John Perazzo

Maybe Obama's Critics Really Are a Bunch of Goons

2009 September 21

Tea Party

Ever since the Tea Party phenomenon exploded onto the political scene a few months back, the Left has been up in arms over the inflammatory and offensive rhetoric featured on some of the signs and placards displayed by those in attendance. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow, among others, have fumed repeatedly about the bad taste exhibited by many of those expressing their displeasure with the President and his policies.

The Huffington Post ran a feature on this subject, titled “10 Most Offensive Tea Party Signs,” which singled out, among others, the following winners — or perhaps “losers” is a more apt term:
read more…

A Devastating TV Moment: Finally, a leftist with the guts to call ACORN a disgrace

2009 September 17


A most significant “line in the sand” was crossed yesterday when Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart, whose trademark mockery of conservatives has made him a comedic icon to many on the left, made it crystal clear that ACORN — in light of the recent revelations about its eagerness to abet tax fraud, illegal immigration, and underage prostitution rings — is nothing more than a no-class criminal enterprise.

Stewart also rebuked the so-called “mainstream media” for their stunning refusal to have investigated this matter on their own — even for a moment. And beyond that, he mocked the intellectual bankruptcy of those who have tried to spin the ACORN scandal as a defamation campaign of “paranoia,” “coded insinuations,” and “incessant attacks” orchestrated by members of the alleged “right-wing lunatic fringe” at Fox News.

This is 6 minutes of must-see television — at once uproariously funny and pointedly devastating. To view it, click on the picture above. (Hat tip: Mike Finch)

Olbermann, Maddow ratings = abysmal

2009 September 17

Olbermann and Maddow

Drudge reports the following up-to-date audience numbers in the cable news race:

FOXNEWS BECK 3,421,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,369,000

Apparently there isn’t a very big market of people eager to hear blowhards like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow ceaselessly trumpet the hackneyed, old canard which says that any disagreement with President Obama’s far-left policies must necessarily be rooted in racism.

On what, pray tell, do Olbermann and Maddow blame their own pathetic ratings? Certainly they can’t blame racism. I humbly suggest that their dismal numbers are a result of the fact that comparatively few Americans — of any skin color — can stomach the sight or sound of a hateful, raging, smug, intolerant, glib, closed-minded white ideologue, any more than they can stomach a black ideologue of similar description. That said, presumably this pair of non-entities can find solace in the fact that Americans’ utter lack of interest in them has absolutely nothing to do with race.

The Senate Hypocrite Who Condemns Rep. Joe Wilson for Telling Obama, "You Lie!"

2009 September 13
Senator Tom Harkin, with Barack Obama

Senator Tom Harkin, with Barack Obama

On his most recent MSNBC program, Ed Schultz assessed the merits of the healthcare speech Barack Obama had delivered Wednesday before a joint session of Congress. In somber tones, Schultz characterized the President’s reference to the late Senator Ted Kennedy as “the most moving part” of the address. Schultz then turned to his guest, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat-Iowa), who now carries the torch Kennedy once held as chairman of the Senate Health Committee. Harkin made it clear that he would passionately lead the fight for what Kennedy termed “the cause of my life” – socialized medicine. “We’ve got to have a public option, and believe me, we’re going to have one,” said Harkin.

Inspired by Harkin’s resolve, Shultz drew the Senator’s attention momentarily to the now-infamous verbal outburst of South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, who, during Obama’s speech, shouted “You lie!” in response to the President’s assertion that the Democrats’ healthcare proposal would not cover illegal aliens. “Have you ever seen that before?” Shultz asked Harkin regarding Rep. Wilson’s action. “Ever? Anything like it?”

read more…

ACORN and the case of the underage, illegal-immigrant prostitutes

2009 September 10



On Thursday, Glenn Beck aired secretly videotaped footage of two ACORN employees advising a young man and woman (posing undercover as a pimp and a prostitute) on how they could defraud the federal government out of taxpayer dollars for the purpose of financing a prostitution ring staffed by more than a dozen underage illegal aliens. While the story itself shocks the sensibilities of any normal human being, it is no surprise at all to learn that if any organization were to be implicated in such a degenerate scam, it would be a pack of lowlife thugs like ACORN. ACORN’s entire history is essentially an uninterrupted narrative of fraud, deceit, and intimidation aimed entirely at overwhelming and razing such American institutions as our electoral and economic systems.

