Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll

Search Results for: LaRouche

obama_supporter_insults_retarded_10-15-13

In their four years of covering Tea Party-related rallies and protests, the MSM has made their policy abundantly clear: when it comes to political protests, the one crazy outlier in whatever random mass of thousands of people show up at a particular event, the one nutter who carries the sign comparing Mr. Obama to Hitler, or waves the Confederate Flag, or openly brandishes a firearm, represents the views of the entire group. (And don’t even get them started on those protesters who think that Mr. Obama is a Keynesian…)

That’s even more true in a smaller protest, such as this DC dud yesterday astroturfed by the president’s Organizing for America group:

ofa_obama_astroturfed_protest_10-15-13

Click to enlarge.

Jim Treacher, the author of the above headlines writes that “An OFA spokesman has asked the Daily Caller to change this headline. Duly noted.”

Heh, indeed:™

A statement from OFA: “We neither support nor approve of the inappropriate language used in a sign on the mall today. OFA believes that John Boehner should stand up to the extreme wing in his party, pay their bills and end this now.” Whereas I believe that Obama could end this shutdown with the stroke of a pen. Only one of us is right, and it ain’t the flack for King Barry the First. Also, see Rules for Radicals #4, #5, #8, and #13. Not nearly as much fun when they get turned around on you, huh?)

But to answer Jim’s query, why does OFA hate the mentally challenged? Because they take their cue of what is acceptable rhetoric from their boss:

“Is David Gregory a journalist?” asks Frank Rich, late of the New York Times, now with New York magazine, as spotted by John Nolte of Big Journalism:

Talk about blue on blue violence. Sunday on “Meet the Press,” anchor David Gregory gave The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald no benefit of the doubt when he asked his supposed media colleague if he should be “charged with a crime” over his work with NSA leaker Edward Snowden. Some in media defended and agreed with Gregory. New York Magazine’s Frank Rich did not:

Is David Gregory a journalist? As a thought experiment, name one piece of news he has broken, one beat he’s covered with distinction, and any memorable interviews he’s conducted that were not with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Dick Durbin, or Chuck Schumer. Meet the Press has fallen behind CBS’s Face the Nation, much as Today has fallen to ABC’s Good Morning America, and my guess is that Gregory didn’t mean to sound like Joe McCarthy (with a splash of the oiliness of Roy Cohn) but was only playing the part to make some noise. …

While blue on blue rhetorical violence is always fun to watch, to be fair, Rich really only has three modes of argument; his enemies are either McCarthyites, Communists or Nazis. Or sometimes all three, as I noted back in 2010:

Back in October, Frank Rich referred to conservatives as rabid communists, in an article titled, “The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York.”

By the middle of the last month, they were rabid anti-communists:

As if to underline the McCarthyism implicit in this smear campaign, the Cheney ally Marc Thiessen (one of the two former Bush speechwriters now serving as Washington Post columnists) started spreading these charges on television with a giggly, repressed hysteria uncannily reminiscent of the snide Joe McCarthy henchman Roy Cohn.

Late last month, though, after referencing the rabid anti-communist communists (and this is Rich, err rich) slurring the president, they morphed yet again:

How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht.

On this we can agree: I’m not a fan of the leftwing Lyndon Larouche gang who infiltrated the Tea Parties last year — but like Rich, they’re for socialized medicine as well. And I can’t believe anyone would compare the president of the United States to Hitler.

Well, except for Frank Rich, who made the same comparison himself back in 2003:

Showtime, the cable network, boasts that no fewer than three journalists, including the Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, were involved in assuring the accuracy and balance of the docudrama ”DC 9/11: Time of Crisis,” first shown last Sunday while the actual George W. Bush was addressing the nation. But this film, made with full Bush administration cooperation (including that of the president himself), is propaganda so untroubled by reality that it’s best viewed as a fitting memorial to Leni Riefenstahl.

Whoops.

But hey, Communist anti-Communist Nazis: Rich has all the bases covered. (Well, except for referring to conservatives as the Taliban. But Rich got that one out of the way back in 2005, along with a reference to the Salem Witch Trials, naturally enough.)

Incidentally, back in 2008, Rich sagely opinioned from the observation deck of the New York Times that, “In our news culture, [Joy] Behar, a stand-up comic by profession, looms as the new Edward R. Murrow.” I think that sentence alone should excuse — at least in Rich’s fevered opinion — David Gregory’s myriad excesses.

Oh, and speaking of Blue on Blue warfare, leakers “should be shot in the balls,” says…Edward Snowden back in 2008.

I’m sure our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president would very much like to take Snowden up on that notion right now.

The Gray Lady has a narrative, and she’s not going to deviate from it, no matter how incorrect it’s been proven to be. Check out the questions that music writer Jon Caramonica of the New York Times asks rapper Kanye West about his infamous racialist politicization of an NBC fundraiser for victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, as spotted by Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center in his latest column:

Egotistical musicians often exaggerate their political influence, none moreso than the nattering, narcissistic rapper Kanye West. He has compared himself in global stature to Apple founder Steve Jobs, and has titled his latest album “Yeesus.”

Rolling Stone magazine has posted part of a West song titled “I Am a God,” where West raps that Jesus is the “Most High,” but he’s a “close high.”

Now it’s the New York Times pandering to West’s colossal self-regard – and it’s downright embarrassing. Mouth-breathing Times writer/superfan Jon Caramonica stooped to telling West that “what I find probably the most moving thing that you’ve ever done, which is calling out President Bush at the Hurricane Katrina telethon. To me, that moment is actually the peak of putting a message in a pop format.” West agreed, designating it as “a very pop moment of a lifetime or generation.”

Do you remember this? Does anyone? Let me remind you of that generation-shaping moment. In the middle of an NBC telethon, as celebrities somberly asked for donations to the Red Cross, West lashed, for no reason, and stupidly, arrogantly, and rudely declared that President Bush “doesn’t care about black people.” [Video here -- Ed] He proceeded to add black people were smeared as looters and “now they’ve given them [police?] permission to go down and shoot us.”

Lyndon LaRouche is more rational than this idiot.

Caramonica thought this burp of hate was brilliant. “Were you conscious that that’s what you were doing, or was it totally just instinct?” West replied “it was pretty bugged out. When you think about it, I was wearing like, a Juicy Couture men’s polo shirt. We weren’t there, like, ready for war.”

In addition to President Bush’s efforts to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa, as even Donna Brazile, a chairwoman for the DNC and manager for the Gore-Lieberman presidential campaign in 2000 wrote for CNN this past April, “Bush came through on Katrina:”

Bush understood the need for civility. I joined him despite my frustration because the need was too great for finger-pointing and blame-making. He flew to New Orleans and addressed the nation: “Tonight I also offer this pledge to the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes. We will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives.”

George W. Bush was good as his word. He visited the Gulf states 17 times; went 13 times to New Orleans. Laura Bush made 24 trips. Bush saw that $126 billion in aid was sent to the Gulf’s residents, as some members of his own party in Congress balked.

Bush put a special emphasis on rebuilding schools and universities. He didn’t forget African-Americans: Bush provided $400 million to the historically black colleges, now integrated, that remain a pride, and magnet for African-American students. Laura Bush, a librarian, saw to it that thousands of books ruined by the floods were replaced. To this day, there are many local libraries with tributes devoted to her efforts.

It was a team effort. I’m glad to report the commission I served on went out-of-business in 2010. I’m also grateful and proud to report that President Bush was one of the leaders, and a very important member, of that team. Our recovery can be credited to the civility and tireless efforts of President Bush and other Americans, who united and worked together to help rebuild the Gulf and the place of my birth, New Orleans.

Kudos to Brazile for writing that, particularly in CNN. Glenn Reynolds responded at Instapundit, “Boy, talk about a narrative-buster.”

I don’t know — it didn’t have enough force to penetrate the bunker that houses the New York Times’ editorial bullpen, but with walls — and minds — that thick, what can?

Trutherism, The Early Days

May 6th, 2013 - 2:18 pm

Terry McAuliffe, the  former chairman of the Democratic Party currently running for governor of Virginia, is a “True Believer in the 1980 ‘October Surprise’ Conspiracy Theory,” Jim Geraghty writes today. Geraghty committed the ultimate rightwing neocon deathbeast thoughtcrime — he cut and paste from McAuliffe’s own 2007 autobiography; at least for the moment, you can read the following passage in Google Books for yourself:

Reagan’s Inauguration hit us all like a kick in the gut, and not just for the obvious reasons. President Carter was racing the clock trying to free the hostages before Reagan was inaugurated, and it didn’t look as if he would make it. Then Inauguration Day came and exactly five minutes after Reagan was sworn in, the U.S. hostages were finally released after 444 days in captivity. A former National Security Council (NSC) staffer named Gary Sick spent years investigating and put together a strong case that a deal had occurred between Reagan’s people and the Iranians to sway the elections by delaying the release of the hostages — and in return for helping Reagan, the Iranians would be rewarded with weapons shipments from Israel.

Let me tell you why I’m sure the Reagan people had a hand in this. First of all, the arms transfers from Israel to Iran began almost immediately after Reagan became president. Second, the main defense of the Reagan people was that it would have been too terrible a crime for Reagan to cook up secret deals with the Iranians in violation of U.S. law, but that is just what the Reagan administration did when it sold arms to the Iranians and used the profits to illegally fund the contra rebels in Nicaragua.

Finally, the key to Reagan’s deal on the Iranian hostages was Bill Casey, a swashbuckling Cold War spy master who served Reagan as campaign manager and CIA Director. Sick’s sources told him that Casey met with the Iranians in a Madrid hotel in July 1980 and again several months later, and made the deal.

As Geraghty notes afterwards, “The first advocate of the ‘October Surprise’ theory was Lyndon LaRouche,” McAuliffe’s fellow Democrat. “The truth is out there, Terry,” he quips. “Maybe the cigarette-smoking man got to everyone else!”

Meanwhile, the Daily Caller combs through McAuliffe’s memoir and finds that “Five times Terry McAuliffe admits he ditched his wife for politics.” Newsbusters adds, “Terry McAuliffe Reveals He Was a Bad Husband to Skip Out on Childbirth to Attend WashPost Party….But WashPost Didn’t Tell.”

The Post is also happy to bury the news that currently polls show that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, McAuliffe’s Republican opponent, currently has a ten point lead over McAuliffe in the Virginia gubernatorial race.

Parenthood Star Compares Obama to Hitler

February 27th, 2012 - 4:05 pm

Certainly tacitly so, considering whom the star and executive producer of Triumph of the Will was. At Newsbusters, Geoffrey Dickens writes:

Star of TV’s Parenthood, Dax Shepard, compared the pro-U.S. military film that stars actual Navy SEALs, Act of Valor to Adolf Hitler’sTriumph of the Will. On his Twitter feed the one time Ashton Kutcher prank boy from Punk’d wrote: “Saw ‘Triumph of the Will’ tonight, oh wait, I mean ‘Act of Valor’ great action.” Apparently the reaction to Shepard’s obnoxious tweet, comparing this week’s #1 movie starring active duty Navy Seals to a Nazi propaganda movie was immediate, as he attempted to walk back his comments.

When asked on Twitter by blogger Kimberly Cook if that makes the Navy Seals who participated in the movie “propagandists,” Shepard tweeted back, “No, their bosses are propagandists.” Presumably he’s including their civilian commander-in-chief in that group as well.

Perhaps the star of the NBC series is simply auditioning for a gig down the hall at MSNBC. Or for a role as a Lyndon LaRouche spokesman.

Update: As paraphrased on Big Hollywood’s headline board, All of a sudden liberals don’t like propaganda, John Hinderaker  notes at Power Line. Why, it’s as if the first eight years of the previous decade never happened

And just because Act of Valor is the second coming of Triumph of the Will, doesn’t mean it’s bad in Dax Shepard’s eyes apparently.

The New York Times’ Epic Fail

October 22nd, 2011 - 7:16 pm

Yes, I realize you could fill whole books with the subject of that headline, but let’s look at one story in particular. I started to get slightly huffy over this passage on Occupy Wall Street in the New York Times

There is a through-the-looking glass element to some of the criticism. The Daily Caller reported that based on photographs, the Occupy forces were almost exclusively white (numerous studies and polls have shown the Tea Party, too, has proportionately few members of minority groups).

The Tea Party, too, was vague about its frustrations in its early days, or contradictory, as in the sign at one rally that was cited as evidence that the Tea Party itself was uneducated and uninformed: “Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare.”

At Tea Party protests you could find the kind of one-off cranks that conservatives have found at Occupy rallies — Tea Party organizers would explain them as fringe-y interlopers. (Those Obama-as-Hitler posters, they noted, were the work of Lyndon LaRouche supporters, not Tea Party activists.)…

Conservatives are trying to define the Occupy protesters before the protesters define themselves.

Ed Morrissey, writing in The Week, insisted that the Occupy movement wants “seizures and redistributions, which necessarily means more bureaucracies, higher spending, and many more opportunities for collusion between authorities and moneyed interests in one way or another.”

…And then I realized it was by Kate Zernike, who presumably is still smarting from being called out (“pwned” as the kids on the Interwebs are wont to say) by Andrew Breitbart at CPAC in February of 2010 after her attempt to smear conservative journalist Jason Mattera* and the rest of the CPAC attendees as racists:

Kate Zernike of the New York Times, are you in the room? Are you in the room? You’re despicable. You’re a despicable human being. You’re the New York Times.  What is your headline here? You came to CPAC to get your prey and here’s your prey, Jason Mattera from HotAir and also from Young America’s Foundation. This is the headline: CPAC Speaker Bashes Obama, comma, in Racial Tones.

And also by Glenn Reynolds a few months later:

OBSCURANTISM:

Kate Zernike of the New York Times describes how tea-party activists explore “dusty bookshelves for long-dormant ideas” and study “once-obscure texts” by “long-dead authors.” She is of course referring to Friedrich Hayek, whose book The Road to Serfdom was excerpted in Reader’s Digest and never has been out of print, whose Nobel Prize for economics in 1972 celebrated the importance and mainstream acceptance of his thinking, and whose death in 1992 isn’t exactly ancient history.

If they didn’t learn it in college, it’s “obscure.” Which, alas, merely highlights the inadequacy of their educations. (I, on the other hand, took a semester-long seminar on Hayek in college.) At any rate, the “obscure” Road to Serfdom is currently #56 on Amazon.

Related: Stuart Schneiderman: Who’s Smarter Now?

UPDATE: Reader Michael Costello writes: “How long has Karl Marx been dead? And Friedrich Hayek outlived Saul Alinsky by 20 years.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: OUCH:

If I had said a day ago that your typical New York Times reporter doesn’t have the vaguest sense of what the rule of law means, I would have heard from all sorts of earnest liberal readers — and probably some conservative ones too – about how I was setting up a straw man. But now we know it’s true. It’s not just that she doesn’t know what it is, it’s that even after (presumably) looking it up, she still couldn’t describe it and none of her editors raised an eyebrow when she buttered it.

The claims of superior intellect on the part of the legacy media seem unfounded.

Regarding Zernike’s story on OWS, I love this notion of conservatives “trying to define the Occupy protesters before the protesters define themselves.” How does a movement not define itself before it starts? The Tea Partiers were very specific: stop spending, stop the bailouts, and once ObamaCare began to metastasize, stop that as well. Protests in the 1960s were highly specific as well: more civil rights for black Americans, let South Vietnam get clobbered by the North end the Vietnam War. How is it that Occupy Wall Street couldn’t articulate a similarly straightforward message?

But as far as actually defining the Occupy protesters, sorry, but the MSM established the baseline in early 2009. A CNN anchorman told his viewers that “It’s hard to talk when your teabagging.” One of his colleagues — holding herself out as an objective, in the field journalist — interjected herself into the story, arguing with the protestors about their motives. A prominent General Electric spokesman questioned the racial makeup of the Tea Party, and then refused an invitation to attend himself proffered by numerous minority tea partiers. The MSM set the baseline; they shouldn’t be surprised that the conservative Blogosphere returns the volley. And while the left sees OWS, the difference between two movements spotlight why there’s been so much bad press this time around: Tea Partiers general gathered in a single area, listened to speeches — and then went home to their jobs and families. For OWS, whether it’s NYT-approved trust fund babies or 38-year old moms who’ve chucked their lives to camp out in a park, spending 24/7 in squalor will only increase the odds that somebody will meltdown and do something stupid — particularly given the ubiquity of social media (which the left championed as a key tool during the 2006 elections.)

As Jonah Goldberg wrote in 2005, while gathering the material that would become Liberal Fascism:

Liberals are geniuses at unleashing social panics because A) it never occurs to them that their motives are anything but pure and B) because they are almost exclusively focused on short term tactics. And yet they are invariably shocked when these moral frenzies come back to bite them. McCarthyism was a direct consequence of both the Red Scare and the Brown Scare. And when the tactics they mastered were turned on them, they acted as if they came from nowhere.

Which brings us back to the beginning of our post.

* Who unlike Zernike punches above his institution’s weight.

Related: “I confess, I haven’t been to any tea-party rallies so you’ll have to tell me: Are there a lot of ‘here’s what to do if you’re raped today’ fliers circulating at those too?”

Fight The Power—But Support The Man!

October 12th, 2011 - 2:36 pm

“My political goal,”says Brian Phillips, the head of communications for the NYC General Assembly, the group that Jonah Goldberg writes is chiefly responsible for the Occupying Wall Street, “is to overthrow the government:”

Brian Phillips is the head of communications for the NYC General Assembly, the group primarily responsible for occupying Wall Street. I learned about him while listening to National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition.” According to NPR, Phillips is “an ex-Marine with a bachelor’s in computer science. Today he is wearing a sock on his head.”

“My political goal,” Phillips says, “is to overthrow the government.”

Note: That’s not some random nut job pulled from his Lyndon LaRouche desk or tricked-out refrigerator box/time machine. That’s the communications director for the whole shebang, and his goal is to overthrow the government.

Now, he’s not advocating violence or dictatorship. No, he just wants the government to work on the same non-hierarchical, consensus-based, extremely deliberative form of direct democracy that they’re using down in Liberty Plaza. How that would work for some 300 million Americans remains a bit of a mystery.

But how do you overthrow the government and leave its Commander in Chief in power?

The anti-establishment crowd affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street protesters has gone out of their way to emphasize that they’re not protesting him when he visits Detroit Friday.

The grassroots group known as Occupy Detroit has planned its occupation for Friday — the same day President Barack Obama will visit the Metro area.

But the group doesn’t plan to protest the president, who will visit General Motors Co.’s Orion Assembly Plant with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak to herald the pending U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement.

They’re anti-establishment, but not opposed to the current head of government. Somehow, despite his running the executive branch of American government, they see no reason to hold him accountable for any of their grievances.

Or as Noemie Emery writes today, “Protesters won’t dare picket Obama.” When I was kid, I remember anti-establishment forces took their poses a lot more seriously.

On the flip-side though, while Barbra Walters was part of the elite group of Manhattan “liberals” who enjoyed tea and canapes with the Black Panthers inside Lenny and Felcia’s Park Avenue duplex in 1970, Tom Wolfe never mentions her gushing, “I’m One of You!”  on that radical chic evening.

But then, Occupy Wall Street promises fun for “progressives” of all ages, as witnessed by Doris Kearns Goodwin going all-in, despite her first-hand knowledge of how protestors made LBJ a one-term president, as Wikipedia notes:

In 1967, Kearns went to Washington, D.C., as a White House Fellow during the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. Johnson offered the young intern a job as his assistant, an offer that was not withdrawn even after an article by Kearns appeared in The New Republic laying out a scenario for Johnson’s removal from office over his conduct of the war in Vietnam.[2]

I wonder what she thinks about helping to usher Richard Nixon into office?

Related: Victor Davis Hanson explores “When the Zealots Are No Longer Zealous:”

The second source of shame is the current anger over Wall Street, a furor that ironically was first seen with the Tea Party’s middle-class animus over retirement accounts that had crashed while many of those responsible for crashing them were bailed out by government money. Nonetheless, for the left it is somewhat hard to join in the Wall Street protests when a hard-left Democratic candidate like Barack Obama, who ran on populist rhetoric and persists in Huey Long sloganeering, has proven to be a president fascinated by Wall Street power, cash, and perks.

Most of his advisers were itinerant economists whose lives were often a three-way revolving door between high academia/institutes, Wall Street, and top government jobs — e.g., Peter Orszag, Larry Summers, or Timothy Geithner. Obama out-raised John McCain among the really big monied interests, and was the chief recipient of BP and Goldman Sachs cash. Easy Wall Street money led him to be the first presidential candidate to renounce public campaign financing in the general election — $1 billion in campaign money cuts a lot of prior principled assertions. And, of course, the first family’s personal tastes since assuming the presidency are certainly more akin to Citigroup executives than Trumanesque.

The effect of all this is that fierce critics of the Bush-Cheney War on Terror, or the 2008 excesses on Wall Street, have had to grow quiet, inasmuch as any continued criticism would hurt Barack Obama. But silence does not mean that his supporters appreciate the embarrassment, and that is precisely why there is unease among his base — and why in the last four weeks the president has once more tried to rev up the class-warfare rhetoric, albeit in a day-late, dollar-short fashion.

Something analogous happened to Bush when he desperately needed base support during the dark days of the Iraq insurgency, even as many hard-core conservatives felt the serial deficits, unfunded entitlements like the prescription-drug benefit or No Child Left Behind, the Harriet Miers nomination, and advocacy for “comprehensive” immigration reform had made them uneasy and embarrassed as fiscal and social conservatives. Their abandonment sent the president’s polls from the mid to low 40s to, at the end, the mid to low 30s.

Embarrassment is not so easily forgotten or forgiven, as Obama is now finding out.

“There is a sort of repressed anger that Obama has somehow embarrassed many of his supporters, as if their ecstasy of 2008 now seems almost adolescent,”VDH writes. Hence the need, as the boys in the Delta House would say, for a really futile fourth quarter gesture.

More: Now is the time when Small Dead Animals juxtaposes:

Nov 2008: After Barack Obama won a 52-48 victory over John McCain, a bunch of Obama supporters reached out to the “48″, assuring them that they would do better to understand.

Oct 2011: Now that their Messiah’s golden promises have turned out to be nothing more than a rusting, sinking hulk, similar 52′ers have very different messages to display.

Finally, at Newsbusters, “Top Ten Richest Celebrities Supporting Wall Street Protests.” Why isn’t Occupy Wall Street simultaneously fighting Hollywood greed?

Can the MSM be Sued for Whiplash?

February 26th, 2011 - 6:00 am

In September of 2009, Victor Davis Hanson neatly summed the MSM’s reaction to the rise — as Reuters would say, unexpectedly! — of the Tea Parties. Part of what made the left even more furious than usual was that conservatives suddenly discovered the art of out-of-doors political activities, to which “progressives” long thought they had monopoly rights:

The Left is now furious that, as the new establishment, the rules of discourse are not more polite. But from 2002-8, they (Who are “they”? Try everyone from Al Gore to John Glen to Robert Byrd to Sen. Durbin), employed every Nazi/brown shirt slur they could conjure up. NPR’s folksy old Garrison Keiler was indistinguishable from mean-spirited Michael Moore in that regard.

The New York Times gave a discount for a disgusting “General Betray Us” ad. The Democratic Party head Howard Dean flatly said he “hated” Republicans. Hilary Clinton all but called Gen. Petraeus a liar in a congressional hearing. The New Republic ran an essay on hating George Bush (not opposing, not disliking, but “hating” the President). Alfred Knopf published a novel about killing Bush. A Guardian op-ed dreamed of Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth coming back to kill Bush. And on and on.

So What?

No one objected. A Dan Rather said nothing—but tried to pass off forged documents to alter the election. A Bill Moyers piled on. There was no voice of “Now, wait a minute, this is going too far.” Did the Left assume that they were going to be perpetually bomb-tossers, forever on the outside of Karl Rove’s ballyhooed three-decades of Republican supremacy to come?

What Comes Around, Goes…

And then something strange and quite unexpected happened. The Democrats nominated a charismatic African-American, won the presidency, after obtaining large majorities in Congress, and suddenly became the Establishment, demanding respect for the Commander in Chief in direct proportion to their efforts to deny respect to his predecessor. Then just as suddenly two tropes appeared after January 20th of this year:

One—cannot we all get along? We deplore this resort to barbarism and crudity.

Two—if you dare sound off like we just did, then you are now a racist.

But having spent the last two years finding every kook fringe protester at a conservative protest (even if they were leftwing nutters who had nothing to do with the Tea Party), and imagining themselves to have a Bletchley Park-like ability to discern racism and Godwin’s Law violations at every turn, the MSM now has to cover protests on the left.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

‘Mubarak gets Hitlered’

February 1st, 2011 - 4:52 pm

“Because it’s just not a real protest until someone whips out the Hitler card.” At the Tatler, Bryan Preston links to your photo of the day:

It’s here, at the Christian Science Monitor. Because it’s just not a real protest until someone whips out the Hitler card.  In this case, though, there is a strong Hitler connection, just not one that has anything to do with Mubarak.

Al-Banna was a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. During the 1930s, the Brotherhood became more political in nature and an officially political group in 1939.

In 1942, during World War II, Hassan al Banna set up more Brotherhood branches in Transjordan and Palestine. The headquarters of the Syrian branch moved to Damascus in 1944. After World War II, Egyptian members took violent action against King Farouk’s government. When the organization was banned in Egypt, hundreds moved to Transjordan. Many also participated in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-1949.

You know what else this means, right? Lyndon LaRouche’s followers are everywhere.

Samuel T. Cogley, Come On Down!

June 20th, 2010 - 2:03 pm

Meet Texas’ surprise Democratic primary winner, congressional nominee Kesha Rogers. What could go wrong?

South Carolina’s unexpected Democratic nominee for the US Senate, mystery man Alvin Greene, says he wants to play golf with Barack Obama. But in Texas, another surprise Democratic primary winner, congressional nominee Kesha Rogers, wants to impeach the President. So while South Carolina party officials are still unsure of what to do about Greene’s success at the ballot box, Texas Democrats have no such reservations — they wasted little time in casting Rogers into exile and offering no support or recognition of her campaign to win what once was Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s old seat.

Rogers, 33, told TIME she is a “full time political activist” in the Lyndon LaRouche Youth Movement, a recruiting arm of the LaRouche political organization that is active on many college campuses. The LYM espouses LaRouche opposition to free trade and “globalism” (the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund) and it also calls for a return to a humanist classical education, emphasizing the works of Plato and Leibnitz. On her professional looking campaign website, kesharogers.com, she touts the LaRouche political philosophy — a mix of support for the economic policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the impeachment of President Obama — and calls Obama a “London and Wall Street backed puppet” whose policies will destroy the Democratic Party. During the campaign, she was photographed carrying an oversized portrait of the President with a Hitler-style moustache penciled on his lip. [You mean it wasn't a Tea Partier? Alert MSNBC! -- Ed]

* * *

Another major LaRouche-inspired plank in Rogers’ platform is support for the colonization of Mars. “Help send me to Congress, and we can send our grandchildren to Mars!” was a Rogers’ slogan during the campaign.

Can we hold the impeachment hearings on Mars using the Fundamental Declarations of the Martian colonies as their legal basis? If so, I know just the attorney to represent the president!

Frank Rich Covers All The Bases

April 18th, 2010 - 2:07 pm

Back in October, Frank Rich referred to conservatives as rabid communists, in an article titled, “The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York.”

By the middle of the last month, they were rabid anti-communists:

As if to underline the McCarthyism implicit in this smear campaign, the Cheney ally Marc Thiessen (one of the two former Bush speechwriters now serving as Washington Post columnists) started spreading these charges on television with a giggly, repressed hysteria uncannily reminiscent of the snide Joe McCarthy henchman Roy Cohn.

Late last month, though, after referencing the rabid anti-communist communists (and this is Rich, err rich) slurring the president, they morphed yet again:

How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht.

On this we can agree: I’m not a fan of the leftwing Lyndon Larouche gang who infiltrated the Tea Parties last year — but like Rich, they’re for socialized medicine as well. And I can’t believe anyone would compare the president of the United States to Hitler.

Well, except for Frank Rich, who made the same comparison himself back in 2003:

Showtime, the cable network, boasts that no fewer than three journalists, including the Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, were involved in assuring the accuracy and balance of the docudrama ”DC 9/11: Time of Crisis,” first shown last Sunday while the actual George W. Bush was addressing the nation. But this film, made with full Bush administration cooperation (including that of the president himself), is propaganda so untroubled by reality that it’s best viewed as a fitting memorial to Leni Riefenstahl.

Whoops.

But hey, Communist anti-Communist Nazis: Rich has all the bases covered. (Well, except for referring to conservatives as the Taliban. But Rich got that one out of the way back in 2005, along with a reference to the Salem Witch Trials, naturally enough.)

Clark Hoyt, the Times’ ombudsman, writes that his paper “Squandered Trust,” noting that “The Times continues to hurt itself with readers by misusing anonymous sources.”

Their public sources aren’t doing them any favors, either.

(Incidentally, Rich wouldn’t like the comparison, or the everyday Americans in the video under it in this new post from Jimmie Bise one bit. Which slur would he recycle if ever read it?)

Update: But wait, there’s more! Roger Kimball spots this week’s slur against Republicans from Rich:

All of Frank Rich’s columns are special. They do a lot to make The New York Times the paper it is today.  But Rich’s Welcome to Confederate History Month yesterday is something extra special even by Rich’s standards.

Huh; tell me again which party Lincoln belonged to? And as Roger notes, which one Robert Byrd (and Woodrow Wilson before him) belongs to?

As Roger notes, “The Narrative” that Rich supports “is showing the strain.” Fortunately, Rich has plenty of other equally shopworn cliches in the ad hominem Rolodex to recycle once this one’s worn out.

Related: “A mighty pale newspaper.”

Abu Ghraib

Media Matters’ Metaphor Meltdown

September 18th, 2009 - 7:51 pm

And speaking of fire and brimstone, Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert apparently sees Lee Harvey Oswald lurking behind every tea party protest:

A President was killed the last time right-wing hatred ran wild like this

That being John F. Kennedy, who was gunned down in Dallas, of course.YCR20090912

I’ve been thinking a lot of Kennedy and Dallas as I’ve watched the increasingly violent rhetorical attacks on Obama be unfurled. As Americans yank their kids of class in order to save them from being exposed to the President of the United States who only wanted to urge them to excel in the classroom. And as unvarnished hate and name-calling passed for health care ‘debate’ this summer.

The radical right, aided by a GOP Noise Machine that positively dwarfs what existed in 1963, has turned demonizing Obama–making him into a vile object of disgust–into a crusade. It’s a demented national jihad, the likes of which this country has not seen in modern times.

But I’ve been thinking about Dallas in 1963 because I’ve been recalling the history and how that city stood as an outpost for the radical right, which never tried to hide its contempt for the New England Democrat.

And neither did Lee Harvey Oswald, the self-admitted communist who actually killed him:

(Much more under the break.)

(more…)

Down The Memory Hole At CNN

August 25th, 2009 - 5:28 pm

Ahh, the memories are certainly short at The Most Trusted Busted Name In News:

On Tuesday’s Situation Room, CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux questioned RNC Chairman Michael Steele about the debate over ObamaCare, and alleged that protesters “from your own party…have talked about and compared President Obama to Hitler” at the health care town halls. The anchor also bizarrely asked Steele if he gave Attorney General Holder “credit…for breaking away from President Obama.”

Midway through her interview with the GOP leader, Malveaux made the left-wing allegation that Republican activists were using Nazi imagery against the President at the town halls: “How honest do you think the debate has been- the discussion? In light of some of the town hall meetings, some of the rhetoric that we’ve seen from both sides, but specifically those who are from your own party who have talked about and compared President Obama to- to Hitler.”

CNN has raised the issue of the Nazi comparisons at the health care town halls in the past weeks, all the while making three significant omissions. First, they neglected to mention that early in August, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the anti-ObamaCare protesters of “carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town hall meeting on health care,” which led to Rush Limbaugh pointing out the similarities between the DNC health care logo and a Nazi symbol. They have also failed to mention that supporters of leftist Lyndon LaRouche bore posters of President Obama defaced with a Hitler mustache.

Most importantly, the network took no issue to the Bush-as-Hitler mask worn by an anti-war protester in 2006. CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen characterized the mask as a “look-alike.”

Not to mention this infamous CNN moment earlier this year during an interview with Steele himself:

CNN host D.L. Hughley turned to the standard left-wing tactic of playing the Nazi card against Republicans on his program on Saturday evening: “The tenets of the Republican Party are amazing and they seem warm and welcome. But when I watch it be applied — like you didn’t have to go much further than the Republican National Convention….It literally look[s] like Nazi Germany.” He went on to say that blacks weren’t welcome in the party: “It just does not seem — like not only are we not welcome — not only are we not welcome, but they don’t even care what we think.”

Kenneth Gladney could not be reached for comment.

And speaking of Steele (whom Jennifer Rubin interviewed today on PJTV), Erick Erickson of Red State.org is curious why the leader of the Republican National Committee is attacking on talk radio the presumptive Republican nominee for the United States Senate in Missouri, Roy Blunt?

Tangentially Related: “Fake hate crime alert: Leftists vandalize Denver Democrat HQ; Dems smeared Obamacare foes.”

Related: “Hitler Comparisons and Media Reporting: Then and Now.”

Related: “Left-Wing Violence Against Cops and Republicans — That’s Unpossible!”

Quote Me As Saying I Was Misquoted

August 19th, 2009 - 3:05 pm

“At 2:13 in the video Representative Christopher P. Carney (D – PA) says ‘I don’t even know what bill it is yet… that bill has yet to be written.’ And at 2:40 he says HR 3200 online is ‘…not the bill…’, but at the 4:25 he tells someone to ‘go back and read the bill.’

Related: “Barney Frank’s Heroic Stand Against Tyranny”:  Senator Subprime attacks an insane LaRouche-ite* — the equivalent, as Greg Gutfeld writes, of “Lebron James slam-dunking Steven Hawking.”

* An affiliation that, not surprisingly, you wouldn’t know if you caught the story on CNN.

Filed under: Muggeridge's Law

The Kultursmog Has Never Been Thicker

August 18th, 2009 - 1:23 am

sj_tea_party_7-5-09

As we’ve written numerous times around here, and as should be obvious to any long-term reader of the Blogosphere, at some point early in the “naughts”, the MSM lost its vice-grip control over the narrative. And based on their reporting this year, they’ve simply given up any hope of getting history right. To wit:

A few years ago, Emmett Tyrrell of the American Spectator described the atmospheric conditions in the MSM that had created a “Kultursmog” that’s enveloped the media landscape:

What claims the attention of major media today is a phenomenon called Kultursmog. It is the popular culture of the United States, polluted utterly by a weird politics, a politics that is often called liberal but is actually simply leftish and adolescent. It has no fixed values or ideas other than to disturb the peace, which the legally attuned will recognize as a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions of the civilized world. Kultursmog is a culture that mixes rock stars in with fashion models and the ideas of Al Gore. Occasionally the smog actually includes the Hon. Gore, along with those other “rock star” personalities, the Clintons. The Kultursmog is always politically correct, ever sensitive to the whims of the Democratic National Committee, and increasingly anti-intellectual.

And it’s never been thicker. The legacy media has long since prided itself on being the “first draft of history”. Every writer knows his first draft is almost invariably his worst, and polishes repeatedly. But normally, mostly for style; presumably the facts are correct before the writing begins. How will the second, third and tenth drafts of history look, when its foundation was built so poorly to begin with?

The Fickle Florsheim Of Fate

August 12th, 2009 - 7:48 am

“What if opponents of ObamaCare threw shoes at congressional backers of same?  The left seemed to think that was an OK form of protest earlier this year!”

[Update: "Yeah, but that was back when protest was patriotic! Amusing as this idea sounds, though, it’s probably a bad one", the Professor sagely cautions. -- Ed]

Meanwhile, the fellow who painted this is likely just simply expressing his abiding love of TV’s Family Guy.

Update: Or possibly a fan of far left nutball and perpetual presidential candidate, Lyndon LaRouche?

Related Update: The Blogging Professor believes “‘Obama As Hitler’ Poster Was A Democrat/Union Plant At John Dingell Townhall…UPDATED with video interview”.

Great Moments In Hyperbole

September 15th, 2008 - 4:46 pm

Found via Hugh Hewitt, John H. Taylor Spots Salon’s Gary Kamiya allowing his Palin Derangement Syndome to lead him into an astonishing bit of hyperbole [After the Jill Greenberg meltdown, why is that astonishing?--Ed Good point]:

If Palin catapults McCain to victory, it will be revealed to be the most powerful and enduring force in American politics. And that fact will raise serious questions about the viability of American democracy itself…

As opposed to a tyro Senator who has yet to complete his first term in office and unlike Palin has zero executive experience? (Oh wait, other than running his campaign. Harold Stassen and Lyndon Larouche, eat your hearts out!)

Like I said, Ronald Paul is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I have ever known in my entire life.

Byron York returns from last night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner and writes, “Conspiracy theorists, take it away”:

And by the way, has anyone commented on what was perhaps the weirdest sight of the night, or maybe of any other night: former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, the former CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson, chatting with Lyndon LaRouche? It happened at the receptions prior to the dinner and left more than one onlooker shaking his head at the strangeness of it all.

It’s a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma!

(Of course, maybe the Wilsons were simply chatting LaRouche up for his opinions on the source of the Danish Mohammed cartoons…)

The Truth Is Out There

March 7th, 2006 - 8:24 pm

Way, way out there; Tim Blair writes:

Who was behind those Danish Motoons? Lyndon LaRouche knows:
George Shultz is behind that cartoon run in Jyllands-Posten, which was used as a trigger to set off these Islamic protests around the world.

Personally, I suspect Charles M. Shultz. More of a cartooning background. Think about it.

Of course, Charles Schultz died in 2000.

Or at least that’s what they want us to believe…