Larry Elder's Anthem Protest Article

This article about the NFL national anthem protests by conservative talk radio host Larry Elder is worth revisiting now that Colin Kaepernike (kaepernike.com is already taken —  don't you hate it?) has been signed as a major endorser, symbol, icon, etc. Elder asks "Do facts matter?" Here are some of the facts he presents with the numbers; you can decide how to answer the rhetorical question best.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, since 1968 police killings of blacks have declined nearly 75 percent. According to The Washington Post, almost 500 whites were killed by cops in 2015, an average of more than one a day. Two hundred fifty-nine blacks were killed by the police. Most suspects killed by police had a weapon.

Yes; more whites are killed by the police than blacks.

Last year, The Washington Post put the number of unarmed black men killed by the police at 17, less than the number of blacks likely struck by lightning. Twenty-two unarmed whites were killed by the police. Any death that results from police misconduct is one death too many, but the point is that police killing of a suspect is rare, no matter the race of the suspect or the cop. And a police shooting of an unarmed black male is still more rare.

Even the frequency of interactions with police are greater or the same for whites than for blacks:

According to Philippe Lemoine, writing in National Review, a white person is, on average, more likely to have interactions with the police in any year than a black person, 20.7 percent vs. 17.5 percent. It is true that a black person is more likely to have multiple contacts with the police. But according to the data, multiple contacts with the police are rare, as well. Lemoine writes that 1.2 percent of white men have more than three contacts with the police in a year versus 1.5 percent of black men.

Read the whole thing. Burning sportswear might be a dumb thing to do, but continuing to believe the false narrative of widespread police brutality against blacks is even dumber. It amounts to sacrificing everything we have learned by looking at the evidence.

#Walkaway Campaign is real

The number of Walkaway Campaign members is now almost 150,000. The new smear is to call them the work of "Russian bots".



I don't agree with this assessment, but I will also point out that not all these people just left the Democratic Party. Some left quite some time ago; one woman whose last name is Holder claims that she is Eric Holder's cousin and she left back when Reagan was running. Others are people like me and some of my online friends who were never Democrats.

But there are others who are the real deal. Click on the #walkAway tag at the bottom of this page to see some Youtube vids of the main type of member, people who have just been red-pilled like Candace Owens.

Another #WalkAway testimonial

She is right. Most Trump supporters are really, really nice, and the other side uses name-calling in the place of arguments.



"I will never watch the mainstream media again." Beautiful.

"Brian Williams didn’t kill anyone."

Awww, poor Brian. No one is going to bat for him because he's not opinionated enough. Excerpt:

“​The problem for Brian is that unlike an opinionated cable news host who might have an army of like-minded supporters prepared to fight the social media war, a network news anchor’s support these days is inevitably going to be far less passionate, even for Brian. They may like and appreciate him but few are going to be prepared to do ‘battle’ for him and so it’s hardly surprising that he is generally being skewered by the social media masses.”

In other words, he has no real friends because he's window-dressing.

Piers Morgan offers the best defense of Brian Williams to date: "Brian Williams didn’t kill anyone."

“We surely need to get a collective grip and gain some perspective on all this. Brian Williams didn’t kill anyone. He skewed a story about his experience in Iraq which made him sound a bit closer to the action and therefore more heroic than he actually was. It was untrue, and wrong of him to do it, but why should it be terminally so?”

Yes, that's really the only way you can lose your job: commit a murder. Nobody ever lost their job over anything less. And people who lose their jobs suffer the stigma of everyone thinking they are murderers. Please.

Blocked but not Shocked

This morning J-Carp alerted me to this laughable post with the short and apropos quip "This is rich." I noticed this post was being pimped on Twitter, so I decided to weigh in.

First this happened:

@roddreher sort of like those who gleefully & relentlessly chronicle the scandals in the #Catholic #Church. #WhoseOxIsGored #CircleTheWagons
— Ⓔⓢⓣ⋅Ⓠⓤⓞⓓ⋅Ⓔⓢⓣ (@estquodest) February 9, 2015

Then this happened:

So I've been "blocked from following @roddreher and viewing @roddreher's tweets." Oh, misery. Too bad I don't have more than one email and more than one Twitter account ever again. That way I'd be able to see and respond to his wonderful Tweets. Oh, wait....

I'll let others find and post links to Dreher's gleeful bashing of Rush Limbaugh for his scandals and high-horse posing about Dan Rather and Memo-gate. We get "now-now-but-for-the-grace-of-God-there-go-we" whenever a journalist is caught with his pants around his ankles telling outright lies and "Ha! What a horrible hypocrite!" when a Catholic bishop or mainstream conservative blunders in any way, shape or form.

But I want to point out two things. First, there is a lot of projection going on here with this accusation of envy being the big explanation as to why people are goofing all over Brian Williams. I'm a sinful man who is by no means immune to the sin of envy, but I'm sorry—the objects of my covetousness are people who are wayyy cooler than some news guy named Brian Williams. I mean, I can imagine that if my calling in life was to be a second rate blogger for a paleocon rag with a small cult following I might be envious of the smooth talking, good looking anchorman with an enormous megaphone, national name recognition and a matching salary.

The second thing is that it would appear that Mr. Dreher is in somewhat of a quandary with regard to using Twitter. He needs to use it in order to pimp posts and be a part of the modern media universe, but he has to relinquish his normal control in order to do so. Yes, he blocked me and I can't comment anymore under my normal email/Twitter account, too bad so sad. On the other hand, it doesn't appear that he can delete (de-Tweet?) my Tweet which is still there for anyone who wants to see the replies.

The obvious solution for this would be a Benedict Option version of Twitter.com where you could pimp your worthy commentary but there would be a central moderator—a Benedictator—who would delete unworthy Tweets so as not to harsh the mellow of your brilliance. Or point out obvious inconsistencies.

UPDATE: Check this out. I can still comment/reply on @roddreher tweets. I simply just pull them up under a different account in a different browser then cut-and-paste the address to the browser where my @estquodest account is logged in. Twitter allows me to reply to posts that way. Security hole? Maybe. Next move for OWB: report @estquodest for "cyber-stalking".

Lies, Stupid Lies and Even Worse Apologies

As usual, a ridiculous situation has reminded me of one of the Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey. This time the ridiculous thing is the whole apology after the Brian Williams helicopter lie, the lie which seems to resemble the Dan Rather Bush lie, the Lena Dunham rape lie, the AP Irish nuns lie, etc. Here's the Deep Thought (source):

I guess I kinda lost control, because in the middle of the play I ran up and lit the evil puppet villain on fire. No, I didn't. Just kidding. I just said that to help illustrate one of the human emotions, which is freaking out. Another emotion is greed, as when you kill someone for money, or something like that. Another emotion is generosity, as when you pay someone double what he paid for his stupid puppet.

Like I said, ridiculous. But no less ridiculous than the Brian Williams apology. Full Text (source):

On this broadcast last week, in an effort to honor and thank a veteran who protected me and so many others after a ground-fire incident in the desert during the Iraq War invasion, I made a mistake in recalling the events of twelve years ago. . . . I want to apologize. I said I was traveling in an aircraft that was hit by RPG fire; I was instead in a following aircraft. We all landed after the ground-fire incident and spent two harrowing nights in a sandstorm in the Iraq desert. This was a bungled attempt by me to thank one special veteran, and by extension, our brave military men and women, veterans everywhere, those who have served while I did not. I hope they know they have my greatest respect, and also now my apology.

Wwwwwoooooooowwwwwww.... Where is Michael Bloomberg when you need him?

It's what is really impressive to me, saying you got shot down, and then realizing that you just mis-remembered what actually happened. No one seems to appreciate that a lot of exciting things happen in your awesome life and, gee-whiz, why are they all upset that you can't remember small details? "Hey, I single-handedly fought off nine black-belts in that bar fight, and everyone is upset that I said it was ten! Like I was trying to exaggerate. Man, give me a break."

You have to wonder if they learn this in journalism school. I'm pretty sure they do, and they practice on town floozies in dive bars. I'll bet it works on them sometimes. Veterans on the other hand... not so much.

Looks like 2015 might be another record breaking year for lies, just like 2014.

Cops save black lives

Lee Habeeb argues that cops have a right to be angry at the false witness being born toward them, and I agree. Excerpt:

New York cops are mad at Mayor de Blasio in particular because he failed to mention that 2013 ended with the lowest number of fatal shootings by the police in 40 years in their city. Only eight people died from police gunfire, with a police force of over 30,000. And all of the victims were armed with either a gun or a cutting instrument. But none of those leaders bothered to report these narrative-busting facts — nor did the media.

And no one bothered to mention that New York City is on track in 2014 to have the fewest murders in 50 years. As of the beginning of December, there had been 290. That’s down from 2,200 in the early 1990s. The majority of lives saved were black, because the overwhelming majority of murder victims in the city are black. Do the math. Tens of thousands of black lives have been saved in the past two decades by cops in New York, but Mayor de Blasio couldn’t manage to share that fact in his heartfelt speech.

Cops save black lives. Sensible people see this truth.

I wonder, though, how eager a policeman will be to rush toward 911 calls in some neighborhoods now, knowing that they may face a decision between having either his life or his career ended. Or, will he even feel like patrolling those neighborhoods? Will there be some time in the future when patrolling the worst neighborhoods will be given to the C-average cops? This already is somewhat the case now, or at least there is anecdotal evidence which seem to confirm this. Nobody disputes that some policemen are better or smarter than others, or that some policemen are downright corrupt.

We shouldn't forget that these men know and are fully aware that they may be killed or hurt badly every time they suit up. But we as a nation need to support the police. Sea of Blue is an attempt to counter the lies and support good men (and women) in the police force. If we didn't have company on Saturday I would have gone downtown to add my support.

Abuseniks

Manufactured anger is in the news right now with President Obama's latest stage performance over the VA scandal. Rush Limbaugh is talking about it right now with a fun montage made up of about 5 years worth of unconvincing Obama play-rage over things like the IRS scandal, the healthcare.gov fiasco, etc. Limbaugh also makes the very astute observation that the mock outrage is messaging which targets people he calls "low-information voters", not those of us who know play-acting when we see it.

The Media Report has a great example of the same sort of mock-rage-as-messaging with this piece about Mitchell Garabedian's recent fit asserting that the Catholic Church is "once again acting in the most immoral way by allowing the wholesale sexual abuse of children" merely because the church wouldn't pony up over a false accusation:

Garabedian probably thought he would have it just as easy when he filed a similar lawsuit, also in 2012, against the Diocese of Fall River, alleging abuse by a priest starting in the late 1970s. In his suit, Garabedian made the astonishing claim that a priest abused two parishioners for nearly a decade starting when the boys were 9 or ten years old and lasting until they were seventeen.

Alas, however, the diocese hired independent investigators to look into the matter, and they concluded that the evidence did not support Garabedian's claim. Most notably, the accused priest died in 1996 at 83 years old, and not a single allegation had ever been made against him.

Yet even though no evidence of abuse was found by investigators, the diocese agreed not only to offer free counseling for the men but to also enter a mediation process to bring closure to the case.

However, as the Diocese of Fall River reports, Garabedian recently abruptly "ended the mediation process."

In other words, when the diocese apparently refused Garabedian's demand for money, he unleashed his tirade that the Church was now somehow "allowing the wholesale sexual abuse of children."

Ah, yes, those pesky details. Why do you Catholics want evidence of wrong-doing? CAN'T YOU SEE HOW ANGRY I AM ABOUT THIS?!? GIVE ME MONEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!

The real treasure in this post is the comment posted by Publion. I'm including the full text here. It's long, but it does a great job at summing up what is really going in the Catholic Church-only abuse industrial complex.

I would also ask of ‘Another Mark’ (the 19th, 952PM) the same question that ‘Mark’ asks (the 20th, 652AM): why trust this lawyer (hereinafter: ‘MG’)?

Readers may recall my mention of a Boston attorney in D’Antonio’s book who was involved in various bits of quite possibly prohibited and unlawful skullduggery in helping the Boston Globe get its series published in early January 2002 (D’Antonio is pro-Stampede and sees MG’s activity as sort of charmingly enterprising). That attorney D’Antonio was discussing was none other than MG. And MG is certainly a prime candidate for inclusion among those torties who have taken the Anderson Strategies into the big-time.

And on what basis are we supposed to credit ‘Another Mark’s (hereinafter: ‘AM’) unsupported and global assertion that “the church HAS allowed the wholesale abuse of children”? [giveaway exaggerated formatting retained]

Which is then followed by snark to the effect that MG “must be doing something right now that David Pierre must attack you”.

Which also includes the classic Playbook legerdemain of presuming that the reporting of a historically and actually verifiable fact (i.e. MG’s publicly stated ire at the Diocese of Fall River) constitutes “an attack”.

And then a mere epithet about it being “laughable” that MG treats the Church as “a trip to the ATM”, also a juvenile bit from the Playbook that has been seen here many times.

And I would add that where the Church asks (as many organizations do) for “donations”, it does not try to take potential ‘donors’ to court in order to obtain vast sums from them on the basis of legal charges almost completely unsupported by any evidence.

Then a blunderbuss blam of a bunch of (otherwise quite rationally explicable) Church decisions in regard to “closing churches” that had been built – we see the smarmy heart-string pulling manipulative bit from the Playbook here – with “your hard earned heartfelt donations” from “you and your parents”.

Then a fresh paragraph with more Playbook stuff.

First, to the effect that “David Pierre acts as if every victim is a money sucking leach” [sic]: if anyone deliberately tried to bring a lawsuit against you, alleging acts from the long-ago for which they have no evidence but merely a story, and publicizes the whole thing highly, what would you consider such a person to be?

But then again: DP has never said any such thing as “money sucking leach” [sic] and I can’t recall any commenter using the term either.

But then again: in the Abusenik Playbook, if you don’t totally buy the script, then you are ‘attacking’ them. (The Abusenik objective here is to distract you from the fact that they may well be involved in something characterizable as the activity of a “money sucking leach”[sic] and therefore try to quickly get you (the reader or hearer) to focus on the (merely alleged) victimization of the whole thing.)

Second, we get – yet again – the mere but utter presumption of “the damage done” by alleged acts the nature and even the very existence of which has never been demonstrated. And I would also recall here the recent material here discussing the cautious use of “potential” in the statements of various scientific papers and research results. ‘Potential’ is not synonymous with ‘certain’ (and so even some phrase like ‘an absolutely certain potential’ would not move things forward at all in this regard).

Third, the Wig of Bemused and Honest Innocence with that “sadly”.

And then fourth: the use of the presumed “attacks” (discussed above in this comment of mine) to cluck condescendingly that “such attacks [do not] somehow support our church”. Would that be “our” Church? And is it not ‘supportive’ to point out how the allegations are unfounded and highly dubious and seriously improbable?

And in regard to “responsability”: did so many Abuseniks go to the same school of misspelling? There seems to be a pattern here.

And then fifth: the old “enabler” trope, right from the Playbook.

And then the next paragraph works toward whistling-away the profound and abyssal evidentiary and veracity problems with the Stampede and the Abuseniks: “simply because no one came forward while the priest was alive does nothing to prove he did not abuse during his lifetime” [correction supplied]

No, the fact that “no one came forward while the priest was alive” does not provide conclusive evidence that the alleged abuse never happened. But it also a) provides no evidence that the alleged abuse did happen and b) provides an element of increased-probability that the story was concocted opportunistically after the priest died, in order to cash in on the Stampede piñata game.

And it also provides some grounds for doubting the conceptual chops (and perhaps good faith) of anybody who would try to pass off such a conceptual misch as if it were clear and pristine logic, upon which he might base his assertions with no further need for explication.

And if the Church’s paid investigators “found no evidence” – although the Church (or Diocese, here) must know that it would very likely have to rely on those investigative findings in a public forum – then the same can be said for any investigators the tortie might engage (although, as we know, given the now-established dynamics of the Anderson Strategies in the Stampede, the tortie might well expect that his client’s claims and allegations and stories would never be required to face public and objective scrutiny in the first place anyway).

Abuseniks “really do see” us as “dumb blind sheep”, but “fortunately” – and especially through the work on TMR – that is not the case.

Which is what moves the Abuseniks to toss up the type of stuff we see here in the AM comment.

"Dump blind sheep", "low-information voters", whatever you want to call them the terms do not apply to us here. But I think "money-grubbing ambulance-chaser" applies to Mitchell Garabedian.

Good News is No News

Apart from going unreported, good news is also a relative term in the world of the mainstream media; that's why we must turn to alternative media like the Media Report for coverage on Catholic clergy abuse reports when the drive-bys go silent.

In a newly released annual audit of abuse by independent experts, it was reported that there were only ten contemporaneous abuse allegations made against priests even deemed "credible" in all of 2013 (out of some 40,000 active priests) and that the "fewest allegations and victims" ever were tabulated since annual reports were first compiled in 2004.

This is obviously good news. But predictably, the mainstream media is notably silent about this very positive report, even though in years past when the numbers were less encouraging, the media fell over themselves to breathlessly report any unflattering statistics which they could dig up.

A search of news coverage about the Church's new annual report found that not a single secular news outlet (e.g., the New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune etc.) reported on the study.

Someone recently told me I should feature more links to alternative media where we could get the facts not reported anywhere else. So this article couldn't be more timely. The Media Report is an excellent source for coverage of what is really going on vis-à-vis the soon to be defunct scandal industry. You can sign up for their newsletter near the bottom right of the site page, and I suggest that all EQE readers do so.

Here are some good bullets points listed in the piece to fire at those who still clutch at the abuse scandal like Linus with his security blanket.

• 40% of all identified priests who were accused in 2013 were already long deceased;
• 78% of all identified priests who were accused in 2013 are either already deceased, already removed from ministry, already laicized, or simply missing; and
• 90% of all abuse accusations last year allege incidents from at least 25 years ago.

It is obvious that the abuse narrative is now merely a media obsession as the article states. Unfortunately, too often obsessing leads to lying, and the lies continue to do harm:

The facts are the facts: Bogus accusations abound

And a closer look at the study further uncovers another issue that the mainstream media adamantly refuses to report: that bogus accusations against Catholic priests are rampant, and the vast bulk of accusations are either demonstrably untrue or simply unprovable.

According to this year's numbers, a staggering 80% of the 2013 cases in which an investigation had been completed fell into the categories of either "unable to be proven" or "unsubstantiated." Only a mere 14.6% of all 2013 cases were even deemed "substantiated" by the liberal standards of review boards.

Indeed, we have long reported on the pervasiveness of false accusations against priests, but no one in the mainstream media has the courage to pursue a counter-narrative story. The time is long overdue.

Check out the Falsely Accused Priest tag link. It's a gold mine for truth-seekers on this topic. It references the link to the WSJ article by Dorothy Rabinowitz The Trials of Father MacRae, a must read to provide balance and to unmask the predators who pretend to care about actual victims of real crimes. If these criminals and ambulance chasers really cared about the victims of abuse, they would move their operation to a place in which there was evidence that abuse was actually occurring.

Pre-apology Propaganda

Guess who came up with some of the most damning material on Obama's "If you like your plan" lie? The White House!



I have a computer, not a "lot of free time." But I have common sense. Plus an insurance plan that doubled in price. Raising your costs because of onerous regulations isn't being a bad apple. It's called "staying in business".

Obama's weak apology is far too wordy, just like every time he talks. He should have just said, "I misspoke. What I meant to say was if *I* like your plan, then you get to keep your plan."

President Pinocchio

I really don't have to say anything more, do I?

Mark Steyn: "In entirely non-ideological, technocratic, utilitarian terms, Obamacare is a bust."

With regard to outreach, Steyn continues his tradition of apocalyptic stand-up and gets the messaging pitch-perfect for the majority of Americans. "Obamacare don't work, Ma."

For as long as I can remember, I’ve been opposed to government health care because, as I’ve said in at least two books, it fundamentally redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state into one closer to that of junkie and pusher. But that’s a philosophical position. Others prefer constitutional arguments: The federal government does not have the authority to do what it’s doing. Dear old John Roberts, chief justice of the United States, twisted himself into a pretzel to argue that, in fact, the government does. But he might as well have saved himself the trouble and just used Nancy Pelosi’s line: Asked by a journalist where in the Constitution it granted the feds the power to do this, she gave him the full Leslie Nielsen and said, “You’re not serious?” She has the measure of her people. Most Americans couldn’t care less about philosophical arguments or constitutional fine print: For them, all Obamacare has to do is work. That is why the last month has been so damaging to Big Government’s brand: In entirely non-ideological, technocratic, utilitarian terms, Obamacare is a bust.

The emphasis is mine, not because I don't find the philosophical, economic, moral, ethical and constitutional arguments compelling, but because that is where we are now. There is enough to blast about Obamacare now that you don't have to bring up what Reagan thought about government-controlled healthcare systems, nor what chapter of Socialism Ludwig von Mises would have added Obamacare to, nor what Sarah Palin wrote on Facebook about Death Panels. Improving Obamacare with a laughably-named "tech surge" is a worthless exercise in turd-polishing. There is no way they can get to 46,000 signups a day by March, unless maybe they get Michelle Obama's imaginary Facebook friends on welfare and SSA simultaneously and sign them all up.

Steyn ends with the line "Obamacare is not a left–right issue; it’s a fraud issue." I agree. Conservative I-told-you-sos are worthless at this juncture.

The Book of Matt: Matthew Shepard was not the victim of a hate crime

C-Fam reports that there is now confirmation of what many of us had heard or suspected. Matthew Shepard knew his killers, they were all into dealing and doing drugs (meth) and his murder had nothing to do with his homosexual orientation.

All along there were naysayers to the Shepard narrative. Social critic Camille Paglia wrote in Salon that Shepard had a taste for what is called “rough trade” and that he could have died from that. Detectives at the time suggested that he death was more than likely tied to drugs rather than his homosexuality. An ABC 20/20 segment several years later explored that possibility.

However, a new book out by award winning gay journalist Steven Jiminez goes much further than previous critics of the Shepard narrative. Jiminez went to Laramie many years ago to conduct interviews for a movie script about the life and death of Shepard. Almost immediately he began to hear stories about Shepard that had never been reported and that flatly contradict the notion that he was killed because he was gay.

In The Book of Matt reveals what townsfolk knew all along, that Shepard was very involved in the Laramie drug scene, may have been an occasional drug dealer himself, and even more importantly, he knew his killers. More than that, he and his killers had sex together.

One of the conceits of the dominant narrative was that Shepard did not know his killers, that his killers walked into the Fireside bar that night at 11:45 and somehow got a total stranger, Shepard, to leave with them 15 minutes later. According to the Jiminez book, Shepard knew his killers well. The book speculates that Shepard was killed because he had a new stash of methamphetamine and the killers wanted it. The book also reports that his main killer, Aaron McKinney, was on a five-day meth binge, a state given to maniacal violence.

The new book has been reported in the gay press and also in the conservative press but does not seem to have broken into the mainstream, not yet anyway. Things may change when the book is finally released on October 1. But the question remains, will this new story change in any way the dominant story that has aided the gay movement so well? If Matthew Shepard was killed strictly because of drugs by his sometime gay sex partner, what will that do to his martyr status in the gay community and in the larger world including at the United Nations?

Kudos to the author of this book, Stephen Jimenez, a man who is gay but who is nonetheless committed to the truth of this case. Here's some more info from the Amazon page for the Book of Matt:

Stephen Jimenez’s The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard is a compelling story of a journalist’s determination to ascertain why Matthew Shepard -- a gay University of Wyoming student -- was viciously killed in 1998. The story that had been told in the media, and to some extent in the courtroom, was that Shepard had made a pass at two strangers in a bar, who became outraged, took Shepard to a remote spot, bashed his head in, and left him affixed to a fence, to die. It was the anti-gay hate crime of the century, and while the rationale for including anti-gay attacks under hate crime law was clearly established long before the Shepard murder, his case became a symbol and rallying point for such legislation.

Jimenez, however, uncovered another story, one that was to some extent unappreciated at the time of the crime, but was also intentionally hidden for a variety of motivations. Among those motivations were fear, courtroom strategy, and the desire of media, activists, and others to believe the powerful story of a gay man being brutally killed for no other reason than he made an unwelcome pass at a man he happened to meet in a bar.

Shepard and his killer, Aaron McKinney, were not strangers after all. In fact Aaron McKinney was a bisexual, who had had sex with Shepard. And both were dealers of methamphetamine.

Jimenez makes a strong case that the unappreciated lesson of the Shepard murder is one about the dangers of methamphetamine. This book is a well-constructed narrative of a 13-year investigative quest by a talented author whose passion for uncovering the true story rings clear. Highly recommended.

Yes, hopefully this will get people talking about the strong connection between gay culture and the use of drugs, especially meth. But don't hold your breath for the voices in the mainstream media to spill anything other than the standard line that once gays stop being bullied they'll quit using drugs. Well, at least now there is a story of gays killing each other over drugs. This book will be hard to ignore; at least it will showcase how many lies the gay mafia is willing to tell.

"Don't tell me anything that might outrage me."

We hear from the White House spokesman that "[N]obody's been more outraged by the reported conduct here than the president of the United States" about the IRS Scandal.

Now we hear this:

Senior White House officials, including President Obama's chief of staff, Denis McDonough, were told last month — earlier than previously thought — that the Internal Revenue Service was under investigation for targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, but White House counsel decided not to tell Obama about it.

When asked if Obama was angry his top aides left him in the dark about potential political scandal, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the president viewed such actions as "entirely appropriate" and that "some matters are not appropriate to convey to him, and this is one of them."

So in effect, we should conclude that a policy exists which considers outrageous matters not appropriate to relate to the President. Which doesn't make any sense. A better conclusion is that the premise that Obama is outraged is untrue.

WaPo gives Obama Four Pinocchios on Benghazi

This fact check piece on whether or not the President called the 9/11/12 attacks on Benghazi an "act of terrorism" is worth reading. Excerpt:

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate. But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now. Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Michael Medved pointed out on his show that Obama contradicted himself within his own statements on Monday, May 13, since he claimed at other points that they weren't "clear" (his word) about the nature of the attacks. I think the word he meant to use was sure, not clear, and perhaps that was a Freudian slip. So they didn't know if it was an act of terror, but they said it was right away.... which is it, Mr. President?

The Real Obama -- The Obama That The Press Refuses To Show Us

Jigsaw President

I really appreciated Matthew Continetti's piece in which he provides evidence that Obama has, with the cooperation of the media, entirely constructed the character which his adorers see when they look at him. Excerpt:

Obama was similarly meticulous in constructing his positions, attitudes, and demeanor when he became a professional politician. Here, too, his identity was hard to pin down. His alliance with Jeremiah Wright was necessary to gain credibility with Chicago’s African-American community. He frequently voted present in the Illinois state senate in order not to offend particular constituencies. He agonized over his decision to oppose the Iraq war because he was afraid he would be on the wrong side of the issue. His debut at the 2004 Democratic National Convention was a gauzy, abstract paean to national unity. He became, as he put it in The Audacity of Hope, “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” He ran for president as a bipartisan ‘pragmatist’ who would bring us together.

The conclusion is good too.

The composite identity that took Obama 47 years to create has come undone in less than four years. It was just as faked as Julia. Behold the man as he is: A “New Politics” liberal whose idealism is dropped at the first sight of an FEC deadline. There’s nothing funny about it.

Continetti proves in this article that the most devastating exposés of this phony chief executive do not have to contain words like "socialist", "communist" or "Alinsky". In fact, they are much more powerful when they don't.

Islamic Nut Lays Out His Case for Shar'ia in the UK

Wow! Free electricity! Shar'ia law sure is neato.

Obama's Junker Story

Here's a press release I just got in my inbox.

February 26th, 2010, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government Communications Director Carter Clews today asked President Barack Obama to explain a "rather unusual" story Obama told at Thursdays' health care summit about his dealings with a fictitious Acme Auto Insurance company.

During the White House meeting, Obama related a story from his post-college graduation days in which his "junker" was allegedly rear ended by another driver. According to Obama, when he called to get his car repaired, the "Acme" auto insurance company "laughed at" him.

In response to the Obama story, Clews sent the following email to the President through the White House web site:

"During your health care summit, you told a rather unusual story about being "laughed at" when you called your auto insurance company about your post-college "junker" being rear-ended. So, I have to ask you four questions: (1) Did you have collision insurance? (2) Did you know that liability insurance does not pay for your own car, (3) Didn't you know that when you are hit the other guy pays, and (4) Do you actually know as little about health insurance as you obviously do about auto insurance? I'll look forward to your response. And please make it short and to the point. Thanks."

Said Clews later, "Mr. Obama's story is more than a little disturbing – not to mention preposterous. There are really only four conclusions to draw from it. Either the youthful Obama had no insurance, he only had liability insurance, he didn't know that when you get hit the other guy pays – or, quite frankly, he told a totally manufactured tale to all of the assembled members of the Senate and House, not to mention millions of Americans watching on TV.

"If it was any one of the first three possibilities, it's no wonder the insurance company laughed at him. And if it was the latter, the man is delusional. Let's just hope he knows more about health insurance than he does auto insurance."

http://washingtonalert.org/?p=2356

I'm more interested in the make/model of the so-called "junker". Barack Obama went to prep school and the grandmother who raised him was a rich and successful banker. I know those facts were not broadcast during the campaign. I wonder why not?

Yeah, he made up the story. That's what "keepin' it real" requires in Obama's case.

Jonah's take on Obama speeches: "...a massive stimulus of personal pronouns"

Too good. Excerpt:

That is, if they’re really mad at him at all. Obama whines that Massachusetts voters are really blaming him for someone else’s mistakes. Guess who?

George Bush, of course.

“Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”


White House spokesman Robert Gibbs tried to shovel the same stuff Wednesday, saying that the “anger and the frustration” that swept Brown to victory on Tuesday swept Obama to power a year ago.

Except, wait a second. Obama was carried into office on the wings of the flying unicorns called “hope” and “change,” not “anger” and “frustration.” Besides, if voters are frustrated with the slow pace of reform, why did they just elect a guy promising to slow down Obama’s agenda?

I know a lot of people won't believe me when I say this, but I honestly wish that Obama wasn't so awful. But I truly do. If he were more calculating and triangulating like Clinton he would arguably cause more trouble for the conservative movement, but maybe that would be better for America. When I hear callers to talk shows complain that there aren't enough conservative leaders emerging or speaking out presently I always think the same thing: why should they attack an opponent who is busy pouring gasoline on himself and about to strike a match?