Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

David Steinberg

David Steinberg is the New York City Editor of PJ Media. Follow his tweets at @DavidSPJM.
Follow David:

BIZARRE: Boeing 777s, After 18 Spotless Years, Crash Three Times Since July 2013

Thursday, July 24th, 2014 - by David Steinberg

Despite stunning achievements in air travel safety, terrible things happen. You are safe in the air, yes, but you are never guaranteed your safety in a world of men, or in a nature that plays dice.

Aaron Karp, senior editor of trade publication Air Transport World, points out the confounding events of the past year: not only has the grand Boeing 777 — which did not have a single fatality in its 18 years of operation — crashed three times in 377 days, those three crashes were just about the strangest ever seen by the industry:

In June 1995, United Airlines became the first airline to operate a Boeing 777. Since then, more than 1,200 777s have been delivered to airlines around the world and the popular widebody twinjet has clocked millions of flight hours. For 18 years, there were no fatal 777 accidents and only one hull loss resulting from a 777 flight — the British Airways 777-200ER that landed short of the runway at London Heathrow in January 2008, which caused substantial damage to the aircraft but no fatalities. There was also an EgyptAir 777-200ER that suffered irreparable damage from a cockpit fire on the ground before it was scheduled to take off from Cairo in July 2011. Everyone safely got off the aircraft.

This history underscores how stunning it is that, in the space of just 377 days, three 777s and 540 lives were lost in three of the most bizarre airline crashes ever. First, on July 6, 2013, there was the Asiana Airlines 777-200ER hitting a sea wall while attempting to land at San Francisco International, breaking apart and bursting into flames. Amazingly, 304 of the 307 passengers and crew aboard survived, including flight attendants ejected from the aircraft during the crash sequence.

Then, of course, there are this year’s twin Malaysia Airlines disasters. MH370, a 777-200ER, disappeared on March 8 with 239 passengers and crew aboard and still, more than four months later, not a trace has been found. Boeing chairman and CEO Jim McNerney this week called MH17, the 777-200ER that was barbarously shot down with 298 people aboard over eastern Ukraine on July 17, a “particularly unsettling and painful moment in the history of aviation.”

What makes the three 777 hull losses in fatal accidents in just over a year hard to fathom is that there is no safety issue with the 777 itself …

The disappearance of MH370 certainly appears to have been terror — the pilot intended to at least hijack the flight, though I have yet to hear evidence that he chose a 777 for any reason relating to the product itself. And MH17 most definitely was taken down by terror, though intercepted recordings point to the malicious operators of the Buk having not intended to target a passenger craft, much less a 777 specifically.

The San Francisco crash, strange at was, was stranger still in that a fatality occurred when a survivor was struck by an emergency vehicle.

In a year, 540 people have perished on one of the safest, soundest transports ever created — and it’s still just as safe as ever. Crazy world.

Also read: 

Today’s News of Fresh Disaster Sponsored by Time-Warner-CNN-HBO

Read bullet |

‘Ban Bossy’? Michelle Obama Uses Racial Slur: ‘Gypped’

Monday, June 23rd, 2014 - by David Steinberg

Moments ago, ABC News published their coverage of today’s White House Summit on Working Families. During the event Michelle Obama used a racial slur. This slipped past the writer and editors at ABC, who made no reference to her usage of the word:

[F]irst lady Michelle Obama admitted to a few of her own struggles as a working mother while making the case for flexible workplace policies for families.

“The first thing I tried to do, which was a mistake, was that I tried the part-time thing … I realized I was getting gypped on that front,” she told ABC’s Robin Roberts at the event, which aimed to bring attention to strengthening the nation’s workforce by addressing various workplace difficulties. “What happened was I got a part-time salary but worked full time.”

Of course, the term “gypped” is a slur referencing the supposed criminal behavior of Romani, or “gypsies,” though it is often still used colloquially by people who are unaware of the term’s history and connotation. For comparison, imagine Michelle had claimed she was getting “Jewed down,” or had referred to an “Indian giver.” “Gypped” bears the same strand of malevolent history and intention, though the term is still more commonplace.

Considering Michelle Obama implored Americans to ban the term “bossy,” and to the myriad non-liberals who didn’t get a pass for their respective “binders full of women,” or who were pilloried for hunting in the vicinity of a racist rock, she has dug her own hole here, and deserves what she metes out.

UPDATE: ABCNews published at least two articles on the racist rock that had absolutely nothing to do with Rick Perry. Their radar is much less sensitive when the content is Michelle Obama’s actual words.

Read bullet |

Susan Rice Defends, Rewrites Her ‘Honor and Distinction’ Statement

Friday, June 6th, 2014 - by David Steinberg

In an interview this morning with CNN, Susan Rice qualified her earlier statement that Bowe Bergdahl “served with honor and distinction”:

“I realize there has been lots of discussion and controversy around this,” Rice said. “But what I was referring to was the fact that this was a young man who volunteered to serve his country in uniform at a time of war. That, in and of itself, is a very honorable thing.”

Of course it is, though no unbiased listener could possibly have drawn the conclusion that she was referring to having volunteered, because she said “served,” and because her excuse raises the possibility that a soldier could be dishonorably discharged with honor and distinction. Presumably, she is attempting to pause the news cycle until the weekend with this nonsense, though I don’t see how this buys the White House much beyond further ridicule.

 

Read bullet |

New Jersey Assn. of Health Underwriters, on the ‘Fix’: ‘This Is a New Insanity’

Thursday, November 14th, 2013 - by David Steinberg

I just spoke with David Oscar, the communications chair for the New Jersey Association of Health Underwriters and a partner at Altigro Financial Group. He had this to say regarding President Obama’s attempt to offer a one-year restoration of canceled plans:

This a new insanity.

I do not know how the insurance carriers and federal government are going to be dealing with this. First, many states require a 60-day notice of a change in plan or a cancellation. It’s November 15! How can they comply with this new element of federal law, and with their state laws?

Second, do they really think carriers are going to be willing to recreate the old plans, while also being mandated to offer the new ones that comply with the exchanges? I have a large number of clients, small to medium-sized businesses, who would much rather renew their old policies on 12/1 than sign up with the newly mandated exchange policies. Everyone is going to want the old ones! You really expect the insurance carriers to willingly deal with the financial loss and legal headaches of switching back?

It is going to be very difficult for carriers to honor this.

More: Howard Dean: Is Obama’s ‘Fix’ Even Legal?

Read bullet |

Until the Bitter End: MSNBC, Mediaite Go With ‘Obama Lied, But For Your Own Good’

Wednesday, October 30th, 2013 - by David Steinberg

Last night at 11:00 p.m., MSNBC’s Geoff Cowley posted an article titled: “Millions will lose their old health plans under Obamacare—and most will come out ahead“:

As critics excoriate the administration for misleading the public, here’s a point to bear in mind. The affected consumers aren’t getting ripped off. Most will get more for care their money under the new system than they ever could have hoped for under the old.

Earlier in the day, Mediaite’s “Tommy Christophertweeted the following regarding the woman featured on CBS who had her policy canceled, and who could only find a plan 10 times more expensive as an alternative:

@tommyxtopher The only reason people “like” pre-ACA plans is they know s*** about them. CBS lady thought she had a $50 copay. Nope

That’s two well-trafficked left-leaning outlets committing to perhaps the most obnoxious possible tack in response to the debunking of Obama’s “if you like your plan, you can keep it” lie. This is nothing new for the left in terms of subjectivism — “the ends justify the means, even if we didn’t actually produce the ends” speech has kept many Democrats in office. But the arrogance and dismissal of their readership’s intelligence inherent in this particular stance?

