This is the female that is the Chosen One for the presidency in 2016?
Not a good woman.
Guess we’ll have to boycott accurate forecasting channels, too, now. To teach these deniers a lesson!
Meh. This dude is old. Never trust anybody over 30. Unless it’s all the New Leftists now in their 60s and 70s under whose rule the modern progressive movement takes its orders.
That’s different. Because some of them have earrings. Or wear ponytails. And not just the men!
Looking through my Twitter thread today I came across a Tweet by motionview that referenced this piece by Erick Erickson over at Red State. In the piece, Erick argues that Obama is not merely incompetent but malicious, and that there are consequences to rejecting the notion of American exceptionalism (either directly or through jaded academic relativism):
There is grave incompetence in the White House. But there is also a maliciousness that views the very image of the shining city on the hill a jingoist insult to the rest of the world.
Al Qaeda once sensed weakness when, during the Clinton administration, we prosecuted instead of fought. How much more weakness does ISIS sense as we retreat from the globe, dither on the world stage, and watch our President play the back nine.
It is malicious hostility toward the world order those American leaders who lived through World War II sought to create to foster stability, peace, security. Because Barack Obama and the left have no sense of history and no respect for their predecessors on the world stage, they will seek to undo without ever appreciating why it was that order came to be.
But then the body bags will be some future President’s problem.
In responding to Erickson, motionview pointed to his own comprehensive guest post from back in 2012, along with my 2009 piece for Hot Air that, though well received, was one of my last links to (or from) the erstwhile Malkin site.
All of which put me in mind of the post that launched a thousand hatreds, which I revisited today to see exactly how it has withstood the test of time. And now you can, too. “On nobility,” November 5, 2008:
Good men do bad things, and in the pursuit of ambition, they almost always do. Barack Obama is not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination.
What’s more, I think he will damage this country with bad policies. I’m not going to pretend otherwise. Inevitably, he is going to take actions that I think are disastrous, and somebody will come back and say: “Hey, Patterico! I thought you said Barack Obama was a good man!” Yes, but I never said he wasn’t going to do horrible things. It’s quite clear he will.
What’s more, there is no way in hell he is going to do away with the poisonous atmosphere in Washington, and anyone who thinks that he can is a fool. It will be amusing to watch him try.
But I make no apologies for saying he is a good man. He is my President. He is our President. And while he hasn’t always done good, I do believe he is fundamentally a good man and a patriot who wants to make this country a better place.
Precisely the kind of self-righteous civility that fried McCain. Want to be clapped on the back for your decorum? Fine. Just say so.
But let’s not pretend you are being honest or principled. Graciousness is one thing; praise is another.
This “good man” was involved in ACORN blackmail schemes. With an attempt to fraudulently undermine the Second Amendment by gaming court rulings. He got rich off of schemes that led to the mortgage crisis — then stood by and let others fix it in order to keep his hands clean during the final stages of an election. He has thrown in with race hustlers,”reformers” who believe that domestic terrorism was a valid form of expression, odious foreign potentates –
There is nothing at all noble about praising a man and a party who reviles you simply because in doing so you appear noble. Jews have tried that. And it’s often ended with skeletons and ash, or the twisted wreckage of a bus in Tel Aviv.
In this case, it will end with more McCains — and so more Obamas and Reids and Pelosis and Olbermanns.
If that’s nobility, I’m not interested. Yes, Obama is my President. But that doesn’t mean I’m forced to forget all he’s done to get there — and all that’s been done on his behalf, either by the savage supporters who went after Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin, or by the “objective media” that sold its soul for a shot at establishing the government it desired.
A good man?
A good politician, sure. A dedicated husband and father, perhaps. But a good man?
Sorry. But good men don’t lie, cheat, steal, and throw longtime supporters by the wayside just so they can rise to power — even if they’ve convinced themselves they’re doing so for some Greater Good.
Because the fact is, in this country, they’re not supposed to get to decide what that is. We are.