In 2008, for instance, election officials in several states reported that fully half of all the voter-registration forms ACORN had submitted were fraudulent. As of last October, ACORN was under investigation for voter-registration fraud in 13 states.

ACORN was also a key player in the chain of events that led to the housing and banking crash of 2008. A significant factor contributing to the genesis of that crisis was the 1977 passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a federal law that required banks to extend, for purposes of racial “equity,” credit to undercapitalized, high-risk borrowers in low-income, mostly-minority areas.

Under CRA guidelines, any bank wishing to expand or to merge with another financial institution would be required to first demonstrate that it had complied with all CRA rules. Final approval for expansions or mergers could be stalled, or derailed entirely, if “community groups” like ACORN were to accuse a bank — however frivolously or unjustly — of having violated the mandates of the CRA.  

In the early 1990s ACORN, thus empowered by the CRA, insisted that banks demonstrate their commitment to minority lending by drastically lowering their standards on down-payments and underwriting, and by making loans even to borrowers — especially nonwhite minorities — with bad credit histories. If banks expressed reluctance to do so, ACORN intimidated them into compliance by threatening to sue them, to smear them in the media with negative-publicity campaigns, and to block any mergers which the banks might seek in the future. These threats were often accompanied by screaming mobs of ACORN demonstrators swarming bank lobbies, demanding “justice.”

But don’t expect to hear about ACORN’s latest act of malfeasance from any of the leftwing media. They want the story to go away for one simple reason: It is a story that threatens to tarnish the image of their golden boy and golden girl, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both of whom have longstanding, intimate ties to ACORN. In 2008, for instance, Obama’s presidential campaign demonstrated its solidarity with ACORN by quietly giving one of the organization’s front groups more than $800,000 to fund a voter-registration drive on Obama’s behalf.

For a comprehensive account of ACORN’s disgraceful, criminal history, click here.

America-Haters Like Naomi Wolf Judge the West by a Different Standard

2009 September 6


Jamie Glazov’s recent dispute with feminist Naomi Wolf grew out of Wolf’s August 30th article in the Sydney Morning Herald, “Behind the Veil Lives a Thriving Muslim Sexuality.” In that piece, Wolf states that “[t]he Western Christian tradition portrays all sexuality, even married sexuality, as sinful.” She then informs us that Islam, by contrast, “never had that same kind of mind-body split” – and thus has traditionally allowed Muslims to “channel” their sexuality “into marriage and family life” in a manner that “is seen as a source of great blessing, sanctioned by God.”

This cheery view of the Muslim world, coupled with the dark depiction of the Christian West, is entirely a fabrication of Wolf’s imagination, an imagination whose musings are rooted in the leftist paradigm that divides the world ever-so-neatly between two distinct spheres: the evil West (especially America) on the one hand, and the far-more-noble, non-Western world on the other.

The lines of this dichotomy are clearly drawn by Wolf and her comrades on the Left: Capitalist America is the forum of a fevered struggle between the dominators and the dominated, the oppressors and the oppressed, the victimizers and the victims. Capitalism itself is cited as the cause of this barbarous arrangement, and, by logical extension, as the wellspring of innumerable social ills and vices—greed, racism, sexism, alienation, homophobia, imperialism, etc.

In the calculus of the Left, capitalism is the agent of tyranny and exploitation that targets a wide array of victim groups—blacks, Hispanics, women, homosexuals, immigrants and the poor, to name but a few. That is why according to the Left, the United States — the standard-bearer of all capitalist economies — can never seem to do anything right.

Surely you’ve noticed that on every social issue imaginable, leftists hold the U.S. to a far higher standard than they hold any other nation on earth. Any American imperfection, however slight, is magnified a thousandfold and is presented as evidence of our society’s inherent worthlessness — and, by necessity, of the need for its wholesale transformation. On the flip side, the flaws of other societies are not only judged mildly, but are themselves frequently attributed to corrupting American influences.

