Tag Archives: New York Times

Re-Writing Benghazi for Political Purposes

In typical Progressive fashion, the New York Times set itself to re-writing the events of al Qaeda’s 2012 attack on the US embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya; an attack that took the lives of four Americans, including a US ambassador. At any other point in the history of our country, the assassination of a US ambassador by a foe that launched an attack against American citizens the magnitude of September 11, 2001, would be greeted with a united front; embraced as tantamount to an act of war. But the United States has been co-opted by the Progressive Movement and when one of their own is in the White House – or when one of their own is positioning for the White House – history is subject to revision.

Incredibly, the New York Times – long understood by “the aware” to have ceased being a provider of truth and fact, in deference to position and ideology – has issued a “report” that not only flies in the face of the facts (facts acknowledged not only by State Department officials intimate with the events, but by factious elements of al Qaeda in Libya) but go well beyond any semblance of credibility in its conclusions:

“The investigation by The Times shows that …Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

“The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses…”

This accounting completely disregards many facts that congressional hearings have brought forth from State Department and CIA operatives knowledgeable on the events of September 11, 2012. It also defies testimony by those with infinitely more knowledge on military capabilities than a lone researcher at the New York Times, including elected intelligence committee members from both sides of the political divide:

“‘I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,’ Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told FOX News Sunday.  He also repeatedly said the story was ‘not accurate.’

“Rogers was joined on the show by California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, ‘intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.’”

That said, the efforts by New York Times researcher David D. Kirkpatrick are not centered in confronting the facts of the events of Benghazi, they are focused on changing the narrative ahead of the 2016 General Election.

It cannot be denied that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – now the Progressive front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president two years out from the 2016 General Election – was considerably marginalized by not only ineffective stewardship of the embassy compound in Benghazi in the days prior to the attack, but by the almost non-existent  response during the attack and the incredibly  inept response to the slaughter when called on the carpet by those elected to represent the people. This “triple whammy,” if left “un-spun,” would cripple the candidacy of even the most connected of Progressives – even with the support of a favorable mainstream media.

Enter the New York Times and David D. Kirkpatrick. Devoted sycophants to the Progressive cause, they have embarked on the rejuvenation of Ms. Clinton’s political reputation by attempting to re-write the facts of the event, already proven, in an effort to move her out of the ring of responsibility; in an effort to remove the stain of culpability and responsibility from the fabric of her candidacy. Sadly, even those in the mainstream media who exist on the Right side of the political divide, are tunnel-visioned in their focus; focused on the report and the reports conclusions rather than the motives behind the creation of the report – a work of fiction in its conclusions.

If the establishment Right – both inside the beltway and in the mainstream media, along with the Conservatives in the new media, fail to spotlight this blatant attempt to re-write history; fail to spotlight and explain the motives behind this manipulation of the truth, then we, as a nation, will have fallen – once again – for the Progressive tactic of re-definition of words, facts and events, in their quest to advance the Progressive agenda – and agents who would advance that agenda – into the accepted American lexicon.

The fact of the matter – and this cannot be denied when the facts are acknowledged and accepted – is this: Ms. Clinton failed to answer the “emergency 3am phone call” and because of that people died and an act of war against the United States by our global foe – al Qaeda and the radical Islamists who fuel the movement – was executed. In Ms. Clinton’s failure to act as an adequate steward of the US State Department, and in her refusal to resign for President Obama’s completely disingenuous excuse for the catalyst for the attacks – an excuse that Mr. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times have advanced – she has exposed herself as just another Progressive political minion who will do anything and say anything to gain power; who will lie, cheat, steal and deceive to advance the Progressive cause.

But then, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Hurricane Sandy: Obama’s Social–Worker–in–Chief Moment

Obama urging the National Weather Service to find more bad weather before the election.

Hurricane Sandy — much like Barack Obama — turned out to be an over–hyped phenomenon that failed to deliver. Our portion of the storm in Northern Virginia was so weak the Multicultural Commissars didn’t even bother to give it a Hispanic name, like last summer’s “derecho” (formerly known as “severe thunderstorm”).

I tried to lend a hand and come up with a culturally–sensitive name, but Spanish for “Sandy” is still “Sandy,” making it tough to appear cutting edge during a TV broadcast.

