John Perazzo

Obama Joker vs. Bush Joker: "The Socialist Joker" Inflames the Left

2009 August 5

Caricatured portraits of Barack Obama wearing Heath Ledger-style “Joker” makeup, with the caption “socialism” situated just beneath the President’s image, have been displayed recently on numerous outdoor surfaces — telephone poles, blank walls, highway supports, etc. — in the city of Los Angeles.

                                                                               obama joker2

Though the identity of the Photoshop artist is unknown to anyone, the Christian Science Monitor concludes, disapprovingly, that “a conservative graffiti artist” is the culprit. Adds the Monitor: “Now, digitized copies of the portraits have gone viral, spiraling across Twitter, Facebook, and Flickr. Predictably, the right-wing blogosphere is bursting at the seams with glee.”

Even more predictably, leftists have begun to complain that the portrait is racist. According to Bedlam Magazine, for instance: “The Joker white-face imposed on Obama’s visage has a sort of malicious, racist, Jim Crow quailty to it.” The good folks at L.A. Weekly, meanwhile, tell us that the portrait “has a bit of everything to appeal to the drunk tank of California conservatism: Obama is in white face, his mouth (like Ledger’s Joker’s) has been grotesquely slit wide open and the word ‘Socialism’ appears below his face. The only thing missing is a noose.”

As Matthew Vadum has already noted in NewsReal, in 2004 the very same L.A. Weekly ran this picture depicting President George W. Bush as Dracula, his mouth dripping with the blood of innocents from around the world:


Then there was this classic published by The Village Voice in October of that same year, showing Bush as a vampire sucking the blood of Liberty from the metaphorical neck of our nation: 


And just 13 months ago, Vanity Fair depicted Bush as none other than, voilà, the Joker! With no chorus of complaints from the Left!


Notably, these caricatures of Bush appeared neither on solitary highway stanchions nor on the walls of buildings in vacant lots, but rather in major publications of the political and social Left. This is to say nothing of the many published cartoons that routinely depicted Bush as a primate. One September 2007 Huffington Post story, in fact, actually bore the title, “New Scientific Study Reveals Bush Is a Chimp.”

What would be the Left’s reaction if a conservative were to make a similar assertion about Obama?

Bush was also commonly caricatured by the Left as Adolph Hitler. The anti-war demonstrations of 2002-2004 — led by such Marxist “peace” coalitions as International ANSWER (a front group for the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party) and United For Peace and Justice (led by the pro-Castro communist Leslie Cagan) — featured multitudes of banners and placards depicting Bush as the Nazi Führer.

Yet now, the Left is vexed over an anonymous artist’s unflattering portrayal of its beloved President – a President who, we should remember, has had his image (and that of his family) plastered on the covers of adoring periodicals nationwide for many months.

Forgotten amid the current outrage over the “Socialist Joker” posters, of course, is the fact that Obama, by any objective measure, has shown himself to be, quite literally, a socialist in word and deed. But rather than address that plain reality, leftists prefer instead to depict the President’s detractors as sinister “racists.” This technique of diversion and demonization is taken directly out of Saul Alinsky‘s infamous blueprint for transformative socialist revolution.

Matthew Vadum has noted how Glenn Beck, discussing the Obama poster on his Fox News program yesterday, chided the Left for its hyper-sensitivity to the tactics of Alinsky when those tactics are used by its ideological adversaries: “Don’t they know rule number five from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: ‘ridicule is man’s most potent weapon’? Interesting how mad they get when you use their rules against them, isn’t it?”

Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann: A Conspiracy Theory

2009 August 4


This post was written by Peter Collier.

Elements of the left blogosphere are in a tizzy—a-twitter, might be a better way of phrasing it, given the frequency of the posts—with conspiracy theories about the execrable Keith Olbermann and his longstanding feud with Fox’s Bill O’Reilly.