In his book United in Hate, Jamie Glazov explores in depth such widespread Islamist traits as “barbaric misogyny,” “the fear and hatred of women’s sexuality,” the “war on sexuality and private love,” “gender apartheid,” “male domination,” and genital mutilation.


But Naomi Wolf’s hatred of the West, coupled with her equally passionate adulation of the non-Western, non-Christian world, preclude her from being able to assess with any degree of objectivity Islam’s unsavory traditions regarding the status of women. Instead, she chooses to paint a smiley face on a custom (the wearing of the veil) that is emblematic of women’s historical and profound subjugation in the Islamic world. Moreover, she blithely dismisses all Western criticisms of that custom as nothing more than the ugly manifestations of Western intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and ethnocentrism.

Would Ms. Wolf even care if someone were to inform her that the Prophet Mohammed — who founded the Islamic faith and is viewed by believers as the embodiment of moral purity, divine wisdom, and human perfection — said quite plainly: “I have witnessed that most of the people in Hell are women” because they “swear too much and show no gratitude to [their] husbands”? How would Ms. Wolf rationalize away Mohammed’s assertion that he had “never come across anyone more lacking in intelligence, or ignorant of their religion, than women”? Can the “thriving Muslim sexuality” that allegedly lives “behind the veil” be adequately reconciled with Mohammed’s declarations that “the testimony of one man is equal to the testimony of two women,” or that it is permissible for a man to beat his disobedient wife, or that an adulteress “must be stoned to death” for her transgression? Has Ms. Wolf never heard that in Islam, a woman’s old age is considered a valid reason for her husband to divorce her?

All cultures are not equal. Nor is Western culture inferior to non-Western cultures. Yet those two sentences rank high among the notions against which leftists like Naomi Wolf have fought some of their fiercest battles, for decades.

Van Jones takes a page out of "Rules for Radicals" too

2009 August 31
Van Jones: yet another Alinskyite in the Obama administration

Van Jones: yet another Alinskyite in the Obama administration


For the past several days, FOX News’ Glenn Beck has been exhorting his viewers to lay aside their ideologies and ask themselves, with open minds, whether what they are witnessing in the Obama administration is congruent with what they would expect of a President governing from somewhere near the center of the political spectrum rather than from the extreme left. A key figure upon whom Beck has focused his attention is Van Jones, Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar.”

Jones is one of approximately 32 czars whom Obama has appointed thus far. These czars have been described as “super aides” who work across agency lines to push the President’s agenda, and who have the power to shape national policy. Most significantly, a majority of czars can be appointed without confirmation hearings or Senate approval; thus they (and the President) are insulated from accountability to Congress. Such an arrangement threatens to increase the power of the President beyond what is Constitutionally mandated. Even lifelong Democrat Senator Robert Byrd has said the czar system “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances.”

If we look at Van Jones’ background, it is difficult to believe he would have been approved for a cabinet post by the Senate. If we are correct in making that judgment, does it suggest anything about the President’s motives for having appointed Jones as a czar rather than as a member of his cabinet?

Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or something else, consider a few salient facts about Van Jones and ask yourself, does it make sense to have such a man serving in a high government post?

When Jones was a student at Yale Law School in the early 1990s, he was an angry black separatist and an admirer of the Black Panthers — a lawless pack of drug-dealing thugs, pimps, rapists, extortionists, and murderers.

“If I’d been in another country, I probably would have joined some underground guerrilla sect,” Jones reflects. “But as it was, I went on to an Ivy League law school…. I wasn’t ready for Yale, and they weren’t ready for me.”

By the late Nineties, Jones was a committed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist who viewed police officers as the arch-enemies of black people, and who loathed capitalism for allegedly exploiting nonwhite minorities worldwide. He became a leading member of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a Bay Area Marxist-Maoist collective with roots in the antiwar movement.