Be aware: they have committed to this ride to their last breath.

(I did give it back to Tommy a bit. Was hard to let that one go.)

Read bullet |

‘Junta for Progressive Action,’ Other Partisan Groups Get Federal Grants to Sell Obamacare

Tuesday, October 8th, 2013 - by David Steinberg

The Hartford Courant has reported on Connecticut organizations receiving federal grants to act as “in-person assisters” for the purpose of registering people for Obamacare insurance plans. Many of the groups receiving this grant money nationally are partisan and controversial (including the previously reported involvement of Planned Parenthood.)

For example, a New Haven, CT organization called “Junta for Progressive Action” is one of 300 grant recipients in the state. When it isn’t signing people up for Obamacare, Junta for Progressive Action advocates against policing policies that help catch illegal aliens.

Will organizations such as Junta that possess a clear ideological bias be required to check the immigration status of those they help navigate through the troubled Obamacare web portals?

Absolutely not:

Some Hispanic families may think twice about exploring the new coverage options because they don’t want to discuss immigration matters, said Yanil Terón, executive director of Center for Latino Progress in Hartford. “They’re concerned about coming forward,” she said. Undocumented immigrants cannot reap the law’s benefits, but their U.S.-born children can apply for HUSKY, the state’s subsidized health program.

Consumers must provide information about citizenship status, income and other matters to determine eligibility for Medicaid or subsidized private coverage with Access Health, but conversations remain confidential. “We want to create a safe environment for families who have people who are eligible for coverage but don’t want to jeopardize an undocumented individual,” said Skene from Access Health.

“There is no punitive immigration follow-up. That is 100 percent not part of the enrollment process,” added Jason Madrak, chief marketing officer for Access Health.

Recall, the “honor system” is utilized elsewhere in the Obamacare enrollment process: for example, statements of income are not being verified.

Access Health, Connecticut’s official Obamacare exchange, received a $125,000 grant “to support grass-roots education and enrollment, with a focus on increasing coverage in communities of color.” Via organizations such as Junta, the state is deliberately directing resources towards shopping Obamacare plans by race.

Broadly, “culture” is also a target: per Emilia Skene, “an in-person assister recruitment coordinator with Access Health,” Connecticut is trying to undo a “cultural mindset among Hispanics” of individual responsibility that prevents Hispanics from racking up medical expenditures:

“We need to change the way that Hispanics think about health care,” said Skene. “We want to show how accessing preventive care on a regular basis and establishing a long-term relationship with a physician can lead to a healthier lifestyle and a healthier community.”

“It’s true,” said Cruz, of the tendency by Hispanics to exhaust home remedies and over-the-counter medications before seeking medical care. “We were raised to try to solve these problems on our own. The last thing we want to do is go to the doctor.”

While Skene’s stated motivation is to usher Hispanics towards professional health care, the objective success of her taxpayer-funded activity would equal additional taxpayer-funded health expenditures. Taxpayer money is thus being utilized by politically biased groups to advocate for greater usage of taxpayer money, and the groups are operating on the honor system in terms of possible citizenship and income fraud.

“Junta,” indeed.

(Bryan Preston assisted with this article.)

Read bullet |

Earthquake: Did Carney Presser End MSM Monolith?

Friday, May 10th, 2013 - by David Steinberg

The most notable takeaway from Jay Carney’s incomprehensible Friday appearance had little to do with his Klingon grammar. Carney does not represent the historical value of the event – you should be wise to forget his performance, and instead take note that he was flanked by the entire room, without exception.

Do not underestimate the significance: the Obama administration has not faced such an onslaught of truth-seeking since he took office in 2008, and further, no Democratic administration has been charged from all sides like this in recent memory.

That press conference was unthinkable just days ago.

For a left-leaning reporter – as surveys have confirmed most are – watching the WH Press Corps attack a Democratic administration regarding a scandal that could very well topple it must objectively represent a career-turning event.

Just hours earlier, many lefty journalists still felt exceedingly comfortable advancing the administration talking points, offering denigrating coverage of the whistleblowers, the “wingnut conspiracy theorists,” and conservatives in general. Professionally, this meant offering subpar commentary with little chance of notable criticism penetrating the MSM bubble.

But now?

Again, it was the entire room.

Can they still feel safe trashing political enemies without getting justly reamed by their employers and colleagues? Can they still offer work that hasn’t been bulletproofed and sourced without embarrassment? Can they wink-wink, nudge-nudge with their friends anymore?

Heck, do they even know who their friends are anymore?

Watch their Twitter timelines, their future articles, because I think the MSM just went Mad Max, every man for himself.

If it continues, this would of course be a wonderful development for the American citizen, the restoration of the press and its check on government corruption. Is the decades-late media audit, the return of professionalism and honor, finally underway this evening?

I don’t have the highest hopes of a full recovery, but a monumental change did just occur, and there will be fallout, and likely no return to the monolith of the past five years.

Also read: Carney Scrubs His Way Through Another Press Briefing

Read bullet |

Donate: List of U.S. Amputee Charities

Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 - by David Steinberg

Blood banks had enough on hand to announce shortly after the attacks that they were prepared to provide to the victims; this should warm your heart. People did not wait to hear about shortages. They simply showed up ready to give.

At the moment, no one knows for certain what the demand is for prosthetics and all associated costs. We might as well give until we get the all-clear.

The following list of amputee-related charities was provided to PJ Media by Wounded Warrior Project Resource Center:

Amputee Coalition

Limbs for Life

Veterans Administration

SAME

Read bullet |

Duty: Watch Video of Two Uniformed Soldiers Moments After Blasts

Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 - by David Steinberg

Immediately after the blast, the heroes coming towards the danger, determined to help, struggled to get past the safety barricade lining the street to reach the victims. Then, at 1:43 of this video, two uniformed soldiers sprint into the shot.

If you know our soldiers, you know these two already decided that the barricades were going to come down before they got there. And they do take them down, and help streams in.

I’ll be thinking about these two heroes for a long time. If your kids are old enough to watch, this might strike you as a valuable opportunity for teaching character.

Click here for the video.

 

Read bullet |

‘Legitimate Life’: Shock Planned Parenthood Video vs. Todd Akin

Friday, March 29th, 2013 - by David Steinberg

A Florida Planned Parenthood official just stood in front of the Florida legislature to advance the argument that perhaps some life is at the whim of the living — “legitimate life,” for a perfectly representative description of her argument; there is no daylight between her testimony and an advocacy of decriminalizing murder.

If a child brought into the world under such circumstances is unworthy of life via the intentions of the mother, logic dictates that the child would be placed in such limbo indefinitely, until such time as the mother chooses to kill it. Two minutes later, twenty-five years later: if this monstrous woman could shape a society according to her testimony, then the mother would necessarily have a permanent right to slaughter her child.

Further: changing her mind, at any point, would change nothing.

If the mother decided she no longer wished the child to be dead, the logic of this “Legitimate Life” testimony — that some life is at the whim of the living — requires that the mother could always change her mind once again.

Which brings us to this: a government-funded organization just sent a representative to testify that she is not entirely sure a mother does not have an inalienable right to murderthe president whose administration funds her organization has expressed the exact same sentiments, and in fact voted on them — several times.

An honest culture, an honest media would consider this distinction:

– Todd Akin expressed an opinion supported by no one of his party, that was a part of no platform, that virtually no one alive had ever heard expressed before, whereas …

– This demon in Florida is not the first to equivocate on murder; she has an ally in a high place, and belongs to a billion-dollar organization that has equivocated on “legitimate life” frequently and publicly.

