Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll

The Memory Hole

Hypocrisy Never Sleeps

October 14th, 2014 - 7:23 pm

“Neil Young: Forget ISIS, Fight Climate Change Instead,” as spotted by  Joel Pollak at Big Hollywood:

YOUNG: The things that we don’t know, you know, we can do little things to fight climate change. And yet our army and our armed forces are the biggest CO2 providers into the world, they just…it’s amazing. And yet we are fighting what? ISIS…

HOWARD STERN: What do you think about that?

YOUNG: …al-Qaeda. And we are fighting these wars against these organizations and their carbon footprint has got to be like 1% of our huge army and our navy and all of this stuff that have with all our big machines. We’re doing more damage to the earth with our wars.

If “we can do little things to fight climate change,” here’s a great place to start:

Neil has his own private P.A and a Yamaha mixer. He has a separate microphone that’s not connected to the house for each amp, and he can mix these to any level he wants. He mainly hears Deluxe, a lot of Baldwin, and very little Magnatone. Out front and on record, you can hear mostly Deluxe and Magnatone. Inside the big speaker cabinet to the audience’s right are 2 two-way Maryland Sound P.A. cabinets with 2 15s and a horn apiece. These cabinets have 2000 watts of biamped power, and gets turned excruciatingly loud. It just kills me to go out there-I just about get knocked over. And that’s what Neils hearing. This produces the feedback, and if we didn’t have that on, the sound wouldn’t be the same.

If the situation is so dire that it’s necessary to fight the weather rather than Islamofascist headchoppers, doesn’t Neil need to set the pace, retire from touring and shrink his own carbon footprint down to the smallest number possible? Perhaps order his record company to voluntarily stop printing his CDs, and withdrawing his mp3s from and iTunes? I would be more inclined to believe global warming is a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start to act like it’s a crisis themselves, to coin an Insta-phrase.

Besides, didn’t we all see this movie before, a decade ago? “It’s a peculiar thing that as the threat of global terrorism reaches a crescendo, so apparently does the threat of global warming — at least that’s what some would have us believe…”

To add a little Texas lingo to this post, Glenn Thrush of Politico is bored, y’all:

But then, he’s often bored. It’s his favorite tactic, when one of his fellow leftists is in heap big trouble (to keep the Texisisms going), or there’s a topic that reflects negatively on the left he doesn’t want to discuss:

And again last year, when both sides of the aisle were stunned by the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, Glenn was posing as suffering from a massive case of journalistic narcolepsy:

This past September,  Thrush tweeted the above feigned ignorance of Saul Alinsky, whose tactics inspired numerous prominent leftists such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (to the point where Alinsky’s son openly praised Obama in the Boston Globe in August of 2008, gushing, “I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”

As I wrote last month in response, John Nolte of Big Journalism coined the phrase “BenSmithing” to describe the tactics of the former Politico turned BuzzFeed scribe and member of the JournoList, that self-described “non-official campaign” to elect Obama, which as its founder Ezra Klein explained, was only open to his fellow leftists. As the Urban Dictionary notes, BenSmithing is “a political tactic that disguises itself as journalism in order to protect Democrats, most specifically Barack Obama.”

Smith’s former colleague Glenn Thrush, still with the Politico, is also quite prepared to do a little BenSmithing to aid his fellow Democrats in higher places: whenever a scandal engulfs them, Thrush affects an attitude of boredom. Hey, no big deal — Evel Knievel totally meant to crash the motorcycle on the landing ramp. All part of the act; happens all the time, you guys.

It’s a curious tone though, for someone who holds himself out as a journalist, and not as a Democrat operative with a byline. Those of us who have the privilege of observing the Hieronymus Bosch meets Koyaanisqatsi landscape of the world of the 21st century and then reporting on the wreckage around us are usually horrified at how dysfunctional the modern world and its political players are and eager to share the details with our readers. But for Thrush, it’s all pretty boring. At least when bad things happen to his fellow leftists.

Thrush’s response to the above post? He simply BenSmithed being called on his frequent BenSmithing:

Tom Wolfe has said that the first rule of journalism is don’t bore the reader — and if you’re bored as a journalist, just imagine how your audience will suffer in response. If Thrush finds American politics so dull, perhaps he might want to locate another topic to write about. But then, that would assume that journalism is actually his primary job. Or as Glenn Reynolds would say, just think of Thrush, Weigel and Smith as Democratic operatives with bylines and it all makes sense.