Marx, Lenin, and Mao: icons of Van Jones and his comrades

Marx, Lenin, and Mao: icons of Van Jones and his comrades

In 2000 Jones campaigned aggressively against California Proposition 21, a ballot initiative that established harsher penalties for a variety of violent crimes and called for more juvenile offenders to be tried as adults. Jones’ efforts incorporated a hip-hop theme that aimed to attract young black men clad in such gang-style garb as puffy jackets and baggy pants, who would call attention to the alleged injustices of the so-called “prison-industrial complex.” But infighting and jealousies between various factions of Jones’ movement caused it ultimately to fall apart. “I saw our little movement destroyed over a lot of sh**-talking and bullsh**,” said Jones with his trademark eloquence.

What happened next was immensely significant: After the demise of his anti-Prop 21 movement, Jones decided to give his political tactics a thorough makeover. Specifically, he toned down the overt hostility and defiant rage that he previously had worn as badges of honor, and he began to present himself publicly as a more moderate figure. “Before, we would fight anybody, any time,” he said in 2005. “No concession was good enough; we never said ‘Thank you.’ Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I’ll work with anybody, I’ll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward…. I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”‘

Adds Jones: “I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists — shudder, shudder — who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs.”

Jones’ new approach was modeled on the tactics outlined by the famed radical organizer Saul Alinsky, whose blueprint for social upheaval and revolution eschewed any form of confrontational defiance that might scare off and alienate average Americans.  Instead he stressed the need for revolutionaries to mask the extremism of their objectives and to deceitfully present themselves as moderates until they could gain some control over the machinery of political power. In a 2005 interview, Jones candidly stated that he still considered himself a revolutionary — just a more effective one thanks to his revised tactics.

The Alinsky method of “community organizing” for revolutionary change was the most formative tactical influence on Barack Obama during his years as a political neophyte. Distancing himself from the likes of the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers and the Black Liberation Theologian Jeremiah Wrighta pair of America-hating socialists with whom he had cultivated very significant personal and political alliances – Obama campaigned for President last year as someone who would not dream of appointing anyone with a track record as radical and volcanic as that of Van Jones. Yet he did precisely that, once he was safely ensconced behind his desk in the Oval Office.

David Horowitz recently exposed, in painstaking detail, Alinsky’s philosophy and tactics — and their relevance to the Obama administration — in an important series of NewsRealblog posts archived here.

Ted Kennedy's Ugly Legacy

2009 August 27


Kennedy Football


On yesterday’s Morning Joe program, MSNBC newsman Chris Matthews told host Joe Scarborough that with the death of Ted Kennedy, Senate Democrats have lost their inspirational and tactical leader in the fight to institute a government-run healthcare system. Said Matthews: “Everybody here is a student of history and we’ve grown up with a lot of romance about the U.S. Senate.… I don’t see a leader of that caliber on the Hill right now who can be the quarterback on the field, while perhaps this President calls in the plays. I don’t see that quarterback.”

It was a fascinating and, in many ways, an apt metaphor – to suggest that Kennedy was the quarterback, the man who determinedly coordinated and led his Senate teammates during legislative “crunch time.” Certainly, for instance, a young Ted Kennedy was the quarterback who spearheaded the hundred-yard drive resulting in the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. That legislation shifted the balance of immigration heavily in favor of an influx from the Third World, which became the point of origin for some 85 percent of all the legal immigrants who entered the U.S. between 1971 and 1990. The devastating effects of that development – effects which Kennedy promised would never come to pass – were monstrous in terms of what they contributed to crime rates and to the relentless expansion of the welfare state.

On July 18, 1969, Quarterback Kennedy was once again (literally, this time) in the driver’s seat when, accompanied by a young woman named Mary Jo Kopechne, he accidentally drove his Oldsmobile off a wooden bridge and into a tide-swept pond on the Massachusetts island of Chappaquiddick; the vehicle came to rest, upside down, under the water. Kennedy managed to escape with his life, but he left the young woman trapped inside the car to die. The senator quickly left the scene of the accident and, instead of promptly reporting what had occurred, spent the next ten hours concocting an alibi while his car lay unnoticed beneath the water.