One of these incidents deserves a national conversation — especially during the trial of Kermit Gosnell, a man who actually acted on the theory of “legitimate life,” and likely murdered hundreds.

But the other one got it.

Read bullet |

Pound-for-Pound, America’s Most Embarrassing City

Monday, March 4th, 2013 - by David Steinberg

Idyllic southeastern Connecticut — for my money, one of the premier spots in America for quality of life considering its low real estate prices, lovely coastline, and proximity to New York and Boston — has put together an equally idyllic run of perfectly humiliating national news stories. Astoundingly, all the open-fly-in-the-yearbook-photo headlines have been generated by the crumbling ex-whaling hub of New London, some accomplishment considering its sub-30,000 population.

Almost since whale oil was replaced by drilling, a collection of Detroit-style Democrats have maintained a chokehold on this American city in need of revitalization and reinvention. A century later, there is no justifiable reason — considering New London’s natural beauty and location — for it not to be Connecticut’s version of the Hamptons besides its wretched collection of Democrats.

For example, Ernest Hewett (D):

State Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, refused to resign Friday after losing his role as deputy speaker of the House over what was taken as a lewd remark he made to a teenage girl at a legislative hearing last week.

“I’m not stepping down from the seat. I have people in New London I have to represent here,” said Hewett, 56, an eight-year House veteran.

Hewett said Thursday that he didn’t mean anything sexual, but admitted he could see how someone could take it that way and added: “I have weird ways of getting my point across.”

Just how weird was revealed Friday … The girl to whom he made the remark — whose name and high school were muted off the recording at the points she said them — testified to the committee for about her positive experience as a “teen ambassador” for two years at the science center. … ”During that time I was able discover that I really love working with children. It was so much fun for me. I was able to teach little children about certain things, like snakes that we have.”

“And if you’re bashful, I’ve got a snake settin’ under my desk here,” Hewett said.

Wonderful. The girl is seventeen. And lest you think he feels troubled by a supposed slip of his forked tongue and perhaps might want to recompense by offering the girl some career assistance:

Hewett also told the Courant that he had no history or problem with women, but did not want a female intern in his office.

“I purposely will not have female interns,” he told the Hartford paper. “My intern now is a male. I want to keep it like that. I’ve had female interns in the past that sit in my office all day. I thought it was totally weird and I didn’t want another.”

Hewett also told the paper he went several years without an intern because he only wanted male interns, and couldn’t control who was assigned to him.

“They may give me a female, but I don’t want a female intern,” he told Courant staff . “That may sound sexist, but I really don’t. That way that keeps me good, and that keeps everybody else good.”

So that’s the most recent humiliation.

Go back to 2011 for New London’s prior national headline: does Hewett’s (DDDDD) way with the ladies top the “$11 million toilet”? You decide:

NL shuts off water because people have been defecating and urinating in fountain

New London - The city turned off the water at the new whale tail fountain over the weekend after someone defecated in the water, City Councilor Michael Buscetto III said.

“People are using the tail as a latrine,” city resident Evelyn Louziotis said. “It’s an $11 million bathroom.”

“It’s sad,” Buscetto said during Monday’s City Council meeting. “It’s two steps forward and three steps backward. There are people in the city who don’t care, and they need to be dealt with.”

Buscetto said since water started flowing in the whale fountain last month, police and fire officials have been called for people urinating, defecating and washing themselves off in the fountain water. He said some people who have cut themselves have also used the fountain to rinse off blood.

In an attempt to bring some tourism to the waterfront, New London bypassed measures such as “tax breaks”, “crime prevention”, “sanitation”, and “relocating the prostitutes”, and instead went with outrageously expensive public art, and then chose an installation which sprays water downward from a height without foreseeing that some might find such an installation useful as a shower.

Read bullet |

‘David Plouffe is an Ass’: American Seniors Advocates Slam WH Ageism

Thursday, February 28th, 2013 - by David Steinberg

(Also see: WH Attacks Bob Woodward with … Ageism. Are These Dems Too Old for Obama, Too?)

Moments ago, American Seniors Advocates President Randy Lewis responded to PJ Media via phone regarding the White House’s not-so-subtle attack on Bob Woodward’s age:

David Plouffe is an ass. No one is ever too old to contribute to the national dialogue. And Bob Woodward and his distinguished career deserves more respect from someone with so little professional achievement.

If unfamiliar with ASA, they are allied with the American Seniors Association. From their website:

Welcome to the new choice and the new voice for America’s seniors. American Seniors Association is the fastest growing seniors’ advocacy in the nation and an emerging conservative voice on the national issues that impact seniors.

At American Seniors, we believe that America’s seniors deserve respect, admiration and support for the contributions they made throughout their lives building families and the enhancing the quality of American life.

We believe that you deserve choices when selecting who best represents your interests in Washington, D.C.; and we believe you deserve choices when selecting benefits that help you live a healthier and wealthier life.

We also believe that our members are individuals. That is why our benefits are structured to allow you to make choices based on your individual needs.

If you believe in individual liberty and the importance of having choices in your life, then you are an “American Senior.”

Read bullet |

UPDATED) Did New York Times Just Publish Staged Photos on A1, Above the Fold?">(UPDATED) Did New York Times Just Publish Staged Photos on A1, Above the Fold?

Thursday, January 31st, 2013 - by David Steinberg

Today’s NYTimes.com carries a 14-picture gallery of clashes in Damascus between the Free Syrian Army and forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Today’s New York Times, print version, publishes three photos of the clashes on A1, above the fold. The caption reads:

Clashes in Syria, and a Potential Step Forward

Top, two insurgents in Damascus took position before being hit by army snipers; the fighter on the right died soon after being dragged from the line of fire. On the political front, Syria’s top opposition leader expressed a willingness for the first time to talk with the government.

So: three photos are prominently featured in the print edition, and 14 are featured in a gallery online.

However, the picture described in the print edition as “Top, two insurgents in Damascus took position before being hit by army snipers” does not appear in the online gallery.

I have been unable to locate it on the NYT website.

This picture made the cut for the top three pictures to be published in the print edition — indeed, it is featured on top — but did not make the cut for the much larger online gallery.

Here it is, from my phone:

In that picture, note the two men are supposedly taking cover from Assad’s forces, which would be to the photographer’s right.

But in picture 7 from the online gallery, this:

If Assad’s forces are to the right, these two FSA, and the photographer, would appear to be sitting ducks.

Also here in picture 9:

And in picture 10:

Additionally: this man is supposedly shot by a sniper bullet, and is being dragged. No blood is visible on his clothing or on the ground in any picture.

Will make a few phone calls, and will update this post.

UPDATE:

A video camera is visible in picture 7, by the FSA member’s right knee. It appears to be pointing directly at the two men supposedly under fire:

In picture 10, the video camera is clearly visible, perched on a small tripod:

So: the photographer managed to be in position to capture two men supposedly in peril, one of them subsequently shot and killed, and just happened to have the presence of mind — and luck — to set up a second camera, for video, in what would be a perfectly clear vantage point to film the drama. From a tripod.

No smoking gun, but I believe there is enough accumulated evidence present to be objectively suspicious.

The photographer for the gallery is listed as Goran Tomasevic of Reuters. Putting in calls to Reuters to see if they have footage from that video camera, and to see if the Times can answer why the key photo from the print edition is missing from the gallery.

UPDATE: PJ Media Middle East Editor Barry Rubin weighs in:

“1. I believe the photos were falsified.