The rest is hubris.
update: For those coming over from some of the sites linking this piece, my follow-up post is here, and it explains in greater detail why I think Patterico’s position is not only wrong but dangerous.
And no, I don’t think Patterico in general dishonest or unprincipled. Quite the opposite, in fact. But in this instance, I believe he made a calculated and ostentatious decision to take the high road, and in doing so he forced himself to call someone a good man whom he knows to be quite the opposite (and has in fact suggested as much on a number of occasions).
In so doing, he has given cover to reprehensible behavior. If he believes such pragmatism will win elections, fine. Me, I’d rather lose the next few rounds if it means resurfacing with classical liberal principles intact and at the core of every campaign we run.
I believe it interesting to revisit this piece now because you can see in it what were clearly the beginnings of a divide in the GOP support structure. By this time, I had already appeared on NPR noting that McCain was a terrible candidate, and that if we were going to have a country run on big government narcissism, I’d rather that governing strategy be laid at the feet of the Democrats. This was before he selected Palin as his running mate — the only reason I could bring myself to vote for him, though he seemed determined to lose no matter what.
Interestingly, we didn’t learn from McCain’s defeat, and so when Romney was pushed as the candidate four years later — and I pointed out we were repeating our mistake of 2008 (though in point of fact, I did believe Romney would win, just that he was a lousy candidate, one that essentially removed ObamaCare as an issue for the GOP) — I met with another round of resistance, and saw my marginalization compounded.
Obviously, I stand by what I wrote at the time; Rick Moran penned an interesting piece on the conflict that erupted because of it, agreeing with my larger point (ironically so, because later, he ridiculed the TEA Party and gave people like me the charming Visigoth moniker) — though he chided me for presuming to see into Patterico’s soul and glean his intent.
But here’s the thing: though I was at pains to say, as I believed at the time, that this was not something either isolated to Frey or indicative of his overall character, I nevertheless was willing to argue that, based on any number of his prior posts written about Obama, he didn’t really believe what he was writing in his “good man” post — and that for reasons I’ve before and since argued, it is not only wrong but dangerous to try to play the game by left’s urgings, hence my distinguishing between graciousness and praise. There was and is no nobility in knowing the truth and pretending not to when the fate of a nation is at stake, just as ceding linguistic ground by playing in the left’s sandbox insures that we lose, even if it slows down how quickly that inevitably happens. Fundamental transformation can operate at many speeds.
The TEA Party elections of 2010 gave many of us hope; the GOP establishments actions since then, however, have turned that promise to pessimism — reaching its nadir with the McDaniel “defeat” in Mississippi that it turns out was bought with GOP establishment funds and sold with leftist race-baiting rhetoric.
We are where we are. And though I’m still being carefully bracketed by many major conservative outlets for the treason of finding fault in my own and openly discussing it, it heartens me to know that, pace allegations that the entire outlaw credo was just a cynical way to fundraise, in this piece you can clearly see in the conclusion that I’d already gone rogue — and that those who were serious about individual sovereignty and the classical liberalism upon which this country was founded had better begin standing on principle rather that being seen standing on ceremony.
Nearly 6-years later, and I have been making this same point nearly daily since: “I’d rather lose [a few] rounds if it means resurfacing with classical liberal principles intact and at the core of every campaign we run.”
The irony is, had we begun in 2008 — and allowed the momentum of 2010 to carry us — we’d already be where we need to be.
Instead, we got Romney, the party’s outward hostility toward its base, an impotent congressional leadership, and a world in chaos as the country disintegrates under our feet.
– And we’re beginning to hear the call for Romney to run again.
It was never my intention to show anyone up or to hurt his feelings: I was under the illusion, since rectified, that we as a conservative online movement were truly interested in finding ways to beat back leftism — and that a crucial part of that was going to include self-examination and a willingness to engage in intellectual discussion, the end result being a more unified party going forward.
Instead, I uncovered the politics of talking politics. And I can’t say that as a movement we’re anything but far worse off for it.
In fact, I doubt anyone will care much about this post. Despite there being a saying about history and forgetting it that seems quite apropos here, even if it’s inconvenient or impolitic to bring it up…
Our southern border is functionally non-existent, and Obama is poised to granted “refugee status” to illegal aliens pouring over that border.
Meanwhile, some members of the Border Patrol are busy protecting the Canadian/Us border in Alaska from shutter-happy Boy Scouts
While the Obama administration has begun looking into ways to ensure safe passage to the United States for Honduran children, federal officials have reportedly harassed an Iowa Boy Scout Troop seeking to enter Alaska through Canada.
Jim Fox, leader of the Mid-Iowa Boy Scout Troop 111, told an Iowa television station one of his scouts took a photo of a Border Patrol official and agents immediately leapt into action. “The agent immediately confiscated his camera, informed him he would be arrested, fined possibly $10,000 and 10 years in prison,” he said. Fox alleges one agent drew his pistol and pointed it a scout’s head after the scout attempted to retrieve luggage from the top of the van in which the scouts were traveling.
A statement obtained from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency denied that the agent had pulled a gun on the Iowan Boy Scout.
First off, the camera seizure and threats were bogus from the start. The agent has no expectation of privacy while in public and on duty.
However, the lengths at which Government officials want to scare-ify any object outside the realm of the comfy chair zooms into parody …
The Border Patrol agents also inquired as to why the scouts were traveling with excessive amounts of lighters, matches, and knives, Fox News reported. Eventually, all of the scouts arrived back home in Iowa from their 23-day trip, but not without much stress and consternation. “We’re going to present our country in this manner: that we’re the bullies and we’re going to tell you what to do to protect your safety,” the troop leader told the Iowa television station. “These kids are going to turn.”
Heck of a job, Barry!
Of the more than 1,100 Army captains notified last month their military careers would soon end, 87 were deployed worldwide and 48 were serving in Afghanistan at the time, Army officials said Wednesday.
The Army has been talking for months about the need to separate the captains as well as more than 500 majors this summer as part of the broad Army drawdown, but it’s the first time details have emerged about the sobering business of delivering pink slips to troops in harm’s way. [...]
Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., is urging the Senate to act, having learned of the situation only after the House had passed its defense spending bill.
Cotton, a former Army infantry officer with a tour each in Iraq and Afghanistan, wants senators to introduce an amendment that would deny funding of the distribution of pink slips in Afghanistan.
“The men and women deployed overseas have left their homes and families to fight for our country,” he said in a written statement. “It’s deplorable the Obama administration would treat them this way. This action is yet another shameful display of President Obama’s disregard for our country’s warfighters.” [...]
The Army intends to shrink to an active duty end strength of 510,000 troops this year and fall to 490,000 in 2015, officials said. From there, end strength will likely fall by another 40,000 by 2019 as a result of declining military spending.
It is who he is, it is what he does.
… and the beat goes on …
Apparently only conservatives and others on the right can be obstructionists, according to Roget’s Thesaurus.
A search for synonyms of “obstructionist” on Thesaurus.com, which cites Roget’s, reveals that the source considers several words related to conservative and right-leaning political stances to fit the definition of a “person who is cautious, moderate; an opponent of change.” Under antonyms, it lists left-leaning words.
Included in the list of obstructionist synonyms are “right-winger,” “right,” and “rightist” and ”Tory,” the British conservative party.
Other synonyms listed for obscrutionst are “traditionalist,” “conserver,” “conventionalist,” “unprogressive,” and “redneck.”
…drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain …
n July, we learned that a Google search of the word “bigotry” turned up a definition that equated the word to “right-wing.” The sample sentence from the Oxford Dictionary set off a small firestorm of anger by conservatives, who don’t consider themselves bigoted and don’t think it should be part of any dictionary definition of the word.
Well, it seems Merriam-Webster also thinks conservatives are bigots. [...]
[L] liberals and progressives are the opposite of bigoted, but anyone related to “conservatism” is.
A source writes in, ”I would imagine millions of impressionable young minds go to this site to find definitions of words for school. This is supposed to be factual reference. This is extremely dangerous and powerful. I wonder what other words they have redefined.”
…la dee dah dee dee, la dee dah dee dah …
An Ohio State University (OSU) class has apparently determined another fundamental difference between Christians and atheists: their IQ points.
An online quiz from the school’s Psychology 1100 class, provided to Campus Reform via tip, asked students to pick which scenario they found most likely given that “Theo has an IQ of 100 and Aine has an IQ of 125.”
The correct answer? “Aine is an atheist, while Theo is a Christian.”
I don’t know that I ever posted this before, but a while back Chris Muir, the artist and creator of Day By Day, produced a large piece, modeled on “The Last Supper,” that was auctioned off as part of the Blogger’s Defense Fund. Most of those who were pictured (that is, those of us on the proper side of history) signed the master print, and each of us in return received a print of our own, plus a separate piece of our likeness, representing our place within the piece’s overall theme.
Having felt with the slings and arrows of the new breed of online “conservatives” the last few days made me a bit nostalgic for the days before a few people worked diligently to see me marginalized, so I had Chris send me a picture of the final product. My own copy is rolled up in a cardboard tube and ready for the move.
As I told Chris, one of the biggest thrills of my “career” online was being chosen as one of the representatives for the conservative cause — and then, you betcha!, getting placed next to Sarah Palin in the picture (others pictured, in the white and red: Ed Morrissey, RSM, Glenn and Helen Reynolds, Malkin, Mandy Nagy, Bill Whittle, and Clarence Thomas). So for those of you who haven’t seen it, here it is:
And here is my separate piece, which was suggestive of my role in the promotion of language and its importance:
I have always tried to remain absolutely true to the principles of classical liberalism. At times this has put me at odds with some on “our” side who I felt were promoting ideas, almost always unwittingly (at least at first), that were wrong-headed or dangerous to the cause of individual liberty and sovereignty.
Ultimately, that doggedness cost me, and there are days when I regret that it’s simply in my nature to fight like hell for what I truly believe is right, and do so in a way that tries simultaneously to make the case in such a way that others will be persuaded. I’m perhaps the world’s worst diplomat. But what I am is loyal — to my friends and to my causes. I don’t believe, looking at that picture today, there is a single person on the conservative side I haven’t defended at one time or another.
Many of them, in return, have had my back — including yesterday, when I needed it.
To them I say thank you. And to Chris I say, once again, thank you for finding some of the work I’ve done here at protein wisdom over the years worthy of the honor of inclusion.
As always, outlaw.
I’m getting beyond incensed over the rise of anti-Semitism both here and in westernized (socialist) Europe, and all the useful idiots who haven’t a fucking clue that they’re supposed “principled” stand against “Israeli racist apartheid butchers” is nothing more than a collaboration with none other than Hitler himself. It’s like his demons spirit has possessed them.
And I’ll say this: if I was paying $50K a year for a university education for one of my kids and found out that kid was “protesting” Israel or engaging in some ridiculous boycott or the harassment of Jewish students, I’d show up on campus, yank them out of class, pull my tuition assistance, and then take the assault charge that came with publicly beating the shit out of the first anti-Semitic Marxist-besodden, Said-fellating “professor” I got my hands on.
Never again means never again. You want to play radical chic? You’d best do it from behind the anonymity of your keyboard, then, you barbarian-stroking pussies. Because if I show up at a counterprotest in support of Israel and you lay your hands on me in some mob attempt to intimidate Jews, I guarantee at least one of you is going to pull back a fucking bloody stump.
Now. Having said my piece (and my peace-thru-strength), here’s a must read (h/t MarkLevinShow), first published in the American Thinker in 2012. I’ll quote at length so that we can bookmark this post and refer back to it as the need arises:
Why do so many Arabs sound like Nazis when they talk about Jews? The answer lay buried for decades in the archives of the Third Reich. Then a generation of younger German scholars expanded their attention beyond the death camps of Europe to Hitler’s activities in the Middle East. What they discovered: it was Hitler who financed the modern jihadi movement.
Nazi-Arab collaboration was crucial to the Final Solution. The Third Reich financed and trained the Muslim Brothers of Palestine and Egypt in terrorism and focused their anti-modernity rage on Jews. One of the first people Hitler told about his plans to kill Europe’s Jews was the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, the infamous mufti of Jerusalem, Yasser Arafat’s cousin. Hitler and the mufti shook hands on a plan to exterminate all the Jews of the Middle East. The Reich preserved the memo, the minutes, and a photo of their famous handshake.
Husseini was passed along to Goebbels, who established him as the Nazi voice to the Middle East. It was the most popular radio program of the long war years, broadcast daily into every café. This Nazi station was listened to by the entire male population, Arab and Persian, including most famously Ayatollah Khomeini. It was an intoxicating mix of militant Islam, Nazism, and war propaganda.
The Palestinian leadership and Hitler successfully collaborated on a crucial step of the Final Solution — mob violence and a reign of terror pressured Britain to shut down Jewish immigration to what is now Israel. They trapped the Jews in Europe, where six million perished in the killing fields and death camps. Adolf Eichmann’s deputy, Dieter Wisliceny, stated at his Nuremberg trial that the mufti’s importance “must not be disregarded[.] … [T]he Mufti had repeatedly suggested to … Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry[.] … The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and advisor of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of the plan.”
Winston Churchill spoke in the House of Commons against the shutting down of Jewish immigration to today’s Israel. He clearly saw the Nazi hand behind the Arab riots: “We are now asked to submit, and this is what rankles most with me, to an agitation which is fed with foreign money and ceaselessly inflamed by Nazi and by Fascist propaganda.”
Hitler’s influence has been permanently embedded in Arab culture. During World War II, there was a popular song among Arabs: “Allah in heaven, Hitler on earth.” Sheikh al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood today, in his weekly sermon broadcast on Al Jazeera to an audience of 60 million, prayed about the Jews: “Oh Allah, kill them, down to the very last one.” “Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by [Adolf] Hitler.” In Tahir Square, a mob of Arab Spring celebrants screamed, “Jew, Jew, Jew” as they raped blond American journalist Lara Logan. [...]
The Palestinian national movement was founded by Hitler’s henchman, al Husseini, mufti and the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. The founder of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, was trained by German Nazi army officers who were welcomed in Cairo after the war. He adopted the name “Yasser” to honor the Muslim Brother’s terror chief of the 1930s, who kidnapped Arabs in Western clothes and threw them into pits of scorpions and snakes. Their corpses would be left in the street for days, shoes stuck in their mouths, as a lesson for any Arab who believed in tolerating Jews or welcoming modernization. During Oslo, Arafat’s personal bodyguard had sons named Hitler and Eichmann, according to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s book, A Place Among the Nations.
The continuity is striking. Reich set the Brothers up with a printing press and fake photos of alleged torture of Arabs by Jews — just as today, Iranian, Egyptian, and Palestinian state TV broadcasts dramatizations of Jews stealing Arabs’ eyeballs and killing Arab children to use their blood in matzoh. Organizing in mosques, schools, and workplaces with Hitler’s funds, the Brothers spread lies that Jews planned to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and trample on the Koran — the same exact lies Yasser Arafat used to launch the second intifada. On the Ramadan after 9/11, Egyptian President Mubarak launched a 41-week dramatization of that Nazi favorite, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in an emotional call for genocide against the world’s Jews.
Hitler has never left the Middle East. For almost 70 years, the Arab world has been pickled in Nazi Jew-hatred. In the words of Matthias Kuntzel, author of Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, “[i]f there is one theme … which unites Islamists, Liberals, Nasserites and Marxists, it is the collective fantasy of the common enemy in the shape of Israel and the Jews, which almost always correlates with the wish to destroy Israel.” Jew-hatred is indispensible to Arab leaders, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Iran to the Palestinian Authority, in their fight against democratic Western values.
Nazi jihadism didn’t win without a fight from the modernizing forces in Egypt. Many signs indicate that Israel would have been a welcome neighbor. Religious leaders fought the Brotherhood’s attempts to politicize Friday prayers with false claims that Jews were attacking Al Aqsa and the Koran. The rector of Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam’s most important university, forbade anti-Jewish propaganda. Ali Mahir, Egyptian King Farouk’s top adviser, called for a united Palestinian state based on mutual tolerance and regulated immigration for both Jew and Arab.
Today, the fight is lost. All of those institutions are firmly entrenched in Nazi-jihadi anti-Semitism. The coalition government of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which is a terrorist Muslim Brotherhood organization, are united in their denial of Israel’s right to exist. Jew-hatred is so popular that it is possible that no Arab leader can speak out against it. It explains why the Palestinians have turned down a state of their own four times. They are holding out for Hitler’s solution. Peace is the last thing they want. Otherwise, peace would be here today.
Obama is quite wrong. If desired by both sides, peace is easy. It is Nazi-Islamic propaganda that is so hard to solve.
There are some signs, of course, that places like Egypt, having removed the Muslim Brotherhood from power (ironic that they’re more welcome in the White House than in Egyptian government, don’t you think?), are wearying of Hamas and its tactics. But then other former US allies, like NATO member Turkey, are becoming increasingly Islamic where they were once secular.
I don’t think any of this is an accident. I think Obama and the New Left hates Israel; and I think his friendships with Edward Said and Khalidi and Ayers, et al, coupled with his time under Reverend Wright and his having been steeped in Marxist propaganda including, on its outskirts, the thinking behind fascism and National Socialism as leftist offshoots, are all part of Obama’s attitude toward Israel.
We thought the Cold War was over, but Hillary’s reset button has rekindled that. Turns out Obama’s policies and attitude may just be rekindling the Second World War, as well.
Makes one pray for the zombie apocalypse, if only so Zombie Patton can return and eat the shit out of John Kerry and all the other anti-Semitic retreads from the New Left now trying to throw the world into turmoil.
Greenpeace is in turmoil after more than 40 staff signed a letter calling two of the group’s most senior officials to resign. The group faced ridicule last month after it emerged that Husting chose to regularly fly between his home in Luxembourg and work in Amsterdam, leaving a massive carbon footprint.
NL Times reports that staff members have now penned a letter to Husting and Greenpeace director Kuni Naidoo, calling for Husting’s sacking and also urging Naidoo to “consider his position”, adding that only their departure can repair the damage they have caused the environmentalist group.
The letter has spread among the group’s employees and has now been signed by almost all important campaign leaders and senior staff. Only Dutch director Sylvia Borren is missing, as she believes that dismissal is unnecessary.
Staff are also angry at Husting’s salary, believing it to be far too high. At €6,075 (£4,790/$8,170) a month, staff members say that the amount is “multiple times the average income and a lot of money for most of our supporters”.
The letter adds that there is no way for the group to recover its reputation unless both Husting and Naidoo go, as keeping them on will continued to undermine their credibility.
I hate to be the one to break it to the letter’s signatories, but Greenpeace’s “credibility” has already been significantly undermined. By the co-founder of Greenpeace.
But then, that’s just nitpicking. Because I hate the earth and such. And probably racism.
The one good thing to come out of all this, as I noted on Twitter, is that we can all sit back and giggle as protesters try to figure out a way to chain themselves to the air.