It’s Deja Dem All Over Again

October 13th, 2014 - 12:44 pm

“The media [is] ignoring the whiff of desperation emanating from Democrats,” Noah Rothman writes at Hot Air, noting various and sundry campaign meltdowns and scandals involving Democrats Mark Udall of Colorado, Alison Lundergan Grimes of Kentucky, John Walsh of Montana and Mark Warner:

And in Texas, state Sen. Wendy Davis, the beneficiary of shortsighted hysteria on the left following her unsuccessful filibuster of a Texas law which would have restricted late-term abortions, fielded an ad which has been universally denounced by both liberal and conservative members of the pundit class. Rather than take her lumps and pull the atonal ad which criticizes her opponent, GOP gubernatorial nominee Greg Abbott, for suing after he was permanently disabled, Grimes has doubled down. Today, as Allahpundit noted, Davis is defending the ad as part of a mortifying effort to save face in which she has surrounded herself with disabled supporters.

The press has largely failed to notice the Democrats’ worst week ever, but what is more egregious is that the political media has also failed to observe another fascinating phenomenon: Democrats are abandoning their own brand.

As The Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemmingway observed, the Democrats have essentially admitted that their party’s brand is toxic and their only hope for retaining the Senate lies in backing candidates who bear a dubious claim to independence.

In late 2003, Ann Coulter noted, “both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do.”

In 2006, Rahm Emanuel, then chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, enabled his party to take back the House and Senate by conceiving of a strategy of running the so-called “Blue Dog Democrat” candidates posing as moderate Republicans, who became, as Kevin McCullough of Townhall accurately dubbed them immediately after the midterms, “Nancy Pelosi’s Crash Test Dummies.” So much so, that they sacrificed their longevity in Congress by voting for Obamacare and then being blown out of office by angry voters in November of 2010, but not before several Democrat candidates ran campaign ads in which they posed as — you guessed it — moderate or conservative Republicans.

And now in 2014, Democrats are once again posing as Republicans — sometimes overtly so, in the sense of Democrat candidate Clay Aiken, who has been distributing lawn signs and other campaign paraphernalia labeled “RepublicAiken” in North Carolina to deliberately confuse voters:

Of course, Aiken seems pretty confused himself, referring to the American military as “G.I. Joe Soldiers.”

As for the rest of us, how many times will voters allow Lucy to pull the football at the last moment before they catch on to what is a bi-annual deception?

CNN Keeps the Cartagena Hookers Under Wraps

October 11th, 2014 - 10:15 pm




Looking for Anarchy in All the Wrong Places

October 11th, 2014 - 7:54 pm

 ”‘Weekend of Resistance’ in Ferguson takes disturbing turn,” Jazz Shaw writes at Hot Air, noting:

Whenever large scale social unrest breaks out and crowds gather, the two ideological groups which seem to flock to the violence – and seek to augment it – are the anarchists and the communists. (The irony of this should be lost on none of us, given that the two seek precisely opposite social reformation goals.)

And similarly, in a recent post titled “Fundamental Concepts — Government is Theft,” one of Ace of Spades’ co-blogger writes:

It is often said in the liberal media that we conservatives hate and mistrust government (broadly true), and that we want no government at all (False, that would be the anarchists, a group that should be furthest right on the political spectrum but oddly, these days, seem to be mostly leftists**).

As with fascism, anarchism is an ideology that historically has its roots on the left. If you’re unfamiliar with its history, then Abe Greenwald’s article in the March, 2011 issue of Commentary titled “The Return of Anarchism” is a great way to get up to speed. And while there have been libertarian-oriented anarchists, note the paradoxical nature of the term, as it’s been historically understood by most:

Originally a part of the socialist left in 19th-century Europe and Russia, anarchism arose in response to an undeniably unjust social, political, and imperial order. Anarchists railed against regimes in countries in which genuine monopolies were sanctioned and the poor were punished by all manner of law and taxation. The Industrial Revolution had taken hold, and modernization had created wealth among capitalists but had done little to distribute that wealth equitably. Working conditions were often unspeakable, and as farm workers made the uneasy transition to industrial labor, emperors, kings, and czars took one another’s measure and conspired to expand their empires.

In France, revolutions and coups shape-shifted the country repeatedly from a monarchy to a republic to a dictatorship and back again. When settled, at last, as a republic, France allied with Czarist Russia after 1870 to stave off the threat of a rising industrialist Germany. In Russia, where industrialization was lagging, social unrest following the liberation of the slave class in 1861 was greater than anywhere else in Europe.

Into this turbulent mix came socialists of various stripes, offering hope to peasants and laborers who found no regime worthy of their allegiance. It is among these socialists that anarchists first appeared. Strangely enough, anarchists do not believe in anarchy in the literal sense, a state of utter bedlam. Rather, they are proponents of “anarchism,” a political philosophy defined by seminal Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin in 1910 as “a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government.” In such a society, he said, harmony would be achieved “not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.”

This pacific ideal notwithstanding, anarchism did not actually express itself in a peaceable manner. Indeed, anarchism was the source of a new kind of violent pandemonium without precedent in Western history. Dynamite-throwing, bombing, stabbing, and shooting—these were the tools with which anarchists sought to bring about their earthly paradise under a doctrine they called “propaganda of the deed.” Thus was the conduct we call “terrorism” born.

Or as Instapundit reader Rob Crawford noted back then in response to Greenwald’s article, “The modern anarchists are just the far-left’s muscle. Look at when and where they show up, who they march with and for, and how carefully the press ignores them and their acts.”

And note how anarchy came into existence concurrently in the mid to late 19th century along with the rest of the forces that make up Liberal Fascism.

Two JuiceVoxers in One!

October 8th, 2014 - 4:02 pm

So was Kliff lying then, or is she lying now? Fellow JuiceVoxer Matt Yglesias says yes:

Yet another reminder that Jeff Bezos is looking increasingly prescient not handing over his tip money to Ezra “Not everything the Nazis touched was bad” Klein, Matt and the gang earlier this year.

Jimmy Carter, Racism Straight Up

October 8th, 2014 - 3:21 pm

“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man,” Jimmy Carter said in 2009:

“I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way, and I’ve seen the rest of the country that share the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans.”*

Carter continued, “And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.”

I agree. Which is why it grieves and concerns me deeply to read about nefarious rightwing neocon death beast Rethuglican Tea Party Koch-heads uttering such clearly racist filth as this today: “Jimmy Carter: Obama has really bungled America’s foreign policy:”

“First of all, we waited too long. We let the Islamic state build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria,” he said. “Then when [ISIS] moved into Iraq, the Sunni Muslims didn’t object to their being there and about a third of the territory in Iraq was abandoned.”

Carter sees some hope for the current American policy against ISIS in Iraq where troops on the ground will follow up after air strikes.

“If we keep on working in Iraq and have some ground troops to follow up when we do our bombing, there is a possibility of success.”

“You have to have somebody on the ground to direct our missiles and to be sure you have the right target,” Carter said. “Then you have to have somebody to move in and be willing to fight ISIS after the strikes.”

Gee, if only the infamously dovish Carter had taken his own advice in 1979, his presidential reputation might not be 20,000 leagues under the sea right now.

As John Hinderaker writes at Power Line, “When you’ve lost Jimmy ‘Boots on the Ground’ Carter, whom haven’t you lost? That’s got to be a short list.” But who on the left will be next to unleash his inner Curtis LeMay?

* No thanks to Carter himself, of course.

Related: Austin Bay puts Obama into historical perspective.

Watching the Goalposts Being Moved

October 7th, 2014 - 6:50 pm



Bay Area radio evangelist Harold Camping was properly excoriated throughout both the legacy media and the Blogosphere for his prediction that the world would end on May 21st, 2011. How many not-so-final countdowns are the gnostic high priests of climate allowed to issue before being similarly called out as false prophets?

As Matthew Continetti wrote in June, “The Obama post-presidency has already begun.” So why shouldn’t the former president expect numerous tell-all books from former cabinet officials and aides? Which answers the question posited by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. As paraphrased by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, the Democrat operative with a byline wonders “Why are Obama’s former officials so disloyal?” In response, Ed writes:

Twitter had a lot of fun with this question last night, mostly at Dana Milbank’s expense, but the emergence of several tell-all accounts while Barack Obama is still in office does seem a little … remarkable.  At least three books in the past year or two have opened the ledger on Obama’s policies and decisions as President, an effort that usually — but not always — begins after a President leaves office. Leon Panetta is the third Cabinet official, and more importantly the third major member of Obama’s national-security team, to write memoirs that criticize him in highly detailed accounts.

* * * * * * * *

It appears that Obama wasn’t listening to the people who held authority and expertise in these national-security issues, and now with things going as badly as they are, the three of them (and especially Gates and Panetta) want to make sure the record remains straight on whose decisions led to the debacle. On a broader level, the two men may have their loyalties focused less on Obama than on the nation as a whole. That’s not to say that personal loyalty to the President who appoints one to those positions should be of no account, but it shouldn’t trump the broader commitment to American national security, either.

In other words, the question and focus on these memoirs should be less about what they do to Obama, but what Obama himself is doing.

By the way, Panetta may have inflicted damage on both of his former bosses — at least one of whom, presumably, he’s hoping to work for again: As Bryan Preston writes at the PJ Tatler, Panetta told Andrea Mitchell this morning that “he knew, from the beginning, that the attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, was a terrorist attack. President Obama did not see it that way, and his actions that night remain a mystery.”

As do Hillary’s lies later that week, in which she attempted to blame the attack on a YouTube video, while standing in front of its victims’ caskets.

The Mendacity of Hope

October 6th, 2014 - 1:56 pm

“Metaphors for the Obama presidency have gone from heroic to homicidal,” Matt Welch writes at Reason, tracing the decent of metaphors for The Age of Obama “from the loft of Lincoln to the git-’er-done gutter of LBJ” to the slime of Frank Underwood:

Where the Lincolnphiles suffered from an over-fondness of rhetoric, the knock-a-few-heads-together crowd labors under a similarly unrealistic notion of what could be accomplished if you just locked warring political tribes in a room. That approach fails to take into account the many awful examples of bipartisan deal making, from Medicare Part D to the stimulus packages of 2008-09. Even worse, it reduces the dull, protracted realities of real-world policy making to a drama tidy enough to fit within the length of a major motion picture or Broadway show.

More troubling even than the rehabilitation of a man Democrats once couldn’t wait to hound out of office is the rising fondness for an even more ruthless commander in chief: Frank Underwood, our cover boy this month, the fictional anti-hero of Netflix’s critically acclaimed Washington drama House of Cards. Underwood is a honey-throated liberal Democrat in the LBJ mold who—spoiler alert!—actually murders his way from House majority whip to commander in chief.

“Given the congressional gridlock of recent years,” National Journal‘s Lucia Graves wrote in February, Underwood’s ruthlessness “doesn’t sound like such a bad thing. The question, given the current legislative paralysis, is does the ends justify the means?”

Barack Obama came to prominence on an altogether different premise. “We need to rise above an ends-justifies-the-means mentality,” he said on the Senate floor in 2005. Fittingly, that speech was in opposition to the then-GOP majority in the Senate changing the rules governing filibusters, a favor the Democratic majority returned in 2013-with the blessing of a president who every day looks less like a heroic statesman and more like a character in a tawdry political melodrama.

Of course, there’s still one more presidential metaphor to go:

New York Times reporter James Risen said Sunday that none of the current leak investigations would be happening if President Barack Obama did not hate the media so much, the Morning Sentinel of Maine reports.

“I don’t think any of this would be happening under the Obama administration if Obama didn’t want to do it,” Risen said at Colby College in Maine after he received the Elijah Parish Lovejoy award for journalism. “I think Obama hates the press. I think he doesn’t like the press and he hates leaks.”

Obama came into office with Paul Krugman begging him to go full Nixon — why follow his lead, Democrat biographical hacks?




Generation Blank

October 6th, 2014 - 12:29 pm

Hello, Our Mothers. Hello, Our Fathers. Here we are in Concentration Camp Grenada.

You never know what sort of flotsam and jetsam will show up on Netflix Streaming, and I’m sure everyone who clicks through the site, whether on their PC or their HDTV set-top box, knows the feeling of stumbling over something late at night, clicking the play button, and slowly starting to wonder, “Why the hell am I watching this — and why can’t I turn it off?”

Over the weekend I found myself binging late at night on the four and half-hour 2013 German mini-series Our Mothers, Our Fathers (in the original German, Unsere Mütter, Unsere Väter) released in America as Generation War. And it was almost immediately apparent what was coming. In America and England, World War II history, whether in the form of books, TV, or movies, is crafted by the victors, and when it comes to movies and TV, World War II is, for better or worse, the only war that (a) the public can be reliably expected to tune in (World War I films are much more hit and miss at the box office) and (b) unlike the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, there’s a near-unanimous consensus that we should have fought WWII, we were the good guys, and it’s a damn good thing we won.

In Germany, of course, WWII history is crafted by the losers, and there’s simultaneously an enormous shame over their actions and an enormous cultural industry to explain them away. Not really to justify them, but to transform the nation that fielded the most powerful army in the world in 1939 into victims.

As Uri Klein writes at Haaretz, in many ways, Generation War updates the formula that Erich Maria Remarque popularized in All Quiet on the Western Front, his novel set in the Germany of the first World War. Klein’s article is titled “Nostalgic German TV series takes history out of WW2.” Spot on; right from the start, Generation War plays fast and incredibly loose with history.

The miniseries begins by establishing its cast, four Germans in their late teens or early 20s, who in 1941 are about to set off on their wartime adventures on the Eastern Front. They meet after hours at a bar in Berlin where Greta, one of the friends – and it really quickly does start to feel like an episode of Friends set in Nazi Germany – works as a waitress and budding chanteuse. The four Aryan friends are joined by their fifth buddy, Viktor. Five minutes into Generation War, the miniseries begins with the biggest of the big lies, to coin a Teutonic phrase, as Adam Kirsch noted in his well-written review in February at the New Republic

The fifth member of the group is, for the film’s purposes, the most important of all. He is Viktor Goldstein, and yes, he is a Jew—a Jew who is the bosom friend of four young Aryans in Nazi Berlin in 1941, and the lover of one of them, the heedless Greta. Now, these young Germans are supposed to be about twenty when the film begins, which means that they were twelve when Hitler took power. For eight years they would have been subjected to Nazi propaganda; they would have been members of the Hitler Youth. Would such people really accept a Jew like Viktor as a bosom friend? Would they even have a chance to meet him, since Jews had already been expelled from the schools, most jobs, and even public places like parks and zoos? Yet Generation War assures us that this friendship was normal: it was those other Germans who hated Jews, not “our mothers, our fathers.”

Which is a reminder that even the mini-series’ title is an apologia for German audiences, convincing them “Our Mothers, Our Fathers,” particularly as represented by the miniseries’ attractive, well-scrubbed cast, were victims (even as they were rampaging through most of Europe and Russia) – it was the mean and nasty generation before them that duped them all into becoming Nazis.

Pages: 1 2 | 30 Comments bullet bullet

Al Gore was driven (further) insane when he lost to GWB in 2000, going from a man who attacked Bush #41 in 1992 for not removing Saddam Hussein from power, to demonizing Bush #43 for removing Saddam Hussein from power, and smearing his supporters as “digital brownshirts.”  Gore, whose political career was reborn in 1989, when he made an about-face from a relatively conservative Democrat in the 1980s to comparing global warming to “An Ecological Kristallnacht” in a New York Times op-ed, sold his Current TV channel to Al Jazeera, owned by the ISIS-funding petro-state Qatar, for $500 million at the start of 2013.

With her above Facebook post today, Naomi Wolf, legendary (if perhaps somewhat apocryphally) for advising Gore in 2000 to switch to earth tones to bring out his hot-blooded alpha male (no, really), has joined him in la-la land.

It shouldn’t be all that surprising. In August of 2009, the former self-described “third wave feminist” thought that Islamic women forcing women to cover their faces was totally groovy, and underneath, the Islamic world was as laid back about sex as say, your average, Greenwich Village coffee house. (No, really.) Or as Phyllis Chesler paraphrased Wolf’s essay in the Sydney Morning Herald, “The Burqa: Ultimate Feminist Choice?”

In the fall of 2008, she predicted that if John McCain won, we’d see the coming of the Palin-Rove Police State. (No, really!) Here’s Wolf’s fever-swamp rant at the Huffington Post in September of 2008:

Please understand what you are looking at when you look at Sarah “Evita” Palin. You are looking at the designated muse of the coming American police state.

You have to understand how things work in a closing society in order to understand “Palin Power.” A gang or cabal seizes power, usually with an affable, weak figurehead at the fore. Then they will hold elections — but they will make sure that the election will be corrupted and that the next affable, weak figurehead is entirely in their control. Remember, Russia has Presidents; Russia holds elections. Dictators and gangs of thugs all over the world hold elections. It means nothing. When a cabal has seized power you can have elections and even presidents, but you don’t have freedom.

I realized early on with horror what I was seeing in Governor Palin: the continuation of the Rove-Cheney cabal, but this time without restraints.

(Read the whole thing; it’s quite a hoot.) In October 2011, Wolf got her wish, sort of, being busted by Mayor Bloomberg’s finest and held overnight after an Occupy Wall Street rally went awry. The following year in the UK Guardian she had her latest gnostic revelation: “Revealed: how the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy –New documents prove what was once dismissed as paranoid fantasy: totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent.”

But when faced with what should be her worst nightmare, an Islamic state that represses dissent with machine guns and rusty knives to the jugular, Wolf dissembles on whether or not it’s fair to call ISIS “evil” and goes into truther mode over their snuff videos. Very likely, she’s not alone in that department; in 2007, Jane Hamsher, the founder of the leftwing Firedoglake blog, estimated that 35 percent of Democrats were 9/11 truthers.

As Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal once posited, the most traumatic event in recent history for many on the left wasn’t September 11th, 2001, but losing to President Bush the previous year. And apparently, those closest to the epicenter were driven the furthest into hysteria.

Update: Worried about Ebola in the USA? Who isn’t! Fortunately, Naomi’s got you covered with a conspiracy theory for that as well:


If that request actually did come from a New York Times journalist as Wolf writes on her Facebook page, then evidently the Times would rather protect Naomi’s rep than have to report on a former Gore advisor now in ISIS truther mode. Or as Jim Treacher of the Daily Caller recently tweeted, “Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn’t know because they might reflect badly on Democrats.”


As John Fund notes today, when you’ve lost former pants-wetting hardcore Obama groupies like Piers Morgan, Chris Matthews and Jonathan Alter

“President Obama this week committed professional suicide,” wrote former CNN host Piers Morgan, now an editor-at-large for Britain’s Daily Mail.

He called Obama’s throwing of the intelligence community under the bus a “shameless, reprehensible display of buck-passing” that will result in some analysts’ exacting “cold-blooded revenge on Obama by drip-feeding negative stories about him until he’s gone.” As for the Secret Service fiasco, Morgan said it was “no wonder the Secret Service gets complacent when The Boss exudes complacency from every pore.”

Chris Matthews of MSNBC, the former White House speechwriter who once rapturously recounted that he “felt this thrill going up my leg” as Obama spoke, didn’t hold back on Wednesday’s Hardball. “Let’s get tough here,” Matthews began, as he lambasted Obama for being “intellectually lazy” and “listening to the same voices all the time.” He even named names, saying that Obama had become “atrophied into that little world of people like Valerie Jarrett and Mrs. Obama.”

Read the whole thing — and speaking of warning signs, don’t miss Jarret’s quote from 2010 at the end of Fund’s article about how bored, bored, bored Barry is with everything and everybody around him.

Presumably, that includes that boring little piece of real estate called the Middle East as well. Last night, Megyn Kelly confronted Obama spokespoodle Jen Psaki with the words of Leon Panetta regarding one of the worst mistakes of Obama’s term in office (and that’s saying something): pulling US troops out of Iraq in 2011, which was played in 2012 as one of Obama’s great victories, until ISIS dared to rain on Barry’s ticker-tape parade. As Allahpundit notes, Psaki was reduced to the following circular argument: “simultaneously (a) praise a former administration appointee as a fine, honorable, credible public servant and (b) insist that he and Kelly have their facts wrong, wrong, wrong.”

“This is not a government; this a corporate PR firm,” Ace writes in response:

The PR firm has a smaller child corporation that is tangentially in the business of government, and its chief stock in trade is failure.

The PR firm runs the show, and the corporate PR firm is here to tell you two things:

1, everything’s fine, nothing to see here, errors were made but by the way errors weren’t even made,


2, if you don’t agree, there’s something wrong with you. Perhaps racism.

Well, that’s always a given.

Update: “Start the clock on Valerie Jarrett leaving this administration,” Moe Lane writes:

[S]omebody is going to have to take the blame for the Democrats losing the Senate, and everybody in This Thing Of Ours pretty much loathes Valerie Jarrett.  Except for the Democrats; they loathe and fear her.

Guess we’ll see how it goes, huh?

Huh — I half-seriously think that Obama would resign before Jarrett does, considering the major role she played in getting him into the White House in the first place.

Back Off Man, I’m a Scientist

October 2nd, 2014 - 10:59 am

Sean Davis on Neil deGrasse Tyson’s latest effort at walking back his misquote of President Bush:

To sum up: Tyson fabricated a quote from a newspaper headline and to this day has offered zero evidence that this headline exists, other than his memory (you’ll just have to take it on faith). Tyson fabricated a quote from a member of Congress and to this day has offered zero evidence that this quote has been uttered, other than his own insistence that it was privately said in his presence (you’ll need to take that one on faith, too). Nor has Tyson offered any evidence whatsoever to independently corroborate his jury duty story, which, to my knowledge, has at least four different versions (you’ll need to take Tyson’s story about that on faith, too).

Finally, we have a quote that Tyson fabricated about President George W. Bush that Tyson then deliberately used to cast the president in the worst possible light, all so he could get an attaboy ego boost from the know-nothing seal clappers who paid $70 each to be in his audience. And what does he say after weeks of obfuscation and nonsense justification for blatant fabrication in service of an ideological agenda?

“My bad.”

Read the whole thing. I’d compare Tyson to Bill Murray’s aging hipster pseudo-scientist character Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters, but in the end, Venkman and his team came through and saved New York. But that’s Hollywood. Back here in reality, Tyson has done considerable damage to his reputation over the past few weeks after Davis and others (including our own David Steinberg) did yeoman work uncovering his many self-serving misquotes.

Don’t expect the MSM to notice though. At least not immediately.

Related: Rich Lowry on “The Cult of Neil deGrasse Tyson,” at Politico, which as fallen for a few cults of its own.

Which dovetails nicely with this astonishingly un-self-aware tweet on Monday from one of Todd’s co-workers:

Wow, just wait’ll these guys discover just what happens when you create a whole alphabet soup of new agencies during a crisis!

“The wheels of Obama’s bus are tall, and roll over obstacles easily,” Ace quips:

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said he accepted her resignation and he named Deputy Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to lead an investigation into the Sept. 19 incident in which authorities say Omar Gonzalez scaled the White House fence, made it into the executive mansion and overpowered an officer before being subdued by a second officer.

Mr. Johnson also said he’s convening a panel of independent experts to report back on changes needed at the troubled Secret Service.

She was the first female director of the elite security service.

That above link goes to the Washington Times; at least they mentioned Pierson’s gender, with the implication that it likely — very likely — caused her to get the gig in the first place, in the wake of the Secret Service’s embarrassing frat boy antics in recent years. Contrast that with Washington Times’ elite crosstown rivals on the other side of the aisle, as Charles C.W. Cooke wrote yesterday:

Yesterday afternoon, much to my eternal humiliation, I fell foul of a parody account on Twitter. Responding with false outrage to a Washington Post story on a lunatic who managed to barge his way into the White House, the joke feed “@Salondotcom” took aim at the reporting of basic facts, contending in jest that the truth should be covered up lest it upset anyone sensitive. In the ostensibly offensive passage, the Post had recorded that “the female officer posted inside the front door appeared to be delayed in learning that the intruder, Omar Gonzalez, was about to burst through.” “No, WaPo,” Salondotcom responded with mock indignation, “it doesn’t matter that the officer the White House intruder got past was a woman.” Accustomed as I am to precisely this sort of nonsense, I presumed the tweet was real and I linked to it earnestly. Congratulations to J. Arthur Bloom and his impressively fertile imagination. You got me.

And yet, as subsequent events have demonstrated, the joke was bang on. As a part of its gag, @Salondotcom took a screenshot of the post and highlighted the word “female” within the sentence, thereby establishing that, in an ideal world at least, newspapers would prefer androgyny to accuracy. Just a few hours later, fiction became fact, the description being removed entirely from the Post’s piece. Parody had outpaced reality.

As it always does, particularly when it has such fertile material to work with in this administration and its palace guard.

Regarding the former: “FLASHBACK: Secret Service Missed Fake Interpreter Charged With Murder on Stage With Obama During Mandela Funeral,” Katie Pavlich reminds us today at Townhall.

Regarding the latter, its real palace guard, Charles Cooke has you covered there, as well today: NYT: Say, Why Don’t Republicans Want President Obama to be Killed?

An extraordinary item from Peter Baker in the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — President Obama must be touched by all the concern Republicans are showing him these days. As Congress examines security breaches at the White House, even opposition lawmakers who have spent the last six years fighting his every initiative have expressed deep worry for his security.

“Even”? Can it really be too difficult to recognize that citizens who strongly disagree with the president of the republic don’t want him to be murdered? Is the moral imagination of the center-left truly so barren as to presume as a matter of course that vehement and caustic political opposition must, eventually, lead to execution?

I hope the Russians love their children, too. As Cooke writes, “Of course we want the president to be safe. Those who are surprised by this perhaps need to spend some more time with their ideological opponents, or — and this will be harder, I grant — spend a little more time examining what it is about their ideology that led them to conflate political opposition and violence in the first instance.”

Update: “Exclusive: Secret Service missed man with gun in elevator with Obama,” from Susan Crabtree yesterday in the Washington Examiner:

A man with a gun that the Secret Service did not know about rode in an elevator with President Obama during his visit to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta on Sept. 16.

The previously undisclosed breach, confirmed by two sources familiar with the case, raises new questions about the agency’s ability to protect the president.

The incident, which took place three days before an intruder jumped a fence and sprinted inside the White House, involved a failure in Secret Service advance work to prevent an armed man from coming into close proximity with Obama while he was visiting the CDC to receive a briefing about the Ebola threat.

The threat to the president appeared minimal, but the incident alarmed agents on site and exposes a breakdown in several important Secret Service security protocols, the sources say.

The information comes the same day Secret Service Director Julia Pierson appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and lawmakers publicly upbraided her for three hours about the Sept. 19 White House security breach, among other problems at the agency.

Curiously, unlike the IRS scandal, the Obamacare rollout, and Benghazi, this was apparently the one time that the Obama administration “read about something in the paper,” as they usually say to offhandedly downplay the myriad of disasters and scandals embroiling the inept administration, to fire someone:

Give CBS’s DC affiliate some credit; that’s the headline they ran with on this story, earning a Drudge link, even if it what it refers to is buried eight paragraphs into the actual AP copy:

Meg Kissinger, a reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, posted on Facebook that she was told by a White House aide that she was not allowed to talk to people in the crowd.

“[A]ssigned to cover Michelle Obama’s speech today and was told by a Mary Burke aide and one for the White House that I could not speak to the people in the crowd. To say that I was creeped out is an understatement. This is what reporters do in America: we speak to people,” Kissinger posted. “At least that’s how I’ve been doing things — at all kinds of political events — since 1979.”

Kissinger wrote that reporters and photographers were cordoned off during the event.

“Reporters and photographers were cordoned off in a central area with chairs and tables. Several people in the crowd asked if they could have extra chairs reserved for the media — but reporters were initially forbidden from handing them over. Eventually, some of the Burke staff gave the extra chairs to attendees,” Kissinger reported.

So just to review, Michelle Obama’s husband’s staffers have reporters and videomakers arrested. Michelle own handlers warn journalists not to talk to the crowd; Joe Biden’s handlers lock reporters into closets, and Hillary’s follows the media into bathrooms, and waits for them just outside the stall.

And other than a little bitching about it afterwards, not a whole lot of pushback emerges from the media over these moments, thus helping to reinforce the growing perception that the supine MSM are in reality, merely Democrat operatives with bylines.

(And ten days ago, when we last heard from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, another of its journalists was accused of harassing — at his home — the disabled former police officer who blew the whistle on GOP Gov. Scott Walker’s Democrat attackers, doubling down on the Democrats with bylines narrative the MSM has created for itself by ditching any semblance of objectivity.)

Dispatches From the Reality-Based Community

September 29th, 2014 - 7:31 pm

To borrow from Ian Fleming, Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago:


Once is happenstance.


Twice is coincidence.


The third time it’s enemy action.

Tom Wolfe once wrote that “the greatest hoax of modern history” occurred when “Russia’s ruling ‘socialist workers party,’ the Communists, established themselves as the polar opposites of their two socialist clones, the National Socialist German Workers Party (quicknamed ‘The Nazis’) and Italy’s Marxist-inspired Fascisti, by branding both as ‘the fascists,’” which quickly led to those two socialist clones as being described, per Stalin’s orders, as “right wing” for the rest of the 20th century with very little in the way of effective pushback from limited-government conservatives and libertarians until recent years. The Democrats’ ongoing efforts to offload their shameful racist past onto the GOP has to run a close second. Don’t let them get away with it.

Update: “The Democrats were the party of Jim Crow. Bull Connor was a member of the Democratic National Committee. He set dogs and firehoses on civil rights protesters.”

The WaPo’s Orwellian War on Women

September 29th, 2014 - 3:00 pm

Interesting catch by Twitter user “Joaquin Fenix” and retweeted by Glenn Reynolds. The Blaze’s Madeleine Morgenstern quotes from what is presumably an earlier version of the Post’s article:

The man who jumped the White House fence this month and sprinted through the front door made it much farther into the building than previously known, overpowering one Secret Service officer and running through much of the main floor, according to three people familiar with the incident.

An alarm box near the front entrance of the White House designed to alert guards to an intruder had been muted at what officers believed was a request of the usher’s office, said a Secret Service official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The female officer posted inside the front door appeared to be delayed in learning that the intruder, Omar Gonzalez, was about to burst through. Officers are trained that, upon learning of an intruder on the grounds, often through the alarm boxes posted around the property, they must immediately lock the front door.

The current version of the above passage reads:

The man who jumped the White House fence this month and sprinted through the front door made it much farther into the building than previously known, overpowering one Secret Service officer and running through much of the main floor, according to three people familiar with the incident.

An alarm box near the front entrance of the White House designed to alert guards to an intruder had been muted at what officers believed was a request of the usher’s office, said a Secret Service official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The officer posted inside the front door appeared to be delayed in learning that the intruder, Omar Gonzalez, was about to burst through. Officers are trained that, upon learning of an intruder on the grounds, often through the alarm boxes posted around the property, they must immediately lock the front door.

(Emphasis mine in both block-quoted passages.) So did the Post get that detail wrong initially, or is sex of the over-powered Secret Service agent being scrubbed for politically correct reasons? Did pressure from gender (and race) obsessed Salon and other left Websites cause the Post to break out the airbrush?

Given this Tweet last month by Jim Treacher which accurately sums up the current role of the media, simultaneously playing palace guard for the Obama administration and “nudging” the rest of us into the bold “Progressive” future…

…I know which way I’m currently betting.



Unexpectedly! “In a bizarre coincidence, a fired Oklahoma City nursing home employee was arrested Friday after a co-worker reported he threatened to cut her head off,” local newspaper The Oklahoman reports today. “Jacob Mugambi Muriithi, 30, is being held in the Oklahoma County jail on a terrorism complaint. His bail is set at $1 million:”

[His co-worker] said Muriithi identified himself as a Muslim and said he “represented ISIS and that ISIS kills Christians,” the detective told a judge in the affidavit. The two had not worked together before.ISIS is a reference to Islamic State militants responsible for highly publicized beheadings in the Middle East.

The woman said she asked him why they kill Christians and he replied, “This is just what we do,” the detective reported.

“The victim said Jacob asked her what time she got off work and she replied by asking him in a joking manner if he was going to kill her,’ the detective wrote. “Jacob told the victim, ‘Yes,’ he was going to cut her head off. The victim asked Jacob what he was going to cut her head off with and he said, ‘A blade,’ then told her after he did it he was going to post it on Facebook.

“The victim said Jacob was serious when speaking and never made any statements that he was joking or playing around.”

NBC to denounce this latest “gentleman’s” threat as mere potential “workplace violence” in 3…2…1…

Related: speaking of Facebook and Oklahoma “workplace violence,” “‘SHARIA LAW IS COMING!!!!’ Oklahoma Beheader Celebrated Terrorists, Disparaged Non-Muslims On Facebook”