2. You do not take cover from a sniper by putting your back against a wall. That makes you a target in a shooting gallery. Incidentally, these photos look almost identical to the false photos in the Muhammad Dura case, in which Israelis (who were not in range of the place) supposedly killed a boy in Gaza. He and his father were backed against a wall in clear sight of the alleged Israeli soldiers. The photographers were positioned almost identically, out in the open and in imminent danger if their story was true. The father and son were slumped just like in the photo — and there was no blood. I wouldn’t be surprised if the people who organized this hadn’t studied that footage.

3. The arms visible are an AK47 and an RPG. More important, a sniper would be using heavy ammo and aiming for the head to be certain to kill the targets. The guy’s head would have been blown apart, he would have been thrown hard against the wall and there would be blood everywhere. The wall is clean.

4. Look at the placement of the gun on top of the dying man. It obviously has been laid there. If the guy had been shot and thrown back the gun would have flown into the air. We need to believe that he was hit, thrown back, fell, and yet the gun in effect merely dropped into his lap.

4. It is not only the presence of the cameraman, but his posture. He is holding the equipment calmly and stably, as if he has no fear at all and plenty of time, as if he were settled in and hadn’t thrown himself into that postition. Also, he knows exactly what to photograph. One would expect him to be snapping shots of the sniper and moving his camera around quickly.

5. In the dragging photo, the man is positioned so you cannot see the head, and as you point out, there’s no blood. Moreover the other guy is sitting calmly in the same place! His gun isn’t even up and pointed! If your friend was shot dead by a sniper you can’t see a moment ago, would you just keep sitting there unprepared?

I am not an expert on photography, but I believe these are false, indeed ridiculously so. I believe an intelligent editor should have had serious questions about this, especially after there has been so much controversy about falsified photos.

My opinion is that there is no big political goal here, but that the photographer wanted to have good photos to sell.

UPDATE: Here is the gallery from Reuters’ website.

Note the photographer’s commentary:

There were two rebels next to me and two rebels across the street. A couple of sniper shots were fired. They were clearly sniper shots, not Ak’s, as they came one by one. I could clearly see through the lens when they actually shot the rebel. The rebel next to him was also shot and injured but he should recover after being hit in the stomach.

So: the photographer is claiming that in this picture …

… the man in camo on the left has just been struck in the gut. By a sniper bullet.

Also note that nowhere in photographer’s comments does he mention where on his body the supposedly dead man was struck by the fatal shot.

It appears The Atlantic also has published the gallery, confident in the photos’ veracity.

Read bullet |

GOP Poll Observer Reports Three Cases of Fraud at North Carolina Precinct

Tuesday, November 6th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

This email just came in to PJ Media. Reprinted in its entirety:

1. A man came in at 7:30 to vote. He correctly gave his name and address. When told that someone had given his name and already voted, he was upset. He said he had just gotten off his shift at work and come directly there to vote. Obviously, since he was at work, it could not have physically been him who cast the earlier vote.

2. An older woman (I think 87 years old) came in to cast her vote. The records showed that someone had requested, filled out and submitted an absentee ballot in her name. She was VERY upset and the Chief called down to BOE Headquarters. She later came back with her daughter/granddaughter and they made quite a fuss. Threatened to call the TV stations and announced that they had contacted someone who was apparently well connected to complain. They left without voting.

3. At about 10:00, we had a curbside request from an older woman who was so infirm, she could not make it into the polling place. When the worker looked up her name, it reflected that she had already voted earlier in the day. She also left without voting.

So, in a matter of 3 1/2 hours at as relatively slow precinct, we had three different cases of pretty obvious voter fraud. As if it needed to be pointed out to those silly Democrats who claim that voter ID laws disenfranchise poor or minority voters, all three of these victims of fraud were black voters.

Read bullet |

Poll Closing Time Map

Tuesday, November 6th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

From Politico:

 

 

 

Read bullet |

Innovative Voter Suppression Tactic: Punching

Tuesday, November 6th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

From Detroit:

REPORT: A woman in a Detroit polling location was aggressively campaigning for Obama. A female voter in line objected. The Obama supporter punched the woman in the face.

Police came to arrest her and she smacked the cop.

Read bullet |

Slate.com: ‘Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Jews’ Need Thicker Skin

Friday, September 14th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

For me, this is today’s low point in politically correct, Columbia J-School, Pulitzer Prize-style cultural Marxist journalism:

Dear Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Jews,

You’re living in the age of the Internet. Your religion will be mocked, and the mockery will find its way to you. Get over it.

If you don’t, what’s happening this week will happen again and again. A couple of idiots with a video camera and an Internet connection will trigger riots across the globe. They’ll bait you into killing one another.

The four bodies aren’t even in the ground yet — killed by Muslims — and Saletan wants everyone, all those equally shameful worshippers of some primitive sun G-d, to reflect on their sins, which they simply have not committed, and Saletan offers not a word of anything as evidence that they have. Nothing. That’s the last mention of the other three religions in his column.

If I weren’t a mildly religious man, I’d tell Saletan where to go.

Read bullet |

Applause: Terror Victim Sues for Ahmadinejad’s UN Visit Accommodations

Friday, September 14th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

From the NY Post — Israeli terror victim Stuart Hersh, who won a $12 million decision against the state of Iran for his debilitating injuries, is suing the Warwick Hotel, demanding he be allowed to stay there rather Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during the tyrant’s upcoming UN visit.

The brilliance of this, public relations-wise, is unquestionable — the Warwick Hotel faces a serious loss of brand loyalty here if they do not concede — but I would doubt Hersh is motivated by anything more than garnering some semblance of justice. Here’s to a mini-fridge raid and in-room massage on Iran’s tab:

A still-suffering terror victim is hoping to exact some “suite revenge” on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — by taking over his suite at a posh Midtown hotel.

Lawyers for ex-New Yorker Stuart Hersh — who was severely injured in a 1997 suicide bombing in Israel — yesterday served The Warwick hotel with legal papers claiming rights to the hate-spewer’s rooms booked for his upcoming visit to the United Nations.

Hersh, 64, has a $12 million judgment against Iran for complicity in his wounds, which he claims entitles him to assume Ahmadinejad’s reservation or pocket whatever money the hotel gets paid for it.

One of his lawyers, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, of the Shurat HaDin/Israel Law Center, said, “If this war criminal Ahmadinejad needs a place to sleep, maybe the murderers over in the Libyan embassy can put him up for a night.”

Darshan-Leitner estimated that Iran would spend at least $20,000 a night to bunk its delegation at The Warwick for the week.

The hotel, on 54th Street at Sixth Avenue, ignored protests last year after it rented out rooms on its 18th floor to Ahmadinejad and his entourage so he could sleep in style after ranting against Israel and America.

Read bullet |

Flashback: Two Weeks Ago, NY Times Editorial Praises Obama’s National Security Record

Friday, September 14th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

On August 31, I drew attention to this evidently pre-written editorial that went live moments after Mitt Romney wrapped up his speech at the Republican National Convention. It bore all the signs of a PR rollout orchestrated by the Obama campaign.

It was comical then; today it stands as an example of the deadly consequences of the media’s malfeasance. The Islamists murdered our people in Benghazi, but the media/Obama alliance left the door unlocked:

Here’s is the NY Times piece in it’s entirety:

Mitt Romney wrapped the most important speech of his life, for Thursday night’s session of his convention, around an extraordinary reinvention of history — that his party rallied behind President Obama when he won in 2008, hoping that he would succeed. “That president was not the choice of our party,” he said. “We are a good and generous people who are united by so much more than divides us.”

The truth, rarely heard this week in Tampa, Fla., is that the Republicans charted a course of denial and obstruction from the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated, determined to deny him a second term by denying him any achievement, no matter the cost to the economy or American security — even if it meant holding the nation’s credit rating hostage to a narrow partisan agenda.

