Counterculture Con HQ

September 25, 2011

Herman Cain victory in Florida demolishes Democrat racism meme

FL Teabaggers choose Herman Cain.

In other news, Teabbagers and other assorted southern “rednecks” just gave Herman Cain a resounding victory against Rick Perry and Mitt Romney in the Florida straw poll.  There goes the race baiting leg of the Dem platform for 2012!  Hard to be a racist when you vote black, isn’t it?

The Leftist race baiting meme simply cannot survive this simple reality, Herman Cain being a BLACK MAN and all.  Unlike Barack Obama, Cain was born in the black community, raised in poverty, is a self-made man with a fantastic track record to show for in the REAL WORLD.  In other words, he is Barack Obama’s worst nightmare.  He is the anti Barack Obama, who himself is a half-white, pseudo black man who didn’t even grow up in the black community and has never known poverty, being raised by his rich white banker grandma and sent to Hawaii’s most elite high schools, then Yale, and “talks black” but only in front of a black audience.  He’s a man of priviledge, groomed for the ivory tower, yet whose track record in academia has been sealed away from prying eyes lest it reveal something about him they don’t want you to see.  The quintessential blank slate.

Nevertheless, if and when we vote for Herman Cain, we’ll be voting for the content of his character, not his skin color.

Cain upsets Perry in Florida Republican straw poll

ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) – Former pizza executive Herman Cain surprised rival Rick Perry with an upset victory on Saturday in a nonbinding Republican presidential straw poll in Florida, dealing a disappointing loss to the Texas governor two days after a shaky debate performance.  Perry, leading in the polls for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, had needed a victory in the key test of strength in a crucial state to salve the wounds left over from a debate with his rivals on Thursday in which he struggled.

Instead, former Godfather’s Pizza executive Cain, who is far behind the two top-tier candidates Perry and Mitt Romney, won with 37 percent of 2,657 votes cast.

Perry was a distant second at 15 percent, just ahead of Romney, who won 14 percent despite not participating in the poll. Further back were Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann. Florida’s straw poll is a nonbinding popularity poll and is significant only in terms of showing a candidate’s strength in the state. The state contests to determine the Republican nominee do not start until early next year.

The Perry camp shrugged off the results.  “Cain won, we still have work to do,” said Perry spokesman Mark Miner. “It’s his day. The conservative message won today. We’ve been in this race for five weeks. We’re going to continue campaigning hard.”

Miner put the focus on Romney’s third-place finish, saying he has been running for president for years and is still not breaking through.  “It’s more of what happened to Mitt Romney. He’s not going to be crowned president of the United States. He’s going to have to work for it. And after five and a half years he once again got rejected in a key state in the Republican primary process,” Miner said.

Perry created doubts among some conservatives at a debate with his Republican rivals on Thursday that he admitted on Friday was not his best performance.  Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, and Bachmann chose not to compete in the straw poll but since they took part in the debate and spoke earlier to delegates at the convention in Orlando, the Florida Republican Party put their names on the ballot.

Source

Advertisements

August 16, 2011

A Tale of two parties: The hecklers

Those Teabaggers are so HATEFUL and so ANGRY.  Or at least that’s how the Dems and their allies in the media like to portray them.  As evidence they provide the following where some Tea Party activists confront Obama about alleged reports that Vice-President Biden called the Tea Party a bunch of terrorists to whip up support for the debt limit deal.

That’s it?  They sounded pretty civilized to me.  Sure, they were persistent, but their tone was even and level, and they let him speak.  How incredibly presidenti­al Barack might have sounded if he had acknowledg­ed their grievances and then apologized on behalf of Joe Biden and the rest of this administration’s hatchet men and attack dogs who have so lowered the bar on political discourse in this country over the last three years.  He is the “Healer in Chief”, here to bring a “new tone”, is he not?  lol. But that’s just not how Obama is built.  When he’s off script, it’s back to his old Chicago Way.  And yet this mild little incident is what the Dems are currently shopping around to prove how extreme and “terroristic” those baggers are.  Pretty thin gruel if you ask me.

Now let’s compare and contrast that episode with how wild-eyed Leftists deal with the other side.  This was how they heckled and harangued one of the GOP frontrunners, Mitt Romney, at the Iowa State Fair:

Savages.  And yet it’s the Teabaggers who are the angry, violent ones.  Uh huh, sure.

The fact is that Liberalism never made somebody a better person.  It hasn’t, and here you have more proof.  For all their protestations about caring for “the poor” (i.e., themselves), it’s not an ideology that places very much emphasis on codes of personal behavior, which is why they can do whatever they damn well please and never be accused of hypocrisy.  Conservatism, on the other hand, does emphasize personal behavior, which is why anybody on the Right who falls short of their standard is condemned by the Left as a “hypocrite”.  A good Lib has no such dilemma, and that’s why they can behave as childishly as they want and still regard themselves as a paragon of secular progressive virtue, as long as they have the correct beliefs. Especially when the target of their bile is one of those eeeevil Reichwingers.

That’s why there are hecklers, and then there are hecklers.

June 4, 2011

East Jerusalem and the Fiction of the 1967 borders

Jerusalem, undivided capital of Israel.

Just as we would expect from him, President Obama has thrown his lot in with the Arabs and is demanding Israel to withdraw to the 1967 “borders” as part of his new Middle East peace plan curtain raising.  I use the scare quotes because they were never actually historical borders, not in any genuine sense of the word, but merely an armistice line resulting from Israel’s war of independence in 1948.  There is nothing about those armistice lines upon which the Palestinians can lay any objective claim– Israel might have acquired more than that in ’48, or less.  No matter.  Those “borders” are as fictitious and impermanent as is the 48th Parallel in Korea.  Yet the real goal of pushing Israel back to pre-1967 lines isn’t about restoring “historical borders” or gaining the Palestinians a few extra acres of rocky soil on which to raise some goats.  If mere acreage were the issue, Palestinians would accept the proposed land swaps allowing Israel some semblance of defensible borders.  But they don’t.  No, CCHQ believes the real object of Obama’s and the Palestinian’s 1967 initiative is to split Jerusalem down the center, as it was pre-1967, and establish a Palestinian capital there.  Make no mistake about it, returning to ’67 is all about East Jerusalem.

What you won’t hear from President Obama, however, is that when it comes to the issue of those borders, the current Arab residents of Jerusalem don’t see eye to eye with him nor their palestinian brethren.

Arabs of Jerusalem ask Israel to remain in control

The Israeli Knesset’s Interior Committee met on Monday to discuss future control of Jerusalem as pressure mounts for Israel to surrender the city’s eastern half to the Palestinian Authority.  Among those slated to address the committee were Arab residents of eastern Jerusalem who want to continue living under Israeli sovereignty.

That these Arabs would risk their lives to come forward and request to remain part of Israel debunks the international misconception most recently enunciated by US President Barack Obama that the Palestinian Arabs cannot reach their full potential or live dignified lives while under “Israeli occupation.”

It also provides further evidence for the conclusion of Israel Today’s recent cover story revealing that many Palestinian Arabs do not want an independent state, and already live in peace and prosperity with their Jewish neighbors.  Monday’s Knesset gathering was called by lawmakers who are growing increasingly concerned over how parts of eastern Jerusalem are slowly falling under the de facto control of the Palestinian regime.

“Signs of Israeli sovereignty are disappearing in parts of Jerusalem that are behind the partition fence and their place is being taken by hostile elements,” wrote the lawmakers. “This, despite the lack of any decision by the Knesset or the government on the matter.”

They warned that this “impotence leads to the de facto division of Jerusalem.”

Source

January 16, 2011

Liberal accuses Sarah Palin of Making the Story About Herself

Sarah Palin can’t win.  If she does nothing, she’s trashed.  If she responds, she’s trashed as well.  Her enemies circle her like a pack of hyenas around a lioness, waiting for an opening to strike and draw blood.  Here conservative champion Charles Krauthammer easily handles Mark Shield’s insinuation that Palin had “inserted” herself into the Tucson shooting story, and exposes the media for the LIBERAL WHORES they really are.  Not a Palin fan here, but she gets my vote come election time.  These people have to be stopped.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

January 12, 2011

The Dishonesty of Bill Maher

Bill Maher typifies the depths to which the Left will sink in order to score political points against their enemies.  They don’t even try to be honest and consistent.  Here Maher speaks for many if not most on the Left as he explains why Liberals are the epitome of tolerance, prudence and virtue, while conservatives are EVIL, MEAN, NASTY inciters who make jihadis look like pikers (yes, he almost goes that far).  Anderson Cooper asks him why Libs insisted we not “rush to judgment” in the aftermath of Ft. Hood, yet may be doing just that with the Jared Loughner shooting.  His answer?  “I don’t understand that analogy.” Nuance! Anderson Cooper has no follow up question to that (they never do when they’re interviewing their fellow travellers).

Maher also says his own incitement to hatred and violence (see his Cheney deathwish below) is merely “comedy”, President Obama’s “gun to a knife fight” comment was metaphorical (which it was), but Palin’s “targeted” districts graphic was an incitement to violence.

He’s all over the map on this one.  That is a sign of one thing and one thing only– INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.  They are lying to you, America.  They incite hatred and violence, call it comedy or “speaking truth to power”, and then use character assassination and blood libel to attack so-called incitement by conservatives.

Defends Obama’s ‘Gun to Knife-Fight’ Comment

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Bill Maher Speaks on Tucson Shooting, G…, posted with vodpod

Says Cheney’s Death Would Save Lives

Bill Maher: “I’m just saying if [Cheney] did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”

January 11, 2011

“Obama needs an Oklahoma Moment”

Rahm Emmanuel says never let a crisis go to waste. If you’re wondering what’s driving the current Leftist stampede to blame conservatives for Jared Loughner, this is why– he is an OPPORTUNITY.  Former Clinton adviser, Mark Penn, said President Obama needs an event like the Oklahoma City bombing to reconnect him with the voters.  How despicable to even articulate such a thing, yet notice Chris Matthews doesn’t bat an eyelash.  Well, they got their event, and it’s an opportunity they don’t intend on wasting.

December 6, 2010

Paki Christian Sentenced to Death by Blasphemy Laws Obama Supports

Mainstream Islam is not "moderate".

Talk about blinders.  A very educated, thoughtful and well-travelled Liberal christian I know SCOFFED at the idea that Christians were being persecuted in the Muslim world.  This was just Rightwing propaganda and fear mongering, he insisted (this state of denial arises from a fear that acknowledging such evil would bolster U.S. hawks and “Zionists” in their crusades throughout the Middle East).   So they remain willfully ignorant.  They have Phds on “gay marriage”, mind you, and will carry on at length about it.  But this kind of stuff?  Clueless.  Secular leftists, on the other hand, get straight to the point and simply condemn “all religion”, and in this way avoid the “bigot” tag.  The fact is there is no such thing as “moderate” Islam.  Wherever that religion is dominant, it is extremist.  It’s only a question of degrees.  The proof?  We have already covered the burning alive of one Paki Christian last March. Now this Christian woman has been sentenced to death in Pakistan under blasphemy laws that MUSLIM DELEGATES AND AMBASSADORS TO THE U.N. (not wackos living in caves) have pushed the United Nations to enact globally.  And get this, our politically correct and multiculturally sensitive president BARACK OBAMA– who craves nothing as much as he does Muslim approval– supports them.

In Pakistan, Christianity Earns a Death Sentence

It all began a year and a half ago, with a quarrel over a bowl of water. A group of women farm workers were suffering in the heat near a village in Pakistan’s Punjab province. Aasia Noreen, an illiterate 45-year-old mother of five, offered them water, but was rebuffed. Noreen was a Christian, they said, and therefore her water was unclean – sadly, a common taunt hurled at Pakistan’s beleaguered Christians. But rather than swallowing the indignity, she mounted a stout defense of her faith.

Word of the exchange swiftly filtered through the village of Ittan Wali, in Sheikhupura district. The local mullah took to his mosque’s loudspeakers, exhorting his followers to take action against Noreen. In a depressingly familiar pattern, her defense of her faith was twisted into an accusation of blasphemy, according to her family and legal observers familiar with the case. As a frenzied mob pursued her, the police intervened, taking her into custody. But far from protecting her, they arrested and charged Noreen with insulting Islam and its prophet. And on Nov. 8, after enduring 18 months in prison, she was sentenced to death by a district court, making her the first woman to suffer that fate.

In the ensuing weeks, the case of Noreen, popularly known as Aasia Bibi, has sparked a national furor. Human rights campaigners and lawyers have denounced the sentence. Religious fundamentalist groups, usually at odds with one another, have suddenly coalesced around a campaign to defend the blasphemy law and attack its critics. One politician who called for Noreen to be pardoned now faces a fatwa for alleged apostasy. Another politician, who is trying to have the blasphemy laws amended, has been warned that she will be besieged. On television, religious scholars have disagreed among themselves over the law’s merits. Divisions are also being seen within the government, with powerful figures taking opposing sides. And there has even been global outrage, with Pope Benedict XVI last week calling for Noreen’s freedom.

No conclusive evidence has been presented against Noreen, say people familiar with the case. The district judge relied on the testimonies of three other women, all of whom bore animus toward her. Noreen had long been under pressure by fellow farmworkers to convert to Islam, her family says. And the district judge ruled out any possibility of her innocence or mitigating circumstances.Christians are subject to vicious prejudice in Pakistan, where their beliefs are said to make them “unclean.” Municipalities routinely advertise jobs for cleaners with a note saying they would prefer Christian applicants. And defending their rights is not popular. When Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab, visited Noreen in prison and urged her release, he was branded an apostate by fundamentalist groups. And in the fundamentalist view, apostasy, like blasphemy, is punishable by death.

The Lahore High Court has taken the controversial step of saying that it won’t allow President Asif Ali Zardari to issue a pardon, a move that legal experts have said is unconstitutional.  Her family is now hoping that the higher courts will strike down the death sentence, or that she will eventually secure a pardon.  And the fear doesn’t end there. While no one has been executed for blasphemy yet, 32 people – including two judges – have been slain by vigilantes. At Friday prayers this week, Yousef Qureshi, a hardline cleric from the Mohabat Khan mosque in Peshawar, offered a reward of 500,000 rupees ($5,800) to “those who kill Aasia Bibi.” Even if pardoned, Rehman notes grimply, Noreen will no longer be able to to live in her community. For her own safety, she will have to be moved – simply for defending her right to choose her own faith.

Read the Rest.

November 30, 2010

Leftism: the “Anti” Ideology

Dead eyes, like a doll's eyes.

Doesn’t that mug shot make you sick to the stomach?  I almost wish there was a ticking time bomb out there forcing us to lay him on a board and painfully wring its location from him– but not too quickly, mind you.  Nice and slow.  Alas, thanks to the FBI it never came to that.  And no thanks at all to the Leftists on the Portland, OR city council who are more concerned about moral posturing and ideological preening than the safety of their constituents.  If left to them dozens, if not hundreds of Oregonians might be lying dead today if the FBI hadn’t intercepted this monster before somebody else did.  And apparently it was only a matter of time before somebody did get to him.

Portland Rejected FBI who eventually saved city from terrorist attack

In 2005, leaders in Portland, Oregon, angry at the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror, voted not to allow city law enforcement officers to participate in a key anti-terror initiative, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. On Friday, that task force helped prevent what could have been a horrific terrorist attack in Portland.  Now city officials say they might re-think their participation in the task force — because Barack Obama is in the White House.

Reading the FBI affidavit describing Islamist terror suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud’s plan to bomb a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square is a chilling experience.  Mohamud, a Somali-born naturalized U.S. citizen who attended Oregon State University, told undercover FBI agents he dreamed of performing acts of jihad in which hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans would die.  “Do you remember when 9/11 happened when those people were jumping from skyscrapers?” Mohamud asked the agents, according to the affidavit.  “I thought that was awesome.”

In months of preparation with men he thought were co-conspirators but were in fact undercover agents, Mohamud backed up his talk with action.  After initially making email contact with Islamist radicals in Pakistan, he took part in constructing what he hoped would be an extraordinarily powerful bomb, scouted the best location for the attack, parked the van containing the bomb near the Christmas tree crowd, and, finally, dialed the cell phone number he believed would detonate the explosives. “I want whoever is attending that event to leave either dead or injured,” Mohamud said of the 25,000 people expected to take part in the event.

What is ironic is that the operation that found and stopped Mohamud is precisely the kind of law enforcement work that Portland’s leaders, working with the American Civil Liberties Union, rejected during the Bush years. In April 2005, the Portland city council voted 4 to 1 to withdraw Portland city police officers from participating in the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. Mayor Tom Potter said the FBI refused to give him a top-secret security clearance so he could make sure the officers weren’t violating state anti-discrimination laws that bar law enforcement from targeting suspects on the basis of their religious or political beliefs.

But here’s the kicker.  Portland is now joining the FBI task force because Obama’s president!

Now, there are indications that the Mohamud case might cause city leaders to change their mind about the FBI and the war on terror. Current mayor Sam Adams, who says he was not aware of the Mohamud investigation until after Mohamud had been arrested, told the Oregonian newspaper that he might ask the city council to reconsider the decision to pull out of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.  Because he now realizes the city was wrong?  Not at all. “[Adams] stressed that he has much more faith in the Obama administration and the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s office now than he did in 2005,” the paper reported.

Leftism is deadly.  Read the rest.

This was the silver lining for me when Obama won the presidency.  His victory would allow Liberals and Democrats to begin acting like Americans again.  We could now fight terrorism in earnest!  And at least in mayor Adam’s case I appear to have been right.  Leftists like mayor Adams aren’t pro-Islamism, and they certainly aren’t pro-terrorism.  So what gives?  Easy.  We have already discussed this at CCHQ. During the Cold War, Liberals weren’t necessarily proCommunist. Rather, they were anti those who were anticommunist. In other words, they were anti all things “the Right.”  If conservatives during the Cold War were hawks, it was the Left’s job to be soft on communism.  It was their job to be anti-the anti-Soviets. In knee-jerk fashion, they mocked the likes of Ronald Reagan as “chickenhawks” and warmongers.  That same impulse to be anti-all things “the Right” is alive and well today, compelling modern Liberals to be anti-the anti-terrorists. Before the Age of Obama, they were anti-Bush, anti-war on terror, as surely as they were anti-FBI terrorism task force in Portland, OR.  They are the true reactionaries.  We at CCHQ identified this syndrome back in August, and now the Weekly Standard confirms it:

Anti-Anti-Islamism

When Cat Stevens was introduced at Jon Stewart’s recent “Rally to Restore Sanity,” the musician also known by his Muslim name Yusuf Islam was greeted with warm applause and howls of approval. It was a strange reception coming from a culturally savvy, mostly twentysomething audience, for while Stevens’s songs are a staple in the 1970s schlock-folk canon, he is best known these days for having supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa demanding the execution of novelist Salman Rushdie.

Stevens has tried to whitewash his record over the years, without ever acknowledging or apologizing for his comments, including his response to a British interviewer’s question as to whether he would attend a demonstration to burn an effigy of the writer; Stevens answered glibly that he “hoped that it’d be the real thing.”

“I don’t know why no one in that crowd booed Stevens, or heckled him when he was introduced,” says the British author Nick Cohen, who was in contact with Rushdie after the rally. “Rushdie phoned Stewart, who said he was sorry if it upset him, but it was clear Stewart didn’t really care.”

Presumably what mattered to Stewart and the rally’s cosponsor Stephen Colbert was less Stevens’s willingness to join in the bloodlust of the Islamic Republic of Iran (the fatwa has been reaffirmed by Iran’s current supreme leader, Ali Khamenei) than the fact that Stevens/Islam had been put on a no-fly list by the Bush administration. Never mind that the folk singer had been identified as having donated to a Muslim charity with ties to Hamas; anyone considered unfriendly by Bush is an ally.

Source

This is the essence of modern Liberalism.  It isn’t a coherent, systematic belief system or ideology.  They are simply anti the Right, anti conservative.  That’s why their tent is so large and fractious.  Many are the Right’s enemies.  But they agree on one thing, and one thing only– they despise the Right.  Little else binds them.

November 15, 2010

Obama Admin: No KSM Trial in NY

Remember how “Boooosh” was shredding the Constitution?  Well, two years into the Age of Obama, no more “fierce moral urgency” and all that claptrap we heard from the Libs for 8 years during the Bush years.  You knew they were deluded, but you figured at least they were sincere. Nope.  It was all just partisan hogwash and chicanery.  Somebody owes George W. Bush an apology.

The accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, may remain behind bars without trial indefinitely because of disagreement over his trial location, according to the Washington Post.

The Obama administration has concluded it can’t go ahead with its original plan to have the trial in federal court in New York because of opposition from lawmakers and local officials, the Post said. There is little support for reviving an effort to hold a military trial at Guantanamo Bay, according to the Post.

Obama administration officials said Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators can be held under laws of war, until a trial location is agreed on, the newspaper reported.

The Post report came after Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters on Nov. 10 the Obama administration was close to selecting a trial location. Holder said the administration didn’t make a decision on whether the accused should be tried in a civilian court or before a military commission.

Source

November 14, 2010

The Post-American President

Shellacked and shellshocked.

I am a JFK Liberal– what today we call “conservative.”  This was American Liberalism before the Frankfurt School sunk its moral and cultural relativist hooks into it and transformed the Liberalism of our youth into an ideology of decline, mired in self-loathing and doubt after the Great Wars shattered any further illusions that modernity would usher in an era of Earthly paradise.  They would avoid another apocalypse by “not taking sides.”  To a question about American exceptionalism, President Obama uncomfortably and awkwardly answered that he believes in American exceptionalism the way the Greeks and Brits believe in their own exceptionalism (except the Greeks don’t believe in their exceptionalism unless they’re speaking about the ancient Greeks).  By equating it with mere “national pride,” this was a roundabout way of telling his European audience that he does not believe in American exceptionalism.  An answer you’d expect from a detached college professor, not our nation’s leader.  That’s why I believe the Obama presidency will fail.  Notwithstanding his own self-serving autobiographies, the book has not yet been written on the Age of Obama.  Nevertheless, it’s not looking very good at this point– and not because he is less than innately brilliant as a human being (though modern Liberalism certainly does make you more stupid). But because, well– as a child of the Left–  he can’t and won’t embrace Americanism. He won’t take sides.

No Camelot 2.0: The decline of liberal idealism

For the now aging partisans of Camelot, November is a month of anniversaries. It was 50 years ago last week when John F. Kennedy was elected to the presidency as the sophisticated champion of the new liberalism. And it was 47 years ago next week that the dreams of Camelot were cruelly snuffed out on the streets of Dallas.

The dual anniversaries signify the extreme emotions of hope and despair that recollections of the Kennedy years still provoke among those whose political outlooks were shaped during that era. They are one reason why we have yet to find closure as to the meaning of the Kennedy presidency. Still viewed from extreme and shifting perspectives, JFK’s administration has yet to come into clear focus. Nor, according to some, is Camelot yet a thing of the past. For nearly 50 years it has inspired hopes in many that Kennedy’s spirit eventually will be renewed in the person of some new champion.

Thus it was that Barack Obama came to the presidency two years ago amid breathless expectations that he would restore the spirit of Camelot and revive the fortunes of liberalism. Much as happened with JFK, Obama’s admirers showered him with superlatives out of proportion to his actual accomplishments. The Camelot legend, if it had been studied and its lessons taken to heart, might have proved a cautionary tale about the consequences of excessive ambition and of successes gained too early and without effort. The Arthurian tale, after all, does not have a “lived happily ever after” ending.

Nor, as things are beginning to look, will the Obama presidency. The “shellacking” his party took in the midterm elections has killed off all hopes that he will preside over a renewal of any kind, unless it is a renewal of conservatism in response to his missteps and miscalculations. Rarely in the past has a president been so sharply rebuked by the voters in a midterm election. Nor has a president ever squandered so quickly the kinds of political advantages that Obama carried with him into office. Understandably, then, the references to Camelot and to JFK are not much heard these days.

Obama might have learned a thing or two from the real JFK as opposed to the idealized image of the man that took shape after his death. The posthumous references to Kennedy’s idealism have obscured the fact that he was a politician of exceptional skill for whom persuasion and compromise were keys to success. He never wanted to get too far ahead of public opinion, nor did he try to ram through controversial legislation on partisan votes. Though elected by a razor-thin margin in 1960, Kennedy managed to gain a stalemate for his party in the 1962 midterm elections. He was still widely popular in late 1963 when he embarked on that visit to Texas. Had he lived, he undoubtedly would have won reelection by a comfortable margin.

In truth, the Camelot ideal never fit Obama, who brought to the presidency a sense of ambivalence about the American future and America’s role in the world. It is hard to play the role of inspiring leader while counseling one’s citizens to scale back their expectations. While President Obama is capable of eloquence, his attempts often fall short because they are accompanied by an undertow of caution and pessimism.

It is hard to imagine Obama saying, as Kennedy did, that “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Such bold calls to arms were perfectly consistent with the Liberalism of Kennedy’s time, but for many reasons are at odds with the Liberalism of today. For better or worse, Obama’s ambitions do not approach the high ideals of Camelot—and he and his admirers might be better off if they acknowledged that.

Read the rest.

November 2, 2010

Chris Matthews, then and Now

What a difference an election can make.  Here is Chris “thrill up my leg” Matthews on Obama in ’08.  That was then:

Chris Matthews then: “I felt this thrill going up my leg.”

This is Chris Matthews now.  The thrill is gone as he explains to Andrea Mitchell how President Obama blew it.  He is biased to the core, but at least he’s intellectually honest in his bias.  That’s more than we can say about Andrea Mitchell who epitomizes everything that is wrong with modern journOlism:

Chris Matthews now: Telemprompters, elitism, lecturing from Obama.

November 1, 2010

Man bows to Car carrying Obama

Filed under: Obama — Tags: — Jesusland @ 06:15

This is sad and a bit touching as well.  The weight of history brought this poor man to his knees.  This black man has an excuse to worship at the shrine of Obama.  So he gets a pass from CCHQ.  But what’s your excuse, lilly white Libs?  You have bought into the Leftist line that patriotism is dangerous and unsophisticated, and then fallen for the cult of personality instead?  How very worldly and urbane of you.  You should know better, morons.  He’s just a man.  And because he turned out to be just a man, some of you are now punishing him for the unrealistic expectations you placed in him.  What a debacle.

Black man kneels before Zod.

Job creation should have been President Obama’s priority ‘number one, two and three”, or at least that’s what this retiring Dem congressman believes. Instead he squandered his mandate pushing cap and trade, financial reform, and Obamacare because he and Pelosi knew they’d not have these kinds of majorities again in our lifetime and they had to act quickly before time ran out, which then became a self-fulfilling prophecy– time ran out. They promised not to overreach, but they did it anyway.  This is why the current economy is his.  Rightly or wrongly, that is the perception, and this is why they will be swept on Tuesday.

October 30, 2010

Obama Heckled at Connecticut Rally

Filed under: Obama — Tags: — Jesusland @ 16:24

Listen to this one.  North Korea?  Nope, a Dem rally by the Fearless Leader.  Here Obama gets heckled by his own.  The Left turned on Obama when they discovered he couldn’t give them what they wanted (he’s not a freakin king).  Republicans get heckled too, and when they do the crowd comes to their defense with chants of USA! USA! USA! to drown out the hecklers.  To the Left it’s a sign of our crypto-fascism.  But listen to the chant Dems use to drown out the hecklers.  Very telling.  If I was to venture a guess it would be yet more evidence of that cult of personality we call Obamamania.  They mock you for your patriotism but they can’t see what they’ve become– personality worshipping collectivist O-bots.

OBAMA!  OBAMA! OBAMA!

P.S., Bush TRIPLED funding for AIDS in Africa.  But I guess that wasn’t enough:

“The evangelical community raised the awareness of HIV and AIDS to the president,” said Rep. Donald M. Payne (N.J.), the top-ranking Democrat on the House International Relations subcommittee on Africa. “When the Bush administration came in, HIV and AIDS were not an overwhelming priority. Now we have seen a total metamorphosis.”

October 28, 2010

Modern Liberalism’s “bad faith in America”

Black Teabbager Shelby Steel

President Obama as the Redeemer of a fallen nation, not the leader of a great one.  I wish I’d thought of that line.  It encapsulates the Left’s inherent “bad faith in America” (another great line).  This is the elitism you sense even though you can’t always put your finger on it or describe to others.  It results not in merely a desire to improve the country, but for  “fundamental transformation.”  And not gradually and organically, but rapidly and cataclysmically.

By SHELBY STEELE

Whether or not the Republicans win big next week, it is already clear that the “transformative” aspirations of the Obama presidency—the special promise of this first black president to “change” us into a better society—are much less likely to materialize. There will be enough Republican gains to make the “no” in the “party of no” even more formidable, if not definitive.

But apart from this politics of numbers, there is also now a deepening disenchantment with Barack Obama himself. (He has a meager 37% approval rating by the latest Harris poll.) His embarrassed supporters console themselves that their intentions were good; their vote helped make history. But for Mr. Obama himself there is no road back to the charisma and political capital he enjoyed on his inauguration day.

How is it that Barack Obama could step into the presidency with an air of inevitability and then, in less than two years, find himself unwelcome at the campaign rallies of many of his fellow Democrats?

The first answer is well-known: His policymaking has been grandiose, thoughtless and bullying. His health-care bill was ambitious to the point of destructiveness and, finally, so chaotic that today no citizen knows where they stand in relation to it. His financial-reform bill seems little more than a short-sighted scapegoating of Wall Street. In foreign policy he has failed to articulate a role for America in the world. We don’t know why we do what we do in foreign affairs. George W. Bush at least made a valiant stab at an American rationale—democratization—but with Mr. Obama there is nothing.

All this would be enough to explain the disillusionment with this president—and with the Democratic Party that he leads. But there is also a deeper disjunction. There is an “otherness” about Mr. Obama, the sense that he is somehow not truly American. “Birthers” doubt that he was born on American soil. Others believe that he is secretly a Muslim, or in quiet simpatico with his old friends, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, now icons of American radicalism.

But Barack Obama is not an “other” so much as he is a child of the 1960s. His coming of age paralleled exactly the unfolding of a new “counterculture” American identity. And this new American identity—and the post-1960s liberalism it spawned—is grounded in a remarkable irony: bad faith in America as virtue itself, bad faith in the classic American identity of constitutional freedom and capitalism as the way to a better America. So Mr. Obama is very definitely an American, and he has a broad American constituency. He is simply the first president we have seen grounded in this counterculture American identity. When he bows to foreign leaders, he is not displaying “otherness” but the counterculture Americanism of honorable self-effacement in which America acknowledges its own capacity for evil as prelude to engagement.

Bad faith in America became virtuous in the ’60s when America finally acknowledged so many of its flagrant hypocrisies: the segregation of blacks, the suppression of women, the exploitation of other minorities, the “imperialism” of the Vietnam War, the indifference to the environment, the hypocrisy of puritanical sexual mores and so on. The compounding of all these hypocrisies added up to the crowning idea of the ’60s: that America was characterologically evil. Thus the only way back to decency and moral authority was through bad faith in America and its institutions, through the presumption that evil was America’s natural default position.

Among today’s liberal elite, bad faith in America is a sophistication, a kind of hipness. More importantly, it is the perfect formula for political and governmental power. It rationalizes power in the name of intervening against evil—I will use the government to intervene against the evil tendencies of American life (economic inequality, structural racism and sexism, corporate greed, neglect of the environment and so on), so I need your vote.

“Hope and Change” positioned Mr. Obama as a conduit between an old America worn down by its evil inclinations and a new America redeemed of those inclinations. There was no vision of the future in “Hope and Change.” It is an expression of bad faith in America, but its great ingenuity was to turn that bad faith into political motivation, into votes.

But there is a limit to bad faith as power, and Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party may have now reached that limit. The great weakness of bad faith is that it disallows American exceptionalism as a rationale for power. It puts Mr. Obama and the Democrats in the position of forever redeeming a fallen nation, rather than leading a great nation. They bet on America’s characterological evil and not on her sense of fairness, generosity or ingenuity.

Our great presidents have been stewards, men who broadly identified with the whole of America. Stewardship meant responsibility even for those segments of America where one might be reviled. Surely Mr. Obama would claim such stewardship. But he has functioned more as a redeemer than a steward, a leader who sees a badness in us from which we must be redeemed. Many Americans are afraid of this because a mandate as grandiose as redemption justifies a vast expansion of government. A redeemer can’t just tweak and guide a faltering economy; he will need a trillion- dollar stimulus package. He can’t take on health care a step at a time; he must do it all at once, finally mandating that every citizen buy in.

Next week’s election is, among other things, a referendum on the idea of president-as- redeemer. We have a president so determined to transform and redeem us from what we are that, by his own words, he is willing to risk being a one-term president. People now wonder if Barack Obama can pivot back to the center like Bill Clinton did after his set-back in ’94. But Mr. Clinton was already a steward, a policy wonk, a man of the center. Mr. Obama has to change archetypes.

Read the rest.

October 18, 2010

The Elitism of the Left

President Obama to Americans: you are morons

As previously noted here, here, here, and here, when the Republicans lose elections they blame the Democrats (and conservatives blame Republicans).  When the Democrats (and Liberals) lose elections they blame the American people.  This is a decidedly Leftwing trait.  Is this a surprise given they see themselves as “citizens of the world” internationalists, and therefore separate and distinct from, and superior to regular rube Americans like you and me?  Back in my Lib days it was a given among my fellow travellers that the American people were stupid, and we took great delight in counting the ways.  After all, they had decisively rejected Mondale and Dukakis!  Even President Obama’s carefully calibrated language can’t hide his innately Liberal and elitist contempt for you. What can I say, they are anti-American.  Nauseating.

Obama’s Dime Store Sociology

This recent story from Politico caught my attention.

President Barack Obama said Americans’ “fear and frustration” is to blame for an intense midterm election cycle that threatens to derail the Democratic agenda.

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country’s scared.”

Not the first time we’ve heard comments like this.  Remember these comments about the Israeli people?

During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that “some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion.”

And who could forget this shot at the bitter clingers of small town Pennsylvania?

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

This kind of dime store sociological explanation is pretty common for the president, despite the fact that it landed him in hot water back in the spring of 2008.  These comments have three traits in common.

(a) He doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. Obama might seem like a sociological expert, but he really just plays one on television.  For instance, explaining the cultural conservatism of small town Pennsylvania as an artifact of economic decline sounds extremely ill-informed to anybody with at least passing familiarity of the subject.

(b) Hardships generate a false consciousness that always seems to manifest itself as irrational opposition to…Obama. As far as Obama is concerned, the fact that the country is disappointed with his performance is not a sign that he hasn’t done what he promised, but that the country is not thinking clearly.

(c) He turns fellow citizens into sociological subjects. It is one thing for a professor doing a study to treat other human beings as subjects; it’s another for the president of the United States to do it.  There is a condescending, anti-republican quality to these statements.  Rather than take opposition at face value – President Obama locates the hidden causes behind it, causes that his fellow citizens do not even understand themselves.

This is a terribly bad habit of President Obama’s.  It comes across as arrogant and condescending, and it doesn’t do a thing to help persuade people.

Source

September 26, 2010

Flaming Korans, Victory Mosques, Leftist Hypocrisy

The episode involving the kooky Florida pastor who threatened to burn the Koran was what you might call a teachable moment for me.  I had mixed feelings about the whole thing from start to finish.  On the one hand I felt that it was wrong to insult Muslims without specific cause, but on the other I thought it could serve as a much needed blow against PC (not against Muslims).  Anything to wake us from our Left-induced stupor.  But I also worried about the visuals and that it might backfire on us.  So my thinking on the matter wasn’t settled.  The kook pastor represents the most extreme and fringe element to be found in the Christian world, and yet even he didn’t have the guts to follow through on his threats.  That pretty much disproves the Left’s narrative about fundamentalist Christianity as far as I’m concerned.  Our fundies can’t even muster the nerve to burn an inanimate object.  Scary, aren’t they?  I was also disgusted by the one-way sensitivity the Left shows for Islam after decades of blashpeming Jesus and desecrating Christian symbols in the name of art and freedom of speech.  Their outrage was obviously false.  Perhaps if the pastor had applied for an NEA grant and burned the Koran as performance art that would have made it more acceptable.   And what about that pastor’s free speech rights?  If you’re a Liberal, free speech obviously only applies to Leftists desecrating Christian symbols and Muslims building victory mosques at Ground Zero.  You see, those are shots against “the Man,” so every level of their transgression can be defended on the grounds of “free speech.”  At the very least, we owe that Florida pastor a debt of gratitude for exposing their hypocrisy to the light of day.  But the rabbit hole goes far deeper in Mark Steyn’s excellent column as he slices and dices Muslim and Liberal hypocrisy and the one-way sensitivity that is multiculturalism.  This is a CCHQ must read.

MOLLIFYING MUSLIMS, AND MUSLIFYING MOLLIES

Too many people in the free world have internalized Islam’s view of them. [They have internalized the neo-Marxist narrative of “the other”, a modern update of the “noble savage”]. A couple of years ago, I visited Guantanamo and subsequently wrote that, if I had to summon up Gitmo in a single image, it would be the brand-new copy of the Koran in each cell: To reassure incoming prisoners that the filthy infidels haven’t touched the sacred book with their unclean hands, the Korans are hung from the walls in pristine, sterilized surgical masks. It’s one thing for Muslims to regard infidels as unclean, but it’s hard to see why it’s in the interests of us infidels to string along with it and thereby validate their bigotry. What does that degree of prostration before their prejudices tell them about us? It’s a problem that Muslims think we’re unclean. It’s a far worse problem that we go along with it.

Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn’t burn any buildings or women and children. He didn’t even burn a book. He hadn’t actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the President of the United States to denounce him, and the Secretary of State, and the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, various G7 leaders, and golly, even Angelina Jolie. President Obama has never said a word about honor killings of Muslim women. Secretary Clinton has never said a word about female genital mutilation. General Petraeus has never said a word about the rampant buggery of pre-pubescent boys by Pushtun men in Kandahar. But let an obscure man in Florida so much as raise the possibility that he might disrespect a book – an inanimate object – and the most powerful figures in the western world feel they have to weigh in.

Aside from all that, this obscure church’s website has been shut down, its insurance policy has been canceled, its mortgage has been called in by its bankers. Why? As Diana West wrote, why was it necessary or even seemly to make this pastor a non-person? Another one of Obama’s famous “teaching moments”? In this case teaching us that Islamic law now applies to all? Only a couple of weeks ago, the President, at his most condescendingly ineffectual, presumed to lecture his moronic subjects about the First Amendment rights of Imam Rauf. Where’s the condescending lecture on Pastor Jones’ First Amendment rights?

When someone destroys a bible, US government officials don’t line up to attack him. President Obama bowed lower than a fawning maitre d’ before the King of Saudi Arabia, a man whose regime destroys bibles as a matter of state policy, and a man whose depraved religious police forces schoolgirls fleeing from a burning building back into the flames to die because they’d committed the sin of trying to escape without wearing their head scarves. If you show a representation of Mohammed, European commissioners and foreign ministers line up to denounce you. If you show a representation of Jesus Christ immersed in your own urine, you get a government grant for producing a widely admired work of art. Likewise, if you write a play about Jesus having gay sex with Judas Iscariot.

So just to clarify the ground rules, if you insult Christ, the media report the issue as freedom of expression: A healthy society has to have bold, brave, transgressive artists willing to question and challenge our assumptions, etc. But, if it’s Mohammed, the issue is no longer freedom of expression but the need for “respect” and “sensitivity” toward Islam, and all those bold brave transgressive artists don’t have a thing to say about it.

Read the rest.

August 25, 2010

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on GZ Mosque

We are the most tolerant country on earth.  It’s time for Islam to reciprocate some of that tolerance.

“These people are playing the Liberal Establishment elite for all it’s worth.”

August 17, 2010

9/11 Widow on Obama’s Support for Ground Zero Mosque

9/11 widow, Debra Burlingame, and old school Democrat, Pat Caddell have some seriously sharp words for our healer in Chief.  This video also contains some very important information on the mosque Imam himself.  This is a CCHQ must see.

“The same people who have been driving religion out of the public square for the last 20 years have finally found a religion they can get behind.”

“When the Lockerbie bomber was released last year, he [Obama] couldn’t bring himself to denounce the British government, but on Ramadan two days ago he essentially denounced the American people.”

“[Obama] is about to blow up the Democratic Party.  This issue is a knife poised at the heart of his party.”

August 16, 2010

Obama Votes Present on Ground Zero Mega Mosque

Perhaps another beer summit is in order here.  To date, just about every first move President Obama makes is bound to be the wrong one.  Here he proves it yet again as he backs off his initially strong defense of the 9/11 mosque in favor of a softer more “nuanced” approach.  He now says Muslims have the constitutional right to build the mega mosque, but withholds judgment on their moral responsibility NOT to do so. In other words, he adds nothing at all to the debate because nobody is denying those Muslims their constitutional right to do anything.  Our objections are purely moral.  And on those grounds the Healer in Chief remains absolutely silent.  In other words he backpedaled from his initial clutzy response, and now votes PRESENT.  But the damage is done, and you can expect to see his poll numbers continue to tank as even more bitter clingers fall away from him.  It’s Obama’s mosque now.  May he choke on it.

Mosque flap swirls around Obama

Obama’s comments Friday night — at an Iftar dinner at the White House marking the start of Ramadan — were widely reported as offering support for the specific mosque project in question near Ground Zero.

But on Saturday, Obama seemed to contradict himself, telling reporters at one point, “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about. And I think it’s very important as difficult as some of these issues are that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about.”

That impromptu answer to a TV reporter covering his trip to Florida prompted a second attempt to clarify his initial statement, this time from spokesman Bill Burton.

“Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night,” Burton said. “It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the Constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans. What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.”

White House officials later said that Obama was simply saying that since there was no local ordinance that would prevent construction of the mosque, he believed local officials made the right decision to allow it to go forward.

August 13, 2010

The Daily Show: Race Card Is Maxed Out

Jon Steward goes rogue again.  Clearly he must be a racist, as he’s only saying what racist conservatives have been saying for quite some time now.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

But notice they pull back from the edge of the precipice with their race card “void during black presidency”.  Implying, of course, that the race card is maxed out BECAUSE OF RACISM.  lol.  They simply can’t help themselves.


Older Posts »