TOBY PETZOLD

The usual Leftist ninnies are just mewling about about John Edwards’ anti-climactic confession of adultery this afternoon, but I couldn’t care less about the Hyperambitious Phony’s love life; I’m frankly surprised he would take valuable time away from teasing his do to fornicate. The greatest scandal, after all, is not Silkiness’ human frailty, but the extreme and undeniable pro-Democratic bias of Big Media. I’m talking about the Tiffany Network and the Electric Peacocks and the Grey Lady and the Whore of Babylon (oh, alright —the Los Angeles Times). The major broadcast and cable news organizations and the major wire services that feed them put an unambiguous embargo on the mere discussion of a legitimate news story involving a man who was a Vice Presidential nominee in 2004. These craven manipulators of America’s public opinion took it upon themselves —in a massive group demonstration of antitrust— to purposely ignore what is now proven to be the truth about a major public figure. Had this major public figure been a Republican, there cannot be any question that the whole sordid thing would have been analyzed and hyped beyond all recognition. The New York Times made damned sure to wonder aloud on its front pages just a couple months ago about a flimsy non-story (i.e., a lie) involving John McCain and some female lobbyist, but then suddenly found journalistic integrity and declined to condescend to the level of the National Enquirer when it came to the Breck Girl? What monstrous hypocrisy. What discreditable conduct for the so-called Paper of Record.

Americans should be ashamed that we still permit a small handful of obvious Democratic partisans to control the greater part of the television and print media in this country. It is an indictment of our information-gathering habits —especially in these days of the World Wide Web— that the news isn’t news for most Americans until the man on the TV says so. The wretched Wolf Blitzer is on my TV right now, as a matter of fact, breathlessly unburdening himself about this nonsense when one knows that his network wouldn’t have just waited around for manna from heaven if this mess had been about Cheney or McCain; they would have sought it out like the craphounds they are. CNN wouldn’t have sat back wondering whether they should put their seal on this story —and thereby verify it in the public mind— but that’s what happened here, anyway, isn’t it? They waited until they couldn’t wait any longer. And for one reason: because John Edwards is a Democrat.

Big Media is a meretricious drag on the quality of our political discourse. It is a great joy to me every time I hear that Pinch Sulzberger’s stocks have fallen again or that the LA Times is laying off more and more staff or that nobody’s watching Madame Couric. Real, triumphant joy. I somehow believe —if only for a while— that it may yet be possible to really democratize our political knowledge as Americans and throw the sorry apologists out.

Well, for one thing, I have a great new vehicle that came with a stereo. Both of which I earned by working hard for my money. I used to have a stereo in my old jalopy until some walking pieces of used food tried to abscond with it one night —but couldn’t, so they just left a jagged wound in my car dash, which I deliberately left as such for the rest of the time I owned the car as a reminder of what happens when you live amongst subhumans with no honor.

So I’m listening to Rush Limbaugh again after many years of not listening to his egomaniacal crapola —and it’s because he’s a well-organized shit-stirrer par excellence. I mean, he’s gotten really good at what he does. And because he knows how to brutalize him some dumbasses, with which this society is brimming.

I only get about 15 minutes or so of it a day when I head out to slop, but it’s almost always worth the time. Today, for instance, he ran a clip of a response Obamachrist made yesterday to a 7 year-old girl who asked him why he’s running for President:

America, uh, is —is no longer, uh, what it —it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, “I don’t want that future for my children.”

From there, Limbaugh just rips the hell out of this unqualified liar and I am hooting and hollering at the justice of it all. I mean, after all, what a stupid answer to give to a little girl. Is he serious? Is there any doubt that he and the wife just stew in their bitterness and sense of entitlement, 24-7? What the hell does he know about what America “used” to be? America “used” to be a place where a black man couldn’t get served a sandwich at a lunch counter. Is that the place he’s talking about?

Pay attention, moran: you aren’t qualified to be the President of the United States. Period. I hope Mrs. Clinton and her supporters give you a major pain in the ass in Denver ’cause, baby, you earned it.

Matt Bai has a very interesting essay in next Sunday’s New York Times Magazine about black politics in America. On the unlikelihood of Obama’s success this past spring (emphasis mine):

Still, most in the caucus didn’t take Obama all that seriously as a potential nominee, and neither did the Clinton campaign. They calculated that he would need a huge share of black votes to wrest the nomination from Hillary, and her advisers, white and black, considered that a near impossibility. “There was an arrogance and a complete dismissiveness in our campaign against Obama, that he was a lightweight, that he couldn’t get black support,” one senior Clinton aide told me recently. “A lot of the black leaders didn’t know him, didn’t think he was black enough, didn’t think he was of the civil rights movement.” This point about whether Obama was “black enough,” a senseless distinction to most white voters, came up often in my discussions. It referred to the perception among some black leaders that not only had Obama not shared their generational experience, but also that he hadn’t shared the African-American experience, period. Obama’s father was a Kenyan academic; his family came to America on scholarship, not in chains.