Mr. Romney’s big speech, delivered in a treacly tone with a strange misty smile on his face suggesting he was always about to burst into tears, was of a piece with the rest of the convention. Republicans have offered precious little of substance but a lot of bromides (“A free world is a more peaceful world!”) meant to convey profundity and take passive-aggressive digs at President Obama. But no subjects have received less attention, or been treated with less honesty, than foreign affairs and national security — and Mr. Romney’s banal speech was no exception.

It’s easy to understand why the Republicans have steered clear of these areas. While President Obama is vulnerable on some domestic issues, the Republicans have no purchase on foreign and security policy. In a television interview on Wednesday, Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, could not name an area in which Mr. Obama had failed on foreign policy.

For decades, the Republicans were able to present themselves as the tougher party on foreign and military policy. Mr. Obama has robbed them of that by being aggressive on counterterrorism and by flexing military and diplomatic muscle repeatedly and effectively.

Mitt Romney has tried to sound tough, but it’s hard to see how he would act differently from Mr. Obama except in ways that are scary — like attacking Iran, or overspending on defense in ways that would not provide extra safety but would hurt the economy.

Before Thursday night, the big foreign policy speeches were delivered by Senator John McCain and Ms. Rice. Mr. McCain was specific on one thing: Mr. Obama’s plan to start pulling out of Afghanistan at the end of 2014 is too rapid. While he does not speak for Mr. Romney, his other ideas were unnerving, like suggesting that the United States should intervene in Syria.

Mr. Romney reportedly considered Ms. Rice as a running mate, and she seems to have real influence. But Ms. Rice is a reminder of the colossal errors and deceptions of George W. Bush’s administration. She was a central player in the decision to invade Iraq and the peddling of fantasies about weapons of mass destruction. She barely mentioned Iraq in her speech and spoke not at all about Afghanistan. She was particularly ludicrous when she talked about keeping America strong at home so it could be strong globally, since she was part of the team that fought two wars off the books and entirely on borrowed money.

Ms. Rice said the United States has lost its “exceptionalism,” but she never gave the slightest clue what she meant by that — a return to President Bush’s policy of preventive and unnecessary war?

She and Mr. McCain both invoked the idea of “peace through strength,” but one of the few concrete proposals Mr. Romney has made — spending 4 percent of G.D.P. on defense — would weaken the economy severely. Mr. McCain was not telling the truth when he said Mr. Obama wants to cut another $500 billion from military spending. That amount was imposed by the Republicans as part of the extortion they demanded to raise the debt ceiling.

Ms. Rice said American allies need to know where the United States stands and that alliances are vitally important. But the truth is that Mr. Obama has repaired those alliances and restored allies’ confidence in America’s position after Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice spent years tearing them apart and ruining America’s reputation in the world.

The one alliance on which there is real debate between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama is with Israel. But it is not, as Mr. Romney and his supporters want Americans to believe, about whether Mr. Obama is a supporter of Israel. Every modern president has been, including Mr. Obama. Apart from outsourcing his policy to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on settlements, it’s not clear what Mr. Romney would do differently.

But after watching the Republicans for three days in Florida, that comes as no surprise.

Read bullet |

U.S. School in Tunis Looted, Burned

Friday, September 14th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

From the Washington Free Beacon:

Protesters also stormed an American school close to the embassy and “ransacked it,” according to the New York Times:

All of the embassy staff members had been safely evacuated beforehand, officials there said, but part of the compound was burned and looted.

The American Cooperative School of Tunis, which caters to expatriate families and is located across the street from the embassy, was burned and completely plundered by protesters, who carried away a range of items including hundreds of laptop computers, children’s toys and musical instruments, the director of the school and members of his staff said. All of the students and faculty members had been evacuated hours before the embassy protest.

“It’s ransacked,” the director, Allan Bredy, said in a telephone interview. “We were thinking it was something the Tunisia government would keep under control. We had no idea they would allow things to go as wildly as they did.”

 

Read bullet |

Q. How Many Flaming Embassies Does It Take To Get MSM To Change A Narrative?

Friday, September 14th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

On the day that Obama 2012 actually tweeted a link to Xinhuatwice, and email-blasted it too (yes, I hear the Stef Cutter-Tom Friedman book club is reading The Little Red Book this week, like again, so I’m totally going to Anita Dunn’s house instea … what? Dammit), I’m left with only one explanation regarding the aggressively unprofessional behavior of the New York Times and the Atlantic today:

Their internet is down.

Here’s the lede for the Times:

Following a blunt phone call from President Obama, Egyptian leaders scrambled Thursday to try to repair the country’s alliance with Washington, tacitly acknowledging that they erred in their response to the attack on the United States Embassy by seeking to first appease anti-American domestic opinion without offering a robust condemnation of the violence.

Set off by anger at an American-made video ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, the attacks on the embassy put President Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in a squeeze between the need to stand with Washington against the attackers and the demands of many Egyptians to defy Washington and defend Islam, a senior Brotherhood official acknowledged.

These astonishing two paragraphs do not contain a single bit of correct information.

– Referring to the phone call as “blunt” — if this was actually Xinhua, they would have used “bold” or “courageous” — is objectively absurd considering the lag time between the attack and the call.

– Claiming the Egyptians “tacitly” acknowledged that they erred is, I must assume, an admission that the Egyptians did not acknowledge that they erred, which is the opposite of the Times‘ intended meaning.

– The attackers were not set off by a video. Intelligence has already stated that this was a coordinated attack with significant prior planning.

– What need does Morsi have to stand with Washington? The coordination and weaponry used in the attack likely indicates Muslim Brotherhood sponsorship, and Morsi lives according to a creed that sees Washington as a great evil. Additionally, the MB was tweeting out invitations to an anti-Western rally in Arabic just as they sent some platitudes in English. Morsi is not trying to keep both sides happy, he is scamming one while riling up his own.

Now, the Atlantic:

Under Pressure, Romney Stays the Course

His party worries that he’s losing the election, but Romney appears no nimbler or more aggressive than before.

Before the campaign was swallowed up by international events this week, the theme of the week was Republican panic. President Obama was looking strong coming out of the conventions, Mitt Romney was running out of time, and the GOP was beginning, rightly or wrongly, to feel the election slipping away.

The ur-example of this widespread sentiment came Thursday in Joe Scarborough’s column in Politico, titled “The Problem with Mitt” — a 1,200-word cri de coeur from a frustrated partisan who sees his candidate snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. “Voters who like moderates can’t trust him. Conservatives who are desperate for victory don’t believe him,” Scarborough writes. “And the election Republicans should be winning seems to be slipping further from their grasp.”

Romney’s clumsy response to Tuesday’s attacks on American installations in North Africa didn’t help matters — though an ongoing, out-of-hand crisis overseas also has the potential to damage Obama politically. But if his aggressive reaction to international events was meant to signal a new, more aggressive posture on the part of his campaign, that wasn’t evident on the stump Thursday, when Romney was back to business as usual.

Several acts of war have been committed against the United States, resulting in four American deaths. The only criticism in this lede is directed at a supposedly “clumsy” Romney. Also, a throwaway line about some “ongoing, out-of-hand crisis” that could, you know, hurt Obama if Romney would just stop being like Shemp.

I don’t know, dropping the ball on a 48-hours-prior warning that the embassy might be threatened? Is that clumsy?