Sen. Ted Kennedy's car is pulled from the water at Edgartown, Mass., July 19, 1969.

Sen. Ted Kennedy's car is pulled from the water at Edgartown, Mass., July 19, 1969.

Fourteen years later, during a particularly tense period of the Cold War, Kennedy employed the old “Quarterback Sneak” play when he made secret overtures to the Soviet intelligence agency, the KGB, in an unspeakably devious attempt to undermine Ronald Reagan’s presidency — at the risk of compromising American national security in the process. A highly classified May 14, 1983 letter from KGB head Viktor Chebrikov to Soviet General Secretary Yuri Andropov spoke of Kennedy’s desire to stop Reagan’s allegedly aggressive defense policies and to derail his 1984 re-election bid. The letter also stated that Kennedy had recommended a number of PR moves to help the Soviets counter Reagan’s “propaganda” and improve their image with the American public. Moreover, said Chebrikov, Kennedy himself had offered to travel to Moscow to meet with Andropov.

In 1987 Quarterback Kennedy was still going strong, rallying his fellow Senate Democrats in a bitter fight to prevent the confirmation of President Reagan’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Robert Bork, whose originalist judicial philosophy — the idea that the Constitution is not a “living document” subject to endless reinterpretation — Kennedy utterly rejected. Less than an hour after Bork’s nomination, the “Quarterback” went to the Senate floor to deliver what was perhaps the most disgraceful pack of slanderous lies ever spoken by an American politician :

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens …”

This, then, was Ted Kennedy — a political competitor who specialized, above all else, in using his rhetorical “arm” to sling mud recklessly at his adversaries while simultaneously engaging in self-aggrandizing exhibitions of moral preening.

His sub-specialties included:

  • spearheading indefatigable legislative efforts that resulted in the passage of reckless laws (like the Immigration Reform Act of 1995) that would wreak havoc on American society for generations to come;
  • engaging in obscenely reckless personal behavior (such as his legendary and well-confirmed drinking and womanizing) that often resulted in significant harm to other people, and for which Mary Jo Kopechne was forced to pay the ultimate price; and
  • recklessly putting his own political ambitions ahead of the national welfare, as when he secretly conspired with the leaders of a totalitarian empire that was seeking to systematically extinguish every last glimmer of freedom from the horizon of humanity’s future.

Such is the legacy of the man whom the leftwing media are now lionizing as a beloved political icon.

Olbermann wants torture inquiry of Bush officials

2009 August 25
Keith Olbermann is upset that poor old Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (above) was frightened and threatened by CIA operatives

Keith Olbermann is upset that poor old Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (above) was frightened and threatened by CIA operatives

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann yesterday spoke out in favor of the Justice Department’s plan to investigate “incidents of torture committed by U.S. officials and contractors during the Bush administration.” One man, Olbermann reported indignantly, had been “stripped naked except for a hood on his head” before being threatened by CIA agents who held a pistol and a power drill next to his head, and who threatened to rape and kill his family members. Another man, said Olbermann, was told that if he did not cooperate, his children would be killed; he was also waterboarded.

Oh, incidentally, the aforementioned hooded man was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of the USS Cole bombing that killed 17 American servicemen in October 2000.

And just for the record, the second man was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM), former military head of Osama bin Laden‘s al Qaeda network. Perhaps you remember him: He helped mastermind the foiled Operation Bojinka, which aimed to simultaneously blow up 12 commercial airliners in mid-flight between Asia and the United States; the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings that killed more than 200 people; the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63 in December 2001; and the quadruple hijackings of September 11, 2001 – to name just a few of his career highlights. He also personally beheaded American journalist Daniel Pearl in February 2002.

Ah, but who cares about context? After all, these men’s dignity had been sullied, to say nothing about their “human rights.”

