Consider what would have happened if there had been four deaths in connection with the IRS attacks, as happened in Benghazi. Result: It happened a long time ago and what difference does it make?

Repaying the MSM would not have been difficult. For example, at the recent Tea Party–dominated Republican convention in Virginia, conservatives could’ve done something simple like book a minstrel show for entertainment, sing ‘Dixie’ before the National Anthem or burn a cross for illumination. Stereotypes would have been confirmed and MSM self–satisfaction could continue unchallenged.

But no, out of seven candidates running for Lt. Governor the overwhelmingly white, middle–aged Tea Party Republicans had to go and pick the only black guy in the bunch! Even worse. E. W. Jackson had raised the least money of any of the candidates and instead had to base his hope for victory on an impassioned speech before the assembled delegates.

A black guy that can make a speech and impress Republicans? Who’d a thunk it?

In fact the WaPost complained, “it’s almost inconceivable that (Jackson) could have won an open party primary.” Which is true, since a primary would have been dominated by something WaPost leftists claim to hate even more than conservative blacks and that’s money in politics.

Bottom line? Media leftists prefer capitalist money influencing elections to blacks escaping the Democrat plantation. (But on the plus side, Rev. Jackson is one candidate you can legitimately ask about the content of his prayers.)

Instead Jackson, who in addition to being a minister is a graduate of Harvard Law School and a Marine veteran, won through personal contact and the force of his personality. And what a personality it is! No mottled shades of gray here.

Media leftists consider conservative minority politicians to be deeply embarrassing and something a decent person would want to keep private and within the family; like a son who wanted to marry a man. Besides being guilty of thought crimes, a black Republican that opposes the Democrat platform of amnesty, abortion and alternative lifestyle is called an Uncle Tom.

This is another example of leftist revisionism. Back when Democrats were leaning on the Supreme Court for legitimacy and dominated politics and culture while being on the wrong side of slavery; a black who supported ‘massa and claimed to be happy with his lot, was called an Uncle Tom for kneeling before power. Frederick Douglass was a hero for fighting against injustice and going against prevailing legal and cultural norms. (Dang, wasn’t Douglass a Republican, too?)

Today Democrats again lean on the Supreme Court for legitimacy, dominate politics along with culture and are on the wrong side of abortion. The legal system is cluttered with “hate crime” legislation, homosexuals qualify for special rights, Christians are to be kept in the closet and any attempt to regulate abortion is called a “war on women.” Yet a black that supports conservatives is instantly branded an Uncle Tom, when the reverse is actually true. This means Utah’s Mia Love is Fredericka Douglass on a courageous crusade for truth and Susan Rice is Aunt Jemima.

And make no mistake the WaPost is in a snit regarding Jackson. Columnist Robert McCartney did everything but call him “macca” in a column this week. McCartney says that Jackson on the ticket will reflect poorly on gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli. This is because fiery black ministers only cause problems when they are linked for a few months to a white candidate, while sitting in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years is just a coincidence for Barack Obama.

McCartney quotes Jackson as saying gays have “perverted” minds and are “very sick people psychologically and mentally and emotionally.” And he adds Jackson has described President Obama as “an evil presence” and liberal abortion policy as “infanticide.”

So I think VA Republicans are just going to have to resign themselves to losing Megan McCain’s vote this year.

Another red flag for McCartney came when Jackson said Planned Parenthood has been more lethal to blacks than the Ku Klux Klan. I will admit the only politician with the moral stature necessary to make modern–day slavery comparisons is Joe Biden. But that being said, Jackson does have the facts on his side — as if that makes any difference to the left.

The number of blacks killed by lynching in the US between 1864 and 1968 was 4,946. You can add to that beatings and intimidation by both the Klan and freelance bigots who didn’t want to be bogged down with a formal commitment to an organization.

Compare that with 18,778,000 black babies killed by an abortionist between only 1973 and 2013. Nathan Bedford Forest doesn’t begin to compare with your local Planned Parenthood facility manager when it comes to eliminating young blacks.

The WaPost was also appalled at VA Republicans for having a convention in the first place. In their view being committed enough to give up your Saturday and attend a largely boring convention disqualifies one for participation in the decision–making process.

The mandarins at the Post complain that the 8,000 delegates attending the Richmond convention were less than one percent of the people who claim to be Republicans in Virginia. Yet I don’t recall them complaining when only 5,556 delegates to the Democrat National Convention in 2012 approved a far left platform way out of the mainstream of American thought. (I hope the WaPost has not reverted to the practice of only counting 3/5ths of a Republican for apportionment purposes as Democrats did during slavery.)

Virginia conservatives have provided voters with a clear choice in November: A Republican ticket composed of social and government conservatives versus whatever opportunists the Democrats have handy.

The media will just have to cope with the fact that Jackson’s nomination has ruined what was to be the favorite headline this fall: VA Republicans – Whiter Than White; Righter Than Right.

skpy (CC)

The implication is that the Obama administration is apparently considering the possibility of leveling charges against journalists in general, in it’s relentless search for “leaks”. However, in spite of the recent information that has come out about investigations into the actions of Associated Press journalists, these may be partisan investigations. It has already been stated that the information that Rosen acquired from Kim wasn’t particularly sensitive:

John Bolton, the former undersecretary of state for disarmament, and a noted hard-liner on all matters North Korea, said the disclosures in the Rosen story about North Korean intentions were “neither particularly sensitive nor all that surprising.” It involved the kind of information that could have been gleaned from reading stories in the South Korean press at the time, he noted.

That point is made in contrast with the sensitive and theoretically “classified” information that made its way into Bob Woodward’s book, “Obama’s Wars.”

Brit Hume commented on the situation earlier today on Fox News: [Video]

The Fox News response to the government tracking Rosen’s emails and movements was as follows:

“We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter,” Fox News executive vice president Michael Clemente said in a statement. ”In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press.”

Read the warrant for the investigation of Rosen here:

1-10-mj-00291-AKwarrant

Also, for bloggers, and anyone else interested in information to prevent attracting this sort of attention from the government, Fox News has offered a page of advice.

So I turn to a story by Matt Connolly that makes me optimistic regarding the nation’s future. The headline reads, “Poverty rates plummet for D.C. Asians, Hispanics.” Now that is good news! In spite of a sluggish Obama economy, the American Dream is still available for those willing to work. Upward mobility is still possible. What’s more, less poverty means less need for big government welfare programs, which is always appealing to a small government conservative like myself.

According to Connolly, new census data shows “the percentage of D.C. Hispanics under the poverty line dropped from 20.5 percent in the 2000 census to 14 percent in the 2007 – 2011 average.” And in Maryland’s Prince George’s County the rate “dropped from 14.1 percent to 11.7 percent” in spite of the fact the overall Hispanic population more than doubled in that time period. In Fairfax County, VA and Montgomery County, MD the rate remained “relatively stagnant” but did not get appreciably worse.

Even better, “poverty rates for Asians…dropped across the board” plunging from 22.8 percent to 14 percent. More good news, even though the ingrates aren’t voting for Republicans — the people who keep your taxes low and try to grow the economy.

But then I made the mistake of turning to the WaPost and there I see a headline that complains, “Poverty rates higher for blacks and Hispanics than whites and Asians.” Damn, The Man is still keeping the pigmented people down! So much for my misplaced optimism.

Naturally I want to see where reporter Carol Morello came by this depressing evidence of conservative inhumanity to man. (After all it has to be our fault, since we are not in favor of Obama phones, Sandra Fluke’s rubbers and no–work–required welfare.) But wait, the data came from the exact same census report that Connolly persuaded me was packed with good news!

Instead of congratulating Asians for pulling themselves out of poverty, Morello implies they are now in league with The Man and it looks suspiciously like these calculator jockeys have forgotten all about minority solidarity and are trying to pass for white.

In fact, Morello says absolutely nothing about the reduction in poverty rates that Connolly found so newsworthy, and instead focuses on nationwide poverty rates and then singles out that noted economic basket case D.C.’s Ward 8 for black poverty numbers. Statistically this is like complaining about mortality rates in a mortuary.

So why is Morello such a Debbie Downer? American leftists and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media have a pigment problem: There’s a black man in the White House.

It’s becoming increasing difficult to condemn America as a hopelessly racist society when there is this black guy jetting around the country on Air Force One. Since the Marines are saluting him, he can’t be passed off as the butler. And how does one complain about institutional racism when a black guy is in charge of the institution? And how can Virginia be a bigot benighted outpost of the Confederacy when Obama carried the state twice?

A favorite MSM ploy is to pick and choose your statistics, which is the path Morello has chosen. Focusing on persistent black poverty in the abstract implies there is no upward mobility for blacks unless government steps in to make the situation “fair.” Yet black poverty is often a self–inflicted wound as black Prince George’s Councilman Mel Franklin points out in the WaPost “Root” section.

Franklin writes, “In short, no program, either government or nonprofit, can replace the void created by the absence of a good father in a household.

“Annually, as you probably know, over 70 percent of births in the black community nationwide are out of wedlock. Study after study demonstrates (and our common sense tells us) the dramatic effect that this collapse in our family structure has had on education, the economy and criminal justice outcomes for youth, especially the absence of a good father in his son’s household.”

Pointing out the harm black men and women do when they choose to bear children in the absence of marriage is not blaming the victim. You can criticize a suicide whether it’s physical or fiscal. And I compliment Councilman Franklin for pointing out the obvious. But I also note he was not quoted in Morello’s story.

Implying personal responsibility is not method of creating demand for more government. Leftists believe individuals are at the mercy of forces beyond their control, like a termite in a tidal wave, and the only source of help is government. And since leftists dominate the MSM, you get stories like Morello’s.

Which is why I only read the WaPost after I’ve been inoculated by the Examiner and the Washington Times. I suggest my conservative readers do likewise.

This puts believers at an immediate disadvantage because Christ did not spend much of his ministry discussing consumer goods. He mentions the odd cloak, fragrant ointment, sword and widow’s mite, but one would not confuse Him with Ralph Nader or other marketplace stalwarts.

Besides, since Miller picks and chooses what she believes in regard to her own faith, she has no problem distorting the Gospel in an effort to draft Jesus into Code Pink.

She begins by completely misunderstanding the significance of Jesus on the cross. Miller writes, “The Christian Lord allowed himself to be crucified rather than fight the injustice of the death sentence imposed on him.” To co–opt Mark Twain; this is an inability to distinguish between lightning and the lightning bug.

On the contrary, it was not a miscarriage of justice. The sentence was the fulfillment of divine justice. Christ willingly substituted Himself on the cross in place of a sinful mankind. God did not alter the terms of the first Covenant with Abraham. There was a price to be paid for man’s rebellion and he decided to pay it Himself. (This refusal to “evolve” on the part of the creator, should give pause to modern “Christian” leader’s attempts to revise and soften the New Testament, but it doesn’t.)

Consequently, Christ was not the earliest recruit for the left’s anti–capitol punishment movement. Christ died for our sins. He willingly paid the price we could not pay and ushered in the New Covenant.

There would be no Christians without Christ’s death on the cross. Even if the Jerusalem chapter of the Innocence Project had tried to get Him off the hook, He would have refused the offer, because to do so would have rendered His work pointless.

After that inauspicious beginning, Miller moves on to the point of her column, “How do such Christians reconcile their stalwart commitment to the Second Amendment with their belief in a gospel that preaches nonviolence?” And then she quotes Matthew 5:39 – “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

This leads me to believe Miller was also not a fan of the excellent “Machine Gun Preacher”

Then it left me wondering if I had missed a recent development on the violence front, so I did an online search on “strike AND cheek AND gunfight” to see if there had been a rash of concealed carry permit holders (CCW) lighting up people who slapped them.

That search string was a bust, so I tried “strike AND cheek AND shoot” with the same result. Evidently there is no problem with Christian gun owners initiating violence. Miller’s goal appears to involve persuading Christians to join the ranks of the defenseless. This decision, however, would not be made in a vacuum. Should a Christian head of household decide to disarm because he believes guns are inherently evil, like cigarettes or 16 oz. sodas, his decision would not affect him alone. His wife, his children and mom in the basement would all instantly become draftees in the War for Pacifism.

And the family would be misguided draftees at that. As Adam Clarke points out in his commentary on the passage, these “exhortations belong to those principally who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” Say for example, an orthodox Christian that leftists like Miller slap up the side of the head for refusing to support homosexual marriage. Following Matthew, the Christian would turn the other cheek as he said he does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle either.

The verse is most certainly not directed toward ancient or modern Christians with a desire to defend their persons or their family.

Then Miller snidely intimates that “conservative Christian leaders are not falling over themselves to proclaim in public their pro–gun theologies.” But then Miller proceeds to list various Christians who are doing just that.

She takes issue with Richard Land, a former Southern Baptist Convention official, who said during a December interview on National People’s Radio (NPR) that he supports arming teachers. And Miller concludes with David French, senior counsel for the American Center of Law and Justice, who told her “Turn the other cheek does not mean turn your wife’s cheek or turn your children’s cheek.”

Miller — who works for an organization sporting guards who check commoners before they are allowed to enter — replies, “Provocative, but unconvincing. Jesus identified with the weak, not the strong; with the victims, not the shooters (or the people with the guns).”

Wrong again. Jesus praised a Roman centurion who controlled his own sword and 90 others — for his faith, saying, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.” What’s more, Jesus reached out to the weak and the victims, but unlike leftist community organizers, He considered Himself a shepherd and the shepherd doesn’t hand the wolf a napkin as he approaches the herd.

There is another verse that’s very germane to this discussion, although Miller manages to overlook it. Luke 6:42 advises, “Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

Miller would do more to protect the innocent life of children if she would worry less about the imaginary threat of “assault weapons” in the hands of Christians and more about the real threat of “assault doctors*” who are responsible for the deaths of over 1 million innocents each year during abortions.

*Thanks to my wife, Janet, for this inspired term that aptly describes a depraved occupation.

There is some indignity involved when the media pokes and prods you with questions regarding your sex life. And it is disquieting knowing the Chinese own you body and soul. But in its entirety the situation would not be all that different from that of the debt–ridden USA.

Besides, once a species is practically extinct trend–setters put your face on cool coffee mugs and fashionable people throw parties on your behalf. Unfortunately, we already have the panda so there is little room for Republicans in the National Zoo. Still our “leadership” continues this death–wish behavior.

But consistency and intellectual honesty compel me to take aggressive Virginia Senate Republicans to task for the redistricting ambush they sprang on Democrats last week.

You may recall the Virginia Senate is evenly split: 20 Republican members and 20 Spendacrats, with Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling there to break any ties. A minor GOP House redistricting bill had been languishing in committee for some time. Although not exactly in a persistent vegetative state, the bill wasn’t at the top of anyone’s legislative agenda. But that was before Sen. Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. (R–The Re–Animator) went to work.

The bill metamorphosed from an innocuous housekeeping bill into a Pearl Harbor equivalent all out attack on Senate Dems.

The bill concentrates minority voters in a new Southside district and alters almost all other Senate district lines. According to Dems interviewed by the WaPost, the new lines would make eight districts distinctly more Republican — and since six of the seats are currently held by Dems — the new lines have the potential to result in significant GOP gains in November’s election.

As an added bonus, the bill puts two incumbents — R. Creigh Deeds (D–Lost My Race for Gov) and Emmett W. Hanger Jr. (R–Who Did I Anger?) in the same district where only one will survive.

Norment knew he could not depend on Bolling to break a tie on the new bill, because the Big Bill has been acting squishy lately. So the majority leader had the legislation waiting in the weeds until Sen. Henry L Marsh III (D–I was 3 before RGIII) left Richmond to attend the Dear Leader’s celebration.

With Marsh absent, the bill passed 20 to 19.

WaPost editorialists set their vituperators on ‘stun’ and described the event thusly, “The Republican move was executed in the style of a putsch, arising from a conspiracy and with no warning, public input or debate. “ Which sounds suspiciously like the regulation writing process at EPA and is reason enough to oppose the effort.

They continued, “Unlike the GOP dominated House of Delegates, the Senate has been in Democratic (sic) hands or closely divided since 2007. The Republican gerrymander, which could deliver several seats to the GOP, would change that at a stroke.”

What the WaPost doesn’t say is the former redistricting bill, authored by Dems, is also grossly gerrymandered and designed to protect Dem incumbents. For example, Prince William County — where I live — in the words of County Executive Corey Stewart, is “carved up like a Christmas Turkey.” The third most populous county in the state doesn’t even have its own senator. Instead it is split between five different Senate districts, which only serves to dilute PWC influence.

Needless to say, Dems are outraged and they have a point. Using a temporary political advantage to ram an extremely controversial bill through a legislative body is bad long–term policy. It was bad when Obama rammed Obamacare through a lame duck Senate before Republican Scott Brown was sworn in. It will be bad policy if US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–Prevaricate) violates established Senate rules to change the filibuster procedure and punish Republicans.

And it’s bad policy in Richmond.

What’s more, the repercussions threaten to put a Saslaw–sized Jersey barrier in front of Gov. Bob McDonnell’s transportation plan. After the redistricting bill was passed, Senate Minority Leader Dick Saslaw (D–Hoppin’ Mad) said the governor’s transportation bill was dead and so was any hope of cooperation from Senate Dems.

And here is the trilemma: if McDonnell vetoes the bill it makes Senate Dems happy, while at the same time offending Senate Republican leadership. If the governor could depend on every GOP Senator to vote for his transportation bill, he could hold his nose and sign the redistricting bill. But unanimous GOP support is not a given. On the other hand, vetoing the bill could mean his transportation plan never gets out of committee in the Senate.

There is a third way that doesn’t put the governor on the spot and still gives the redistricting bill a decent Christian burial. Saslaw and Speaker Bill Howell (R–In the Driver’s Seat) could work out a behind–the–scenes deal where the bill is killed in the House in return for Saslaw guaranteeing Senate Dem votes for the transportation plan that Howell is sponsoring in the House. But then again, if the House kills the Senate’s bill, angry GOP senators may take revenge by killing pet projects of House members.

I won’t shed any tears for the demise of the governor’s transportation plan for reasons outlined here, but the Commonwealth is in need of a good transportation program. The Senate’s redistricting bill is an unnecessary complication that may thwart that goal and makes Republicans look unethical.

It’s times like these that the governor should be glad Virginia is still in the liquor business.

In my previous post, “Deciphering Susan Rice without Being Racist” – Katrina Vanden Heuvel was exposed as using the terms “incompetent” and “liar” to describe Rice –  Condoleezza Rice. Vanden Heuvel is the editor and publisher of the far left magazine The Nation. Eliana Johnson detailed on November 21 how left-wing media outlets and members of Congress were hurling similar accusations of incompetence and politicking at Condoleezza Rice that are we seeing ahead of Susan Rice’s possible nomination for Secretary of State.

Johnson wrote that:

[Condoleezza] Rice’s nomination, noted the Washington Post, garnered “the most negative votes cast against a nominee for that post in 180 years.” As the Senate debated her nomination, Senator Barbara Boxer charged that Rice “frightened the American people” into supporting the Iraq War; Senator Jim Jeffords accused her of being part of an effort to “distort information” in the service of “political objectives”; and Senator Pat Leahy, who voted in her favor, endorsed her by saying that her tenure as national-security adviser lacked “strong leadership, openness, and sound judgment.”  

Hey, that’s racist.  But so is this cartoon by Ted Rall, who has the then-Secretary of State saying she was Bush’s ‘house nigga.”

Jeff Danziger, whose cartoons are syndicated in The New York Times, had a caricature of “a big-lipped, barely literate Condoleezza Rice, nursing the aluminum tubes cited by the White House as evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

Johnson is dead on in her assessment that there’s a difference when someone calls you a “house nigga,” and when someone calls you incompetent.  One is blatantly racist, while the other is isn’t.  It’s not that hard to comprehend.  Ambassador Rice misled the American people  – and we deserve answers.

More than not, it seems as though the Washington Post is from another country – if not another planet. In proposing a solution to the “fiscal cliff”, Washington Post writer Zachary Goldfarb proposes that the White House should take unilateral action and assert broad powers to re-arrange tax and fiscal policy – all from the executive branch.

First, the “fiscal cliff” is only an issue because the White House decided to force sequestration down the throats of Harry Reid and John Boehner in response to earlier budget crisis – a remedy neither leader wanted but saw as a compromise with the President. Reid felt it risked too many cuts and Boehner expressed concerns over using it as a budgeting tool.

Mr. Goldfarb now sees the same opportunity that perhaps the White House did when they pushed sequestration and the fiscal cliff:

The Obama administration could blunt the economic harm caused by the “fiscal cliff” at the end of the year by using its unilateral powers over spending and taxes, for instance, by freezing how much in taxes is taken out of payroll checks, according to former senior officials and other tax and budget experts.

Unfortunately for the ill-informed WaPo writer, taxation is function of Congress. The President cannot simply choose to not collect taxes that Congress has imposed. We don’t have a king or dictator here Mr. Goldfarb. Actions such as the author proposes would be against the President’s oath of office and reason for impeachment – if Congress had the gumption to take action.

What Goldfarb fails to understand is the fundamental framework of our government set forth in the Constitution. Congress debates and passes legislation and the President makes sure those laws are enforced. If the President fails to do so, he is certainly failing in his duties.

The reason the separation of powers are so ingrained in the Constitution is to prevent the type of power-grab that the Post article proposes the administration should enact.

At one point in the article, it’s not even clear if Goldfarb understands what he’s proposing:

But the Treasury Department could try to blunt the impact by freezing withholding tables at 2012 levels. The law gives the Treasury secretary the authority to set withholding tables at his discretion, though they are supposed to comply with the law.

What does that even mean?

Ignorance of our system of government is exactly why liberal/socialistic ideas seem plausible. Only those taking the time to understand the long term consequences of such short-term thinking will see it as dangerous.

The President must not usurp the taxing authority of Congress to ease the pain that the President’s administration caused in the first place. Actually, Congress must not allow the President to usurp its authority at all.

As if to prove that the maneuver would be unconstitutional the author dedicates the final paragraph to quoting Gregory F. Jenner on how the tactic is viable because no one will call the President on it:

“I think it’s possible. Who’s going to challenge him?”

If Congress will not, we will replace them. So to answer Mr. Jenner’s question – We the people will challenge him.

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…

DonkeyHotey (CC)

While examples of this abound, the focus here will be on the mainstream media hijacking the narrative to place this administration in a good light, and it will include a true opinion piece – not something that’s being schlepped as real news. The Fix from the Washington Post passed along a lovely example of this wonderland mentality that really doesn’t have a firm grasp on reality. Now, to be fair, this item was probably started before the events in the Middle East, and just maybe, Chris Cillizza might change his tune a little bit once the actual political fallout from these events come home to roost, so to speak. But, as of this morning, his contention is that Mitt Romney is panicking, and he dutifully offered some comments from some Republicans on this. Of course, it should go without saying that the Romney camp should examine this article for some of the finer points, and maybe make some minor adjustments accordingly. There are some worthwhile points made in this article. However, they are definitely overshadowed by Cillizza’s regurgitating of the Obama camp narrative that has been permeating the mainstream media.

Like the assertion that Romney made a mistake by calling the Obama administration on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo tweeting apologies to Muslims before, during, and after the attack there. It’s been observed, repeatedly, that if it was a Republican in the White House (George W. Bush, for example), the press would have been all over him for this. That is absolutely true. But where is the press now? Well, they’re buying the quasi-retraction from the Obama administration, and focusing on Romney, calling him an alarmist, or worse. Or they’re complaining about him breaking the 9/11 promise, and talking politics – but please don’t mention that the Obama camp was active from point one, fundraising, soliciting for volunteers, sending out surrogates, and sniping against the Romney camp on Twitter. But, back to the utter failure of the media, where were the questions on that Obama retraction? If that statement was “unauthorized”, who’s really in charge? Or was this statement merely an extension of an already established position of this administration? Either way, what Romney did or didn’t say isn’t the story here. The story is in that Embassy and in this administration.

And to keep things even here, even the right-wing media missed this one. Sure, it might feel good to say that someone in the Obama administration deserves to be fired, but that doesn’t change the fact that the real story lies somewhere much higher than that one staffer. Again, where are the questions about who is really in charge here? On one hand it’s said that this president is leading from behind, a perfect example of this falls in the laps of the conservative media, and all they can come up with is that a relatively low-level diplomatic corps employee deserves to get canned? Talk about a lost opportunity!

But, back to Cillizza’s wishful musings. Other than giving the Romney camp a mini-roadmap for fixing some issues in their campaign, what does this piece say? Given the number of words devoted to the whole Libya issue, it wouldn’t be out of the question to suggest that the administration doesn’t want anyone focusing on what’s actually happening now, when it comes to a response to the incident. After reading, and re-reading Romney’s statement, the only problem is this:

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We’ll defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion.

There is no doubt that is Romney’s opinion on the matter, however it is unlikely that the Obama administration agrees. Romney should have avoided talking about reaction by the government at all, since he’s not in a position to cause any action himself at this time. As it is, Marines apparently will not be permitted to use live ammo in Egypt, and while there are ships going to the region, it is unclear if there are any plans of action by the U.S. military. That in itself should be making headlines nationwide, but given the mainstream media’s love affair with Obama, that’s unlikely. Another item that should be getting the attention of journalists is the fact that Obama yet again walked away from taking questions from the press. Romney didn’t, but instead of being happy with the opportunity to get questions answered, the mainstream media found it necessary to conspire against him. Or so they thought, because it could easily be argued that Romney handled the questions very well, especially considering the fact that the journalists were ganging up on him. It was particularly heartening to hear his refusal to even consider hypothetical questions, and if his replies to their questions this time are any indication, it is fair to guess that the mainstream media will be crying regularly that he refuses to answer anything on national security, except in a very broad sense. Also, don’t expect any of the journalists to point out that Romney might have learned not to do that from Obama himself. They do try to forget his campaign promises of 2008 on Afghanistan and Gitmo, after all.

So, instead of having journalists and the press act as watchdogs over the government, we are left with the “Obama Administration State Media.” And that is the death of journalism in this nation. When journalists stop questioning our leaders meaningfully, and start acting as little more than mouthpieces for politicians, it is no longer a free press. It is no different than the state-controlled media in regions like the Middle East. Perhaps we all need to mull over the sad irony of that.

Vargas, according to his own mini-autobiography published in the New York Times in June 2011, arrived in America at the age of 12 when his mother shipped him off to live with his grandparents who had immigrated legally from the Philippines. Vargas’ grandfather, “Lolo,” obtained fraudulent documents for him so he could travel and then attend school in the San Francisco Bay area. He remained unknowing of the fraud for 4 years.

“One day when I was 16, I rode my bike to the nearby DMV office to get my driver’s permit…” writes Vargas. “But when I handed the clerk my green card as proof of US residency, she flipped it around, examining it. ‘This is fake,’ she whispered. ‘Don’t come back here again.’”

Like any other teenager unaware of the situation his mother and grandparents had bestowed him, he was confused and proceeded to ask for an explanation from Lolo, only to learn that the document was in fact falsified and he was living in the United States illegally.

Vargas says he faced many challenges trying to assimilate and become as American as possible. He wanted to perfect English and lose his accent. He wanted to fit in and get a job in America. He again leaned on Lolo.

“Using the fake passport, we went to the local Social Security Administration office and applied for a Social Security number and card. It was, I remember, a quick visit. When the card came in the mail, it had my full, real name, but it also clearly stated: “Valid for work only with I.N.S. authorization.”

When I began looking for work, a short time after the D.M.V. incident, my grandfather and I took the Social Security card to Kinko’s, where he covered the “I.N.S. authorization” text with a sliver of white tape. We then made photocopies of the card. At a glance, at least, the copies would look like copies of a regular, unrestricted Social Security card.”

The New York Times editors failed to ask for more details about this, but should have. Social Security cards are blue. They have a specific design on them. Covering a portion with white tape would most certainly distort the image to look completely fake. Perhaps his first few employers like Subway and the YMCA should also have done a bit more digging.

Nevertheless, the fraudulent card was getting so easy to use that Vargas admits after a while, he began checking the citizenship box on I-9 forms (one of the documents federally required of new employees to ensure legal citizenship/immigration status). He claims he was nervous about getting caught – so he understood it was wrong – but that he kept doing it anyway.

Vargas attended San Francisco State University on a scholarship that Vargas admits “was not concerned with immigration status.” He sought out avenues to avoid bringing attention to the fact that he was breaking the law on a daily basis.

In early 2002, Vargas sought the help of an immigration lawyer who told him that to become a legal US citizen, Vargas would have to return to the Philippines for 10 years and then return legally with documentation.

Apparently, as an adult, fully aware of the consequences of his actions, Vargas chose NOT to obey the law. In fact, he downright ignored it. What he did next can only be described as intentional defiance of state and federal laws with complete disregard for morality.

“…I spent an afternoon at The Mountain View Public Library, studying various states’ requirements. Oregon was among the most welcoming — and it was just a few hours’ drive north,” remembers Vargas.

Using a false permanent address, some fraudulent documents, a photocopied Social Security card and his college ID, Portland, Oregon gave Vargas a driver’s license.

“I knew what I was doing now, and I knew it wasn’t right. But what was I supposed to do?”

As justification for his crimes, Vargas basically whines, “I was paying state and federal taxes…”

Perhaps Vargas should remember that simply paying taxes doesn’t make you American, nor does it make your actions justified. Perhaps Vargas should also consider that he was and continues to benefit from the taxes paid just like legal US citizens. Roads, fire protection, a federal military, etc. have all been available to him regardless of his being unlawful.

Vargas claims the license meant a great deal to him because it allowed him to drive, travel by plane and work. What is he doing now? How is he able to make it to all those television interviews to promote his new book? If he is using that license (or a new one since that license was set to expire last year), should he not be stopped by the TSA when trying to board a plane? Or perhaps the television shows or stations are flying him by private jet? Still, it begs the question, “how has he not been arrested for repeatedly breaking the law and being so open about it?”

Vargas has worked as an employee for the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Philadelphia Daily News and the Huffington Post, all with the help of falsified documents. He has also likely been paid as a freelance writer/contributor and has made documentary films, which aren’t free. I wonder if he’s ever filled out a 1099 form and turned it in to the IRS by April 15th? If so, I wouldn’t believe its truthfulness.

To see the beat down Lou Dobbs gives this guy, click here.

that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Appalachia and portions of the South — particularly those states without large African American populations — have long been hostile to President Obama.

There are any number of data points that make that point plainly.

During the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign, Obama lost Kentucky by 35 points and West Virginia by 41(!) points to then Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton even though both states voted late enough in the process that it was already clear Obama would be the nominee.

In the 2008 general election, only five states voted more Republican than they had four years earlier. Those five states were: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia. (In Oklahoma and West Virginia, Obama and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry got the same percentage of the vote but Obama got less raw votes.)

And, since a picture is worth a thousand words, here’s an amazing graphic courtesy of the New York Times that shows the counties that voted more Republican in 2008 than they did in 2004.

I’ll save you some time with the link:

However, it may surprise some liberals that a significant amount of Democrats have conservative leanings, especially in the region Mr. Cillizza is referring to in this post.  Furthermore, Cillizza quotes

Tom Cole, a Republican House Member, dismissed the idea of race as a major factor in opposition to Obama out of hand.

Said Cole:

Obama fares poorly in states like Oklahoma, Kentucky and Arkansas because he has nothing in common with them. They are rural, he is urban. They are populist, he is elitist. And in case anyone hadn’t noticed, they are conservative while he is liberal. That isn’t just true of Republicans in these states. It is true of Democrats as well.

Well, there you have it Chris.  I can say the same for my home state of Pennsylvania, which is aptly described as Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Alabama in-between concerning the political disposition of its electorate.  In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 1.2 million, the PA GOP were able to clinch eleven more courthouses, thus controlling fifty-one  of the sixty-seven counties.  That is up from 40 in 2007.  As Executive Director Mike Barley noted:

Nine of these wins occurred in “blue” counties where Democrats have a registration advantage – Cambria, Carbon, Centre, Clinton, Elk, Lawrence, Mercer, Monroe and Westmoreland…in all of these counties we witnessed Republicans, Independents and even Democrats rejecting Democratic candidates, their big government agenda and President Obama, proving that great Republican candidates can compete and win even in the Democratic counties in the Commonwealth. The story lines are even more intriguing when looking at each race county-by-county and case-by-case. Consider Westmoreland County, where Democrats out-register Republicans 53% to 38%, yet Republicans won the courthouse for the first time in more than 50 years, winning two commissioners and sweeping all of the row offices… in these cases, we see conservative “Reagan Democrats” coming out in droves for Republican candidates. While each county in Pennsylvania is unique, a universal distaste for President Obama’s failed policies was found everywhere and Republicans were successful in large part because we related the ongoing national debates surrounding spending and taxes to issues at the local level.

These rather embarrassing results for the president is not attributed to his race, but his failed record and liberal policies that are destroying the socio-economic health of the country.  The American people are saying “no thanks” to the president’s agenda.  What’s more amusing about Mr. Cillizza’s piece is when he admits that race cannot be gauged in any shape or form.

simply labeling the 42 percent of Kentuckians who supported “uncommitted” over Obama or the 41 percent of Arkansas who backed Tennessee lawyer John Wolfe over the incumbent as “racists” is a major oversimplification.

Untangling or decoupling how people feel about Obama’s race from how they feel about the policies he has pursued in office and his general beliefs about the size and necessity of government is impossible. No poll or election result can divine voters’ motivations.

So why insinuate that racism was a possibility?  Yes, there are some people in America who are racist and will not vote for Obama because of his African-American roots.  However, this is not a new revelation.  And for most of them to be located in the southern and appalachian regions; I’m stunned! Although I’m sure you can find, regrettably, plenty of like minded individuals all over the country.  Think Boston in the 1970s when local schools were desegregated which led to the forced busing fiasco.

In all, for liberals, it is almost unbelievable that people don’t support the president.  It is unbelievable that people don’t support his policies and his far left vision for America.  If you’re against him, you must be racist. That’s their default position to silence the opposition.  However, as demonstrated in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, voters, especially the blue dog, conservative wing of the Democratic Party are beginning to sour on Barry for his failure to get America back on track.  Unemployment has remained above 8% for over thirty-eight months, the national debt has increased by $ 5 trillion dollars, and we’ve ran our third consecutive trillion dollar deficit under this administration. These aren’t things that drive the faithful to the polls.  His record is dismal and the people are calling him out on it. It really isn’t that difficult left wingers.  A study session isn’t needed for everything.

Audio experts are working around the clock to find more Zimmerman racism hidden in the 9–1–1 tapes. Maybe if they play them backward...

Good news for Neighborhood Watch celebrity, George Zimmerman. The Associated Press reports that in 23 years only 2,000 people have been exonerated after being wrongly convicted of a serious felony.

Each year there are nearly one million felony convictions, over 10,000 times more than the 90 innocent defendants wrongly convicted. The findings are particularly encouraging for Zimmerman as he faces criminal prosecution for second–degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin and simultaneously a trial–by–media for the same offense.

The miscarriage of justice rate compares very favorably with the hospital medical error rate of 18 percent, where presumably the doctor doesn’t have any animus toward the customer, as opposed to prosecutors who do.

And public opinion is starting to come around. A new Rasmussen Reports national survey found 40 percent think Zimmerman acted in self–defense.

This finding is in sharp contrast to a survey of mainstream journalists that found 85 percent believe Zimmerman should already be doing time in Guantanamo.

Then when it appears justice may finally be allowed to take its course, the Washington Post uses a discredited CNN idea to attack George.

You may recall CNN reporter Gary Tuchman examined Zimmerman’s 9–1–1 call and discovered RACISM! Which is to be expected from someone with a white father. Using “one of the most sophisticated audio edit suites in the broadcast news business” CNN heard Zimmerman saying “(bleeping) coons” after technicians “enhanced” the recording.

Naturally to demonstrate even–handed news judgment, the tape was played for viewers about 300 times during the segment. As the reporter intoned, “Listen closely for “coon,” a word only bigots use. Remember it starts with a ‘c’ and ends with ‘oon.’”

Except the word wasn’t “coon.” Two weeks later, with much less fanfare, CNN re–enhances the tape and sure enough Zimmerman was saying “(bleeping) cold.”

How fortunate Zimmerman didn’t have to hide in the weeds to observe Martin. I can only imagine what the media would have done if George had muttered something about being bitten by a (bleeping) chigger.

Which brings us back to the sound–enhancing WaPo and its recording of a witness call, which FBI analysts have already termed “inconclusive.” The WaPo recycles the lie that Zimmerman ignored an order from the dispatcher. And in a nice touch, writes “…cursing under his breath, Zimmerman got out of his truck and began to follow (Martin).” But, thanks to CNN, we know Zimmerman was cursing the weather, a common activity worldwide, and not Martin.

Martin’s father heard the WaPo tape and told police the voice was not his son’s, But that was before lawyers got to him and visions of wrongful death lawsuits began dancing in his head. In contrast, the WaPo’s expert — who wouldn’t have known Trayvon if the kid had approached him at 7/11 and asked for a loan to buy Skittles — imagines Martin yelling, “I’m begging you!” “Help me!” And then, “Stop!”

Since the story was written by two females, I won’t fault them for their lack of expertise when it comes to fight dynamics. But in the real world the person who lands the first punch usually wins. Since witnesses place Martin on top of Zimmerman repeatedly punching him “MMA” style, it’s reasonable to assume his was the first punch.

Someone winning a fight is also not the one calling for help. The puncher is usually concentrating on pounding the punchee. Evidence shows Zimmerman’s back was wet from ground contact and he had a broken nose, two black eyes and cuts on the back of his head, so Trayvon evidently was doing a thorough job.

You can find the recording on the Post website and identifying any one element is like trying to isolate a single razzberry in a Spike Jones recording. One of the edited audio segments purports to be Martin’s “Stop!” But I’ve been in recording studios for 35 years and I hear “Help!” in both recordings, which stands to reason since Zimmerman is losing the fight.

But this is where it gets interesting. The “expert” asserts those 45 seconds aren’t Zimmerman calling for help during the fight, but Martin pleading with Zimmerman not to shoot him AFTER the fighting was over.

So by his reckoning, the fight is concluded. Zimmerman has his gun out. Martin begs for his life for almost a minute and then Zimmerman executes him in cold blood.

But lab results reveal the gunshot was so close it burned Martin’s skin. We know there was a single shot. If the entry wound is low and travels upward, it supports Zimmerman. But even without that information, if the fight was over and Martin was pleading for his life, chances are he would have been backing or running away, putting distance between himself and Zimmerman.

Common sense would dictate waiting for the evidence and using practical experience to evaluate it, but the Post, along with the majority of the media, has already found Zimmerman guilty and they want us to join them.

Then TheAtlantic.com piled on with this description of former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, “People are sometimes caught off guard by [his] intellectual competence because of his rural Arkansas habits (he and his wife lived in a trailer while the governor’s mansion was being renovated) and his outspoken evangelical views.”

Not those rural Arkansas habits again! What was Huckabee thinking when he moved into one of those tornado–bait tin cans? I happen to know there’s a Hilton in Little Rock.

Conservatives, who are frequently optimists in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, chose to focus on the progress we’ve made since 2008. Why Gov. Huckabee is currently living in a house that doesn’t require you to check the pressure or rotate the foundation every 5,000 miles. And nationally Republicans — if not all conservatives — have an almost–anointed presidential candidate who is articulate, thinks double–wide is an unfortunate term for the overweight and has perfect hair.

Why Mitt Romney looks just as good as that Democrat intellectual giant, John Kerry, without all the annoying French mannerisms.

Then last week all our hope for acceptance came crashing down. In a “news story” wailing about the clout Northern Virginia lost in Richmond when the GOP took control of the Senate, the Washington Post complained, “Northern Virginia senators also worry about their ability to block legislation on social issues that play very differently in the more racially diverse, better-educated and liberal Washington suburbs than in more rural parts of the state.

It was only a passing reference that spoke volumes about ingrained, institutional prejudice. The phrase is simply elite shorthand that means we’re back to: Liberals = Smart and Conservatives = Dumb.

I hope to visit the WaPost newsroom one day, because I’m convinced its map of Northern Virginia still manages to leave Prince William County (PWC) out, much like the maps of the Palestinian Authority never seem to include Israel.

This county is in the top ten nationwide when it comes to household income, we boast the satellite campus of George Mason University — where taxpayer–subsidized “arts” groups can perform — and residents frequently shop at our very own Wegmans grocery store; yet we’re still pickin’ on the banjo with the rest of the Deliverance caucus as far as the Washington Post is concerned.

And the really ironic element in this assault on the conservative intellect is the bias is based on geography, which I thought was forbidden in elite circles. Here we have an organization, which has never met an illegal alien with a sob story that it wouldn’t put on the front page, denigrating an entire class of human beings because their point of origin is South of Alexandria.
What’s next? The ideological equivalent of E–Verify for conservatives, along with a refusal to issue a Virginia licencia de conducir so they can’t drive in Richmond?

Have a heart. These migrating conservatives are yearning to live the American Dream, too. They just want to cast the votes in the General Assembly that liberals refuse to cast. Besides, they don’t actually want to live in Richmond. I’m sure they will return to their native counties once the job is done.

This current distress of Virginia and DC liberals is the result of something their Dear Leader Obama warned about, “Elections have consequences.”

And as a consequence of last November’s election, Republicans are now in control of both the House and the Senate. So in under four years Virginia has gone from a Democrat in the governor’s office and Democrats in control of the Senate to a Republican governor and Republican control of the entire General Assembly.

I think even a liberal can notice a trend here.

Specifically what this means for Virginia residents is an obstructionist Democrat Senate will no longer be able to block passage of bills that protect the life of unborn babies, defend marriage, eliminate Public Broadcasting subsidies, cut spending, reduce the size of government, prevent the appointment of activist liberal judges, discourage illegal immigration and recognize the Constitutional right of citizen self–defense.

Whew.

It’s time conservatives refuse to be on the defensive regarding intelligence. We used to ask know–it–alls, if you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Now it’s time to update that and ask liberal Democrats, if you’re so smart, why aren’t you winning elections?