Observe What Tolerance Is Left

During a panel discussion on Dr. Drew about ESPN honoring "Caitlyn" (ne Bruce) Jenner, a transgendered panelist physically threatened conservative author and media figure Ben Shapiro.

Shapiro pointed out that Jenner had not yet undergone any gender reassignment surgery.  Nevertheless, such a medical procedure still does not change one's DNA which is either male or female.

To drive home the point, Shapiro asked his trangendered panelist Zoey (ne Robert) Tur "What is your genetics, sir?".  Of course, that was an uncomfortable scientifically based question.  But what seemed to set off Tur was the use of the title "Sir". Thus, Tur put a hand on Shapiro's shoulder and threatened to send him home in an ambulance.



 Aside from the fact that Tur's threat was not a very ladylike of a response, it underlined the thesis of Shapiro's book "Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation" (2014).  Shapiro was outnumbered on the panel and was physically threatened for stating his opinions, which are scientifically unimpeachable.

It should be noted that Tur is the father of Katie Tur, the NBC News reporter who recently conducted a hard hitting extended interview with Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump  So Zoey Tur's indignation may not have only be based on honorifics but also pent up partisan frustration.

Several years ago, after the 2011 Tuscon shooting which seriously wounded former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ 8th), Democrats like President Barack Obama pushed for civility in public discourse. This Dr. Drew dialogue again shows that so called civility is but a one-way street.  Those not espousing the current progressive shibboleth are targeted to be bullied and silenced. Even liberal pundit Camille Paglia condemns the fascistic tendencies among liberals which imposes silence on those who are not politically correct.  Alas, as Tom Nichols suggests in "The New Totalitarians Are Here", progressives want more than silence, but the expect not only to win arguments but make the loser love it.

What makes Tur's threats remarkable is that they were done physically on camera with a principled person who will not back down.

Outrageous Obama Incivility

President Obama with Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer

As the new fiscal year looms without a budget passed, and the debt ceiling debate on the horizon, the Obama Administration ought to be building ad hoc coaltions to prevent the United States going off the fiscal cliff.  Yet when President Obama's Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer went on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper", the White House pressed a bombastic bric-a-brac against Republicans.

Having an Obama  senior spokesman call Republican opponents "suicide bombers" is beyond the pale of civil political discourse coming  from the White House.  These verbal bomb throwing  through the auspices of the Oval Office neither builds Congressional coalitions vital for governing (as opposed to campaigning) and this infelicitous  and incindiary analogy shows a shocking lack of civility.  In the same day, Obama White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dredged up birther barbs to mock Republicans for wanting to defund Obamacare.

After the near assassination of former Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ 8th) in January, 2011, President Obama made a grandiose speech at the Together We Thrive rally  in Tucson which memorialized the fallen in  the atrocity where President Obama proclaimed:

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.  

President Obama then rightfully noted that a "more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation."  So how do Dan Pfeiffer's inflamatory remarks against ideological opponents fit into this call for civility?

Perhaps President Obama gave himself a waiver on civility.  After all, President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign persisted on an unsubstantiated insuniation that Republican Presidential Nominee Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) was a felon for alleged misrepresentations when he was at Bain Capital.  Political campaigns ain't beanbag, so rough and tumble rhetoric is not out of the ordinary, particularly for a politician who can not win without smearing his opponent.  But governing is different than campaigning.

While Pfeiffer's smear of his opponents as suicide bombers is outrageous and unwise, it is not the only example of inflamatory accusations that have the imprimatur of Obama's Oval Office. Democrat Congressional leaders such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 8th) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have been wont to refer to uncooperative Conservative Republican legislators as "Arsonists".  Senior Obama White House Advisor Dan Pfeiffer echoed this arsonist accusation and kidnappers comparison against Republicans.  Or progressive radio host Thom Hartman who compared Senator Ted Cruz's  (R-TX) filibuster to "Taliban-styled suicide bombings".   Kind of sounds like the Obama White House talking points were passed out.

These slanderous characterizations from the Obama White House give Democrats surrogates in the Lamestream Media license to copy scurrilous phrases.  This was quickly spread by  MSNBC's Chris Matthews did when the former Democrat staffer turned broadcaster asked  Representative Scott Perry (R-PA 4th) why the Republicans want to hold the country "hostage".

The Obama Administration seems intent to demonize and try to delegitimize their opponents, ala Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. But Pfeiffer, Pelosi and Reid are not alone in voicing vitrolic language against idelogical opponents.  Senator John McCain referred to Senator Cruz and Senator Rand Paul as "wacko birds", while Congressman Peter King  critiqued Senator Cruze as a crazy, fraudster and suicidal.  While these invectives abrogate Reagan's Eleventh Amendment, they are not as vial as a voice of the President of the United States in a time of real Islamist jihadi terrorism comparing Republicans to suicide bombers. 

It sounds like the White House communication staff need to take a crash course at the National Institute for Civil Discourse.   After all, the NICD launched a website "YourWordsCount.org" which reminds readers of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's word of wisdom: "Civility costs nothing and buys everything."   But that would also mean that they would be reminded of dear leader Obama's quote:

You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals. Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

So much for shaping the future in an uplifting way.

In the aftermath of the Tucson shooting, the elite Liberal media were quick to lambast Tea Party Conservatives, particularly former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, for  dangerous symbolism on  pamplets which "targeted" politcally vulnerable  Democrat districts like Giffords' with crosshairs.  Ironically, the Democrat Congressional Camapign Committee used bullseyes for their targeted districts.    But as Chris Plante would put it: "If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all."

From a partisan political perspective, the Obama Administration's beyond the pale references to Republicans clearly demonstrates that the Obama White House does not want to deal and is pushing to peg Republicans with any blame for a government shutdown.  They may be calculating their strategy premised on the 1995-1996 government shutdowns which allegedly hurt Republicans (even though that was not demonstrated at the ballot box).   But according to the latest Pew Poll, both Democrats and Republicans would be blamed for a government shutdown.

In the scheme of things, political blame is inconsequential compared to the quantum corsening of civil discourse that has been displayed by White House operatives Dan Pfeiffer and Press Spokesman Jay Carney. Such uncivil exchanges are unworthy of authority in this Constitutional Republic.

Obama’s Vacation from Common Sense

Recently, it was reported that President Obama’s daughter Malia took a Spring break vacation to Oaxaca, Mexico.  Although the Lamestream Media dutifully ignored the news item, but the White House prevailed on the press to scrub the story.

Coverage of children in the White House can be somewhat tricky.  Whenever possible, all politicians want to project a positive family image, as it humanizes them and the photo ops create a warm fuzzy emotional connection with some voters.  But children are not all cute and cuddly as they grow up and this is compounded when living in the penumbra of the national spotlight.

When former President Clinton moved into the White House in 1993, his daughter Chelsea Clinton was thirteen years old.  Both Bill and Hillary Clinton asked the press to lay off of coverage so that Chelsea could have as normal of childhood as possible.  The Clintons sent her to an expensive Sidwell Friends private school, which the school and students gave the First Daughter all of the privacy that the First Family wanted.  The Lamestream Media also respected the Clinton’s request to keep the first daughter out of the spotlight, giving only non-critical coverage when she would appear in public.  This fawning aura a decade later gave Chelsea Clinton an opportunity to become a NBC regular correspondent, even though she had neither had a background in journalism nor any significant knowledge expertise.

The same sort of kid glove treatment was applied for Al Gore III, the child of former Vice President Al Gore, Jr., albeit the scion’s troubles (suspected drunk driving 2002, marijuana possession 2003, racing a Prius at 100 miles an hour along with possessing drugs 2007) occurred after Gore left office but during his apotheosis into a Global Warming Guru.

The Lamestream Media was not as kind to the daughters of President George W. Bush.  They generally kept themselves away from being public figures, yet the media “dutifully” reported personal peccadilloes, like fake ID cards and under-aged drinking while in college.  But if it was not for double standards then the Lamestream Media would have no standards at all.

Generally, the private lives of political families should be respected if they are ancillary to the political process.  As long as individuals are not stepping out into the spotlight on their own, like Meghan McCain’s media strip tease during the 2008 campaign until today, they should not receive celebrity scruity per se.  But that does not mean that the First Family is immune to criticism either.

What this spring break trip brings into question is Mr. Obama’s personal judgment as well as the public policy implications of the First Family’s actions.

Should any thirteen year old take a spring break trip to Mexico? This was a Sidwell Friends School trip that certainly was chaperoned along with  a group of other students. Most teenagers take spring break trips without their family when they are juniors or seniors in high school.  People need to discern for themselves if allowing this excursion was a prudent parenting choice.

Maybe the public would appreciate the decision for the Obama’s to send their thirteen year old daughter if there was a deeper meaning to the trip than sightseeing.  Some churches and schools engage in mission work during spring break by sending their youth the places like Appalachia or under-served urban enclaves.  Of course the Obama’s still have not found a church for the First Family Between the Beltways, so it was not a church mission.  Since Sidwell Friends is nominally a Quaker educational institution so possibly the Spring Fling might have had some mission motives.  But what remains from the scrubbed media accounts, Malia and her twelve Sidwell friends did sight seeing in Oaxaca

It is hard to claim that the first daughters have been trapped in the White House bubble, considering the Obama's sixteen vacations that they have taken during the first three years of the Obama Presidency, including South Africa and Spain.  This figure does not include weekend trips to Camp David or when the First Family tags along on official business to Britain, Brazil or India.   The Obamas are renowned for not giving gifts at Christmas but they make it up to their kids in other ways.   If one needs some solace from the remarkable sweet 16 First Family trips, at least it is only 1/5th of the number of times that President Obama has spent his day golfing.  As the days go by, it's the same as it ever was for this Administration.

Then there is the cost issue.  While the cost for the First Daughter’s Spring Break Mexican trip was de minus for a family in the top 1% income bracket, that is only a portion of the overall cost.  News reports indicate that 25 Secret Service agents were dispatched for this Mexican vacation.  At a time when the United States government is broke and due to poor economic circumstances, many Americans will have to take staycations, it is strange to think that taxpayers have to foot the security bill for a non-essential vacation to Mexico for the First Daughter.

Green eyeshades aside, was it prudent to send the First Daughter to Mexico on a school trip.  Presidents are not just people but they are heads of state.  Consequently, their families can be targeted by potential malfeasors, hence the Secret Service protection. Think of the film Air Force One (1997), where endangered family motives sway the Chief Executive’s decision making.  If one of Malia’s friends were abducted or harmed, it would create an unstable international incident.   But a villain was not necessary when making foreign trips in Earthquake areas.  While Malia was in Oaxaca, the area experienced a 7.6 trembler

It is nothing new for President Obama to minimize security concerns.  Mr. Obama insisted on keeping his Blackberry cell phone during his tenure in the White House, even though the hardware has a transceiver which contains the location of the device. To accommodate Obama’s urge to keep in touch with a Crackberry (sic.), the Chief Executive was probably issued an NSA approved top secret device that costs $3,500.  But the Obama Administration does not feel bound by the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and the Obama White House Counsel is refusing to release his Blackberry records regarding Solyndra.  In contrast, President George W. Bush stopped using e-mail when he became President in 2001 to avoid exposing his personal communications to calls for public examination and having personal stuff get out.

It is also worth contemplating if this First Daughter Spring Break trip was strictly legal.   The US State Department has issued travel advisories cautioning against non-essential trips to Mexico due to the increase of drug violence and potential abductions. In fact, the State Department specifically warned students to be careful during spring break trips South of the border to keep a low profile and avoid any displays of wealth.   But these advisories to the general public was for various areas, which did not include Oaxaca.  But the State Department’s policy of February 8th states:

 U.S. government personnel and their families are prohibited from personal travel to all areas described as ‘defer non-essential travel’ and when travel for official purposes is essential it is conducted with extensive security precautions.

It is a tough sell to say that the First Daughter’s itinerary was OK as it was not in a covered zone, even though the safe zone can end two blocks from the shore. Moreover, Oaxaca had been on the warning zone in the past.   Accepting that Malia’s trip was in an uncovered zone, was this Spring Break trip essential travel?  Republican Presidential candidate former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) told Glenn Beck’s radio audience:

If the administration is saying that it's not safe to have people down there, then just because you can send 25 Secret Service agents doesn't mean you should do it... And when the government is saying this is not safe, then you don't set the example by sending your kids down there.

Sending 25 Secret Service agents into this fluid security environment does not seem like a common sense public policy, particularly for First Family pleasure trips

Be that as it may, the First Daughter Spring Break vacation sparked an Orwellian element, as news stories about the trip started to be “voluntarily” pulled by news organizations at the request of the White House.  Christiana Schake, First Lady Michelle Obama’s Press Secretary issued a statement:

From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest. We have reminded outlets of this request in order to protect the privacy and security of these girls.

When reminded of this “policy”, most “news” organizations recoiled and retracted their published stories, as retribution from an unset Oval Office was foreseeable. Ironically, the White House still had to make a statement about Malia’s safety after to Oaxaca earthquake, but that might be deemed as having a “vital news interest”.

It would be fine if the Obama’s were protective parents who trotted out their beautiful family as decorations at campaign rallies and attending semi-official Presidential ceremonies, like the lighting of the National Christmas Tree.  But President Obama has used the visage of his children as adorable optics in news pegs, but only so long as our Dear Leaders controls the message.

For instance, President Obama had a gaggle of Lamestream Media reporters covering  Mr. Obama walked his daughter Sasha to a 2009 Halloween Party  in Chicago. After Obama had gotten the desired optic captured, the reporters continued to follow him.  Obama lost his famous cool and barked “Back off” to a Polish photographer who was foolish enough to continue being a journalist rather than a stenographer for the powers that be.

Should a free press take diktats from the White House on what to cover? Should journalists with First Amendment protections and duties allow the public figure who is being covered determine what are appropriate inquires.  Should the Chief Executive determine what domestic Administration documents should be public per the Presidential Records Act? Is the Lamestream Media afraid of retribution for actually doing their job?

It is troubling that President Obama seems to think that rules do not apply to his affairs yet those around him are supposed to contort themselves to unwritten rules.  Rather than simply being concerned about yet another Obama pleasure trip, the public should be concerned that our President seems to be on vacation from common sense.

More Celebutard Strip Tease from Meghan McCain

Meghan McCain has tried to milk her fifteen minutes of fame by courting controversy.  First, Ms. McCain took an up front role for her father, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), during his Maverick 2008 Presidential campaign.  Then Meghan allowed herself to be used as a youthful go to GOP dissenting voice for the media during much of the Obama Administration.  Eventually, Meghan landed a gig with MSNBC where she revealed herself, or at least her intellectual level.

Instead of being content to get a media gig as a legacy with the Lamestream Media, Meghan McCain is driven to the spotlight, much like a moth to a flame.  So Ms. McCain recently played Twenty Questions with Playboy.  If the mere act of consenting to an interview with Playboy did not burnish her burgeoning reputation of already being a big boob, consider a couple of her answers. 

David Hockman asked on behalf of Playboy’s “readers”  asked Meghan to imagine life if her father had won his quest for the Presidency.  Meghan answered honestly: You would have the craziest first daughter ever, who’d be making ridiculous headlines and hurting the administration every step of the way.”.  No wonder why the Lamestream Media lionized her as the youth spokesman for the GOP before she joined MessNBC (sic.).

Moreover, Meghan tried to gin up publicity by denying that she was a lesbian, even though no one suggested that she was.  Meghan confessed: 

I’m not a lesbian, if that’s what you’re asking. I’d be the first person to tell the world I was gay. I’m not private about anything. I think you should live how you should live. But I’m strictly dickly. I can’t help it. I love sex and I love men. [Emphasis added].

Very revealing.  But is it appropriate for a reputable reporter, a political pundit or even a kid who cares about her father’s reputation?

Unlike the progressive media campaign to rush Limbaugh off the airwaves for controversial subjects, there is no need to make Meghan a media martyr.  But what do you call a public figure who feels compelled to make headlines with catchy but stupid quips. After the Fluke Flap, let’s just call her a “Publicity Hound”.  Between Meghan McCain's  reporting debut, her titillating Twitter Tweets and her self indulgent game of Twenty Questions, news junkies can make appropriate judgments about the quality of journalism at MSNBC.

h/t: Daily Caller

Big Shock: In Memoriam of Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)--Information Entrepreneur

Andrew Breitbart at CPAC 2012  /photo: Brian Matt

Andrew Breitbart, the internet entrepreneur and conservative activist, died of natural causes at the age of 43.

Breitbart graduated from Tulane University in 1991 with what he termed “no sense of [his] future whatsoever.”  After trying some stints with film production and cable television, Breitbart became acquainted with the nascent Drudge Report in 1995, when it was still an email newsletter.  Breitbart thought Matt Drudge’s news aggregation site was “...by far the coolest thing on the internet” so he sought to be “Matt Drudge’s bitch” by selecting and posting newslinks to the site.  Breitbart also assisted Arriana Huffington when she sported moderate Republic guise to set up the Huffington Post. Later, Breitbart set up his own internet media empire, including: Breitbart.com, Breitbart.tv, BigGovernment.com, BigHollywood.com, BigJournalism.com, BigPeace.com.  As conservative media commentator Monica Crowley put it: "Andrew was doing the job that the Main Streem Media won't do."

Although Breitbart worked in journalism, he had no illusion about the ersatz objectivity of reporters. In his autobiography Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World (2011), Breitbart saw himself as a volunteer in the New Media army who served in the front lines fighting against the Democrat-Media Complex in the war to gain control of the American narrative.

Breitbart evolved from maintaining news aggregation sites to doing investigative journalism when Breitbart broke the ACORN abuse.  Investigative activists James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles visited various ACORN offices with a hidden camera posing as a pimp and an under-aged prostitute who wanted ACORN’s assistance.  ACORN routinely turned a blind eye to the purported illegal activities. Breitbart used this investigative journalism to launch his website BigGovernment. But Breitbart also counseled O’Keefe to release the damning videos in dribs and drabs to sustain the story and effectuate change, rather than a media feeding frenzy that is quickly dismissed as “yesterday’s news”.   The Big Government expose on ACORN influenced Congress to federally defund the community fundraising organization, although it has reconstituted itself under other auspices.

Although the ACORN incident showed how Breitbart knew to sustain a news story by strategic publishing, Breitbart also knew how to seize the day.  This was especially true with Weiner-Gate.  Breitbart was in the forefront of publishing the explicit materials of himself that former Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY 9th) shared on social media.  But when Weiner finally decided to personally address the situation, Weiner tried to manipulate the press cycle to put his best foot foreword.  Weiner was supposed to give a presser at 4 p.m. but he waited over an hour to start the event as he thought that he could control the narrative so that time pressed TV newscasts would either give him unfiltered live coverage or force a spoon fed summation without analysis or contradiction.  Breitbart was on the seen of the Weiner press conference.  As the delay continued, Breitbart walked right up to the podium to defend himself over his journalism.  Weiner had successfully stonewalled the scandal until then, but he lost control of the narrative and soon after had to resign.

Breitbart knew the importance of putting a picture to a story.  The ACORN undercover videos had a greater resonance than a text news story.  The same is true with the scantily closed Twitter photos of Anthony Weiner in his Congressional office.  In 2004, before the advent of YouTube, Breitbart was able to get his hands on video of Teresa Heinz Kerry screaming at a reporter.  Breitbart posted in on the Drudge Report and it got more than a million hits in a day. When Agriculture office Shirley Sherrod gave an incendiary speech before the NAACP, BigGovernment posted video which showed Sherrod given what was tantamount to racial discrimination to a white farmer, which led her to be fired from her job.  During the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Breitbart gave a barnburner of a speech in which he alluded to having damning videos of Barack Obama in his youth, but withheld them for the right time.



After news of Breitbart’s death broke, conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg observed on FoxNews that: “[Breitbart] was the modern conservative iteration of a 1960s radical... When I say he was the most fearless guy I ever knew, it really is true. I mean, he truly loved the fight.”

Breitbart (center) at CPAC 2012 / photo: Brian Matt

The night that he passed away, Breitbart gave a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt which indicated that Breitbart was relishing for a legal battle with David Schuster over the libeling of James O’Keefe.  Breitbart also enjoyed confronting Occupy protestors. Breitbart was in the process of finalizing a film to be released in conjunction with Citizens United “Occupy Unmasked”, which would document the well funded, co-ordinated anarchism with the so-called “99%-ers”.  Breitbart was in the process of finalizing a film to be released in conjunction with Citizens United “Occupy Unmasked”, which would document the well funded, co-ordinated anarchism with the so-called “99%-ers”.



Liberally oriented social media erupted in hate at the news of Breitbart’s death.  This is somewhat ironic, considering how far Breitbart stuck his neck out for conservatives to embrace right minded homosexuals.  But to paraphrase Winston Churchill, having enemies shows that you stood up for something.  And as Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI 11th) reminisced: "There was no stopping Andrew Breitbart from fighting the good fight with every fiber of his soul."

Liberals may lament Breitbart’s brash and pugnacious style.  But Breitbart deserves kudos for being an information entrepreneur.  He recognized that the Internet could intensify the news cycle and could circumvent the Democrat-Media Complex.  Instead of settling to be a successful news aggregator, Breitbart delved into investigative journalism to do stories that the Lamestream Media would shun because it did not fit into their progressive rose colored glasses.  Breitbart knew how to leverage a news cycle.  Although some questioned showing snippets of provocative video, Breitbart was also renowned for including extended video clips so motivated viewers could decide for themselves. Moreover, Breitbart instinctively appreciated the importance of linking images to stories to put information over the top of public indifference.

May Andrew Breitbart rest in peace with some consolation to his young family.  And may Breitbart’s legacy and example loom large for the New Media on the battlefield for control of the American narrative.

Troubled Waters Over Whack Wise Crack

In response to remarks by Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA 35th) at the 2012 California Democrat party convention which demonized the Republican Congressional leadership, FNC commentator Eric Bolling offered some hyperbolic suggestion in the self-anointed soon to become House Financial Services Chairman-



This wise crack was premised on Diane Sawyer's 2002 interview with Whitney Houston where she denied using crack because that is drug for poor people and she speculated who is the biggest devil.



Granted that Fox &; Friends takes a playful approach to politics but this might have been too much fun.   Bolling walked back his jibe after the commercial break, quickly remembering what happened to Don Imus in the morning on MSNBC in 2007. Of course, the Huffington Post was quick to play the race card on Bolling, following the lead from the Center for American Progress and its political overlord.

The Lamestream Media may demand a blood sacrifice for this Waters wise crack.  But such a move may further expose the close coordination between supposed non profit watchdogs, like Media Matters, and the West Wing as currently being exposed by a series in the Daily Caller.

Bolling's quip was an eye opener in the morning, but it was a surreal nexus between the hyperbolic allusion of "white devils" dirty from Maxine Waters and the halluceangenic  hagiography for the talented but troubled pop diva.  But voices from the left are quick to chime racism.  This follows the pattern of the Finger of Truth moment in January, when Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ) had a tense official meeting on the tarmac with President Barack Obama, which permitted progressive partisans to evoke the specter of racism while personally savaging Brewer.

For a party that claimed that it wanted to foster bridges of civility after the shooting of former Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ 8th), it seems like Democrats and their Lamestream Media lackeys actually constructed lots of one way streets instead.

The Finger of Truth

President Obama recently had an intense encounter with Gov. Jan Brewer over characterizations of their prior meetings in her new book Scorpions for Breakfast.  During their exchange, Governor Brewer was seen gesturing with her index finger while responding to the Chief Executive’s harangue.

Most editorial cartoons reflected their liberal lamestream media roots and depicted the Arizona Governor either as a crazed crone or a witch with “agua” on the ready for her meltdown.  Of course this is a double standard as campaign ads in the 2010 cycle that depicted then Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 8th) as the Wicked Witch of the West by Republican opponent John Dennis was universally decried as being the pale. But politics is not beanbag and events can be interpreted through rose colored partisan glasses.

But some old school progressive agiprop artists want to push those liberal boundries of politicking. Jessie Jackson offered a desultory diatribe during a PUSH forum broadcast on the Word Network.  The Reverend Jackson ejaculated:

Also, while it’s on my mind, Gov. Janice K. Brewer, the finger person.  Gov. Janice K. Brewer, who gave President Obama the finger, governor of Arizona, call 1 800 253 0883.  Keep that line real busy.  1 800 253 0883.  We’ll give you the number later a little later today and this week on the email number of her press secretary.  We want to keep Arizona. . . until she can put her hands in her pocket and have some good. . . do you know how insulting it is to put your finger in somebody’s face?  Try it with the cameras rolling, she knew the cameras.

She knew what she was doing.  She was telling him off.  She was cutting him down to his size.  She must never get away with that.  Even George Wallace did not put his finger in Dr. King’s face.  Say, enough is enough.

Obviously, Jesse Jackson wishes to ingratiate with his Chicago comrade in the Oval Office, especially after the Reverend’s cutting off mike comment in 2008.  It is loathsome that Jackson is hustling a racial angle with his framing of the Brewer v. Obama match-up.  But it is just plain dishonest for Jackson to insinuate that Brewer gave the President the “Lone Eagle Salute”.  Watch the dust up in the desert video, as it is an impassioned index finger which may have crowded Obama’s space but was no disrespect to the office of the Presidency.

It is worth noting that Barack Obama has a habit of coyly slipping his opponent “the Finger” while out on the campaign hustings.   Recall how he treated his then 2008 Democrat opponent (and now Secretary of State) Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

Later during the general election campaign, candidate Obama seemed to return to the gesture when “honoring” his opponent Republican Senator John McCain (R-AZ).

Giving the finger is not simply a crude sexual insinuation.  The long finger salute is also an aggressive battlefield gesture.  Before the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the French threatened to cut off the middle finger of any Englishmen captured.  This was meant to thwart the English advantage, as without a middle finger plucking the yew their skilled longbow archers would be rendered moot.  Well, the English won an upset victory over the continentals.  So as a taunt to the French forces, English soldiers held up their middle finger so as to say "See, we can still pluck yew! PLUCK YEW!".  In time, the difficult consonant cluster devolved to what a cunning linguist would call a labiodental fricture which makes modern interlocutors think of For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.

What is actually the finger of truth for Obama-ites? Is Mr. Obama just is an itchy individual from his thin skin? Or maybe his middle school civic education missed lessons on civility?  What is more likely is that rules for mere mortals do not apply for chosen ones and Obama 2012 surrogates mirror their own crude political instincts. 

h/t DaveGranlund.com

h/t: Mike Bates

Who Doesn't Like Scorpions for Breakfast?

Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) and President Barack Obama January 25, 2012

On the heels of his 2012 State of the Union show, President Barack Obama flew to the battleground state of Arizona to further promote his agenda.  Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ) led the official state delegation tat the tarmac in Phoenix to greet America’s Chief Executive. After exchanging perfunctory greetings, Gov. Brewer handed President  Obama a handwritten invitation for the Chief Executive to join her in a tour the border with Mexico to get a first hand view.  President Obama tossed the letter aside to consider later so that he could get to the real issue--his ire over characterizations about him in Gov. Brewer's new book Breakfast with Scorpions.  It seems that Obama  objected to the meetings with Brewer being framed as confrontational.



During the intense airport exchange, the two leaders talked over each other several times.  Brewer asked if Obama had read her book but he had only read excerpts. The hand inscribed copy of the book was tossed into the car.  Gov. Brewer indicated that she was in mid-sentence when the President turned and walked away. Brewer said that she was so stunned by apparent peevishness of President Obama and his thin skin.

It was a different story from the Summit of the Americas in 2009, when Venezuelan Caudillo Hugo Chavez presented President Obama with a book.  Obama accepted the gifted tome from the Venezuelan dictator. Obama claimed that he accepted the tome as he thought that it was actually authored by Chavez but Obama exclaimed “I like to read.”  Oh, well maybe Obama only  likes to read authors with whom he's inclined to agree.

President Obama’s staff has tried to tamp down the turmoil from this contentious exchange with Gov. Brewer claiming that the incident was overblown. Actually, the hot and bothered reception in Phoenix might work well for both participants.  President Obama can be seen dressing down a nemesis who has dissed him.  Moreover, Obama’s  public sizing down of the Arizona Governor gives a strong signal to Obama’s allies that he is up for a fight and will not take any  guff from his opponents.  As for Governor Brewer, she does not cower from a petulant power.  In a more practical metric, Brewer’s book instantly climbed the charts after the close encounter of the perturbed kind.  Scorpions for Breakfast leaped from number 285,568 to number nine on Amazon book sales charts overnight.

The only things that would have made the contentious encounter more satisfying are if Air Force One had landed at Barry Goldwater Airport in Phoenix and certain knowledge if scorpions are thin skinned.

Pre-Occupied with Stern's Private Parts

During a live-shot in Manhattan following the flushing of the Occupy Moment from Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan, a local Fox reporter’s broadcast was repeatedly obstructed by a priapically occupied Howard Stern fan.

While it is concerning to have rabble-rousers obstructing the media covering the news, there is a certain poetic justice in this instance.  Throughout  the nearly two months of the Occupy Wall Street, their counter culture street theater protests have not offered a coherent message save an unstated intent for publicity when being “evicted” from their pied-de-terre.

Instead of going out in a blaze of glory, the chronically of the self-Occupied Wall Street protestors’ plight is punctuated by the adolescent obnoxious ejaculations of a Howard Stern prankster.

Beat It Occupy Wall Street

Even though the Occupy Wall Street protesters do not have a coherent political message, they all march to the beat of a different drummer.  Well, many drums. In order to accentuate the left leaning agitprop from what Karl Marx would call the Useful Idiots, there is the constant beat of drums, much to the consternation of their neighbors in lower Manhattan.  It is like a perpetual drum circle by the Wharf Rats at a Grateful Dead concert pre-show, albeit without the sobriety or the cheese sandwich marketeers trying to scrape up enough money to go to the next show.



The neighbors of Zuccotti Park may be ideologically sympathetic to the lefty message but they are tired of having to live with its cacophony and its filth. They have been forced to listen to the loud drumming drone that occurs from 9 am to 10 pm since September 17th.  The Community Board representing the residents of the Financial District has met eleven times to address concerns stemming from the Occupy Wall Street Protest interlopers.  But the board is conflicted as it issued a non-binding resolution endorsing the protestors rights of free speech and peaceful assembly but beseeched them to correct sanitation and noise ordinance issues.

Other satellite Occupy movements have been plagued by rapes at their protests, which organizers would prefer to handle “in house”.  In London, Occupy interlopers set up tents at the entrance of St. Paul’s Cathedral, which closed the iconic house of worship yet thermal imaging shows that 90% of the protestor’s tents were empty at night. So the Occupiers could sleep in their warm beds before putting in a hard day of drumming their points, whatever they may be. Due to the English squatters laws, they had better be careful that they are not hoisted by their own petard by squatters law about abandoning abodes.

In New York, the NYPD and NYFD took away gas cannisters and generators from the Occupy Wall Street protestors for public safety purposes.  I suspect that a lack of power and heat might dissuade the rabble rousers from staying on site during the upcoming Devil’s Night Nor’Easter snowstorm.

Whenever these Occupiers do take their drums and go home to their parents’ basements, one can take schadenfreude solace that prolonged exposure to loud drumming (at 110 decibels) can cause deafness.  That way they can be both deaf and dumb. Or at least they could say something coherent when they speak up instead of relying on percussive syncopation to drive home their message.

Movie Review: Promises-The Film

Promises  (2001) is an Emmy award winning documentary film by co-directors B.Z. Goldberg and Justine Shapiro that focuses on seven children living in a sundry of situations for several years (1997-2000) in a sundry of situations in and around Jerusalem.  The concept for Promises seems akin to a Holy Land version of famous British documentary Seven Up! (1964). Promises deliberately eschewed politics as much as possible trying to show how kids from different sides of the border grow up in the turbulent territory.

Promises was quite successful in depicting the variety of living situations in and around Jerusalem which informs their upbringing.  Twin secular bourgeois Jewish boys living in West Jerusalem might be mistaken for being in the San Fernando valley, except they rely on buses and the street signage uses unusual script fonts.  The two Palestinian children living in the Deheishe  live in crowded, modest and battled scared circumstance which one might expect from a fifty year old refugee camp in the West Bank.  The young Israeli settlers living at the Beth El settlement in the West Bank seem to grow up in a Zionist version of Fort Apache The Bronx.  The ultra orthodox son of a rabbi living in the Old City and the Palestinian youth living in East Jerusalem grow up among the history of the Holy City as well as its long help mutual antipathies. 

Reality television shows such as Survivor can be fascinating studies of humanity since prolonged exposure to the camera prompts participants to drop their external guise which reveals who they really are.  The Promises film-makers spent prolonged periods befriending their subjects to win their trust.  Once the kids quit playing to the camera, their guileless portraits 

It was interesting to see that there was not uniformity of perspectives even among co-religionists. The secular twins were uncomfortable approaching the Wailing Wall at the Temple Mount since the Orthodox Judaism on display seemed unfamiliar and uncomfortable.  Mouhamad, the Palestinian permanent resident of East Jerusalem voiced Arab triumphalism over Israel, yet he seemed to think that they could live as dhimmi. However, those being raised in Hamas dominated West Bank Palestinian refugee camps initially parroted the equivalent of drive the Jews into the sea.

Growing up around a contested city that is the center of three major monotheistic religions forces you to grow up fast.  The West Bank twins interests revolved around volleyball, but even at a young age they contemplate which bus line is more prone to being blown up in terrorist attacks. The kids from Deheishe strive to play sports and do dance, but the are mentally scared by a young chum was gunned down by the IDF for throwing stones during an intifada. Moishe, the Zionist Israeli Settler, had to process the murder of a friend and his mother at the hands of a car bomb.  Being acutely aware of your mortality as a minor is a sharp contrast to American suburban youth who might pine for Justin Bieber tickets or follow their favorite sports teams.

The film does present some lighter moments.  The young girl who shares her jejune dream of how she will spend the Sabbath when she grows up while she struggles with unstacking plastic chairs is precious. The Palestinian Camp boy’s precocious grooming procedure when he was preparing for guests was unintentionally comical.  And the ad libbed Palestinian/Orthodox burping contest in the Old City showed how kids can still be kids.

It seems that Promises evolved from being post Oslo Accord portraits of the children of war  to being people to people diplomacy.  When some of the kids expressed interest in Goldberg’s subjects on the other side of the tracks, the film focused on the meeting, the discovery of commonality, exchanging ideas and the aftermath.  The Kumbaya focus does not don rose colored glasses and has honorable intentions , but the evolving point of view documentary style to me gives short shrift to the religious.

Steven Reich’s minimalist opera The Cave successfully created a multi-media opera which explored the roots of Judaism, Islam and Christianity by asking  Israelis, Palestinians and Americans questions about the Patriarchs interwoven with passages from the Torah and the Koran. In Promises, pre-pubescent kids are asked  theologically laced questions about their homeland which inspired some revealing yet puerile replies.  Moishe, the Zionist kid, searches through his familial Torah scrolls for the Genesis passage where Yahweh eternally gave Abraham the land of Israel.  Mohamad cites the Koranic claim that the Prophet Muhammad traveled to the furthest mosque “al Aqksa” in Jerusalem before taking the stairway to heaven, thus the land was promised to Muslims.   Shlomo, the Orthodox rabbi’s son, tries to justify the land of Israel.  While these scenes show faithfulness and explain their apartheid, the film fully concentrates on secular attempts bridge building.

Although there was only a cursory presentation of Israeli education, in the form of bobbing boys memorizing the Torah that has become familiar in scenes from Moslem Madrassas, the Palestinian indoctrination of victimhood was quite clear.  The cultural events at the Palestinian Refugee Camp are supposed to glorify perseverance over adversity in preserving their culture but devolve into blood thirsty lyrics praising martyrdom.  The Palestinian classroom seen inculcating the primacy of Moslems in Jerusalem.  But the teaching therapy of allowing students to draw their victimhood fosters the rage that encourages the Intifada.

The documentarians had several instances of inserting themselves into the picture.  To illustrate the land that residents from the Deheishe Refuge Camp lost after the 1948 war, director Godlberg drove Faraj and his grandmother through Israeli checkpoints to visit the ruins of their abandoned village. At the time, the boy seemed more intent on finding the trashed door which fit his oversized key. Later, the key is a featured prop for demonstrations for Palestinian repatriation in Israel.

Another instance where the directors became less detached was when winning the trust with Faraj after he made acrimonious accusations against all Jewish boys.  Goldberg points out that he was a Jewish Boy who was partially raised in Israel and speaks fluent Hebrew.  Faroj excuses it by saying “That’s OK, you are American” while never letting go of the director’s hand.

Facilitating the meeting between the secular Jewish boys and the Palestinian Camp Kids was other instance where the Promise Film Project was not being strictly documentary film makers. But to their credit, they pointed out the perilousness and rarity of this outreach.

Promises was very successful in not getting stranded in the mental minefield of politics. But the lack of political context propagandized a heart tugging situation.  Sanabal, a Palestinian girl in the refugee camp, was growing up without her father, as he was being indefinitely held in an Israeli prison without charges.  This seems horrific unless one appreciates that he was a journalist for Hamas, a terrorist organization which is resolved in eradicating the Jewish state.  Promises mentioned that he was Hamas-nik, but never fleshed out what that meant.  The film gives an impression of Israeli’s might as being a militarily heavy handed occupier, without balancing that there can be no peaceful co-existence with ardent followers of Hamas.

The film was provocative, funny and endearing.  What concerns me are attempts to use it in a social justice campaign.  Holy Trinity, a parish in Georgetown, DC  that has a two century Jesuit tradition, used The Promise to initiate dialogue and possibly other outreach.  In introducing the film, the Social Justice coordinator admitted that histories could be disputed.  But in his weltanschauung, Jews came back to the Holy Land after World War II but were only 33% of the population at the time of the UN mandate yet they received half the land.  There were wars in 1948 and 1967 where Israel expanded its holdings and then there were several instances of the Intifada where Palestinians fought back.

That “admittedly disputed” short history of Israel is about as puerile as the kids’ theological justifications.  What about the Zionist movement that prompted so many religiously inspired Jews from the 1880s through the 1920s to move back to the Holy Land (and buy property) to make the desert once again a land of milk and honey?  The quick and dirty history forgets about the Balfour Declaration from the British that dedicates the Palestine Mandate to the Jewish People.  As for the War of 1948, Israel declares its independence based on the UN mandate and is attacked the next day by its Arab neighbors.  The 1967 War was another act of Arab aggression. And the intifada inspired a peace process where Yasser Arafat got 95% of what he asked for, but that was insufficient for the suffering Palestinians. But those inconvenient truths are glossed over.

It is not surprising that the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) has the same initials as Social Justice.  One was left with the distinct feeling that the talk therapy and facilitated dialogue was an attempt to inspire do-gooders to foster dialogue for peace and sympathy for Obama Administration efforts to return to the 1967 “border” and the right of Palestinians to repatriate Israel.  So the Palestinians can have three states for the price of one 1. Jordan 2. Palestine West Bank and Gaza 3. Israel proper.  Vocalizing these dissenting facts is as worthless as talk therapy when the participants are not on the same page.

While I appreciate the Promises documentary for what it is-a labor of love that has honored the film festival circuit for the past decade and aspires to engender understanding and common humanity.  But the glossing over inconvenient truths like the intrinsic animus against Israel by Hamas and the history of hostility promises to make good hearted politically correct activists into useful idiots in the international peace process. If nothing else, this showing of  Promises reaffirmed my resolve to support the Restoring Courage in Jerusalem on August 24th where people can stand for our allies in Israel and the tolerant, multi-religious democracy which it represents.

Politicking Versus Voldemort?

Behind a backdrop of the Statue of Liberty, former Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT) announced his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States.  Huntsman  had already been campaigning in New Hampshire and his announcement was no surprise.  The lamestream media has been a twitter framing the field as needing another moderate candidate, or a RINO as the conservative base would call it. Of course, Huntsman’s recent service as the U.S. Ambassador to the Peoples’ Republic of China for the OBAMA Administration does not help shaking off the RINO label.

Instead of focusing on his foreign policy experience, Huntsman concentrated on “leadership that trusts in our strengths” to make tough decisions to preserve a powerful, confident, compassionate and compassionate America.  Such platitudinous rhetoric sounds soaring until presenting specific policies.

The interesting aspect of the Huntsman’s campaign is his commitment to a campaign of civility. Huntsman promised not to run down his Republican opposition to the nomination.  It is commendable to observe Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment.  But Huntsman has also has pledged not to mention his former boss (President Obama) by name, even when contrasting their visions for America. This is one step further than failed 2008 Republican Presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who made mentioning his opponent’s middle name verboten, even though Obama used it during both attempts to take the Presidential oath of office.

While the boomlet for Donald Trump’s bid for the Oval Office fizzled after forcing President Obama to release his birth certificate in April, it is thought that much of his support stemmed from his pugnacious sensibilities to bring the fight for the Presidency.  After the recent New Hampshire debate, former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) was roundly criticized for pulling his punches on “Obamney-care”.  Should we rally behind a prospective President who dares not speak the name of the incumbent opposition?  This is reminiscent of the paralyzing fearfulness at Hogwarts of mentioning Voldemort.



A winning campaign for Republican Presidential candidates must have a positive message that addresses the pressing problems which threaten America’s vitality. Those challenging President Obama need not demonize him or name call yet they can not afford to pull their punches or utilize a no-name strategy when opposing Obama, as the incumbent is not raising an estimated $1 Billion to campaign on achievements of improving the economy or a record of popular accomplishments.