More pictures fron the "One Nation" event

From Doug Ross@Journal, via Fred Gregory.









Gives new meaning to the phrase "Take out the trash", doesn't it?

Pelosi: "Unemployment benefits create jobs"

I kid you not....



Hat tip: The Blogging Prof, who goes on to say

"By Pelosi's logic, we should all quit our jobs and become unemployed artists and musicians, because you know - that would be awesome for the economy. This woman isn't qualified to sit on the local school board. She is an absolute and utter idiot and is 3rd in line for the Presidency.We are truly living in a kakistocracy where the least qualified among us are running the show."

The quintessential Looney Lefty: Alan Grayson

First, he waltzes into a meeting of Republicans, and second, he gets into their faces in his already established obnoxious way.

How stupid is this guy?

Excerpt:

"You mean every Congressman doesn't barge into an opposing political party's meeting at a family restaurant while screaming obscenities with spittle-flecked anger?"


From Michelle Malkin (parts of the video shot sideways)

New Duke sexual misconduct policy: You might be a rapist if you're too "powerful"

I kid you not.

Read about it here, from FIRE:

"Duke's vastly overbroad definition of non-consensual sex puts nearly
every student at risk of being found guilty of sexual misconduct. Students are
said to be able to unintentionally coerce others into sexual activity through
'perceived power differentials,' which could include otherwise unremarkable and
consensual liaisons between a varsity athlete and an average student, a senior
and a freshman, or a student government member and a non-member.

Further, students are said to be unable to consent to sexual behavior
when 'intoxicated,' regardless of their level of intoxication. Duke has turned
mutually consensual sexual conduct, which might merely be poorly considered,
into a punishable act. Adding to the confusion, if both parties are intoxicated
at all, both are guilty of sexual misconduct, since neither can officially give
consent. North Carolina law does not support this definition of consent.

'Of course, there is no way that everyone who was
intoxicated during sexual activity, let alone 'perceived' as more powerful, is
going to be charged with sexual misconduct,' said Adam Kissel, Director
of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program. 'Add to that
the provision about an unintentional atmosphere of coercion, and anyone can see
that Duke's policy is impossible to rationalize or to fairly and equitably
enforce. As a result, this policy effectively trivializes real sexual
misconduct, which is a gravely serious crime.'"

Hat tip to Dr. Helen, who adds:

"It seems to me that the most powerful group on
Duke's campus is the group of feminists that got this policy passed. If you have
sex with one of them, you have obviously been raped and need to file charges. "

More at Protein Wisdom:

"Women’s Center Director Ada Gregory was quoted in Duke’s student
newspaper The Chronicle justifying the new policy, saying, 'The higher [the] IQ, the more manipulative they are, the more
cunning they are … imagine the sex offenders we have here at Duke—cream of the
crop.' "

What is WRONG with these people?

#

Regarding the current administration's exceedingly wise judgment

David Axlerod: Obama's very own Baghdad Bob

This has got to be the most absurd rationale about the impact of Tuesday's election I've heard yet:

"David Axelrod, netting the prize for the most shameless display of post-defeat spinning, added an additional father to Bob McDonnell's victory in Virginia: Barack Obama.

McDonnell ran 'not as a Sarah Palin Republican, but more as a Barack Obama centrist,' said Axelrod, according to liberal columnist E.J. Dionne.

Axelrod's fanciful description of Obama as a 'centrist' betrays what he denies: that hundreds of thousands of voters in major states once thought permanently blue did recoil from a year of radical, Obama-led change, both real and proposed."

Friedman joins Krugman in the Over the Edge category

Times must be tough for Tommy Terrific Friedman, and he needs to draw some attention to his work.

That's the only logical explanation for his recent Times column telling us of the greatness of ChiComm one party rule.

Kenneth Anderson takes the arrogant and pretentious Krugman wannabee to task.

"Friedman does not mean this merely. . .in the sense that there are better and worse autocrats and dictators. That point was forcefully and correctly made by Jeane Kirkpatrick back in Dictators and Double-Standards in the 1980s. No, lest anyone misunderstand him, Friedman is at pains to emphasize that he is not doing a Double-Standards Dictators, Least Worst Alternative analysis here. That would be important, as assessing tradeoffs usually is. On the contrary, he is deliberately comparing autocracy and democracy, and specifically China and the United States, and finding the latter wanting by the admirably robust standards of the former.

Friedman does not mean this merely. . .in the sense that there are better and worse autocrats and dictators. That point was forcefully and correctly made by Jeane Kirkpatrick back in Dictators and Double-Standards in the 1980s. No, lest anyone misunderstand him, Friedman is at pains to emphasize that he is not doing a Double-Standards Dictators, Least Worst Alternative analysis here. That would be important, as assessing tradeoffs usually is. On the contrary, he is deliberately comparing autocracy and democracy, and specifically China and the United States, and finding the latter wanting by the admirably robust standards of the former.

There is the dismaying whiff here of the 1930s and the loss of faith in those years by political elites and the chattering classes in the future of parliamentary democracy as measured against the robust and healthy decision-making processes of those, uh, non-parliamentary systems; a loss of faith in the ideal of parliamentary democracy when what, in fact, was warranted was a loss of faith in a particular cadre of corrupt and cynical political elites themselves. There is decadence here, but it is not the decadence of democracy. (Update: To be clear, before chattering classes get all chattery ... it is just a whiff, of decadence, and no, not the F-word.) The impasse of the American political class over reaching Friedman's elite-preferences on everything from health care to climate change, and his dismissal of the processes of democracy in favor of China's autocratic rule, lead him to th[] remarkable thought [that one-party autocracy is better than what we have in the United States today]

It is characteristic of Thomas Friedman's thought to move from particular issues of policy to sweeping conclusions about the Nature of Man and God and the Universe, typically based around some attractively packaged metaphor - flat earth, hot earth, etc. Rarely, however, has he been quite so clear about the directness of the connections he sees between his preferred set of substantive outcomes; his contempt for American democratic processes that have, despite all, managed to hang in there for, I don't know, a few times the length of time between the Cultural Revolution and today; and his schoolgirl crush on autocratic elites because they are able to impose from above.

Let me just say for the record that this is a monstrous column. When faced with American public defection from elite-preferred outcomes on certain policy issues that involve many difficult tradeoffs of the kind that democracies, with much jostling and argument, are supposed to work out among many different groups, Friedman extols the example of ... China's political system, because it's both enlightened and autocratic? Who among us knew?"

Hat tip: PowerLine.

Obama's "green czar" exposed as a Truther

The Obamanation looney tooners keep on popping up, don't they?

Even worse, the partisan hack creep/clown and his administration enablers initially denied it.

Excerpt:

"It looks like the well-oiled Axelrodian machine in the White House forgot about Google when they released their statement.

Bummer."

Here's Krauthammer on the subject:

#

WaPo: Obamacare in its current form is dead

Key point:

".....it is time for Dr. Obama to take charge of this difficult case. He must come up with a plan or embrace one -- perhaps the long-awaited Senate Finance Committee proposal. And he must sell it as perhaps not perfect but the best that can be achieved and far preferable to the status quo. Because right now, his patient needs some intensive care."

What are the chances of the Loony Toon/Kook Kos Klan contingent actually buying into that sort of thing?

Slim to none.

They would rather see their cherished agenda item fail than actually achieving some real reform that would be a benefit to the entire nation..

That way, they would have plenty of political fodder to use in their babble, dribble, drool, and spew against conservatives.

#

Today's "Oh, but that was different" flashback

Let's go back to the events of 1-20-2005, shall we?


Excerpts:

-- “Us Democrats are going to get up in arms...we’ll have to come out and do what we have to do in the spirit of revolution. We’ll have to come out and kill somebody, I guess.”

-- One sign had a double-digit number of swastikas: large swastikas with President Bush’s face superimposed and smaller ones replacing the letter “s” in the president’s surname

-- A number of “Buck Fush” signs and stickers, which shouldn’t need explaining to the dyslexic

-- “Bush=Death”

-- “Karl Rove is a Nazi, and so is Bush”

Finally, from the blogger himself:

"Next time you see a media report that unfairly paints town hall protesters as extremists, send this page to the editor, the ombudsman, or whatever contact you can find. Show them this documentation and ask them where all their outrage was when the target was a Republican president, not a Democrat."

(Hat tip: Instapundit)

But to hear the "regressives" tell it, all this sort of thing only started on 1-20-2009.

#

Remember the "Rightwing Extremism" nonsense frm DHS?

It's been exposed as just another outrageous example of Thug Politics by the Obamanation to suppress dissent, in the same manner of the campaign to de-legitimize the widespread objections to Obamacare.

Noteworthy:

"In defining 'rightwing extremism,' the Department of Homeland Security memo targeted 'groups, movements, and adherents… that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority' and 'groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,' beliefs that represent tens of millions of Americans who are neither extremists nor terrorists.

In its assessment, DHS reported that returning veterans would be recruited by terrorist groups, that gun control legislation and the election of Barack Obama would attract new members to 'rightwing extremist' groups, and that the economic downturn too was ripening “extremist” sentiments. It stated that 'lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.' It said this threat was 'because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.'

As a result, what DHS claimed to be looking for was less than a needle in a haystack, making law enforcement efforts to develop a profile of potential suspects futile. And since the report was not based on actual intelligence gathered by DHS or another agency by individuals who had penetrated actual terrorist cells, and rather were based upon the ravings of the hard left and conspiracists, its conclusions were and are highly dubious. Instead they would have led to the monitoring of potentially millions of law-abiding Americans."

Of course, according to our Useful Idiot/"Regressive", element, it's all just so much blowback to the dopey, hopey, 'n changey party they're enjoying, not genuine worry from people who are concerned about the real dangers that this renegade administration represents.

#

"Oh, but THAT was different......"

Likely rationale from Usual Suspects/"Regressives" near and far?

"That was then. This is now."

Hat tip: GM's Place.

Camille Paglia: "Obama's healthcare horror"

"Heads should roll -- beginning with Nancy Pelosi's!'

Those "progressives" who are paying attentions see what their blinded-by-the-agenda pals do not:

"You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.

I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.

......And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the 'mob' -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.

But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable 'casual conversations' to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it."

Do you really think Obama, Pelosi, the compliant Demogogue majority in Congress, and their Looney Tooner "reform' supporters really care about any of this, Ms. Pagalia?

#

Today's version of "The Truth Is Out There!"

"Those damned Jews are responsible for all the flu outbreaks!"

Excerpt:

"Holland's largest daily, De Telegraf last week printed an interview with Désirée Röver, 61, who proposed the bird flu pandemic, caused by the virus H5N1, was part of an international conspiracy to reduce the world's population.

Röver is quoted as saying the conspiracy can be traced back to a group of descendants of the Khazars, a nation from the Caucasus believed to have converted to Judaism 1,200 years ago.

De Telegraaf quotes her as saying that these descendants are now 'praying to another god; Lucifer, Satan, or however you want to call him' and 'are called Rockefeller, Rothschild, Brezinski and Kissinger.' "

Hat tip: Best of the Web Today.

This goes to prove that like in the case of "progressives, you can always count on the rapaciousness of anti-Semites. And of course at times, some people belong to both groups .

#