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, who complains frequently about “corporate control over the content” of American media, penned a long, inchoate piece that appeared yesterday. He asserted that MSNBC parent company GE has tried to “silence” Olbermann as part of an alleged secret compact with Fox, which in return agreed to force O’Reilly to mute his criticism of: (a) GE’s technology dealings with Iran, and (b) NBC’s contemptuous portrayals of operations by the U.S. military.

In Greenwald’s long and involved piece, GE is portrayed as being afraid that a drumbeat of criticism from “the Right” will endanger its vast contacts with the federal government.  Greenwald implied that Olbermann has been gagged by the GE corporate mother ship when it came to mentioning O’Reilly and Fox. The narrative in the Salon piece was of illicit “corporate power,” which in an even more vulgar form also functions as a sort of tape loop for Olbermann himself, as in his lead story last night on health care (in which he compared today’s health insurance companies to New York’s Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, whose lax safety standards were responsible for the death of 146 factory workers in the notorious fire of 1911).

Also featured in last night’s show—and this was an unkind cut to Greenwald’s heroic efforts to gin up outrage over the suppression of the MSNBC host’s free speech—was a lengthy, bitter diatribe by Olbermann not only against O’Reilly but against Rupert Murdoch himself.

MSNBC: Chris Matthews "Sees" Bush Scandal while Turning a Blind Eye to Clinton, Obama Transgressions

2009 August 3
chris matthews


On his most recent Hardball program, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews explored a long-forgotten controversy that evidently continues to haunt him – the role that Republican strategist Karl Rove may have played “in the firing of those federal prosecutors [by President Bush] back in 2006.” “Some emails,” Matthews reported breathlessly, “shed light on his role in the firings.” Joining Matthews to discuss the matter were Michael Isikoff of Newsweek and David Corn of the pro-socialist publication Mother Jones.

At issue was the Bush administration’s 2006 replacement of eight federal attorneys who were, by definition, the chief federal law-enforcement officials in their districts. They were also, by definition, political appointees whom the President was under absolutely no obligation to retain; such appointees serve at the pleasure of the President and are subject to dismissal by the latter at any time.

Remarkably, Matthews made no mention of the fact that Bill Clinton, the very personification of scandal, fired all 93 sitting U.S. attorneys and replaced them with new ones in 1993.

Nor did Matthews address a most significant story from two months ago, when the President whose rhetorical style has been know to give Matthews “a thrill up his leg” suddenly dismissed Gerald Walpin, Inspector General (IG) of the Corporation for National and Community Service, for no good cause that he (the President) could coherently identify. Said a Washington Times report at the time:

Without appropriate documentation or good reason, President Obama has fired a federal investigator who was on the case against a political ally of the president’s. Mr. Obama’s move has the stench of scandal.

On June 11, Mr. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service. He offered no public reason for doing so other than that he “no longer” had “the fullest confidence” in Mr. Walpin…. Losing one’s “fullest confidence” hardly qualifies as a justifiable reason. The Senate report language attached to the act explains: “The requirement to notify the Congress in advance of the reasons for the removal should serve to ensure that Inspectors General are not removed for political reasons.”

Yet, as Associated Press noted, “Obama’s move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.” Further, “The IG found that Johnson … had used Americorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.”

Sacramento U.S. Attorney Larry Brown criticized Mr. Walpin for publicly announcing the investigation rather than more quietly cooperating with federal prosecutors. Clearly, though, there was merit to Mr. Walpin’s charges: Mr. Brown’s office reached a settlement ordering the nonprofit organization to repay half of the $850,000 in grant money it received — with $72,836.50 of that repayment coming from Mr. Johnson’s own pocket.

MSNBC: Democrats Laud Medicare As a Good Model for Universal Healthcare, though It Is Replete with Waste, Inefficiency, and Debt

2009 August 2

Guest-hosting for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown program Friday, Richard Wolffe disparaged the “angry protesters” who have turned up at recent town-hall meetings where Democrats have sought to educate attendees about the purported joys of socialized medicine. The actions of these demonstrators, said Wolffe, are being “coordinated and coached by industry-funded, right-wing operatives.”