I say that unease about Obama’s authenticity —cultural or otherwise— is shared by more than just Jesse Jackson. How is it possible that a person of such limited experience and ability could so easily take control of the Democratic Party? It must, indeed, be a very rickety old chewed-up thing to have been so abjectly appropriated.

Have a look at this piece in the Investor’s Business Daily on Barack Hussein Obama’s associations with honest-to-God Communism:

A careful reading of Obama’s first memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” reveals that his childhood mentor up to the age of 18 — a man he refers to only as “Frank” — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his “subversive,” “un-American activities.”

In a belated story on the relationship, the Associated Press describes Davis as “left-leaning.”

In fact, Davis was a member of the Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA, according to the 1953 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities of the Territory of Hawaii, which labeled him “a bitter opponent of capitalism.” The report was introduced as evidence in the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee hearings probing the “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States.”

It may be unfashionable and even risible to dredge up the history of America’s fight against Communism, but it was a real thing that lasted for a long time. Truman fought it in Korea, Kennedy fought it in Cuba, and LBJ fought it in Viet Nam. Nixon and Reagan certainly made it part of their lives’ work to resist and destroy Communism. In fact, America spent most of the Twentieth Century confronting the Communist ideology here and abroad.

And why is that? Because it is an alien and inhuman sysem, opposed to human liberty. And where it could not succeed as an ideology of choice, it was forced upon many hundreds of millions of human beings —at the point of a gun and over the course of decades.

So let the liberals and the Leftists laugh at the charge that their choice for President is a man who was steeped in the gall of Communist and radical socialist doctrine from an early age. Let them laugh when it is finally asked, “Barack Hussein Obama, what did you learn from Frank Davis? How do you apply those lessons to your vision for America?”

These are entirely relevant questions. But you wouldn’t have to ask John McCain what he learned from the Communists.

Because you already know.

Glenn Reynolds links to this US News & World Report blog entry on Ralph Nader’s remarks today on the disappointment that is Barack Hussein Obama. Paul Bedard writes:

On Obama, Nader, who once hit the Democrat for trying to “talk white” to win their votes, said the presidential candidate is a disappointment to civil rights advocates. He noted that during the civil rights fights, activists dreamed of a day when an African-American president and congressional committee chairs would focus on the unforgotten poor. “People who have fought the civil rights battle economically, politically, legally, as we have since the ’50s, would often talk about, ‘Look what would happen if we have an African-American president or chairmens or chairpersons of major congressional committees.’ It doesn’t look like it’s going to be what we all thought it was going to be,” he says. The old vision, he says, was that a black would understand the plight of minorities. “There would be a real crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos and poor rural areas. The poor pay more, they die more earlier, healthcare, et cetera, and African-Americans with seniority or in positions of power we thought would really pay attention to that,” he says. But he could only cite hearings by white Rep. Dennis Kucinich who delved into those areas. “Where’s the Black Caucus?” he asked. “It’s very disappointing.”

It may be disappointing, but it’s not surprising. As with Obama’s conspicuous opposition to the reparations scheme, being the visionary of a “post-racial” America means ignoring black issues for the sake of not seeming to be too black. And everybody’s just fine with that:

“Let’s not be naive. Sen. Obama is running for president of the United States, and so he is in a constant battle to save his political life,” said Kibibi Tyehimba, co-chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. “In light of the demographics of this country, I don’t think it’s realistic to expect him to do anything other than what he’s done.”

It doesn’t matter that Obama was saying no to reparations before he ran for the Presidency. What matters is that Obama’s supporters are race-conscious where they think it will benefit him and suddenly neglectful where it would not. These people —of all colors, mind you— will tell you how wonderful and historic and paradisiacal it is that a black man could be so close to winning it all in this mean-spirited, gun-loving, Bible-clinging Amerikkka that has lost us the respect of the Eurodhimmis. But will they burden their messiah with any expectation of addressing the issues that specifically and disproportionately impact Black America? Of course not. Even when it would show a real cognizance of legitimate problems that black moms and dads have with wretched schools and violent neighborhoods? Does Obama even talk about crime? What does he have to say about education problems in our suburban ghettoes? 

I think Nader is right. Obama is so fearful of appearing to be too black that he never allows his experience as a “community organizer” to move him to speak to Black America’s deepest concerns. And don’t even suggest that his highly-publicized Great Race Speech in Philadelphia —widely regarded by the Libtard Left as the Gettysburg Address Redux— was any sort of movement in that direction. That thing was all about him —and not Black America. And there’s a reason for that: he doesn’t come from Black America; he comes from Barack-America.

Isn’t it odd how banality can become sinister? Even Barack Hussein Obama’s mottos are verbal adumbrations of the hollowness of his creed.

It isn’t enough for me now to hear apologies from the idiots who perpetrated the nonsense of this man’s nomination; I want more. I want these people to admit that their judgement in choosing our leaders is contemptuous of this great civilization —which prospers despite them.

Here’s to death knells. Here’s to the triumph of common sense —and to the patriotism that doesn’t have to be asserted, but only lived.

I was surprised to read just now that Barack Hussein Obama opposes reparations for the descendants of slaves:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders.

The man with a serious chance to become the nation’s first black president argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all.

