TOBY PETZOLD

If John McCain would simply describe Barack Obama as a socialist, wouldn’t that almost compel a public discussion of what that word means? I don’t think some people know what’s involved. “Spreading the wealth around” may sound like a great idea to a teenager who’s working for minimum-wage, but to the 40 year-old businessperson who hired this kid to stock the shelves, it’s worrisome to consider that taxes and employee-related costs are going up. As they say, poor people never gave anybody a job —unless you count jobs created by the social necessity of cleaning up after these same people’s mistakes. At that sort of job creation, the social, intellectual, and economic underclasses excel.

The Obamatons are becoming ever more explicit in their grand schemes for the post-Republican, post-American paradise of Obama’s socialist state. They are beginning to bully and cheat in broad daylight. They are, like the terrorists they sympathize and associate with, becoming emboldened. And to what end? To disincentivize work? To undermine the bases of competition and self-worth? To suppress political dissent for the sake of the “common good”? Well, there’s one for you and nineteen for me. Think that’s fanciful? Did you ever think you would see the economic events of the past six weeks? Neither did I.

The hippies get all bent out of shape when you explain to them that George W. Bush isn’t actually spying on them, in particular. They so want to matter, but know they don’t. Therefore, the conspicuous cries foul, as though the pretense to offense were enough to make themselves into ”persons of interest” to McHitlerburton. Instead, these mostly-anonymous slanderers and libelers —raging against some cabal du jour of Jews, Texas oilmen, and Admiral Poindexter— are certain that their most recent blog post on FISA as a bill of right has gained them the attention of the Chimperor’s gestapo. These libtards are pathetic. Nobody cares and nobody is reading their anonymous shit.

Thanks to Charles Johnson, have a look at what the Village Voice’s Nat Hentoff is saying about the unqualified liar Barack Obama (emphases mine):

But after abandoning his pledge to abide by public financing, this apostle of cleansing the political culture is now going after the high rollers. As the July 3 New York Times reported, “Last week, the Obama campaign collected about $5 million at an event featuring celebrities in Los Angeles. The evening began with a dinner at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion for more than 200 people who had contributed $28,500 per couple, or raised $50,000.” Then there is the current furor among a rising number of Obama contributors with wallets far below the $50,000-a-pop crowd about his change on the “compromise” FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that passed the House and Senate, and has been signed by the grateful president.

The flimflam candidate had assured his faithful enthusiasts that he would filibuster this bill (which will immunize the telecommunications companies that enabled the president to break the law in his once-secret warrantless wiretapping) that turned our privacy rights upside down and out.

Now, by dismissing the scores of lawsuits against these companies from Americans wanting to know whether they’ve been ensnared in this giant government-spun Web, the president and such supporters as Obama will have made it close to impossible to conduct meaningful investigations of the intricate nexus of the ways these telecommunications giants can collect leads to Americans with no connections to terrorism — and could continue to so long as they’re assured by a future lawless administration that national security demands breaking another law.

Barack Hussein Obama is now embarking upon a world tour that will be accompanied by the sort of world-class Big Media attention that only a visit to these shores by the Pope himself would garner. (John McCain, by contrast, has been to Iraq at least seven times that I know of and has received almost no publicity for it.) So it is clear to anyone with any modicum of intellectual honesty that the stampede to get this unqualified liar elected will utterly crush any doubts raised about his political integrity. These next few months —as Hentoff and Johnson and you and I will come to learn— will not be about honest examinations of Obama’s positions and beliefs, but about pushing the anti-American and internationalist Leftist agenda of post-racial this and post-partisan that. There is a danger in what is unfolding right now that is being ignored by the major networks and papers because of the general lack of courage demonstrated by an overwhelmingly white, liberal, and yankee propaganda community that doesn’t want to upset The Narrative.

Well, fuck The Narrative. I got the New Narrative, hippies: no crypto-Muslim black nationalist commies in the White House.

Ever. 

On the Power Line, Paul Mirengoff posts on the following remark that Barack Hussein Obama made in a speech earlier this month in Colorado:

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

What is he talking about? As Mirengoff puts it:

I’m not suggesting that Obama would actually try to establish a domestic security force as powerful as our current military, only that deep-down it appears he wouldl [sic] like to do something of the kind.

I don’t like Barack Hussein Obama. I regard his nomination as a danger to this Republic and I urge all real Americans to reject him utterly.

Oh, and if you plan on buying a gun to protect yourself and yours, I recommend that you do it sooner rather than later. If there’s anything a police state can’t tolerate, it’s an armed citizenry.

Do you suppose it’s possible that online dating services are actually just fronts for the National Security Agency and that all the personal stuff you so eagerly supply to their servers will some day be used against you in a court of law and/or on the TV?

Oh, well. Such are the wages of social dysfunction and involuntary celibacy.

Glenn Greenwald, who makes online comments on his own work using false names, nevertheless recognizes —or, perhaps, naturally recognizes— how “deeply unprincipled” is Obama’s flip-flop on the FISA compromise bill (emphasis mine):

People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration — or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller — suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good.

Hmmm. Looks like Glenn’s Kool-Aid may need a little more sugar to help it go down.

Know how you can tell Olbamamann’s crazier than a shithouse rat? Because he only poses these tedious, self-regarding, and clause-laden questions —Germanically long and so leading that you’d have to hire a lawyer to object to them all— in which he pretty much gets the answer he was looking for: the one that echoes his own. And along the way of these huge bursts of rhetorical slurry are inferences and associations and outright lies, linking any two or more of his enemies on that day in any sort of libtard-Leftist strokefest he wants. Such spluttering extravagance of what must pass for thought with him is a sure sign of mental decay.

Moreover, there’s no question, if you’ll simply look, that Olbamamann’s head occupies more of the screen than any other propagandist on TV. This isn’t an ad hominem point to make, but to point out that he has this done deliberately because it’s all part of his performance artist’s homage to Big Brother and the Two Minute Hate. He’s an utter moran. I hope some day to hear the low-down on what Russert thought of this clown. I’ll bet Russert thought he was an asshole.

Is Hillary’s nomination —if not the general victory— such a foregone conclusion that this culture would indulge itself in its indulgence of her as some sort of Catherine the Great riding through these debates like Potemkin villages? Are we at such a post-modern moment that the obviousness of her grasping control freakery becomes just part of the charm?

I didn’t watch the last part of the Las Vegas debate, but I didn’t know there was even a doubt that the audience questions were scripted and rehearsed. At least that older, nervous lady’s question was certainly recited.

It’s all a bunch of phony crap. CNN is definitely the Clinton News Network from here on in. Better watch them, if watch them you must.

Professor Reynolds points us to this article in the Village Voice (emphases mine):

Barely a year after their reporters won a Pulitzer prize for exposing data mining of ordinary citizens by a government spy agency, New York Times officials had some exciting news for stockholders last week: The Times company plans to do its own data mining of ordinary citizens, in the name of online profits.

The news didn’t make everyone all googly-eyed. In fact, some people at the paper’s annual stockholders meeting in the New Amsterdam Theatre exchanged confused looks when Janet Robinson, the company’s president and CEO, uttered the phrase “data mining.” Wasn’t that the nefarious, 21st-century sort of snooping that the National Security Agency was doing without warrants on American citizens? Wasn’t that the whole subject of the prizewinning work in December 2005 by Times reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen?

And hadn’t the company’s chairman and publisher, Pinch Sulzberger, already trotted out Pulitzers earlier in the program?

Yes, yes, and yes. But Robinson was talking about money this time. Data mining, she told the crowd, would be used “to determine hidden patterns of uses to our website.”

What incredible asshole hypocrisy.

It’s almost like I’m tripping. Said Jesse Jackson to Paula Zahn:

“And the idea of white males fantasizing about black women is — is quite old, quite — and quite ugly, and now quite illegal. And that’s why we really want the truth to be told. We want justice served. And we want the law to serve as a — as a deterrent.”

Is Jackson actually becoming senile? I haven’t paid attention to him in years, I don’t think, and I can’t imagine what the fuck he thinks he’s saying. It’s illegal for me to lust after black women I know? Sorry, “Reverend,” but I can think of several very talkative, sexy, and beautiful black women that I would love to give a good seeing to right about now. And you can’t stop me from imagining that! BWAAHAHAHAHA!!!

I’m just glad that the rape charges have been dropped against Don Imus and that he can get back to broadcasting that great program of his, The Miscegenation and Minstrelsy Hour.

(A big tip of the sombrero to Jeff Goldstein and his reader, John.)