“Hurricane” translates as “huracán” and the resulting “Huracán Sandy” fails to advance the cause of linguistic arrogance. It doesn’t compare with changing the perfectly good name of “Bombay” to “Mumbai.” All that did was confuse millions of Americans looking for a particular large city in India. (The Indians already knew where it was.)

Besides, where does one draw the line? Does the “pecan sandie” cookie become the “sandie pacana?”

There were houses smashed by downed trees in my neighborhood — certainly a disaster for the affected homeowners — but nothing to compare with the “derecho.”

Even during the height of the hype, my household preparations were limited to bracing for a potential power outage. Since our family has never associated bowel movements with natural disasters, we even missed the ‘Assault on Food Lion.’ Because we don’t feel compelled to buy a pallet–load of toilet paper anytime it’s overcast for three consecutive days.

The local paper wrote of a Dominion Power repairman that just missed being drowned by rising floodwaters. But who noticed the unsung American Disposal Services crews braving wind and rain to pick up household trash during the beginning of the blow? While government employees, enjoying the shutdown, watched from their front window.

Naturally Obama’s media amen chorus and the administration itself, are doing their best to politicize the storm. There was extensive damage in New Jersey and New York. So the WaPost proclaims, “Storm provides Obama with a commander–in–chief moment.” Which only goes to show the mainstream media (MSM) thinks we’ll believe anything.

The attack on the consulate in Libya provided Obama with a genuine “commander–in–chief” moment where he could have affected events on the ground, which is something “commanders” do. But Obama failed miserably.

Hurricane Sandy provides him with a Social–Worker–in–Chief moment, a situation with which community organizers are much more comfortable. Obama took a helicopter tour while the wind was still blowing. Yet FBI investigators had to wait weeks before they could visit the ruined consulate in Libya, only to discover the scene hopelessly compromised by hundreds of journalists and sightseers who didn’t wait for administration approval.

And to show benighted conservatives how fortunate we are to have Obama in the White House, the WaPost adds: “Rarely, if ever, has a president had to deal with such a major disaster so close to Election Day…”

What’s “rare” — in fact unprecedented — is the MSM allowing an administration to take a bye on a disaster like Libya so close to an election. Governors in New York and New Jersey call Obama for help and he’s Johnny–on–the–spot. SEALs in Libya call for backup during an attack that kills four Americans, including the ambassador, and get an administration brush off.

If only Libya had a few more votes in the Electoral College.

The story also includes a breathless blow–by–blow of his day.  During a videoconference Obama uses the MSNBC slogan as he orders the bureaucracy to “lean forward on this.”

Then he holds a conference call with utility executives and “underscore(s) the urgency of restoring electricity,” as if the people at PEPCO were unaware their customers depend on electric power.

This is busy work in a pathetic effort to look engaged and presidential. It compares unfavorably with Obama’s trip to a Las Vegas fundraiser the evening we learned of Ambassador Stevens’ death.

The New York Times editorial page weighed in with, “A Big Storm Requires Big Government,” possibly indicating the NYT believes severe weather to be a recent invention.

Maybe they have a point. How could we do without FEMA officials “embedded in states’ emergency operations centers” getting the latest from local police, local fire and local officials. Then trying to decide how to give tax dollars taken from the states, back to the states after Uncle Sam has taken his cut for overhead, motivational speakers and government employee awards.

How did we survive disasters before Jimmy Carter’s FEMA got involved?

When I think of the abandoned buildings, the decaying harbor and the rusting trolley cars — all this could have been prevented if only Washington had helped after the San Francisco earthquake.

To say nothing of the vast desert, formerly known as Chicago, after the fire of 1871…

Romney Will Kill Medicaid – Really!

When you can’t run on a record, what is one to do? Scare the masses, of course. It’s a bonus if you can demonize the opposition at the same time. The latest, non-disaster related scare tactic falls under healthcare. Paul Krugman is leading the charge on this one, giving the public an inaccurate lesson on the inner-workings of the Medicaid system. Of course, he’s doing this because evil Mitt Romney will gut the program if elected. Obviously, that’s not the important part of what Krugman said.

DoNotLick (CC)


So, what was so blatantly wrong with Krugman’s little lesson for the masses? Well, we can start with his numbers, since offering any at all is a fallacy. Here is the one plus to not offering many details whilst on the campaign trail. When your opposition attempts to figure out exactly what the impact of your “plans” will be, they honestly can’t. They are forced to lie, because they simply don’t know. (And, in a Presidential race, it really doesn’t matter what either candidate wants to do, since everything needs to get through Congress anyway.) So, for the sake of brevity, we’ll just dispense with the numbers entirely, since there’s no way to prove or disprove them anyway, shall we?