 

Read bullet |

Unreal: Stephanie Cutter Links Anti-Romney Piece from China’s State-Run Media

Friday, September 14th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

Presented without comment (but feel free to add your own below):

 

Read bullet |

Stunner: ‘The Security People Just All Ran Away’

Thursday, September 13th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

From The Independent’s breaking story, which focuses on the U.S. failure to heed a 48-hour warning of threats to the embassy:

According to security sources the consulate had been given a “health check” in preparation for any violence connected to the 9/11 anniversary. In the event, the perimeter was breached within 15 minutes of an angry crowd starting to attack it at around 10pm on Tuesday night. There was, according to witnesses, little defence put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: “The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs.”

Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya’s Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the Mohamed video which made the guards abandon their post. “There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet.”

Note he does not say: “They believe the deaths are all nothing … “, I take it from Buhmeid’s wording that he agrees.

No matter though, the statement is a farce. If the guards hold this belief, that they would just as soon turn their guns on the embassy should an American utter a blasphemy, then the Americans would have been dead long ago. (The existence of the embassy itself could be construed as blasphemy!) The film would not have been the final straw for all 30 guards at once, at the proper time for the start of the attempted breach.

The guards were involved with the raid. They left their posts on the signal. Say something about this act of war, President Obama — as the alliance with al-Qaeda elements in Libya was your decision, your folly. You extended a hand, foolishly, and they took the whole body.

Sandmonkey, a PJ Media contact in Egypt, tweeted the following earlier today. I told him I wasn’t ready to buy it yet, but if this is how events occurred in Benghazi, I am certain he sources are good regarding what happened in Cairo:

Read bullet |

(UPDATED: Richard Landes, ‘Pallywood’ Expert, Weighs In) Nakoula a Copt, Says … Nakoula?

Wednesday, September 12th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

UPDATE: After having suspicions regarding the “Copt” problem, I contacted Richard Landes: Boston University prof, Augean Stables proprietor, and the best source around on “Pallywood” — he invented the term, and did excellent work on the Mohammed al-Dura film.

Here’s his take on Innocence of Muslims, and my “impersonating a Copt” (forgive me) suspicions:

First of all, the footage is comical, like so much Pallywood footage. Just so obviously terrible that no self-respecting person would produce it — and certainly not for $5 million. It’s obviously intended to incite. It’s bathroom humor.

Second, the package is certainly a “lethal narrative“: namely, something aimed at accusing Israel/Jews of deliberately doing things that will harm non-Jews (in this case, to the Muslims whose feelings will be offended and to the U.S., whose ambassadors/representatives will be killed). In this sense, it is like Gaza Beach and the Ghalia family: real events (deaths from bombings, movies that provoke) turned against Israel and the Jews by a narrative that turns out to be false.

Third, the media jumped all over it without even checking to see if Bacile is registered as a real-estate agent, much less an Israeli (Bacile? Never heard this name, certainly not for a Jew), much less a real person.

The media’s eagerness to tell stories about Israelis/Jews behaving badly is as intense now as it was 12 years ago, and as with al Dura, this thirst for lethal narratives has dire consequences for everyone. They can’t resist stories of moral schadenfreude about the Jews. They’re killing their reputations, but it tastes too good to stop.

As this story progresses, that “Sam Bacile” was intended to be a Jew will be the pivotal element. Be just as sure that as soon as this becomes clear, the media will either lose interest, or become terribly interested in what specific offenses the Israelis committed to anger poor Nakoula.

————————————————–

Despite this report by the AP that rather definitively zeroes in on Nakoula Basseley Nakoula as the creator of Innocence of Muslims, the question of motive has not yet been reasonably addressed. The article includes this:

Nakoula told the AP that he was a Coptic Christian and said the film’s director supported the concerns of Christian Copts about their treatment by Muslims.

The article further reveals that Nakoula was convicted in 2010 of bank fraud:

Nakoula, who talked guardedly about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.

He has also employed various identities:

Nakoula denied he directed the film and said he knew the self-described filmmaker, Sam Bacile. But the cellphone number that AP contacted Tuesday to reach the filmmaker who identified himself as Sam Bacile traced to the same address near Los Angeles where AP found Nakoula. Federal court papers said Nakoula’s aliases included Nicola Bacily, Erwin Salameh and others.

The AP presents a portrait of a career criminal, one who additionally had an ethical blind spot large enough to lead some 80 actors and crew to believe they were involved in a generic dramatic film to avoid revealing its blasphemous-to-Islam intentions.

So — all we currently possess as evidence that Nakoula is a Copt: the doggedly dishonest Nakoula has proclaimed himself to be a Copt.

Prior to which, he proclaimed himself to be a Jew.

His Copt-ness is also the only point given that would possibly define a motive — he supposedly wanted to draw attention to the vileness of Muhammad’s life as recorded in the Koran … to draw support for Copts, which strikes me as unreasonable, bizarre behavior. An Egyptian Copt would certainly know that the actual effect of blaspheming Muhammad is murderous rage towards the perpetrators — Danish cartoons, etc. — and deliberately referring to himself as a Jew, and a rich one at that?

Then, of course, we have an issue with timing. The film was only promoted online in the days leading up to 9/11 by “Sam Bacile” — why would the Copts cause benefit from such timing?

Don’t accept that Nakoula is a Copt until further notice, there is certainly not any evidence for that assertion.

Read bullet |

(UPDATED: The ‘Replace Biggs With Steinberg’ Drive) Jason Biggs: My Doppelganger Goes Full Bigot

Friday, August 31st, 2012 - by David Steinberg

UPDATED: Customer pressure appears to be mounting on Nickelodeon, Biggs’ current employer — he is the voice of Leonardo on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. (Interesting fact: I briefly worked for Nickelodeon in my twenties, and a confused intern actually thought Jason Biggs was the new Administrative Assistant.)

So — I’m in, I don’t want to go down with this ship. The “Replace Biggs With Steinberg!” movement commences now. Any readers able to design some t-shirts?

—————————————-

In certain lighting and following a reasonably stiff drink, strangers start to inform me that I look like that actor who had erotic relations with an apple pie. This has resulted in a few evenings of fun for me over the years, as when we notice people whispering “is that the guy?” and pointing in dark restaurants, my wife and I pretend to be having an emotional conversation about a wayward friend named “Stifler”.

After last night’s performance, this is not a person I ever wish to be associated with, even mistakenly. He revealed himself to be a classic jerk, a careless, dehumanizing, misogynist bigot pushing the worst sort of Leftist demonization. Twitchy has compiled the filth to read; I’d rather not repost it here. But you should see it, if only for a glimpse at what a Hollywood Leftist feels he can safely get away with if the target is conservatives or Christians.

My guess is even Hollywood will respond negatively to this — but only for the misogyny. Perhaps Biggs will be needing a new agent by this evening. I’ll be at home, dyeing my hair.

****

Cross-Posted at PJ Lifestyle.

Read bullet |

Obama, MSM Tacking to ‘Foreign Affairs and National Security’?

Thursday, August 30th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

If there is an area of Obama’s oeuvre in which he appears weaker — and more prone to attacks he simply cannot defend against — than the economy and unemployment, it is the epochal rise of Islamism and neo-Sovietism that occurred on his watch and with his blessing.

Uh, cue the TelePrompTer? The following went up at 11:35 p.m. on Thursday, moments after the GOP convention wrapped up. Note that the editorial is titled “Mr. Romney Reinvents History”, yet the html link reads “http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/the-hidden-subject-in-tampa.html”. The “Reinvents” part refers to Romney’s inference that the country was willing to unite behind the newly elected Obama in 2008. This is the lede on the editorial, though it seems like a quick add-on, as the rest of the piece focuses on “foreign affairs”, which was apparently “the hidden subject in Tampa”, prefab.

So the NY Times goes with a prewritten editorial published moments after a speech, and it focuses on topics that were hardly mentioned during the speech.

Folks, this is a PR rollout, not editorializing.

But seriously — this is the next play? Are we in the “NBA garbage-time” phase already, with Coach Axelrod pulling his starters? “Checking in for Race Card and White Misogyny … it’s Foreign Affairs, and National Security. Give it up for Race Card!”

Here’s the piece, in full:

Mitt Romney wrapped the most important speech of his life, for Thursday night’s session of his convention, around an extraordinary reinvention of history — that his party rallied behind President Obama when he won in 2008, hoping that he would succeed. “That president was not the choice of our party,” he said. “We are a good and generous people who are united by so much more than divides us.”

The truth, rarely heard this week in Tampa, Fla., is that the Republicans charted a course of denial and obstruction from the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated, determined to deny him a second term by denying him any achievement, no matter the cost to the economy or American security — even if it meant holding the nation’s credit rating hostage to a narrow partisan agenda.

Mr. Romney’s big speech, delivered in a treacly tone with a strange misty smile on his face suggesting he was always about to burst into tears, was of a piece with the rest of the convention. Republicans have offered precious little of substance but a lot of bromides (“A free world is a more peaceful world!”) meant to convey profundity and take passive-aggressive digs at President Obama. But no subjects have received less attention, or been treated with less honesty, than foreign affairs and national security — and Mr. Romney’s banal speech was no exception.

It’s easy to understand why the Republicans have steered clear of these areas. While President Obama is vulnerable on some domestic issues, the Republicans have no purchase on foreign and security policy. In a television interview on Wednesday, Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, could not name an area in which Mr. Obama had failed on foreign policy.

For decades, the Republicans were able to present themselves as the tougher party on foreign and military policy. Mr. Obama has robbed them of that by being aggressive on counterterrorism and by flexing military and diplomatic muscle repeatedly and effectively.

Mitt Romney has tried to sound tough, but it’s hard to see how he would act differently from Mr. Obama except in ways that are scary — like attacking Iran, or overspending on defense in ways that would not provide extra safety but would hurt the economy.

Before Thursday night, the big foreign policy speeches were delivered by Senator John McCain and Ms. Rice. Mr. McCain was specific on one thing: Mr. Obama’s plan to start pulling out of Afghanistan at the end of 2014 is too rapid. While he does not speak for Mr. Romney, his other ideas were unnerving, like suggesting that the United States should intervene in Syria.

Mr. Romney reportedly considered Ms. Rice as a running mate, and she seems to have real influence. But Ms. Rice is a reminder of the colossal errors and deceptions of George W. Bush’s administration. She was a central player in the decision to invade Iraq and the peddling of fantasies about weapons of mass destruction. She barely mentioned Iraq in her speech and spoke not at all about Afghanistan. She was particularly ludicrous when she talked about keeping America strong at home so it could be strong globally, since she was part of the team that fought two wars off the books and entirely on borrowed money.

Ms. Rice said the United States has lost its “exceptionalism,” but she never gave the slightest clue what she meant by that — a return to President Bush’s policy of preventive and unnecessary war?

She and Mr. McCain both invoked the idea of “peace through strength,” but one of the few concrete proposals Mr. Romney has made — spending 4 percent of G.D.P. on defense — would weaken the economy severely. Mr. McCain was not telling the truth when he said Mr. Obama wants to cut another $500 billion from military spending. That amount was imposed by the Republicans as part of the extortion they demanded to raise the debt ceiling.

Ms. Rice said American allies need to know where the United States stands and that alliances are vitally important. But the truth is that Mr. Obama has repaired those alliances and restored allies’ confidence in America’s position after Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice spent years tearing them apart and ruining America’s reputation in the world.

The one alliance on which there is real debate between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama is with Israel. But it is not, as Mr. Romney and his supporters want Americans to believe, about whether Mr. Obama is a supporter of Israel. Every modern president has been, including Mr. Obama. Apart from outsourcing his policy to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on settlements, it’s not clear what Mr. Romney would do differently.

But after watching the Republicans for three days in Florida, that comes as no surprise.

Read bullet |

Tom Morello? You Guessed It, Lives in Giant L.A. Mansion

Friday, August 17th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

According to VirtualGlobeTrotting.com, aging socialist/anarchist/whatever guitarist from Rage Against the Machine, Tom Morello — who today expressed his displeasure at Paul Ryan being a fan of his music, and also referred to Ryan as being the embodiment of the “Machine” he rages against — either now lives in or used to live in this L.A. palace:

Morello is also worth an estimated $60 million dollars.

Read bullet |

MSNBC’s Toure No Match For 23-Year-Old Republican Guest

Tuesday, June 26th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

In case you have forgotten who the Toure is, recall he’s the man who was deemed a fraud of a journalist by … Piers Morgan a few weeks back, and who also has expressed his disbelief in the “official” version of 9/11.

Today, he made the unfortunate mistake of assuming he was both more prepared and a more talented debater than a young guest, ridiculing a young Republican as being a “strange breed” and in need of being “saved”. Said young man responded by savaging Toure like a budding Winston Churchill. Alex Schriver has himself a heck of a resume-building clip after today (yes, he’s on our radar). Enjoy:

Read bullet |

Hmm: Obama Lit Agent Has Repped Weatherman Terrorist Mark Rudd Since 1980s

Friday, May 25th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

Jane Dystel, Barack Obama’s literary agent from 1990 until 2004, has represented former fugitive and Weatherman terrorist Mark Rudd from some point in the late 1980s until today. Rudd has published two books: the 1990 memoir Truth and Consequences: The Education of Mark Rudd, and 2009’s Underground: My Life with SDS and the Weathermen.

In 2009, Dystel posted the following to the Dystel & Goderich Literary Management blog:

I absolutely love seeing that final book and the thrill of the author as he or she holds it in his or her hand. Just the other night, Mark Rudd whom I have known and worked with since the mid ‘80s celebrated the publication of UNDERGROUND and I was able to see his joy and feel the thrill of being a part of this achievement.

As Team Breitbart discovered and published last week, from 1991 until 2007 Dystel employed a promotional biography for Obama that claimed he was born in Kenya. The biography had been edited several times during that period, but the statement regarding his birthplace was not altered until after Obama declared himself a candidate for the presidency.

Yesterday, I noted here that the 1990 New York Times article about then-Harvard Law student Obama — which reportedly spurred Dystel to seek out Obama as a client — stated that Obama was born in Hawaii, the implication being that both Dystel and, of course, Obama were likely aware of the inaccuracy of the Kenya claim when they first used it.

Does Obama’s former agent’s professional relationship with Rudd — which according to her predates her relationship with Obama — suggest taking a further look at the timeline of this pivotal moment in Obama’s life?

Who introduced whom to whom, and when? When did Obama meet Bill Ayers?

This I don’t know, yet I do know that Rick Perry had a close brush with a racist rock in the early 1980s that may or may not have involved seeing it; that Congressman Darrell Issa, lead investigator of Fast and Furious, works from an office suspiciously close to land that once was a golf course, giving him an excellent taxpayer-funded view should he also have access to that wormhole thing from Contact; that Ann Romney totally digs horses, and horses are expensive, man; that John McCain was friends with a woman (a woman!); that 150 years ago some Mormons committed murder and Mitt Romney is a Mormon; that Sarah Palin utilizes an email account; and that George Allen said “Macaca,” the Slur That You Dare Not Speak As You Are Not Familiar With Its Usage Or Existence.

In related news, CNN has recorded its worst ratings in two decades.

Read bullet |

Q: How Many Occupiers Live on Less Than 66 Cents a Day?