Because Olbermann cannot tolerate any dissenting opinions without descending into his familiar cesspool of derision and mockery, he never has a guest on his program who disagrees with him. His Rent-a-Stooge for last night’s show was Jane Mayer, staff writer at The New Yorker, who said:

“The documents that I’ve seen … I am amazed at how little support there is for the things that Vice President Cheney has been saying. There is nothing but a mass of claims that they got information from this individual and that individual, many from KSM, who apparently has been the greatest font of information for them. But there’s absolutely nothing saying that they had to beat them to get this information. In fact … there’s no evidence that I see in this that these things were necessary. I spoke to someone at the CIA who is an advisor to them, who conceded to me that we could have gotten the same information with tea and crumputets.”

Olbermann, of course, agreed heartily with this absurdity.

Spearheading the Justice Department’s investigation will be President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, who has opened what he calls a “preliminary review” into whether some CIA operatives broke the law in their post-9/11 coercive interrogations of suspected terrorists. Says Holder:

“As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter.”

It borders on the obscene to hear Holder, who has abetted judicial leniency for big-time crooks and terrorists throughout his legal/political career, speak about gathering evidence in order to determine whether or not a prosecution should ensue.

During his tenure as Deputy Attorney General for President Clinton, Holder was a key figure entrusted with the task of vetting the Clinton administration’s 176 last-minute pardons in January 2001. The beneficiaries of those pardons included such notables as former Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg (who was involved in the deadly 1981 armed robbery of a Brink’s armored car) and Linda Evans (who had used false identification to buy firearms, harbored a fugitive, and was in possession of 740 pounds of dynamite at the time of her arrest in 1985).

Holder also played a major role in the presidential pardon granted to the billionaire financier Marc Rich, a fugitive oil broker who had illegally purchased oil from Iran during the American trade embargo — and who then proceeded to hide more than $100 million in profits by using dummy transactions in off-shore corporations. Rich later renounced his American citizenship and fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for 51 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, tax fraud, tax evasion, and the illegal oil transactions with Iran.

And finally, for good measure, Holder was intimately involved in President Clinton’s August 11, 1999 pardon of 16 members of the FALN—a violent, Marxist-Leninist terror organization that was active in the U.S. from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s.

But Obama lapdogs like Keith Olbermann are not at all troubled by the fact that an ethical train wreck like Eric Holder now heads the U.S. Justice Department. As long as Holder is prosecuting Bush officials, Olbermann and his ilk will cheer him on loudly.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Supporters of Republican Conservative = "Loony Tunes" — Keith Olbermann

2009 August 17

Michelle Bachmann

It’s not at all surprising that Keith Olbermann detests Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minnesota). She’s precisely the “type” Olbermann hates: a dynamic, attractive, eloquent female who isn’t afraid to publicly embrace conservative principles, and who articulates them extremely well. Olbermann has no use for people like that; they threaten him. For evidence of this, just look at his continuing crusade to discredit Sarah Palin, who remains, to this day, one of the foremost obsessions of the MSNBC hatchet man.

“I think we do not appreciate,” Olbermann said on his most recent Countdown program, “the physiological specimen that is Michelle Bachmann: one of the world’s largest, most vibrant egos, fully functioning despite no evidence of any other brain activity.” For these alleged defects, Olbermann named Bachmann as the day’s “Worst Person in the World.” Not content to smear only the congresswoman, the broadcaster took up his broadest rhetorical brush and painted her supporters, collectively, as an undifferentiated pack of “loony tunes.”

Olbermann is currently in a major snit over the fact that Bachmann has characterized the AmeriCorps program, which is so dear to President Obama and the Democrats, as a veritable network of “taxpayer-funded liberal reeducation camps.” A careful analysis of the facts, however, reveals that Bachmann’s assessment is quite accurate indeed.

AmeriCorps was launched by President Clinton in 1993, and membership in the organization is open to all U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents age 17 and older. Each member works a 10- to 12-month stint with a nonprofit group, public agency, or faith-based organization that participates in the AmeriCorps program. These members are paid workers, not volunteers. Their stipends are financed by U.S. taxpayers, half-a-billion of whose dollars are funneled annually through AmeriCorps and into the coffers of selected nonprofit organizations, which, in turn, use that money to pay the young people who register for a term of service with them.

The recipients of these AmeriCorps grants tend to be organizations whose politics fall on the left side of the spectrum, and whose efforts are focused on such projects as environmental activism, social-welfare programs, legal-aid assistance, political activism, teacher-education programs, community-organizer training, public health initiatives, childcare services, and ethnic-identity politics. Among the more notable recipients of AmeriCorps funding is the National Council of La Raza, which lobbies for racial preferences, bilingual education, mass immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens.’s Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler has observed that AmeriCorps workers have traditionally “been put to work to promote the causes of Democrats.”

As of mid-2009, AmeriCorps had nearly 75,000 active members. Three months ago, President Obama signed a $6 billion piece of legislation to more than triple the size of the program — to 250,000 people — over an eight-year period. This move alone will increase the federal civilian workforce by 13 percent, and will make AmeriCorps the 14th largest employer in the United States – an employer perfectly positioned to promote Democrat agendas with taxpayer money.

And perhaps most notably, AmeriCorps has longstanding ties to ACORN, the pro-Democrat, pro-Obama, voter-registration-fraud factory that ranks among the most corrupt organizations in living memory.

But poor Keith Olbermann can’t understand why any fair-minded individuals would take issue with AmeriCorps. Thus he concludes that such people must be, as he phrases it with his characteristically juvenile petulance, “loony tunes.”

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

This Year's Greatest Television Moment: a most unexpected denunciation of ObamaCare

2009 August 14
Rev. Harry Jackson stunned MSNBC's Ed Schultz.

Rev. Harry Jackson stunned MSNBC's Ed Schultz.

Credit must be given where it’s due. Earlier this week MSNBC’s Ed Schultz treated his viewers to two of the finest minutes of television that anyone, anywhere, has seen in years. Not, mind you, because of anything Schultz said, but because of what one of his guests said to him. It was one of those deeply satisfying moments when we got to see a knee-jerk Obama lapdog like Schultz spend several minutes spewing his trademark leftist claptrap, only to be dramatically ambushed by a guest who Schultz thought was going to do nothing more than dutifully rubber-stamp everything he had just said.

The segment began with Schultz deriding “Christian political operatives” for having failed, thus far, to speak out in favor of the Democrat/Obama plan for government-run healthcare. He looked earnestly at the camera and demanded that “the four most influential Christian leaders in this country” — he named, specifically, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Franklin Graham, and James Dobson — “step up and speak up.”  “These Christian leaders,” said Schultz, “need to get engaged and support a Christian president on the public option of providing healthcare for all Americans. Isn’t it the Christian thing to do? Their silence [so far] is deafening.”

Schultz then proceeded to explain that these ministers’ failure to publicly endorse socialized medicine constituted a betrayal of Christ’s message:

“When Jesus walked the face of the earth, he was feeding the hungry, he was clothing the poor, and healing the sick. He didn’t ask anybody for their health insurance card and he didn’t heal anybody for profit. Yet we hear nothing from the Christian leadership in this country on healthcare reform and the moral obligation we face as a nation to address this issue. Let’s just say that I think your silence is shameful. What [we are] doing to American families is shameful. And there should be an outcry from the Cristian community to support this president. Don’t stick your Bible underneath your bed on this one, folks. How these Christian leaders can stand idle and dreadfully silent while the insurance industry makes billions at the expense of the American people, to me, is sickening.”

Then, it happened. Schultz – satisfied that he had skillfully set the stage for his guest to grab the host’s rhetorical “alley-oop” pass and metaphorically slam the ball through the conversational hoop – turned to Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christan Church. And a funny thing happened on the way to a slam dunk.

With unapologetic yet gentlemanly eloquence, Jackson, a registered Democrat, proceeded to declare that he strongly opposes ObamaCare, and he identified precisely the elements and ambiguities of the plan that trouble him deeply. If he were a white conservative, he would have been tarred by Schultz as one of the “evil mongers” and “swastika-carriers” who supposedly populate the “angry mobs” of protesters that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a host of their fellow Democrat hacks have been whining about for weeks.

There are no descriptive phrases that could do justice to the force of Jackson’s retort to Schultz. It’s best that you see it for yourself. It will be two minutes of your time very well spent. Go to this page. If the film clip does not load automatically, click on the thumbnail photo with the caption that reads, “What would Jesus do about health care?” If you wish to skip past Schultz’s predictable, hackneyed inanities, you can forward the video to the 3:20 mark, which is where Rev. Jackson is introduced to the audience. Then sit back and enjoy; you’ll probably want to enjoy it twice.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Olbermann marvels at "just how stupid" the opponents of high taxes and Obamacare are

2009 August 9

Laffer curve


On his Countdown program Thursday, Keith Olbermann demonstrated once again that because of his boiling hatred for anyone whose ideology differs from his own, he is entirely incapable of engaging in linear thought or reasoned debate. In this particular episode, Olbermann designated former Reagan economic advisor Arthur Laffer as the day’s “Worst Person in the World,” disparaging Laffer as “the pusher of the discredited notion that tax cuts for the rich stimulated the economy, and the creator of the farcical Laffer Curve.” The Laffer Curve is a concept which contends that at a given point of increased taxation, business activity will diminish because of the reduced economic incentives that accompany higher taxes, thereby causing the government to receive less tax revenue rather than more. Olbermann is particularly annoyed with Laffer these days, because of the latter’s opposition to the Obama/Democrat plan for government-run health care.

Sneering that Laffer’s name befits his purportedly clownish economic theories, Olbermann contemptuously marveled at “just how stupid” Laffer and “other critics of health care reform … are about this topic.” He then quoted Laffer saying:

“If you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they’re run well, just wait until you see Medicare, Medicaid, and Healthcare done by the government.”

Olbermann then looked directly at the camera and mocked Laffer by addressing these comments to him directly:

“Medicare and Medicaid are already done by the government. They’re government programs. This also just in, Dr. Laffer: Lindburgh has landed safely in Paris.”

As usual, Olbermann succeeded in providing his viewers with everything they needed to know — except the actual context and the actual meaning of the quotes and the events which he was discussing. You see, Olbermann was so busy trying to be impressively clever, that he neglected to show his viewers the statement Laffer had made in his very next breath: “I mean the single provider, I think, is a real problem …”

Laffer’s point, in other words, was that under Obama’s plan all of healthcare, including Medicare and Medicaid, would now be under a single government umbrella. But poor, pathetic Keith Olbermann couldn’t help himself. His hateful intolerance getting the best of him yet again, he pretended to believe that Laffer was unaware of something as elemental as the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are government programs. The subtext of Olbermann’s message: Anyone who opposes government-run healthcare is a veritable imbecile, on par with someone who doesn’t realize that the Atlantic Ocean has been crossed by manned aircraft.

Such a depiction of one’s ideological adversaries is standard fare for the Left. Al Gore, for instance, has characterized those who dispute the notion that “global warming” is caused by human industry, as the intellectual equivalents of people “who still believe that the Moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and … who believe the world is flat.”

On a substantive level, it bears mention that Olbermann’s casual dismissal of “the discredited notion that tax cuts for the rich stimulated the economy,” has been well rebutted by Thomas Sowell, who writes:

The angry left has no time to spend even considering the argument that what they call “tax cuts for the rich” are in fact tax cuts for the economy.

Nor is the idea new that tax cuts can sometimes spur economic growth, resulting in more jobs for workers and higher earnings for business, leading to more tax revenue for the government.

A highly regarded economist once observed that “taxation may be so high as to defeat its object,” so that sometimes “a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget.”

Who said that? Milton Friedman? Arthur Laffer? No. It was said in 1933 by John Maynard Keynes, a liberal icon.

Lower tax rates have led to higher tax revenues many times, both before and since Keynes’s statement — the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, and the recent Bush tax cuts that … led to record high tax revenues …

Budget deficits have often resulted from runaway spending but seldom from reduced tax rates.

It is also remarkable to hear Olbermann speak as if Medicare and Medicaid are living testaments to the glories of government healthcare. At this moment in time, the unfunded liabilities of Medicare Parts A, B, and D amount to $85 trillion; both Medicare and Medicaid waste at least one out of every three dollars they spend.

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry