Splattering Media Splatters

----

Media Splatters attempts take to take down Roger L. Simon, from PJ Tattler:

The Palace Guards over at MediaMatters are taking nasty swipes at me this morning — “Right-Wing Media’s Latest Embarrassment: Obama Lied About Birthplace to Get Ahead.“ I suppose that’s to be expected when Rush Limbaugh quotes your article (“The Mystery of the Kenyan Birth“) on his show.

What’s amusing is that the MM crew takes at face value the assertion by Obama’s agents that the “born in Kenya” statement at the top of Barack’s biography was just a 1991 mistake that for some reason went unnoticed until 2007, although numerous other entries in the same pamphlet had been updated. (The literary agency, Acton & Dystel, has explained that the “born in Kenya” line “was nothing more than a fact checking error.”)

Hello?  Are you kidding?  In my informal poll of several authors of numerous books in the last day or two, not a single one of them had ever heard of such a thing or could have imagined it.

From Jack Cashi;, American Thinker:

“This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me – an agency assistant at the time,” Miriam Goderich, now a named partner in the literary agency, Dystel & Goderich, wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News, which was then picked up ABC News. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

This confession rings false to the point of preposterous for any number of reasons.

Do you remember routine events in exacting detail what  from sixteen years ago?   I don’t.  Yet Ms Goderich expects us to believe that she remembered in detail a mistake she made some sixteen years earlier.   In 1991, Barack Obama was just one of some ninety clients of Dystel & Goderich.   Obama’s fauxography was published in 1991 and not corrected until 2007.    In other words, in took sixteen years for Goodrich, or somebody, to discover that she had posted a false  biography.

Goderich’s purported biographical description is not only wrong in Obama’s place of birth, but is also wrongly conflates Obama’s job as little more than a clerk to some kind of executive.   As Goderich biography is counter-factual, that is full of lies, the source can only be the deluded narcissist himself, one Barack H. Obama.

Moreover,  Obama admits that his purported girl friends were fictional, albeit he called them compressed.   Compressed or composite, no matter, it still amounts to fiction.   So given that Obama has admitted to using fictional characters and calling them biographical, there is no reason not to believe that Obama would limit his fictionalization to non-autobiographical characters.    In other words,  if Obama was willing to lie about his purported girl friends,  there no reason to believe that he would not lie about himself as well.   Honesty is simply not Obama’s strong suit.

Addendum:    Doug Ross piles on:

The biography provided by Barack Obama to his literary agent specified his birthplace as “Kenya”. And, over the course of 17 years, despite multiple revisions by Obama, the Kenyan birthplace remained a fundamental part of the bio on the agent’s website.

[...]

Old media’s feeble handling of this issue — parroting the laughable assertion that clerical errors caused Obama’s birthplace to be incorrectly listed, when former clients and the agency’s policy itself states that authors provide the biographical briefs — is pathetic.

As I’ve demonstrated here, Obama’s bio was carefully edited over the course of 17 years to reflect his various accomplishments.

Goderich’s one mistake might explain a single mistake circa 1991.  A single mistake can not explain seventeen years of  erroneous information.

From Fox News:

Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer who was the only person ever convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, died at home in Tripoli Sunday, nearly three years after he was released from a Scottish prison to the outrage of the relatives of the attack’s 270 victims. He was 60.

Ronald Reagan: Trust but verify.   Show me the body!

I note  DavidL’s post on this subject. I must confess, I too find “Was Dumbo lying then, or is Dumbo lying now?” to be an important question. But it seems to me there’s far more going on here.

Let’s re-establish. with David’s help:

In 1991,in order to sell books, Barack Obama was described as having been borne in Kenya, from by Joel B. Pollak, Big Hollywood:

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.  The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation.   He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.

 

OK. That done…

What David doesn’t say is that this “error” if “error” it was, made it through several iterations of printing… there are several generations of this brochure out there. It initially showed up in promotion of Obama’s anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White… a project that  Obama abandoned, and was also used later in the promotion for Dreams from My Father.   Funny how nobody…. and I mean nobody, Obama himself included, thought it wise not to remove this “error”.

That leaves one of two possibilities; either they lied because it made a better “Poor boy makes good against all odds” narrative, or, it wasn’t an “error”, and  they were telling the truth.  In short, he was lying then, or lying now.  And as far as I’m concerned we still don’t have proof either way. Frankly, given the record of this individual called Obama, I’m inclined to believe the worst of it.

At best, we’re left with the question of what what this administration and his supporters will not lie about…. what they will not fabricate in the way of stories to make him appear better than he is.  In reality, it’s worse.  Far worse.

Breitbart’s site, Big Government, actually broke this story.    but even they couch it in terms that attempt to deny what it clearly indicates.

Andrew Breitbart was never a “Birther,” and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of “Birtherism.” In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.
Yet Andrew also believed that the complicit mainstream media had refused to examine President Obama’s ideological past, or the carefully crafted persona he and his advisers had constructed for him.

It is for that reason that we launched “The Vetting,” an ongoing series in which we explore the ideological background of President Obama (and other presidential candidates)–not to re-litigate 2008, but because ideas and actions have consequences.

It is also in that spirit that we discovered, and now present, the booklet described below–one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.

It is evidence–not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.

Hmmm.

Well, granted that it is at least that.

Certainly, as Big Government suggests, it is proof of the degree to which the mainstream press has been covering for Obama.  Let’s be realistic;  The story we have here, where this a Republican president, would be considered a smoking gun by every individual in the press and on the left.  (Granted, a repetition.) It fascinates me that even some on the right aren’t willing to consider as such.  (And yes, I know I’m opening myself up for a hate filled response from the leftie keepers of sweet and light. So be it.)

But it strikes me as even more proof of the degree to which anyone who has any problems with Obama’s (Lack of) documentation has been demonized. This CYA language being employed here  by the denizens of Big Government  is absolutely fascinating.  The demonization of anyone who questions Obama’s very shaky documentation is so complete that even those on the right, Big Government included, refuse to even suggest what this rather clearly  points to.

Consider it the way this is going; the depth of the problem, and the mortal fear being displayed. Anyone who dares suggest that Obama was telling the truth, is attacked. Even bringing up the mere possibility is subject to attack from the usual suspects, including the White House itself.

I am reminded of the man accidentally caught in the bear trap,  who is additionally and ironically confronted by a bear.  He removes his own foot in an attempt to escape the bear. (Or if you prefer, the guy at the end of the movie “Mad Max”.)   So it is with the Obama White House at the moment.  My instinct tells me that the idea that Obama was telling the truth when he said in these brochures that he was born in Kenya, becoming commonly accepted, is the bigger fear.  It is the only logical explanation for the reaction of the White House.  They would be hardly willing to admit that Obama had lied in that brochure, otherwise.  Yet, here, they’re insisting on it. Certainly, given his record, the concept that Obama was telling a lie, is easier one to believe than that he told the truth.

But that insistence does not make sense until you consider what it is that they are possibly protecting. Clearly, they believe the political cost of the electorate believing he was telling the truth is larger than believing he was telling a lie.

And of course anyone falling outside that narrative is demonized ridiculed etc..  What I find annoying is that Big Government is among those who are apparently so afraid of being demonized that they’re willing to play along.  It is that same fear of demonization that we saw in the McCain campaign where McCain suggested that we have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency.  That all of these negative stories that were coming up about him were beneath us.  McCain did that because he was afraid of being demonized himself.  We see where that got him. And by extension, us.

Interestingly, we see that same fear in Romney, today.  But that’s another post.

Meanwhile, the question becomes “Is there anyone with the courage to speak the truth?”  Specifically, why are so many going to such lengths to avoid the obvious conclusion in this matter?  There’s an elephant in the room, people.  It does not serve our purpose to be looking around and saying “What elephant?”

Addendum 1: By way of McPhillips, we find this statement on the point from Moochelle Obama, saying Obama was born in Kenya.

Seven, count em, NAG’s (National Association of Gale) showed up to protest Rush Limbaugh’s views on the gentler sex. For one, Darleen Click “Behold the multitudes” was somewhat less than impressed, video:

Hat tip video: Protein Wisdom

Snark to Erin: Community by foot.  Next time yo9 claim to speak for all women, I advise you to show up with more than seven, far more.

In 1991, in order to sell books, Barack Obama was described as having been borne in Kenya, from by Joel B. Pollak, Big Hollywood:

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.  The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation.   He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.

Not to say that Dumbo, b/k/a Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya.   Why did Dumbo make such a claim.   I posit four reasons:

• One, Dumbo was actually born in Kenya..
• Two,  Dumbo was in fact  born in Hawaii but lied in order to sell more books.
• Three, the description was published by Dumbo’s agent, without Dumbo knowledge.   Sure.
• Tour, Dumbo was, and still is, too stupid to know that Kenya is not in Hawaii.   Geography is not President Fifty-Seven States long suit.

Was Dumbo lying then, or is Dumbo lying now?

I don’t believe they still take scalps but one certified Cherokee, Twila Barnes, has figuratively scalped Fauxasquawa, a/k/a Lying Lizzie, b/k/a Elizabeth Warren, via William E. Jacobson, Legal Insurrection:

I am writing this letter in the hope it will help end the current situation you have found yourself in. It seems you are being ripped apart in the media because of your claim of Cherokee ancestry and you don’t like it. According to a recent article in the Boston Globe, you believe your opponent is “creating a distraction” by “ridiculously” attacking you “with questions that have already been answered.” It seems you would like the “attacks” against your claims of Cherokee ancestry to stop so I thought I would offer some advice on how to make it stop.

Tell the truth….

While you cling to a family story and the inaccurate report that ONE document was found that supports your claim, we real Cherokees understand that those things mean nothing. You see, we Cherokees have lots and lots and lots of documentation supporting our claims of our ancestry. Our Cherokee ancestors are found on every roll of the Cherokee Nation (30+ rolls!) dating back to before the removal and in all sorts of other documentation, including but not limited to claims against the US government for lost property; the Moravian missionary records; ration lists before and after the forced removal, etc…yet your ancestors are found in NONE of those records.

I don’t think too many Oklahoma Cherokee Indians are registered to vote in Massachusetts any how,  but don’t suggest that Fauxasquawa travel to Oklahoma any time in the near future.

Irenic, that the supposed beneficiaries of Harvard’s supposed affirmative action, are raising the loudest objections.    The if Fauxasquawa was attempting to steal your heritage, you would be mad as well.

Karen, the Lonely Conservative reports on Political Whore of the Day, one Maggie Haberman, link:

The Mitt Romney campaign released an ad featuring a few of the people the Obama economy has left behind. Within hours, Politico’s Maggie Haberman published a piece full of dirt on one of the men who appeared in the ad.

[...]

Well, at least he didn’t lie about being unemployed! The guy who did that appeared in an Obama ad, but nobody went digging up his criminal record, they only took a glance at his facebook page. His name is Brian Slagle, and a search at Politico brings up zero stories about Slagle. So I guess Politico is only interested in researching people who appear in Republican ads.

Ace of Spades wonders if Haberman had a source

If appears that Haberson is using Obama campaign opposition research and pawning it off as her own reporting.

The White House talking point and media meme that George Zimmerman was some racist white guy who gunned down a poor  black child out of racist spite, keep running into those stubborn facts, from WFTV, Sanford, Florida:

WFTV has confirmed that autopsy results show 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles when he died.

The information could support George Zimmerman’s claim that Martin beat him up before Zimmerman shot and killed him.

Of course the media lynching of Zimmerman started when they thought Zimmerman was white.

You have three men in a room, a business man, a politician, and a bureaucrat.    What are the chances that either the politician or the bureaucrat ate the smartest person in the room?  Squat.   Only the business man got his job by perceived ability and demonstrated ability do his job.

A politician has little interest in anything other than his re-election and the bureaucrat’s only needed skill is the ability to blame-shift.

J.P. Morgan hired the best the brightest, and paid them very well, to manage their business.   Well at least in one case, the best and the brightest failed, and some will now be looking for a new job.   I have not read any explanation of how JP Morgan two billion dollar “London Whale” went down.

Yet dim witted politicians, like Barney Frank, and screaming that the solution is yet more regulation.    As banking is simply above Frank’s pay grade, how doss he purport to be able to write statutory law which would remedy a problem he does not understand?

Look at it like this, if you don’t like the way JP Morgan handles money, and such is your right, then don’t bank with them and don’t invest in them.   Simple.

JP Morgan lost two billion dollars.  The company survived.  The markets survived.  Individual managers did not.   In other words, the system worked.

Addendum I:  Peter Suderman, Reason:

Would tougher regulation of the financial sector have prevented JPMorgan’s loss? That’s not at all clear. The Washington Post’s Allen Sloan, who favors many stricter financial sector rules, says that because there’s no likely loss to taxpayers, the blown deal proves mostly that the bank should be embarrassed. Bernstein argues that Dodd-Frank would have prevented the loss if “properly implemented and enforced.”

But “proper” implementation is always harder than it sounds. And I’m not sure we have any more reason to trust that regulators have the wisdom and judgment to prevent such losses any more or better than the bankers themselves.

Writing regulations, appointing regulators and enforcing regulations is not a process, at least in Washington, that does anything to create wisdom.

Addendum II:  from Johnathan Macey, Wall Street Journal:

Regulators, politicians and news reporters are hysterical at the news of J.P. Morgan’s recent $2 billion trading loss. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating to see whether laws were broken.

We appear to be on the verge of making it a crime for a business to lose money. The truth is that nobody should care about J.P. Morgan’s loss—nobody except J.P. Morgan stockholders

Regulators and reporters have no incentive to learn, because they not responsible for the money they lose.

As I write this, I’m taking a rest break, after having spent the week moving freight.  It’s I fear my writing for the blog has suffered; Ive not had nearly the time I’d have liked to capture thoughts and comment on the passing moronic parade. Of course I watch it about as closely as I ever have, and if anything I have the ability, given the time involved to spent more time formulating thought lines, but not nearly as much time capturing them for posting, here. Darned shame, really.

That said, I have managed to formulate some thoughts about the latest distraction, (for distraction it is).

Since Barack Obama’s cynically calculated bow to the homosexual lobby, much has been made of his intentions.  Much has been written.  Much has been said.  While most of these observations appear  to focus on one motivation solely, it seems to me that there are many motivations on the part of Obama and his people.  All of which, focus on the idea of getting the man reelected.  The probably  of success for these plans seems debatable.

When this move was first announced, I suggested that it was a diversionary tactic:

He simply can’t run on his record. The economy after 3 years of Obama is abysmal. Our foreign policy is nothing short of frightening. So he’s got to latch on to something else. He’s basically flailing around for a flotation device like a drowning man. The is really latest in a series of smokescreens.

Some have suggested that this is to keep Romney off of his game, (The economy, and foreign policy) and on social issues. There is some merit to this. Frankly, that has always been one of my objections to Romney is his tendency to try to pick two extremes and come up in the middle, and claiming whatever is there as his position. this makes from the a very poor choice to argue for or positions. This has a tendency to cause a certain number of flip flops before he finally settles down. Ironically, I would suggest that had Rick Santorum won the day, Obama would not’ve been able to try this. Santorum, whatever his faults are, would have told voters in no uncertain terms where he stood and that would be the end of it. The fact of the matter is, Santorum’s position on the matter is much closer to mainstream America that is Obama’s, and Romney trying to split the difference isn’t going to help him in the general election. (Thanks again, Centrists. You gave us, perhaps by design, the weaker choice of the two. )

Others have suggested that this is a way to get the base solidified around Obama. But will it do so? Probably not. Indeed the polls I’ve seen suggests that the only state this position is going to help women as Colorado. Maybe one of the New England states, New Hampshire for example. As for others such as Ohio of Virginia, Arizona Missouri and certainly in North Carolina for example, what we see here is a net loser for Mr. Obama and the Democrat Party.

Even among what is most certainly one of Mr. Obama score support groups, black voters, particularly, black church goers, Obama is in serious trouble. Consider the aforementioned North Carolina. It was here that such groups pushed Obama over the top in that state. Yet, it was these groups that pushed the entire homosexual marriage proposition to victory just recently, voting two to one in favor of the ban.

There are those who will suggest that Obama will retain the black vote regardless of his policies and positions. I tend to think better of the black community. The black voter’s smarter than the liberal media gives them credit for. The concept that black voters will vote for Obama simply because he’s black and ignore all else seems to me a singularly racist position to hold. It should be noted that the somewhat larger what e-mail community is similarly against Obama in this, and even assuming a racial loyalty factor amongst black voters, but to those are not as likely to be so swayed.

As an aside, there are those who will suggest that this is a “civil rights” issue. I suspect that among black voters that is a very unpopular line to take; proposing an equivalency between allowing homosexuals to marry, and blacks to be not slaves angers many blacks. While there are many Obama supporters who will claim that his stance will not cost in black votes, that assumption is that the very least, counter -intuitive.

As for raising support among independents, Obama struck out on that one too. The polling currently being runs suggests that he has seriously injured himself, here.

Then there’s the homosexual lobby which has flexed it’s muscle in the past. If there is much to suggest that Obama is wooing large campaign donors who support the homosexual lobby. That becomes something of a no -brainer when we see that Obama has been having trouble raising campaign cash of late.

It strikes me as laughable that Obama is being called courageous for having consulted with his political idea man before he was able to figure out what he “truly believes”, and what his “aha” moment has shown him. What we have here, is a cynical move by an extraordinarily cynical man, with nothing but political motivations on his mind. He wants power. He believes in an all powerful government.

At the end of the day, and like it or not, what we’re seeing here is an effort to buy a relative few to change the the culture by force of government. In reality, this is what Obama is supporting. He has, in effect, come out and stated that government should enforce rights, which he has identified… And I suppose not surprisingly those which he has identified, are those pushed by certain small subgroups within his base.

I suggest that granting “rights” is beyond the purview of government, even absent the issue of the culture’s approval of a particular position.

Consider my words from a few years ago;

So what is the purpose of government, anyway? No, I don’t mean what it evolved into, I mean rather it’s original purpose… the reason the concept of governments of any kind were even conceived of.

Some submit that government exists to protect privileges of a few, preserving a state of injustice for the majority.

Others hold the somewhat more optimistic view that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice. It appears to me that those questions form the arguments among the proponents of liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, conservatism and fascism, all at once.

I submit that all these four basic positions miss the point, because they generally don’t remember who it was who invented the concept of government…government of any kind, I mean… in first place. I should point out that in general, the ones who get it the closest are conservatives, but they are not spot on, either.)

Libertarians, mostly suggest, along with Jefferson, that “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”, and that therefore, government exists for only one purpose, and that is to secure the unalienable rights of its citizens against violation.

Well… This is fine as far as it goes, but it ignores who created the concept of rights, and it thereby misses utterly, the best path to protect such rights. In doing so it ironically denies it’s adherents such protection.

And of course each of these groups has tended to abuse the power of government for their own ends.

To the end of answering overriding question of the purpose of government, (And thereby the question of what government needs to be doing today, and not doing, to remain legit) with any logic, we need to ask a few more questions:

1: Who invented the concept of government?

2: What purpose would that entity have had in such creation?

One way we can answer those two questions at once, would be to look at what existed as the most powerful force before government was invented, and therefore what was the most likely inventor of government: CULTURE.

If we make the logical assumption that governments were originally created by the individual cultures, then it follows that each culture constructed their respective governments in their own image… governments that best reflected and advanced each culture’s interests.

The original purpose of government, therefore, is to protect, nurture and defend, and if possible expand the influence of, the culture that gave it life. As such, to the greatest of degrees possible, each government’s laws, on the whole, were the culture, codified. It follows, then, that any government holding to the original purpose of government will perform this task.

Now, notice I said to the greatest degree possible. I freely admit… Trumpet, even, that there are no perfect governments, no perfect laws. No law, or government can ever capture in amber, a culture. Cultures are far more complex than any law, however written, can encompass. So it is that laws cannot be the end-call and be-all to a culture, or to a country. Laws when taken too literally and made to apply to all events uniformly, can instead of being just, will instead dispense injustice. It is said that in hell, there will be law and policy and little else. Yet, this imperfect tool did at least manage to provide a mechanism toward the intended purpose… The furtherance of the culture that founded said government. This understanding that there is imperfection in government implies that other values should supersede governmental power when the tool of government doesn’t fit the task at hand well. I submit the highest value applied here should be the values of the culture, not that of the law.

(Which, I would argue is why there are judges which read not only the wording of the laws but then intent of them.)

Now, I hear some of you balking at this, suggesting the right of the individual are paramount; a noble sentiment. But consider this immovable fact:

Rights are not universal.

Yep. That’s what I said…Read it again, just to be sure.

Rights are not universal.

Clearly, this will raise many questions on the part of some. This should answer most;

When Jefferson wrote that “WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT” he was not speaking a universal truth at all. The operative word in that phrase is “WE”.

Rather than talking about a universal point of view, a universal truth, if you will, he was instead talking about the point of view of WE the new American culture. With this angle, many of the long-held myths about rights tend to disappear.

Consider; if it was in fact a universal truth that all men were created equal, it wouldn’t have been such a radical idea, for the time, much less then to now. Last I checked, it is quite true that a vast majority still do not consider these as any kind of truth, universal or otherwise; they consider them to be anything BUT self-evident. Royalty still exists, as do class structures, and slavery, as well.

Again, I say…Jefferson was speaking of the point of view of OUR culture, not that of others.

The fact of the matter is that RIGHTS ARE A CULTURAL CONCEPT, and are nigh on meaningless outside that construct. Once the culture is allowed to fall to the law, even in an attempt to impose rights where they do not exist, what happens to real rights, which are a cultural concept?

Did you catch the last paragraph? And go back and read it again.

The constitution is not designed to prevent society from exerting its will. It is designed to prevent the government from exerting its will. It is not a restriction on the people, it is a restriction on government. It is designed to be a limitation on government. Not on society.

Our founders also clearly recognized both in their daily actions and in their writings in the early days of our government that rights were not granted or guaranteed by government. The culture that founded this nation held that all men had writes that were provided by their creator. Government couldn’t touch those rights, to regulate them, but neither could they provide them.

If, then, by fiat of government, we grant as a “right”, that which has never before been a part of our society, thus overruling the culture what happens to the very concept of rights, which themselves are a cultural construct? It seems to me that when we buy legal fiat allow government to create a right to marry someone of the same sex, what we are doing is accepting the concept that government can create rights. That seems to me a very dangerous precedent, even absent the damage to the culture, Because the concept of where rights come from, is itself damaged.

There are those who will suggest that the comparison to slavery is valid on the basis that society approved of slavery. (Thus the strident comparisons by white homosexuals and their supporters,  to blacks and their “civil rights”.) I suggest once again that the context of that claim can be found on any stable floor, though doubtless, in lesser quantities.

I suggest the test cannot be made, since it never really came to a vote. There was no referendum on the matter. But I would suggest to you that a look into history tells us that there was certainly enough of a societal movement afoot that slavery would have ended even absent the Civil War, by about the turn of the last century, because of society exerting its voice, along with the business interests reacting to other countries not wanting to trade with slaveholders.

For that said, there is no such movement as regards the homosexual marriage issue… Either nationally, or internationally. And of course nationally such a referendum on the subject of homosexual marriage go down to defeat as something of a routine. The enforcement of such “rights” seems to me a corruption of government.

As I said back in the day;

Culture is by far a more powerful force than government, over time. Indeed; Where governments have gotten themselves into problems over the centuries, is invariably where governments have tried to alter the culture artificially, by means of law. Culture eventually triumphs.

I notice a trend, and I will leave it to your consideration; when the subject of “civil rights” comes up, invariably we’re talking about government overriding the culture. Since the purpose of any government which is to survive for very long, is to support and extend the influence of that culture that give it life, any government attempting to do so is in the end committing suicide.

I do quibble a bit with Mr. McCain, just a wee bit. Given the sorry history of the Pulitzer Prize, reporting out and out fiction is not a disqualification.

That said, Stacy is all over the Washington Post imploded hit piece of Mitt Romney, from Other McCain:

By God, you can’t do that in journalism: You cannot base a key element of a story — in this case, the claim that Romney’s bullying left Lauber emoitonally traumatized for life — on a quote from the deceased “victim” attributed to him based on an (alleged) private conversation. Lauber isn’t around to verify or dispute the accuracy of Seed’s account, and therefore it is unethical to include the “quotes” that Seed attributes to Lauber.

Stacy ain’t pretty, but neither is the sorry mess called the Washington Post.

Professor Ann Althouse posting as a member of the A-Team,  from Instapundit:

Just add in a sex change, and the libtards will be all for it.    Sterilization is just like a sex change, disabling perfectly useful equipment, but without adding the new, but useless parts.    Libtards  don’t mind sterilizing perfectly healthy people    So why would sterilizing a drug addict somehow offend them?

It is is well know, albeit denied by the media, that Barack “President Fifty-Seven States”  Obama is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.   Now in addition to being a moron, Obama, a/k/a Dumbo,  now appears to a gullible sap, from Bristol Palin:

Is anyone really surprised by the fact that President Obama came out of the closet for gay marriage? What was most surprising is when he explained how his position (supposedly) “evolved,” by talking to his wife and daughters:

[...]

So let me get this straight – it’s a problem if my mom listened too much to my dad, but it’s a heroic act if the President made a massive change in a policy position that could affect the entire nation after consulting with his teenage daughters?

While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads. In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview.

Even if Malia and Sasha(1) prove brighter, less angry and more sober than their parents, they are still but children.   The idea that children reside in the realm of wisdom is a yarn best reserved for Walt Disney movies.

Sasha and Malia are mere children incapable of spinning a sophisticated argument   Bill Ayers is quite intelligent and can spin a very intricate arguments, see Dreams of My Father.    If Dumbo’s brain, such as it is, is incapable of resisting the arguments of his two children, just think of how easy it would be for a unrepentant terrorist and college professor like Bill Ayers to twist Dumbo’s mind.   Likewise think how much the hate monger Jeremiah Wright twisted Dumbo’s pliable mind in the twenty years Obama spent in Wright’s churck

If Dumbo can lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is good just because his daughters purport to know some homosexuals, what conclusion did Dumbo reach about terrorism spending all that time in Ayers’ living room, or about racial hatred spending all those Sunday’s in Wright’s church?.

1.    Barack Obama having submitted his two children, Sasha and Malia, as sources for his decision making, such as it is,  it is appropriate to examine Obama’s declared sources.    I’ll put like this,  Obama can not both claim his children as a source for his decision making and expect that they will be somehow off limits     If Obama does not want his children to the subject of blog posting, I advise the President to keep his children out of his political speeches.

More gems from the A-Team, Sarah Hoyt reports this gem from Fort Lee, NJ, via CBS New York (NFL(, from Instapundit:

Fort Lee’s police chief has seen his share of careless pedestrians texting or talking on the phone in his own town. He said he has counted 23 pedestrian accidents since January, ranging from minor bumps and bruises to three fatalities.

After trying pamphlets and brochures, he’s ordering his officers to ticket careless pedestrians on the spot.

“They’re not alert and they’re not watching what they’re doing,” Police Chief Thomas Ripoli told CBS 2?s Derricke Dennis. “As of now, they are to give summonses to pedestrians who do not adhere to crosswalks and the lights.”

Ms Hoyt:

As a frequent pedestrian, I should think the risk of getting killed if hit should be enough deterrent. If it isn’t, then big-nanny law enforcement won’t do it. You can see what’s next on this, right? Walking helmets. And bans on eating, reading, window shopping listening to music or talking on the phone while walking. Minding our own safety is too much for the likes of us. We must let nanny mind for us.

Gotta die of something.   As for me, I have no intention of dying a couch potato.

Having done some walking in my time,  I keep it simple,  two rules:

• One, never trust a four-wheeler
• Two, never surprise a four wheeler.

A four-wheeler is a car.  Bit will like the first rule.  I stole it off a trucker.   The second is my modification.

I now know more about Naomi Schaefer Riley.   She knows her subject, writes very well and  keeps her cool, from Wall Street Journal:

Thirty-five years later in a piece for the Minding the Campus website, former Berkeley Prof. John McWhorter noted that little had changed: “Too often the curriculum of African-American Studies departments gives the impression that racism and disadvantage are the most important things to note and study about being black.”

My critics have suggested that I do not believe the black experience in America is worthy of study. That is not true. It’s just that the best of this work rarely comes out of black studies departments. Scholars like Roland Fryer in Harvard’s economics department have done pathbreaking research on the causes of economic disparities between blacks and whites. And Eugene Genovese’s work on slavery and the role of religion in black American history retains its seminal role in the field decades after its publication.

The academic plantation left can not hold up to this women.   The more the plantation populations attack, Riley, the better she  looks.

Hat tip:  RS McCain.