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 - by David Steinberg

Yes, rural India may sound like a difficult place to survive, but you simply do not comprehend how difficult it is for the average 30-year-old to pay for recreational sex these days, and to make student loan paym- FREE MUMIA ONE PERCENTWARONWOMENRAAAAACIST.

From today’s Times of India:

60 per cent of India’s rural population lives on less than Rs 35 a day

About 60 per cent of India’s rural population lives on less than Rs 35 a day and nearly as many in cities live on Rs 66 a day, reveals a government survey on income and expenditure.

“In terms of average per capita daily expenditure, it comes out to be about Rs 35 in rural and Rs 66 in urban India. About 60 per cent of the population live with these expenditures or less in rural and urban areas,” said Director General of National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) J Dash in his preface to the report.

Rs 35 equals $o.66 cents.

According to the 66th round of National Sample Survey (NSS) carried out between July 2009 and June 2010, all India average monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) in rural areas was Rs 1,054 and urban areas Rs 1,984.

The survey also pointed out that 10 per cent of the population at the lowest rung in rural areas lives on Rs 15 a day, while in urban areas the figure is only a shade better at Rs 20 day.

“The poorest 10 per cent of India’s rural population had an average MPCE of Rs 453. The poorest 10 per cent of the urban population had an average MPCE of Rs 599″, it said.

The NSSO survey also revealed that average MPCE in rural areas was lowest in Bihar and Chhattisgarh at around Rs 780 followed by Orissa and Jharkhand at Rs 820.

Character.

In historical terms, I would have trouble being convinced that a political movement ever existed in the history of Man that had a greater sense of entitlement, ingratitude, and a more profoundly relativist interpretation of “suffering” than the current American and European Left. Elizabeth Warren checks off a box to embrace her inner victimhood and to meet other high-cheekboned who suffer like her; she earlier claimed to be the ideological impetus behind the Occupy movement.

College graduates who received quarter-million dollar loans — that’s Rs 13,350,518.18 — with deferred payments demanding debt forgiveness? Their grandparents fled the Cossacks to live; the Left won’t relocate to South Dakota, with more $100,000 jobs than applicants, because it’s South Dakota, man. And they would never dirty their hands with oil money.

Interestingly, dirt-cheap energy and capital are precisely the two things needed to bring prosperity to rural India. Hey! I’ve got an idea …

Read bullet |

#Julia, and Leftism’s New Media Problem

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 - by David Steinberg

The Obama 2012 campaign released the epic government-fueled travails of “Julia” today, a slideshow supposedly relating how an Obama presidency can benefit the life of the average American woman. “Benefit”, as in pay for each of her progressive-approved hipster doofus life-choices (“Age 22: She starts her career as a web designer”).

Right off the bat, “#Julia” trended to the top of Twitter as the second-most popular current hashtag in the United States; to the horror of David Axelrod and the increasingly dated tacticians of the Obama campaign, virtually every mention of #Julia was a conservative mocking the slideshow. Our Vodkapundit nailed it with:

Also, David Burge (Iowahawk):

The most distressing problem this latest new media “organizing” tactic presents for the Obama campaign is the same problem that new media — ahem, PJ Media — presents for leftism in general. On my count, the last five hashtags introduced by Obama’s campaign have been instant public relations disasters; another smear tactic backfired into the legendary #ObamaEatsDogs. They keep trying, however, and that’s because propaganda, sloganeering, and various issues for rallying the rabble are the only weapon in the progressive toolbag. Alinsky’s toolbag. Lying, and cliches — hey, everyone go buy Jonah Goldberg’s new book, by the way — are the means of pitching doomed-to-fail ideology as successful. And the lying works wonderfully when the effort needed to combat and debunk the lies is great: when we couldn’t get a word in if we couldn’t get Walter Cronkite to say it, “Julia” was a winner of an idea.

Now, conservatives get their retaliation halfway around the world while Julia is still getting her shoes on. For an administration raised on Alinsky, the growing evidence that Alinsky is outdated should not sit well.

Read bullet |

Outing Hollywood Conservatives: The New ‘Is He Gay?’

Monday, April 30th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

That an industry exists in this country wherein holding a majority political persuasion is something to be hidden from scrutiny is not new; indeed, part of PJ Media’s mission is to destroy the liberal stranglehold on Hollywood and news media. Of course the following should not be “something” in any industry, but it still is:

BLIND GOSSIP 04/23 **#2** In Hollywood, it’s popular to be socially liberal and a Democrat. This handsome American actor is an industry leader in supporting Democratic Party candidates. He has donated his time and money and creative fundraising ability to many Democratic causes. However, he has a secret about the way that he votes that only his close friends know. He publicly talks like a Democratic Party loyal. But he actually votes Republican. A lot.

The same nugget appeared elsewhere. With the way rumors spread in Hollywood, this post likely refers to the same guy:

POPBITCH 04/26 Which Hollywood megastar is very keen to keep one story out of the media — that they’ve become a strident, libertarian Neo-Con?

I know, there isn’t actually such thing as a “libertarian Neo-Con”, but at least the author is trying to convey that “the Right” is not a monolithic block of homophobic zombies. Baby steps. Or maybe not. “Libertarian Neo-Con” may just be too stupid to read anything into.

I don’t care what an individual chooses to expose about private belief (recall “the personal is the political”, the liberal fascist chant), and “outing” is pretty repugnant. Nothing wrong with guessing and then going about your day, though. So Robert Downey Jr. is already too well-known as a conservative, and “megastar” generally refers to the Brad Pitt crowd. So … hey, maybe Brad Pitt?

Read bullet |

On Twitter, Michael Eric Dyson Defends His Bigoted Remark to PJ Media

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

In case you missed Bryan’s post: on Friday, Michael Eric Dyson appeared on MSNBC and fashioned a joke regarding the residents of Tennessee, saying that his experience living there led him to believe evolution perhaps hasn’t occurred within its borders.

Dyson has a history, perhaps a career, of repeatedly hitting conservatives with vague, unsupported charges of racism — see here and here, plus note his contribution to the dumbing down of university culture here, which you kinda need to click to believe. Yet, in responding to me, he precisely threaded about four needles to keep his own bigoted remark from receiving that characterization.

Following Bryan’s post, I took to Twitter to see if he would defend direct criticism of his remark. He replied with some prototypical Alinsky-style answers. I cannot know if he believes them, or if he simply choose to defend his name with the whole magazine of leftist cliché.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read bullet |

Help Jay Carney Spin the NYT Poll!

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

Best 140-character-or-less spin wins. To get you started:

#waronwomen resulted in more women leaving Obama to join #waronwomen. Women — just like those Islamist islamophobes. #helpcarneyspintheNYTpoll

‘We have a minority movement of misogynist women perverting the great religion of feminism’ — #helpcarneyspintheNYTpoll

‘just because they’re women doesn’t mean they aren’t foot soldiers in the #waronwomen#helpcarneyspintheNYTpoll

 

Read bullet |

Nine Points: Was L’Affaire de Fluke Obama’s Tipping Point?

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 - by David Steinberg

Or was it gas prices?

I’m tempted to believe it was the Fluke campaign — wherein an administration managed to violate the First Amendment, demand perhaps the silliest “right” in the history of leftism, and offend adult women by implying they have the priorities and life skills of a middle-schooler — and the subsequent call from Obama that allowed a flood of damning double standards into the debate, like a clumsy lawyer whose question allows back in evidence previously barred by the judge.

Obama’s lost nine points in a month, and gas has been climbing steadily, I’m not convinced $4.00 was the penny increase that sent one in five of his supporters fleeing.

I think it was Fluke, a K Street mistake for the ages.

Read bullet |