serious consequences. 

Why are so-called news outlets allowed to get away with such obvious deceit with total impunity?

The Fix Is In

President Obama has been saying for months that you can’t fix the economy without first fixing healthcare. Originally a supporter of single-payer government healthcare, Obama states that he now believes private insurance should remain, but in competition with a public government-run option. Obama has a very interesting partner in pushing his plan: ABC (aka: All Barack Channel).

On June 24, if you tune in to ABC, the news will be broadcasting from the White House, followed by a primetime special “Prescription for America.” This program will be a townhall style question and answer session with the President. ABC claims this program will present both sides of the healthcare debate. However, the only party who will be answering questions and using prime network time to sell his views will be Barack Obama.

Faced with a seemingly one-sided sales event for Obama’s healthcare agenda, Ken McKay,Chief of Staff for the Republican National Committee wrote to the head of ABC News. He requested the opportunity to share the Republican’s healthcare reform ideas. He was rebuffed.

ABC News claims that the audience who will question Obama on his healthcare agenda will be chosen exclusively by ABC. ABC suggests that this will somehow present both sides of the issue. ABC fails to realize that asking a challenging question of the President is not the same as having the opportunity to answer that question and the time to persuade Americans that government healthcare is what we need.

Considering the government takeover of GM and the President’s desire to expand the Fed to take over companies whose survival it deems necessary, it should come as no surprise that the media, already carrying water for Obama since day one, now seems to be serving as his propagandists.

The fix is in, folks. The Dems control both houses of congress and the White House. The media is in the tank. The only public debate going on is on Fox News and on Talk Radio, and both of those venues are primarily "preaching to the choir." We will have National Health Care. The only questions are (1) What form will it take (i.e. complete takeover vs. gov't funding, etc);  and (2) When will we actually be considered a third world country?

Violence In Iran: Can You Export Democracy?

The Huffington Post, among other Leftwing-Loon websites is pointing to Iran today, and saying that this is evidence that Western-style democracy cannot be exported to other regions. Their logic? Iran has a constitution and has elections every four years. An election was held, and now chaos is the result. Their solution, obviously, is that they'd like to see a totalitarian (socialist) state in every country. 

I'm looking at the situation in Iran (which seems to be deteriorating), and I see just the opposite. 

There is a story that during the 1960's the Soviets were trying to quell unrest among workers. They took news footage of violence that was taking place during a strike in which workers were making demands and were met with (in some instances) police brutality. The newsreels were shown to the Soviet workers by government officials with the hopes that these workers would see that under the US capitalist system, the government oppresses its workers. The propaganda backfired. The workers began watching the news footage and they all began to shout "They have shoes! They have shoes!"  It didn't seem to matter that they were being "oppressed" by the government, because they viewed that as "normal." It happened to them, too. What they saw was a difference in lifestyle; specifically decent shoes for their feet.

This is what is causing unrest in places like Iran and other areas in the Middle East. There are estremists idealists like Ahmadinejihad and Osama Bin Laden who are trying to convince the populace of the Middle East that America is the Evil Empire because we are not muslim. While this resonates to a certain degree, what the average Joe (or the "Average Mohammed", as the case may be) sees is a big difference in lifestyle. And these places are becoming increasingly aware of the differences as satellite TV, internet and other media sources become more available.

The people in Iran would never have protested like this 20 years ago, even though they had the same constitution and the same every-four-years election process. They accepted that their government was oppressive, that they couldn't change it, and that they only had one choice of a candidate to vote for (at least when an incumbent regime was controlling things.) 

They aren't accepting those givens any more. Whether or not the Huffington Post and other Leftwing Loons want to admit it, the Iranians are DEMANDING western style democracy.

And if we had a different leader in this country leading the charge, they'd probably get it.

Who's to Blame?

Yesterday, a man stepped through the doors of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, took two paces, lowered his rifle at a security guard and opened fire. The guard who did not have time to draw his gun was fatally wounded. 

Early reports indicate that the assailant was a long-time white supremist and was very anti-Jew and anti-Israel.

The left are having a field day trying to blame this on Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and other conservatives. Just last week, Bill O'Reilly, who reported numerous times on the goings on at the Tiller abortion mill, was blamed for Tiller's death by leftists. 

Aside from the obvious lunacy of blaming reporters and commentators who are reporting actual news events for bad things that happen, I have to wonder which side of the aisle has been supportive of Israel and which side has been critical of Israel. 

Meanwhile, David Letterman has joked about the rape of Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter, Reverend Wright is accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and Wanda Sykes wants Rush Limbaugh to die of kidney failure. Nothing Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity have said even comes close to the level of these loons.

One of the Largest Muslim Nations in the World? I Don't Think So.

Isn't it funny that liberals have spent years falling all over themselves to protest when people call this a Christian nation, but now -- we now have the most liberal President in our nation's history declaring that we're a Muslim nation.

The reason this has been called a Christian nation is because it was originally populated by Christians seeking religious liberty, since it was founded by Christians, and since the population is still heavily Christian.

The reason we're now a Muslim country? Ehr...hard to say. We don't have an accurate count of how many Muslims we have in this country, but the number is generally thought to be under 3 million and many of them are from the Nation of Islam, which most real Muslims consider to be heretical.

Yet...

As President Obama prepared to leave Washington to fly to the Middle East, he conducted several television and radio interviews at the White House to frame the goals for a five-day trip, including the highly-anticipated speech Thursday at Cairo University in Egypt.

In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." He sought to downplay the expectations of the speech, but he said he hoped the address would raise awareness about Muslims.

God bless the Muslims who are here in this country, but just to be crystal clear, we're not "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world" nor are we ever going to be "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."

We're also not one of the "largest Muslim countries in the world" even if you count the Muslims in the nation of Islam. Here's a list of the world's largest Muslim populations:

Indonesia: 204 million

Pakistan: 164 million

India: 154 million

Bangladesh: 128 million

Turkey: 76 million

Egypt: 74 million

Nigeria: 73 million

Iran: 65 million

Morocco: 34 million

Algeria: 33 million

Afghanistan: 32 million

Saudi Arabia: 28 million

Sudan: 28 million

China: 27 million

Iraq: 27 million

Ethiopia: 27 million

In other words, this is typical Obama. He says whatever he thinks his audience, which in this case is the "Muslim world," wants to hear with no regard to facts or logic.

Since he's giving a big speech in Egypt, America is "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." If he thinks you're concerned about spending, he's the guy you need to cut spending. If you want lots of expensive, new government programs, he's the man for that, too. If you're anti-war, he's the guy to reverse Bush's policies! If you're not, he's the guy who'll be smart enough to quietly keep them in place.

He gets away with this because the mainstream media has his back. When he makes the sort of mistakes they'd harp on for weeks with a Republican, they either give it a brief, perfunctory mention while spinning for him as best they can or they just ignore it entirely. When he breaks his campaign promises, and he does that constantly, the media shrugs and moves on. When he makes huge gaffes, they yawn and pretend to be disinterested. Essentially, Obama's playing the role of an incompetent, batty Soviet premier while the media is playing the role of Pravda.

That's a big part of the reason why the MSM is going out of business ever more rapidly and why Obama has been such a historical disaster as President, because he's constantly being given free passes on these huge screw-ups.

Illegal Takeover? They Don't Report; You Decide

The Obama administration’s arguably unconstitutional and potentially illegal makeover/takeover of General Motors and Chrysler hit a legal road block on June 8, when Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a stay preventing Team Obama’s plan to sell Chrysler to the Italian automaker Fiat. This speed bump was a great opportunity for the media to pay attention to objections to the White House’s reckless executive-branch manipulation of the auto business.

Or not.

President Bush and his team were regularly savaged by the media elite if they so much as sniffed a hint of evasion over the rule of law and the bounds of constitutional authority in fighting terrorism. So why is President Obama’s unprecedented intervention in the auto industry, including a TARP-fund bailout expressly ruled out by Congress, all but ignored?

Even with the Supreme Court order, the nightly news shows of CBS and NBC gave the decision just a few seconds of air time, the equivalent of a stifled yawn, and never went anywhere near describing the strange bankruptcy proceedings the Obama administration has cooked up to manipulate the industry to its liking.