Let’s move on to the meat and bones of this little lesson, to what Medicaid really is, and how it works. Krugman’s so cute when he tries to explain things to the masses. It would be ever so much nicer if he would at least attempt to get the facts, though. It’s really not good when even Wikipedia gets it right, and you don’t. Well, maybe it was the fact-checker’s day off at the Times. Yes, Medicaid is relatively good at keeping medical costs down, but no it is not because of the government. You see, for quite some time now, Uncle Sam has contracted out this part of the government healthcare system to the private sector. Medicaid recipients have private insurance policies with premiums that are subsidized by the government. That also blows a big gaping hold in Krugman’s other claim about governmental largesse – the real reason why the government doesn’t have as much “bureaucracy” in this whole equation is because the government doesn’t actually “do” anything but pay the bills. But, I think that most conservatives already know that. Knowing that Krugman is running about telling liberals this nonsense is useful, though. At least we can point out the errors in their sources.

Now, over at the Independent Women’s Forum, there is something of interest on this issue. They have pointed out that this really shouldn’t be a nationwide ballot issue, but a state one. Now that’s getting back into real Romney territory. That is practically straight out of a Paul Ryan stump speech on healthcare reform – or a Romney one pointing out that healthcare shouldn’t be on the Fed plate in the first place. So, when the whining liberals start claiming that Romney wants to take away their Medicaid, if you’re not just going to smack them (verbally since we don’t want folks going to jail), point out that he wants to let the states handle that program, because they know better what their residents need. It’s simple math and geography here. It’s better to have someone closer to you managing these things, than it is to have some pencil pushers far away, right? Who knows? Maybe you’ll actually get a few fence pole sitters with that logic in the next few days!

NY Times, CBS Bury Own Poll on Obamacare; Times Plays Up Declining Prestige of SCOTUS

With the president’s signature “achievement” on life support, The New York Times decided to bury the story in the Friday front-page article “Approval Rating for Justice Hits Just 44% in New Poll.” Times reporters Adam Liptak and Allison Kopicki attacked the most prestigious institution in the country, claiming “the public is skeptical about life tenure for the justices, with 60 percent agreeing with the statement that appointing Supreme Court justices for life is a bad thing because it gives them too much power. One-third agreed with a contrary statement, that life tenure for justices “is a good thing because it helps keep them independent from political pressures.”

While the Times seems to insist the court is losing public prestige, it doesn’t want to report on how ObamaCare is still a flop with the public. They save this for paragraph 16:  “41 percent of Americans want the Supreme Court to overturn the entire health care law passed in 2010, while another 27 percent want the court to throw out the part of the law that requires most people to buy coverage. The poll, conducted by the New York Times and CBS News, reveals that more respondents disapprove of the law than approve, 48 percent to 34 percent.”  

Moreover, ” that marks only a one-percentage-point uptick in those who disapprove of the law since the last poll was conducted, in mid-April, but a five-percentage-point drop in those who approve.”The coup de grace is “the percentage of people saying they want the court to throw out the entire law rose four points, from 37 percent to 41 percent, since the last CBS News/New York Times poll was conducted. About a quarter in the new poll—24 percent—said they want the whole law upheld.

How is this possible?  Well, as George Will stated on This Week two years ago, 85% of Americans already had coverage.  Furthermore 95% of that 85% said that they were satisfied with their health care coverage.  Even Politifact said that was mostly true!  In addition, we’ve had an unemployment rate that has been above 8% for over thirty-eight months.  During twenty-six of those months, the rate was above 9%.  This is after a $830 billion dollar stimulus with interest rates at zero.  Factor in a trillion dollar new entitlement, Obamacare, and we have a recipe for economic anxiety.

PS: At least the New York Times published their polling numbers in connection with a front-page story. CBS buried the poll results, reporting them only on Friday’s early-early CBS Morning News:

HAZEL SANCHEZ, anchor: And later this month, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on President Obama`s health care overhaul. The law has become a key campaign issue. A just released CBS News/New York Times poll finds forty-one percent of Americans want to see the entire health care law overturned. Fifty-five percent believe Justices will decide the case based on personal or political views. And concerning Arizona`s tough immigration law that allows police to check the immigration status of anyone who is lawfully stopped, fifty-two percent believe the law is “about right.”

Losing Support

Do you read the New York Times? Find it too sympathetic to this administration? You might be taken aback today. The normally left leaning newspaper has an op-ed by Maureen Dowd which is a rather scathing look at the once shining star, Obama.

Ms. Dowd has often been critical of this administration but her most recent opinion column provides ample resources of disillusioned Democrats. From former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, to Bill Clinton one hears about ‘the great communicator’ not being so great.

In addition, Obama’s earlier acquaintances from college and community organizing days are now speaking out and it appears this once ‘superhero’ has more than a little kryptonite causing him weakness.

Add to this the terrible job numbers and news of well known Democrats changing parties and it’s no wonder Obama is losing support.

Read the full article here.

‘The Third Jihad’ Producers Claim CAIR and New York Times Collaboration

NEW YORK, Feb. 21, 2012 /PRNewswire/ — The producers of the critically-acclaimed documentary, The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America, have produced a new short video exposing the recent New York Times and Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) campaign to smear The Third Jihad.

The new short video entitled Anatomy of a Smear is available online at http://www.thethirdjihad.com

The Third Jihad was recently the subject of debate when the New York Times rehashed a year-old story that the New York Police Department (NYPD) was using the film in its counter-terrorism training program.

Anatomy of a Smear documents the blatant inaccuracies, misquotes, omissions and innuendos of New York Times articles and editorials aimed at discrediting The Third Jihad as “hateful” and Islamophobic.

“Claims that The Third Jihad is an anti-Islam film are ignorant and misinformed,” says Raphael Shore, Producer of The Third Jihad.  “Those that have blasted the film are attempting to stifle an important debate about the internal state of the Muslim community in America, and whether politicized Islam and indoctrination pose tangible security threats,” Shore said.

The Third Jihad, narrated by devout Muslim and US Navy veteran Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, opens with the following frame in bold letters for all viewers to read: “This is not a film about Islam.  It is about the threat of radical Islam.  Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical.”

The new video, Anatomy of a Smear demonstrates how the New York Times and CAIR campaign is a real-time example of cultural jihad, a strategy to use the banner of political correctness to manipulate American institutions and culture, the very subject of The Third Jihad.

As part of the campaign, CAIR called for the resignation of NYPD commissioner Raymond Kelly, one of many high-level interviewees featured in the film.  The Brennan Center for Justice, who is cited as a source by the Times then published its own opinion piece calling for an independent inspector general to “police the NYPD.”

CAIR itself has established terror ties, as documented in The Third Jihad, and was designated by the U.S. Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator/joint-venturer in the Holy Land Foundation Trial, the largest terror-funding trial in America’s history.

The Third Jihad has received significant praise outside of the New York Times articles, including by American Muslim leaders.

A recent statement by the American Islamic Leadership Council reads, “We have viewed The Third Jihad, and regard the information presented therein to be both factually accurate, and important for our fellow Muslim and non-Muslim citizens to understand, debate and address. The Third Jihad explicitly distinguishes between the religion of Islam, and the highly politicized ideology of religious hatred, supremacy and violence characteristic of political Islam, often referred to as ‘Islamism.'”

Rudy Giuliani called the film, “a wake up call for America.”

“It is imperative that The Third Jihad reaches a mass audience in the U.S. so that the urgency of this threat becomes clear to the American public,” said US Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (AZ) said, “The Third Jihad alerts Americans to the dangers of Islamic radicalization in our own communities. Zuhdi Jasser is sounding the alarm before it is too late.”

“We hope that the general public will consider the sensitive content in the film, and will not simply accept the baseless innuendos being made in the media.  We invite the general public to watch and judge the documentary for themselves,” Shore said.

The Third Jihad is now available for free viewing online at http://www.thethirdjihad.com.

Steve Jobs Spent Final Birthday With Rupert Murdoch

 

Many people thought of Steve Jobs as a Liberal, and I can’t say that I’d blame them.  Al Gore is on his board of directors, he had offered to help Barack Obama create a campaign ad, and he was into all sorts of “hippie” stuff in his free time.  He even professed a love for the New York Times.  So imagine my surprise when I found out he was good friends with Rupert Murdoch.  How good of friends?  He joked that he would hide the knives in his house to protect Murdoch from his (admittedly) Liberal wife.  Upon learning this, I was fascinated.

Walter Isaacson’s biography of Jobs details the relationships that the gifted C.E.O. had with many titans of American business; from Silicon Valley to even the publishing world, Jobs was connected.  Steve was convinced that his iPad could do for news papers what the iPod had done for music, and as such, he had set about trying to convince publishers to create content for the iPad.  In particular, he was very worried about the New York Times.  He felt that they were declining, and that it was “important to the country” for them to figure out how to be successful in the 21st century.  He went so far as to make helping the New York Times “his personal project, whether they wanted it or not”.  Amazingly, the Times didn’t appreciate Jobs’s help, but do you know who did?  Rupert Murdoch.

Murdoch was open to the idea of making a newspaper that caters to the “USA Today crowd” that is only available on Apple’s iPad.  Many critics have panned the newspaper (called “The Daily”), but in working on that venture, Steve and Rupert formed a friendship that many would not have expected.

Admittedly, Jobs was not a fan of Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity, but he felt like their shows didn’t represent the Rupert Murdoch that he knew, and as such he ended up developing an admiration for the owner of Fox News.  Steve found a kindred spirit in Rupert.  They both believed each other to be men who had created and grown large companies that had managed to retain their “culture”.  They lamented how companies like Sony had stumbled and failed in that regard.  They also shared a desire to change the school text book industry.  They saw that the future was in digitizing text books, and with Apple’s iPad, Jobs had a keen interest in seeing that happen.

I found this chapter in Steve’s biography to be very interesting, and if you read the book, I strongly suggest that you don’t skip past it.  One of my favorite lines is when Jobs discusses inviting Murdoch to spend his final birthday with him.  He tells of how he had to “make sure that Laurene (his wife) didn’t veto the plan”…

“It was my birthday, so she had to let me have Rupert over.”   -Steve Jobs

WH Outbursts at CBS Reporter Say a Lot

             The new tone has been shown. The new tone only applied to those who question the Democrat party. Sharyl Attkisson’s interview on Laura Ingrahm’s talk show illustrates two blatant inconsistencies in the Obama narrative. Attkinson is a well-respected investigative reporter from CBS news, not from any of the news organizations that have been consistently attacked by the Obama Administration. She was screamed at and swore at by White House aid Eric Schultz, and got similar treatment from a woman at the D.O.J. by the name of Tracy Schmaler. She received this treatment in response to her questions about the Fast and Furious scandal.

            Attkinson was told that she was being “unreasonable.” She was also told that other news organizations knew that “Fast and Furious” wasn’t a story. All of this being shouted, and in the case of Eric Schultz, also included swearing. There goes the new tone, but then again, the White House has never even tried to live up to their mandates, no matter how simple, obvious and expected from moral, civilized people.

This incident also puts into question, yet again, whether the Obama administration is really committed to transparency. The answer is, obviously not. The administration seems to think their job is to tell the press what is and is not a “story.” If they don’t agree, it is their job to shout at, swear at and intimidate those who feel differently into feeling the way they feel. Historically “Fast and Furious” makes Watergate and Iran Contra look like child’s play, the idea that it isn’t a story is purely ridiculous, yet that is the White House line.

Besides these two blatant inconsistencies, another disconcerting issue is highlighted by this recent incident. If the Newspapers mentioned by Eric Schultz view the deaths of innocent Americans and Mexicans as non-stories, have they done that at the behest of the Whitehouse, or are they just simply incompetent. The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post were all mentioned in the vein that they “understood” that Fast and Furious was a non-story. Considering how obviously newsworthy of a story Fast and Furious is, it is logical to question whether those decisions are made by the Whitehouse as opposed to the newsrooms of the newspapers in question. This incident needs a highlight, and it should never be let go. It calls into question both the Whitehouse and the Media, and whether they have the best interest of the country, or the best interest of the Obama administration in mind. 

Obama Blinks – Moves Speech to Thursday

Obama requests speech at same time as GOP debate

Despite having said that it should be country before politics, Obama put his politics before almost everything – including politics.

Before his most sudden change of heart, Obama had demanded that he address Congress on the same night as the next GOP debate – September 7th.

Obama sent a letter Wednesday to House Speaker Boehner requesting a joint session of Congress so that he may deliver his jobs plan. On any other night that week, there would be no reason not to grant the teleprompter a reason to explain to us what Obama’s ever-changing group of economic advisers wrote down. The day Obama originally requested is also the night of the next GOP Presidential Debate.

The debate is to be carried by MSNBC so any damage to their viewership will be negligible, as are their ratings. The real question is why did Obama pick the same night as the GOP debate?

Politics, of Course

It won’t hurt the GOP candidates just to have the debate and the president on at the same time. Between DVR’s and archived streams, anyone who wants to see both, will be able to. What is interesting is that now we’re hearing that the moderators may push the candidates to respond in real-time to the President’s plan – a plan his advisers spent months on.

Obama gets to take his time, studying the speech someone wrote for him, the plan someone else devised. The candidates have seconds to respond? Way to go MSNBC, you’ve managed to top CNN’s bungle of a Presidential debate -AND- confirm the New York Times assertion that they are nothing but a marathon of liberal propaganda from 6-11pm. Although the need for the time boxing is questionable.

Obama could be assured that MSNBC would pounce on any opportunity to make the GOP candidates look unprepared and uninformed while the President reads calmly from the teleprompter. All he had to do was schedule his speech at the same time and on the same day as the MSNBC-hosted debate.

Rep. Ron Paul is said to be weighing his options as to whether he will attend the GOP debate or the President’s speech.

There is Football to Consider

John Boehner has stated that he was only given 15 minutes to consider the Obama request before it was announced nationwide. Boehner publicly asked the President to consider moving his speech to Thursday. As Thursday is the kick-off of the 2011-12 NFL football season, our sports fan-in chief is likely to refuse.

Boehner Asks President to be More Considerate

Letter to President Obama re: Request to Address a Joint Session of Congress

The President Changes His Mind

At about 9:20pm this evening, the White House blinked. The President will address a joint session of Congress on September 8th. So far the White House only alluded to Speaker Boehner’s concerns as the reason to move the date.

Liberals: ‘Tea Party Waging War on the American People’ – What would they Call the Last Two Years?

Where in the world has the left been for the last couple of years? An Op-Ed Columnist for the New York Times – Joe Nocera – wrote a piece today claiming the Tea Party was Waging War on the American People. I would like to ask Joe, where he has been for the last two years? If you want to call trying to get the uncontrolled spending under control – war – then I guess the Tea Party is waging war, not on the American people, but on Washington.

In the past two years the Obama administration has been on a ‘No-limit’ spending spree. They have shoved Obama’s economic plans through congress by writing colossal bills stuffed with pork barrel spending. They shoved an unconstitutional health care bill (Obamacare) through congress, at last count 27 states were suing over Obamacare – a $787 billion stimulus package to keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent, it is now 9.2 percent – and now that the Tea Party Republicans are the House majority leaders and this kind of wasteful spending ceases they get called jihadist?

The Democrats control the Senate in 2011, but in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republicans gained a majority in the House of Representatives. Up until this past election the Democrats controlled both Senate and the House of Representatives. It was relatively easy for Democrats to pass bills before the Republicans took over the House of Representatives – now it is not so easy.

Since Republicans took over the House of Representatives it kind of reminds me of when the United States went to war with Saddam Hussein. Saddam would shoot those Scud missiles and the U.S. would fire the Patriot missiles knocking the Scuds out of the air – nearly every time. The Obama administration fires their “Scud policies” and the House of Representatives shoot them down with the “Patriot members.” The Tea Party members of congress, I guess are waging war as Joe Nocera writes – but it is not against the American people as he dreams – but it is against the Obama administrations almost ludicrous “back room deals” they try to shove through.

Obviously Joe is a libtard, because in his first couple of sentences he writes: These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. So this writer thinks the Tea Party Republicans are “Muslim?”

What is  jihad? Answer: The Qur’an describes Jihad as a system of checks and balances, as a way that Allah set up to “check one people by means of another.” When one person or group transgresses their limits and violates the rights of others, Muslims have the right and the duty to “check” them and bring them back into line. There are several verses of the Qur’an that describe jihad in this manner.

See Joe tried to use jihad in a “bad” way to make the Tea Party Republicans look bad. But, I guess depending on what website you look at to get your definition of jihad the above definition is the most that I found. So I guess if we go with the above definition then I guess the Tea Party Republicans are waging jihad but not on the American people – but the Obama administration.