Wolffe then treated his viewers to film footage of Rep. Anthony Wiener (D – NY), who recently introduced an amendement that would have abolished, with the stroke of a pen, the entire Medicare program — the primary insurance program for Americans over the age of 65. Mocking Republican criticisms of the government-run healthcare proposal currently championed by the likes of Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Wiener said:

“This amendment is simple. It gives my Republican friends the chance they’ve been waiting for to vote against government-sponsored, government-run, government administered health care. It’s your dream amendment. This is put-up or shut-up time.”

Wiener’s transparent ploy, which one GOP congressman aptly dubbed “a farce,” was an attempt to depict Republicans as hypocrites for opposing the Democrats’ proposal while continuing to support Medicare. Wiener is well aware that in the current political climate, it is untenable for any politician — Democrat or Republican — to vote against Medicare. Wiener himself did not support even a word of the amendment that he was proposing. His act amounted to nothing more than a grandstand play by a childish showboat.

Political considerations aside, however, it is a shame that Medicare cannot be scrapped and replaced with free-market alternatives. By any measure, the program has become a mammoth boondoggle that does not even come close to providing people with benefits comparable to those that can be obtained through private-sector health insurance.

Implicit in Wiener’s insipid remarks is the presumption that Medicare is a thriving program. But consider this: At this moment in time, the unfunded liabilities of Medicare Parts A and B equal $68 trillion. Beyond that, former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker says that Medicare Part D, which has accumulated unfunded liabilities of more than $17 trillion in the past three years, is “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s … because we promise way more than we can afford to keep.”

In his book Common Sense, Glenn Beck puts it this way:

“It’s clear that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans (champions of Medicare Part D) really care anymore. They know that when all the bills come due they will either be living a comfortable retirement with the proceeds from a fully vested government pension and access to excellent medical care through their own federal healthcare plan, or they’ll be dead. That’s why they have no incentive to do the right thing, just the politically expedient one.”

Apart from Medicare’s fiscal insolvency (which threatens to break the American economy), the program is notorious both for its wastefulness and its failure to adequately reimburse doctors — a fact that translates into a host of serious, real-life problems for seniors who need healthcare. In her landmark book The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care, Sally Pipes explains:

Medicare, the primary insurance program for Americans over the age of 65, is funded entirely by the federal government, i.e. taxpayers. In fiscal year 2007, Medicare spent $427 billion accounting for 16 percent of the federal budget. This year, Medicare will spend more than it collects from payroll taxes and by 2017, it will spend $884 billion. It will take a payroll tax of 6.4 percent just to keep the program afloat…. But it also wastes an enormous amount of money. Studies show that Medicare officials waste as much as $1 out of every $3 the program spends. That’s hardly a system worth expanding….

Both Medicare and Medicaid also impose price controls by setting low reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals. This has caused an enormous amount of hardship, as an increasing number of doctors are refusing to see patients if the government is footing the bill. Nearly one in three seniors in search of a new doctor is struggling to do so, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. “When I moved down here, I thought the only difficulty would be in finding good ones,” reported a newly enrolled Medicare patient about finding a doctor in Raleigh, N.C. “but it turned out that I would call a place and say, ‘I have Med–’ and they wouldn’t even let me finish.”

The government may efficiently control the costs at which doctors are reimbursed. This does not, however, account for the pain and suffering people endure waiting for care or the value of their time spent searching for a doctor. The government sets the fees paid to doctors according to a schedule of codes for 8,000 procedures. The cost is $60 billion. According to a recent report from the Center for the Study of Health System Change, just about half of all doctors said they had stopped seeing or limited the number of new Medicaid patients.

Other than a bunch of self-absorbed, power-hungry political hacks, who could possibly want to remake the entire American healthcare system in this image?

