Evil Genius At Work!

Reg Henry

Please, do not follow this link and give the Pittsburgh Post Gazette any traffic. Apparently the Post Gazette has a special needs hiring program and one Reg Henry has benefited. Mr. Henry writes a column lamenting the evil genius of them damn right-wingers and their attacks on the pure hearted, and good intentioned Barack Hussein Obama. After extolling the genuine goodness of Mr. Obama he takes him to task for just taking to stinking long to think about things. Of course, it's the evil-genius republicans who are forcing PeeBo into this difficult spot. I shall quote from the dimbulb, below:

"This is where the evil geniuses (political) come in. The challenge for them is that old bugbear, reality. They are faced with a president who obviously wants to find the middle road and end partisanship and who is by nature cautious and good-hearted. In human terms, these are endearing traits -- and, of course, that will never do. Reality must be changed because partisanship must endure, otherwise evil geniuses would be unemployed.

The work of changing reality began quickly, even before the election. Almost in the same breath it was put around that not only did Mr. Obama attend the shocking Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Christian church for many years but also he was a Muslim, which would be a very strange thing for a Muslim to do. (When I go to church, I rarely see any Muslims). To sell this bizarre and contradictory notion took genius."

Of course Mr. Henry neglects to mention that Louis Farrakhan is a close personal friend of Jeremiah Wright, and that the Revarund often quoted Crazy Louis. He also fails to point out that Mr. Farrakhan is the cover story of the November/December 2007 issue of Wright’s Trinity United Church Of Christ’s magazine. So as you can see it's highly illogical to assume that PeeBo may have some Muslim leanings.

"The troublesome idea that the president is smart had to be turned around, too. Fortunately for the evil geniuses, Mr. Obama, while visibly tired on the campaign trail, stumbled and referred to 57 states, which confirmed the populist image of ex-presidents of the Harvard Law Review as Dumbos. A normal person would look at this and other slips often mentioned and just laugh but that would be to be underestimate evil and genius both.

The touch of genius is also upon the fuss about teleprompters (all modern presidents have used them) and unconfirmed czars (recent presidents have had them -- and, moreover, when experts were called to Congress to testify about this concern they agreed they were constitutional). Still, you have to admire the genius of those who tied people's knickers in a twist."

Do we really have to go over how smart PeeBo really isn't again?! I'm not going to rehash what a moron the POTUS really is. If you need examples, please see any/every post over at Paul's place. And the whole Teleprompter thing is sooo partisan and evil that even that bastion of right wing ideals, The Onion chronicled it's over use by PeeBo.

"The same can be said of the string pullers for the tea-bag protest movement. The very name conjures up the spirit of those who resisted taxes in Boston long ago, except that one of Mr. Obama's first acts was to pass a stimulus package that included tax cuts for most taxpayers. To make people forget about this was genius, sheer genius."

These must be the tax breaks Mr. Henry was talking about...

Of course, Mr. Henry gets most worked up, however, about those damn tea bag people calling PeeBo a Marxist Socialist!

"But in my view the greatest act of evil genius was to dust off the hoary stereotypes about Marxists and socialists and apply them to Mr. Obama, a leader milquetoast enough to confound any real revolutionaries.

And how can these labels have any sting in an era that thought it proper for Communist China to own most of our debt and produce most of our consumer goods? And how can they call health-care reform socialism when the public option barely hangs on? Genius, my friends, and evil at that."

Because we all know that nationalizing the banking industry and striving to nationalize the healthcare industry are bedrock capitalist principles.

I wonder if Mr. Henry has ever stopped to ponder why the Post Gazette is losing it's ass? The last report I can find of an increase in readership was while Clinton was still playing hide the cigar with Monica.

Please take the time to comment!

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other...

The Teacher and The Student.

Communist News Network posted an article regarding the Anita Dunn controversy. If you're not up to speed on who Anita Dunn is, read all about it and watch the video below.



Now that you know some background, CNN attempted to defend Anita Dunn, offering her claim "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.". Here are some especially interesting quotes from the article. See if you find anything interesting:

Dunn, taped in a speech in what appears to be a church, said the leader's philosophies were a guidepost for her own strategy on politics. She also praised the philosophy used by religious icon Mother Teresa.

"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."

And here's the second part.

Media Matters for America, a liberal media watchdog group, points out that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, also a Fox News contributor, quoted Mao in a 1995 Roll Call profile.

"War is politics with blood; politics is war without blood," Gingrich said, citing Mao.

Karl Rove, another Fox News contributor, wrote in a December 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed that President Bush "encouraged me to read a Mao biography."

Notice any difference between the two? Sure, there's the obvious trying to drag republicans down by tying them in with the source of the controversy, in this case Mao. However, there seems to be a major difference between quoting Mao and stating that he is one of your two favorite political philosophers. Sorry CNN & Media Matters, not the same. Nice try though, fools.

Please take the time to comment!

Bush Administration Stance Toward Iran Vindicated

I remember December of 2007. I remember that every libtard in the country was walking around with freshly wet pants caused by their excitement over the National Intelligence Estimate for Iranian Nuclear Weapons Capability which concluded with a high level of certainty that Iran had abandoned it's aspirations for a nuclear weapon in 2003. And also concluded even if Iran restarted the program, it would be nearly impossible for them to generate a weapon in less than 5-10 years.

I remember every dinosaur media outlet in the country bumping every other major story at the time to headline that Bush had lied about Iran's nuclear capabilities, and had used his strong rhetoric to galvanize the citizens of America into crazed jingoism so that they would support his calls for military action against Iran.

I remember that Bush lied and Ahmadinnerjacket cried. I remember that Bush was defensive about his stance on Iran.

Well, now we know the truth... That Bush guy was a moron! Wait, what? Whadduya mean, 'he was right?!' So Iran didn't abandon their weapons program? Are you sure? Damn, he was right. Sigh.

Turns out that that NIE report was as fake as the picture above. It seems that in this flurry of news coming out regarding Iran's real nuclear capabilities that the dinosaur media has forgotten their own incompetence in reporting the findings of the NIE uncritically. We know that the dinosaur media never highlighted that the NIE's authors included 3 "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials". It also turns out that Western Intel has known about the program and the supposedly secret site for years.

Media mea culpa in 3...2...Wait, it's the media. Nevermind.

Please take the time to comment!

Thomas Frank Model Journalist

These guys are making it too easy. Behold:

There are few things in politics more annoying than the right's utter conviction that it owns the patent on the word "freedom"...

Any increase in the size or duties of government, the right tells us, necessarily subtracts from our freedom. Government is, by its very nature, a destroyer of liberties; the Obama administration, specifically, is promising to interfere with the economy and the health-care system so profoundly that Washington will soon have us all in chains.

I'll speak slowly and use words you're sure to understand. Any time something is mandated by government, i.e. it becomes law, it is then illegal to not do what the government has mandated. For example, health insurance. If the government mandates that people must have health insurance, healthy 20-somethings like myself who are trying to save money for more important things (i.e. starting a business) are penalized. Therefore, I no longer have the freedom not to spend my money on what is important to me, I must spend it on health care, or face a fine. Follow?

That our ancestors could ever have understood freedom as something greater than the absence of the state would probably strike protesters as inconceivable. But they did. You can see it in that famous Norman Rockwell Thanksgiving painting from 1943: "Freedom from Want," an illustration of one of Franklin Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms." Strange though it might sound, this is a form of freedom that pretty much requires government to get involved in the economy in order to "secure to every nation," as Roosevelt put it, "a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants." The idea is still enshrined today in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

First off, the government wasn't nearly as involved in our ancestors life as it is today. I am referencing the same group of ancestors that the author is, the group who were around to hear Franklin Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" when he broadcast it live over the TV... Second, the UN... Really?! What you're failing to see here, is that this is an argument about constitutionality. Please point to the section of the constitution where people are guaranteed the 'freedom from want.' I'll wait.

Conservatives of the 1930s, led by an upper-crust outfit called the American Liberty League, certainly felt that way. "That Roosevelt was a dictator there was no doubt; but Liberty Leaguers were not quite sure what kind," wrote the historian George Wolfskill in "The Revolt of the Conservatives," a 1962 study of that organization. "Some thought he was a fascist, others believed him a socialist or Communist, while others, to be absolutely sure, said he was both."

I'll tell you which kind. A socialist that increased government spending higher and at a faster rate than any other president before or after until PeeBo came along. The guy who pioneered the tax our way into prosperity by taking money from the people and spending it on make work projects. How'd that work out for those in the Great Depression, by the way? It's no secret that FDR idolized his buddy, Papa Joe. The rest of us know him better as Joseph Stalin. So, I don't think the Communist nameplate is as far removed as you liberal FDR lionizers would like to believe, either.

Today, of course, we know that the right's tyranny-fears were nonsense. Most of Roosevelt's innovations have been the law of the land for 70 years now, and yet we are still a free society free enough, that is, to allow tens of thousands of protesters to gather on the National Mall and to broadcast their slogans and speeches to the world via C-SPAN.

By this definition, were every other right guaranteed in the constitution removed, we'd still be 'free.' That means; no press, no freedom of religion, no right to bear arms, no protection from search and seizure, no protection from cruel and unusual punishment, no womens voting rights, shall I continue?

Even such pits of statism as Britain and Canada remain free societies, generally speaking, despite having gone skipping blithely down the universal-health-care road to serfdom decades ago.

They're so free! Just ask Mark Steyn about freedom of speech in Canada.

For the sort of people who gathered on the Mall last weekend, however, I doubt that such observations would matter in the least.

Such observations matter in the least, because they are inherently flawed, and you're a condescending douche who just doesn't get it.

Moment of inadvertent honesty:

Government intervention equals tyranny. Liberalism is forever a form of despotism-in-waiting.

By the way, I'm still waiting...

Please take the time to comment!