“I have said in the past — and I’ll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed,” the Illinois Democrat said recently.

I don’t think his opposition comes from his ineligibility for the Great Pay-Off —as he has no connection whatsoever to the African-American slave trade— but it may come from his desire to not enrage the typical white person. So good for him.

But I do think that Obama’s opposition will serve to remind Black America again that he does not share their heritage. He stands outside of our common culture and he stands against American history. Thus, I encourage him to do more to alienate himself from the people who were stupid enough to nominate him.

Barack Hussein Obama says that people like me don’t like him because he has a “funny name” and because he is, as he identifies himself, a black man. But the actual reason I don’t like Obama is because of insufferable ploys like that one: “If you oppose or criticize me, you’re a racist.”

With about three months to go to the moment of truth, such a preposterous rationale is intended to paralyze and suspend normal political criticism. It’s grossly unfair and racist in itself. Let’s see how much more mileage this goddamned charlatan gets out of what John McCain today finally and bluntly called “playing the race card.” I think it’s bound to backfire on Obama in a big way —and with crucial Democratic voting blocs, viz., Northeastern Catholics, Rust Belt blue-collars, older folks (especially Floridian Jews), and large segments of the Latino vote.

The legend that is growing up around this unqualified liar is that he represents a post-racial America. Yet the support he receives from Black America exceeds even the usual 90-10 split the Democratic Party can count on every cycle. How is that suggestive of a post-racial appeal? The very idea is a joke, as was repeatedly demonstrated in the last several Democratic primaries.

It just so happens that it’s Barack Obama who comes into an electoral dynamic where his identity and character are not even known to the majority of Americans. All that can be known about him is what he asserts himself and his beliefs to be. So why is that acceptable? It is not. It is not enough for a man to claim to be something; he must demonstrate himself to be worthy of the most powerful office on Earth.

On that point, McCain is unquestionably the better choice. He is known to the society he is asking to lead. He is known to us as a man of real character and as a man with a demonstrated record of service. On what basis is Obama asking to lead us? On the strength of his good looks and his alleged mastery of the oratorical arts? Well, that’s the audacity of horseshit. If guilt-ridden white liberals want a black man to play at being President, they might as well choose Morgan Freeman (who happens to be a good and interesting man, which I would know from years of reading about him, seeing him in interviews, and sharing in his artistic choices).

I wish I could suppress my contempt for people who support this nonsense, but I am having a hard time of it. I am sorry to even have to say that, but it is true. Ever since about Super Tuesday, I have looked on the Democratic Party in much the same way that I looked on the Republicans in the wake of the Schiavo Unpleasantness. To me, the Democrats have absolutely gone mad. Does their self-loathing as Americans run so deep that they would inflict this crap on our culture without any thought of its recklessness?

The answer is obvious.

Jon Voight, the actor who played Milo Minderbinder in the indispensible film Catch-22, blasts Obamachrist in Monday’s Washington Times:

With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there’s not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.

Thanks for being a real American, sir, and for being the exception that proves the rule of the Leftist Hollywood establishment. Oh, and for fathering Angelina Jolie. That mustn’t be forgotten.

The Speaker of the House announced today:

Americans know that thanks to the two oilmen in the White House, consumers are now paying $4 a gallon for gas. But what Americans should realize is that what the President is calling for is drilling as close as three miles off of America’s pristine beaches and in other protected areas.

The President has failed in his economic policy, and now he wants to say, “but for drilling in protected areas offshore, our economy would be thriving and the price of gas would be lower.” That hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to relieve the pain of consumers at the pump and to promote energy independence.

How are Bush and Cheney responsible for the huge spike in the price of oil across the world? Could it be that the two most populous nations on Earth are seeing huge spikes in their own consumption of oil —and that this, above all else, is what’s driving these prices? It’s nothing but lunatic gibberish to blame these “oilmen” for the astonishing growth of China’s and India’s economies.

Were it not for the completely outmoded restrictions placed on domestic oil production and refining capacity by asshole Democrats, the United States would obviously be in a better position to adapt to the global increase in the price of oil —again clearly driven by the spike in Asia’s consumption.

Our country does not allow new oil refineries or new nuclear power plants to be built because of the anachronistic “concerns” of asshole Democrats. These restrictions weren’t an issue when we were paying a buck a gallon not too many years ago, but now? The lack of foresight on the part of environmentalists and their Gaiist fringe is now costing us all. Our economy is suffering not because we don’t have the resources, but because assholes and Edenists won’t permit their use.

Note that the same sacks of hippie shit who think themselves superior to Christians by virtue of Science are the ones who have no confidence in American drilling and refining technology. How much oil was spilled when Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Region? Not even enough to get Obama to Davos and back.

Why are the Democrats handing such a gift to the Republicans? I don’t know. But if Bush is smart, he’ll pull a Truman on these do-nothing liars this summer and make them reconvene the Congress to allow a vote on lifting these stupid restrictions. If there’s some Republicans in trouble who’d rather be back home campaigning, then let them make their case to their constituents from the floors of the House and Senate. They’ve got work to do and they can damned well do it from there.