MSNBC: Gates' Ugly Racial Rhetoric Is Part of a Long Tradition among Black Leftists

2009 July 31


Guest-hosting for Keith Olbermann last night on MSNBC’s Countdown program, newsman Richard Wolf  reported, cheerily, that the interaction between Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge Sergeant Jim Crowley at yesterday’s co-called White House “beer summit” was “friendly and warm” — “unlike the beer,” he added for good measure, before proceeding to tell us which brand of beer each participant preferred.

“Warm,” however, is not an adjective that could be used to describe the angry racial rhetoric that Gates has employed repeatedly during his years in academia. In a video clip that has gained much traction on You Tube recently, the professor can be seen extolling the virtues of affirmative action while excoriating black Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who opposes racial preferences, as a traitor to his race. Said Gates:

“Without affirmative action we would have never been able to integrate racist historically white institutions in American society…. [B]ecause of racism, I never would have been allowed to compete on a more or less level terrain with white boys and white girls. And for me, for someone who has benefited so much from the opportunities of affirmative action, to stand at the gate and try to keep other black people out would be to be as hypocritical as Clarence Thomas.”

There is a long, ugly tradition of black leftists speaking about Justice Thomas as though he were a moral degenerate who could best serve his “race” by simply dying. Consider just a handful of examples:

Jesse Jackson, who views white racism as America’s “congenital deformity,” characterized Thomas’s vote to place limits on affirmative action programs as “a brutally violent act” that, “in effect, stabbed Dr. King,… paving the way back toward slavery.” Along with fellow race pimp Al Sharpton, Jackson led a prayer vigil outside Thomas’s home to protest the Justice’s decision. Likening Thomas to a Klansman, Jackson asserted: “At night, the enemies of civil rights strike in white sheets, burning crosses…. By day, they strike in black robes.”

The late columnist Carl Rowan sarcastically suggested that “if you give Thomas a little flour on his face, you’d think you had [former Klansman] David Duke.”

Former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown called Thomas not only “a shill for the most insidious form of racism, but also a man whose views are “legitimizing of the Ku Klux Klan.” Brown added that Thomas “should be reduced to talking only to white conservatives,” and “must be shut out” by the black community.”

Political scientist and lifelong Marxist Manning Marable asserts that Thomas has “ethnically ceased being an African American.”

Movie director Spike Lee, who believes that “racism is woven into the very fabric of America,” calls Thomas “a handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom.”

The late author June Jordan characterized him as a “virulent Oreo phenomenon,” a “punk-ass,” and an “Uncle Tom calamity.”

Columnist Julianne Malveaux told a television audience, “I hope [Thomas’s] wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter, and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease…. He’s an absolutely reprehensible person.”

From the podium of an NAACP convention, Thomas was denounced as a “pimp” and a “traitor” to the black community.

With comparable contempt, the Reverend Joseph Lowery of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference once said, “I have told [Thomas] I am ashamed of him, because he is becoming to the black community what Benedict Arnold was to the nation he deserted; and what Judas Iscariot was to Jesus: a traitor; and what Brutus was to Caesar: an assassin.

It appears that these leftists, who are so fond of criticizing Republicans and conservatives for rejecting the “big tent” ideals of “inclusion” and “tolerance” that supposedly characterize the Democratic left, could fit their own ideological “tent” on the head of a pin.

MSNBC: Maddow Says Republicans Want Americans to Believe Healthcare Reform Is "Secretly a Plan to Kill Old People"

2009 July 30

On her MSNBC program Tuesday, Rachel Maddow lampooned Republican objections to government-run healthcare proposals, misrepresenting those objections to a degree so great that they were rendered unrecognizable. Sporting the customary, condescending sneer she routinely dons in order to express just how daffy she thinks conservatives are, Maddow, with an air of incredulity, explained that Congressional Republicans are portraying the Democrat plan for healthcare reform as being “secretly a plan to kill old people.”

This “whole new crazy conspiracy theory,” Maddow elaborated, was “hatched” among the “conservative base” and in the “conservative media,” most notably “conservative talk radio.” To buttress her point, she aired a film clip of Rush Limbaugh stating that under socialized medicine, “people of a certain age, with certain diseases, will be deemed not worth the investment.” Eventually Maddow summed up the Republican position thusly:

“Health care reform doesn’t have anything to with the fact that our health care system stinks. It’s secretly a way to trick people into killing themselves.”

Beneath the mounds of ideological mud that Maddow heaped upon the Republican objections, there is indeed a bedrock of truth to them. As the Heritage Foundation explains, a socialized-medicine model would involve the creation of a Federal Health Board to “make key health care decisions, such as determining the cost-effectiveness of treatments and choosing which services public insurance programs would cover.”

To decide which medical procedures should (and should not) be covered under the government plan, this Federal Health Board would calculate the number of “Quality Adjusted Life Years” that those procedures could be expected to gain for patients. Older patients would necessarily be at a disadvantage, because their gains in this regard would usually be less than the gains that a younger person could be projected to make. Given that a universal feature of “universal health care” is the rationing of services, the Board tasked with overseeing that rationing would necessarily favor younger people.

“Great Britain,” the Heritage Foundation explains, “has a similar institution, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (known by its acronym, ‘NICE’). Britain’s experience with NICE offers insight into how such an institution operates in practice.”

In her 2008 book The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care, Sally Pipes writes:

In 2008, NICE made a … decision about the lung cancer drug Tarceva. Despite numerous studies showing that the drug significantly prolongs the life of cancer patients—and the unanimous endorsement of lung cancer specialists throughout the U.K.—NICE determined that the drug was too expensive to cover.…

In 2002, Americans with a rare stomach cancer started taking Gleevec [a molecularly-targeted medicine] because it was found to target and kill cancer cells without attacking healthy cells. It took almost a full two years after U.S. approval for Britain’s clinical drug review agency to approve Gleevec’s use for those with the cancer. Britain’s behavior is typical—every European government rations drugs to save money.…

Swedish policy expert Johnny Munkhammar cuts right to the truth:

“European governments haven’t figured out a way to deliver health care for less money—they’ve simply figured out a way to ration care.”

MSNBC: Palin's Popularity Is Due to Sex Appeal

2009 July 30

MSNBC news anchor Donny Deutsch offered this assessment Monday of the reason for the American public’s interest in Sarah Palin as a political figure:

“The reason we have a fascination with Sarah Palin, men and women: This is the first woman in power that has sexual appeal, and people don’t know what to do with it. That’s why people are fascinated with her. Everything else is secondary…. This is a new definition of female power we have never seen before. Men and women are learning how to process it. They’re fascinated. Once they get past that, she’ll be nothing but a media figure. She’ll never be a political figure.”

MSNBC correspondent Norah O’Donnell echoed Deutsch:

“I totally agree with you.…. She’s young. She’s gorgeous. She has 5 children. And she doesn’t take advice from anyone. She’s got a different style.”

O’Donnell added, for good measure, that Palin is a “complicated person,” in part because of the “ethics complaints” levied against her.

Mr. Deutsch’s co-host, Tamron Hall, provided this insight:

“Beauty can’t be power because it is not permanent.… If her looks start to fade a little faster, she may not have success she has.…. She won’t look like that, none of us will, in about two more election cycles. So if her beauty is her power, it can quickly leave.”

Hall added that part of “the fascination with [Palin] is her snarkiness,” her propensity to say “I’m a pitbull with lipstick. Bring it on, media.”

Radio host Shannyn Moore rounded out the monotone chorus of leftist analysis by observing: “A lot of [Palin’s] supporters here wear buttons that say, ‘Hottest Governor, Coldest State,’ … and you know I think it actually sets us back a little bit.”

Then Deutsch dutifully tied up the segment in a neat bow of derision when he said, “I don’t want [Palin] running this country until she figures out [that] being close to Russia, living in Alaska, is not the definition of foreign relations.”

There you have it. That is what passes nowadays for political analysis by the Left. It apparently never occurred to any of these individuals, even for a moment, that Palin’s popularity might be based upon such things as her devotion to the rights of the unborn, or her message of low taxes, free markets, limited government, and energy independence facilitated by oil exploration here at home. Those things couldn’t possibly matter to anyone, right?

No, to leftists it all boils down to what they consider the visceral emotions of irrational conservative yahoos. From a psychological perspective, it is quite possible that we are witnessing a textbook case of projection by the Left. Leftists are, after all, the devoted hero-worshippers of Barack Obama, who has been turned into a mythic figure by the media and Hollywood elites — even though he has lived his entire adult life openly espousing socialist ideals and allying himself with angry radicals who detest the United States. (See William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, and the National Council of La Raza, to cite just a few examples.) Because leftists have mastered the art of mindless hero-worship, it stands to reason that they would project this same trait onto conservatives.

MSNBC: Congressman Calls for Obama to Apologize

2009 July 29

Yesterday on MSNBC’s Hardball, Republican Congressman Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan told Chris Matthews why he has called for a formal act of Congress telling Barack Obama to apologize for saying that Cambridge Police Sergeant Jim Crowley had “acted stupidly” in arresting Henry Louis Gates two weeks ago. (Click here for details of the circumstances surrounding the arrest.) Navigating his way through Matthews’ rapid-fire assault of rudeness and interruptions, McCotter methodically explained that because Obama “prejudged a private citizen” (Crowley) and never retracted his claim that the sergeant had acted improperly, it is now incumbent upon Congress to formally express its disapproval.

While apologizing to Crowley and to the Cambridge police would indeed be an appropriate thing for Obama to do, an act of far greater significance would be for him to retract another portion of his statement – his claim that the arrest of Gates was emblematic of the “long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”

But Obama cannot possibly apologize for that, he cannot possibly retract it, because he fervently believes it. He has candidly said so on many occasions. Even during his campaign, he said such things as:

  • “The criminal-justice system is not color-blind. It does not work for all people equally.”
  • “African Americans and whites, for the same crime … are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, [and] receive very different sentences…for the same crime.”
  • “We have certain sentences that are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like and where you come from.”

Though Obama’s loyal lapdogs in the mainstream media dare not challenge any of his presumably sacrosanct pronouncements about racism in the justice system, the fact remains that those pronouncements are unadulterated falsehoods. More than that, they are falsehoods with enormous, life-and-death implications.

Why? Because, for one thing, they poison the minds of young black men into believing that the justice system is stacked against them, and that they live in a nation that treats them as second-class citizens. It is only logical for people who believe such things to be filled with boiling resentments and rage, upon which they may eventually act.

Conversely, these same falsehoods cause law-enforcement officers — who risk their own lives every day in order to protect the American people regardless of what color they happen to be — to become disgusted by the incessant accusations of race-obsessed leftists who can feel the pea of discrimination through a thousand mattresses.

Some grievance mongering – such as that of Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, or Al Sharpton – is easy to recognize because of its stridency, its militancy, and its occasional vulgarity.

Grievance mongering like Obama’s, on the other hand, is more polished, delivered in softer tones and adorned with the verbal trappings of erudition. As such, it is infinitely more dangerous because it is commonly mistaken for moderation or pureheartedness.

And it can tear a society apart.

The phony-baloney “beer party” that Obama will hold tomorrow with Henry Louis Gates and Jim Crowley may ultimately prove to be a good PR move for the President. But it will not undo the lasting psychic damage done by his repetition of falsehoods about the justice system – to say nothing of the flesh-and-blood explosions of rage to which those falsehoods commonly give rise.

CNN: Black Cambridge Cops Support Sgt. Crowley, Denounce Gates and Obama

2009 July 28

Members of the Cambridge Police Department are speaking out against Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates‘ recent claim that he was a victim of racism and racial profiling perpetrated by Sergeant Jim Crowley, who is white. (For details of the incident, click here.)

Cambridge Sergeant Leon Lashley, who is black, said this:

“This situation right here was not a racial[ly] motivated situation…. They called him [Crowley] … a rogue cop. There’s nothing rogue about him. He was doing his job.”

Officer Kelly King put it this way:

“I know Jimmy [Crowley]. I’ve known him for more than the 11 years with the Cambridge police. I knew him when he worked for Harvard. I know him to be a good police officer, a good man with character, and I knew these charges were bogus…. I think Professor Gates has done a very good job of putting up a very efective smokescreen, calling race into this. It [race] had nothing to do with it.”

Regarding President Obama, who made headlines when he asserted that the Cambridge police had “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates, Officer King said:

“I supported him [Obama], I voted for him. I will not again…. [H]e should have recused himself. He should have stepped back and he should have said, ‘I support my friend but I don’t have all the facts. I won’t weigh in yet.'”

The words of Mr. Lashley and Ms. King demonstrate with crystal clarity just how recklessly irresponsible Obama was, when he stated that the arrest of Professor Gates was somehow emblematic of the “long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.” In fact, the arrest was emblematic only of the fact that Gates himself is a racial profiler extraordinaire who hears the heart of a racist beating within the breast of every white person who crosses his path.

Will Obama’s adoring disciples in the mainstream media ever notice that the President’s hard-left ideology, which divides the world ever-so-neatly into the oppressors and the oppressed, is in fact far more developed than his legendary intellect?

CNN: Was Obama Born in U.S.? What's the Difference?

2009 July 28

On his Hardball program yesterday, Chris Matthews aired film clips of several frightened Republican legislators stammering incoherently, sometimes even scampering away from news cameras, when asked whether they believe there may be any merit to suspicions that President Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.

“Why do Republicans stutter when asked whether they think Barack Obama is … an American?” Matthews asked his guest, Howard Fineman of Newsweek. Fineman replied:

“[B]ecause their nightmare is to go home for the August recess where they would like to spend the time attacking Barack Obama’s healthcare plan, and other things, and have to spend all their time at the meetings talking about whether Barack Obama has a legitimate birth certificate or not. The White House claims they think this story is beneath them. They think it’s an outrage …”

Matthews’ other guest, Ken Vogel of, added this:

“I thought the Obama campaign did a very effective job of undercutting it during the [presidential] campaign by producing these documents [giving evidence of Obama’s birthplace]. Hey, if these documents don’t answer the questions of folks on the right or the libertarian fringe who still continue to insist that Obama is not a natural born citizen, nothing will satisfy them.”

Whether or not there is merit to the suggestion that Obama was born in Kenya rather than in Hawaii, a larger reality ultimately looms much more important: On November 4, 2008, the American people elected, as their President, an individual who:

Was Barack Obama born in America? It is not a question of small import. But ultimately, it does not matter nearly so much as the fact that the American population elected as President an individual who was not, by any means, secretive about his revolutionary intentions and worldview.

MSNBC: Obama's Criticism of Police Is Nothing New for Him

2009 July 27

Gates Photo

First, Barack Obama informed Americans that Cambridge police had “acted stupidly” in arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates a few days ago. Then he said the arrest reflected the “long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.” After having uttered those two baseless slanders, the President called on Americans to “try to focus on how we can generally improve relations between police officers and minority communities.” “Instead of flinging accusations,” he elaborated, “we can all be a little more reflective in terms of what we can do to contribute to more unity.”

But serving up a pack of falsehoods for public consumption does absolutely nothing to promote “unity.” It only promotes grievance mongering and resentment. Moreover, Obama’s lies about the justice system were far more than mere unfortunate failures to “calibrate”—as he puts it—his words with greater precision.

Rather, those lies were part of a longstanding Obama tradition of: (a) lamenting the alleged racial “disparities in criminal sentencing”; (b) asserting that blacks and whites “receive very different sentences … for the same crime”; and (c) complaining that “certain sentences … are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like and where you come from.” The empirical evidence against Obama’s claims is weighty indeed.

Obama’s political success on the national stage has been, in large measure, a result of the fact that his cadences are much softer and less openly confrontational than those of, say, the racial arsonist Al Sharpton, the America-hating preacher Jeremiah Wright, the anti-Semitic demagogue Louis Farrakhan, the race-obsessed Marxist professor Cornel West, and Harvard’s Henry Louis Gates—to each of whom Obama has had strong personal and/or ideological ties. But behind those cadences, Obama’s opinions regarding matters of race bear an unmistakable resemblance to those of the aforementioned luminaries.

The technique of adopting the tones and parlance that middle-class America will perceive as non-threatening is a tactic straight out of the playbook of Saul Alinsky, the late Chicago Marxist who laid out the blueprint for revolutionary societal upheaval, and who was the foremost political influence on Barack Obama’s political development. Alinsky stressed that revolutionaries, whom he euphemistically dubbed “organizers,” should take special care to avoid alienating the middle class with any type of crude language or menacing demeanor suggestive of a disrespect for middle-class mores. While his ultimate goal was nothing less than the “radicalization of the middle class,” he stressed the importance of “learning to talk the language of those with whom one is trying to converse,” so as not to “scare them off.”

Obama learned his lessons exceedingly well—so well, in fact, that he spent considerable time in the 1990s training ACORN radicals in the art of shaking down corporate America while metaphorically hoisting the proud banner of “social justice.”

Taken in by his well-polished con-man routine, Obama’s disciples in the leftwing media never question the purity of his motives. After Rush Limbaugh correctly observed that the President’s recent criticism of the Cambridge police and the U.S. justice system were manifestations of ethnic politics, MSNBC’s Richard Wolfe, guest-hosting Keith Olbermann’s Countdown program Friday, accused Limbaugh, and not Obama, of “trying to stoke racial fears and resentment.” In other words, he got the story exactly backwards.

MSNBC: Conservatives Seek to "Stoke Racial Indignation" among Whites

2009 July 24

MSNBC television host Rachel Maddow yesterday charged that Republicans and conservatives know only one way of trying to expand their political influence – by fomenting and exploiting racial fears and prejudices among their overwhelmingly white base of supporters.

Specifically, Maddow took issue with recent conservative criticisms of Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who is Puerto Rican, and Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, who is black. Sotomayor, of course, has been criticized because of her obvious, longstanding allegiance to race-based politics, while Gates has come under fire for recklessly accusing white Massachusetts police officers of racism.

Said Maddow:

“This is chapter one of the art of Republican politics since Richard Nixon. When surrounded by a more popular opponent [i.e., Barack Obama] whose ideas you can’t necessarily counter or you don’t feel confident countering, steer as far clear as you can of ideas and policy, and instead stoke racial indignation among your base when you can.”

In the leftist world that Maddow’s mind inhabits, there are no shades of gray; it’s all very simple: Republicans and conservatives are racists (even if they don’t realize it), while leftist Democrats are the anointed, the morally pure. It scarcely occurs to Maddow that if a white conservative criticizes a nonwhite leftist, he or she might be motivated by something other than racism. Rather, Maddow scoffs at whatever substantive criticisms conservatives may in fact articulate; to her, these are mere pretexts by means of which bigots seek to give their noxious views an air of legitimacy.

Reasoning from that premise, Maddow quite logically endorses any and all assertions by leftist Democrats that their conservative opponents are nothing more than an unschooled band of narrow-minded tribalists. Thus it would never occur to her that Barack Obama himself was guilty of trying to “stoke racial indignation” among his “base” when he said, during last year’s campaign: “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. [They’ll say] ‘he’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’”

Nor, of course, did Maddow find fault with Obama telling his supporters on another occasion:

“They [Republicans] know that you’re not real happy with them and so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. What they’re saying is ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name.’”

For Maddow, assertions like Obama’s are nothing less than self-evident truths, not unlike these:

Rachel Maddow and her ideological ilk do not take issue with the underlying substance of any of the foregoing statements. It is no exaggeration to say that they classify those who disagree with them on matters of race as modern-day avatars of the Nazis.

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry