Obama on Sunday said that Republicans are “counting on young people staying home, union workers staying home, black folks staying home.”
But . . . but . . . I thought Obama was supposed to be post-racial and post-partisan.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Obama vs. the Chamber of Commerce (Or I told you so)
Sometimes I’m good. Friday, I wrote Obama’s attack on the Chamber of Commerce would get more attention, to his political hurt. Well *ding* right again.
What I did not expect is how quickly Obama’s accusations are being exposed as baseless. Even the New York Times gets it already.
And in attempting to dig themselves out, the Obama Administration keeps digging itself in deeper. David Axelrod’s performance on CBS on Sunday was a gem:
White House senior adviser David Axelrod said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has the burden of proving false the charge by Democrats that the business group is funneling foreign money to Republican campaigns.
Axelrod was pressed by CBS’ Bob Schieffer on Sunday for evidence that the foreign campaign contributions benefiting the GOP is more than “peanuts.”
“Do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?” Axelrod said on “Face the Nation.” “The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that, but they won’t release any information about where their campaign money is coming from. And that’s at the core of the problem.”
Ah, I see how it works: the Obama regime can throw charges at political opposition without evidence, and the opposition has the burden to clear itself.
Ed Morrissey also is among those who see how it works:
The government makes baseless accusations and then blames the people accused for not clearing themselves. . . . The White House launched the same kind of baseless attacks on the Koch family and Americans for Prosperity this summer and have yet to offer one substantial piece of evidence that any of these groups or people have done anything wrong at all, except to oppose Obama’s policies.
This is an administration that apparently has never learned the difference between being a political campaign and serving in the government. In the former situation, this would constitute slander, which is bad enough. When it comes from the government, it’s a form of tyranny — an attempt to use the power of government to silence dissent.
MORE:
The attacks on the Chamber of Commerce are part of a pattern: the Obama regime and Democrats use the power of government to attack donors to conservative causes.
Again, this is tyranny.
What I did not expect is how quickly Obama’s accusations are being exposed as baseless. Even the New York Times gets it already.
And in attempting to dig themselves out, the Obama Administration keeps digging itself in deeper. David Axelrod’s performance on CBS on Sunday was a gem:
White House senior adviser David Axelrod said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has the burden of proving false the charge by Democrats that the business group is funneling foreign money to Republican campaigns.
Axelrod was pressed by CBS’ Bob Schieffer on Sunday for evidence that the foreign campaign contributions benefiting the GOP is more than “peanuts.”
“Do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?” Axelrod said on “Face the Nation.” “The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that, but they won’t release any information about where their campaign money is coming from. And that’s at the core of the problem.”
Ah, I see how it works: the Obama regime can throw charges at political opposition without evidence, and the opposition has the burden to clear itself.
Ed Morrissey also is among those who see how it works:
The government makes baseless accusations and then blames the people accused for not clearing themselves. . . . The White House launched the same kind of baseless attacks on the Koch family and Americans for Prosperity this summer and have yet to offer one substantial piece of evidence that any of these groups or people have done anything wrong at all, except to oppose Obama’s policies.
This is an administration that apparently has never learned the difference between being a political campaign and serving in the government. In the former situation, this would constitute slander, which is bad enough. When it comes from the government, it’s a form of tyranny — an attempt to use the power of government to silence dissent.
MORE:
The attacks on the Chamber of Commerce are part of a pattern: the Obama regime and Democrats use the power of government to attack donors to conservative causes.
Again, this is tyranny.
Friday, October 08, 2010
Obama vs. the Chamber of Commerce
This is not getting a lot of attention yet, but it might very soon. Yesterday, Obama and comrades accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign funds to influence U.S. elections.
Putting aside that the accusation has scarce evidence or credibility, it raises the question . . . WHAT THE HEY IS OBAMA THINKING??
I’m not a big fan of the Chamber of Commerce myself for various reasons, but the C of C is Middle America. Obama might as well accuse Mom and apple pie.
If I were a Democrat, I would not want Obama continuing to say inanities that keep his opposition riled up for the elections and turn independents even more against Democrats. But that is exactly what Obama is doing.
Putting aside that the accusation has scarce evidence or credibility, it raises the question . . . WHAT THE HEY IS OBAMA THINKING??
I’m not a big fan of the Chamber of Commerce myself for various reasons, but the C of C is Middle America. Obama might as well accuse Mom and apple pie.
If I were a Democrat, I would not want Obama continuing to say inanities that keep his opposition riled up for the elections and turn independents even more against Democrats. But that is exactly what Obama is doing.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Another Rigged Poll from the Washington Post and ABC
This week, a Washington Post/ABC poll showed the Democrats gaining some ground as we near Election Day. Oh boy! The Democrats are making their BIG COMEBACK!
But there is a slight problem with the poll. It is rigged by an indefensible sample:
And how did the Democrats manage this rather remarkable comeback? Well, the WaPo/ABC pollster managed to find their usual sample gap. They went from a 31/25/39 D/R/I split in September in the general sample and 31/26/37 among registered voters, to 33/23/29 in the general sample and 34/25/37 among registered voters. That nine-point advantage to Democrats among RVs is almost twice what it was in the previous sample.
To believe that this represents the electorate, we would have to believe that (a) Democrats have had a big month in attracting voters to their banner, (b) Republicans somehow lost a bunch of voters in the same period, and (c) Democrats now have an advantage outstripping their 2008 situation when they won the presidency by seven points in the popular vote.
In short, the sample and hence the poll results are absurdly rigged.
And there is really no question about that. The only question is why did the Washington Post and ABC rig their poll? I can think only of two feasible explanations.
1. They intentionally rigged it to help the Democrats. Yes, that explanation is a bit conspiratorial. No, I do not wear tinfoil hats. But one would have to be naïve indeed to think the “mainstream” news media has never tried to influence elections. But I am no mind reader and do not presume to know if the rigging of this poll was intentional. I am more sure that . . .
2. Their liberalism makes it difficult for them to do a good poll, much like it makes it difficult for them to report fairly and accurately.
A good analogy of this difficulty would be refereeing in certain situations in sports. Sometimes, the atmosphere can be so biased that even the most conscientious referee or umpire can fall victim to it and help a team. I consider the 2006 Super Bowl a classic example.
The Big Story was that the Pittsburgh Steelers were returning to the Super Bowl. Even the NFL itself fanned that story. Little was said about it being the Seattle Seahawks going to their first Super Bowl. They were bit players. Pittsburgh was the story and was just supposed to win (not unlike Obama in 2008?). And I think that atmosphere affected the reffing and the outcome.
Of course, if a referee himself is biased, say, if he’s from Pittsburgh, the difficultly increases greatly.
The atmosphere and bias in the midst of the “mainstream” news media is so left of center, I think it is as difficult for them to do a fair poll as it is for someone from Pittsburgh to call a fair game when the Steelers are in the Super Bowl, even if they are trying their best to be fair. . . . And that’s a big “if” in the news media's case.
In any case, this poll is rigged indeed and a disservice to political discourse.
Housekeeping: I hope you did not miss me too much yesterday. My internet was down most of the day.
But there is a slight problem with the poll. It is rigged by an indefensible sample:
And how did the Democrats manage this rather remarkable comeback? Well, the WaPo/ABC pollster managed to find their usual sample gap. They went from a 31/25/39 D/R/I split in September in the general sample and 31/26/37 among registered voters, to 33/23/29 in the general sample and 34/25/37 among registered voters. That nine-point advantage to Democrats among RVs is almost twice what it was in the previous sample.
To believe that this represents the electorate, we would have to believe that (a) Democrats have had a big month in attracting voters to their banner, (b) Republicans somehow lost a bunch of voters in the same period, and (c) Democrats now have an advantage outstripping their 2008 situation when they won the presidency by seven points in the popular vote.
In short, the sample and hence the poll results are absurdly rigged.
And there is really no question about that. The only question is why did the Washington Post and ABC rig their poll? I can think only of two feasible explanations.
1. They intentionally rigged it to help the Democrats. Yes, that explanation is a bit conspiratorial. No, I do not wear tinfoil hats. But one would have to be naïve indeed to think the “mainstream” news media has never tried to influence elections. But I am no mind reader and do not presume to know if the rigging of this poll was intentional. I am more sure that . . .
2. Their liberalism makes it difficult for them to do a good poll, much like it makes it difficult for them to report fairly and accurately.
A good analogy of this difficulty would be refereeing in certain situations in sports. Sometimes, the atmosphere can be so biased that even the most conscientious referee or umpire can fall victim to it and help a team. I consider the 2006 Super Bowl a classic example.
The Big Story was that the Pittsburgh Steelers were returning to the Super Bowl. Even the NFL itself fanned that story. Little was said about it being the Seattle Seahawks going to their first Super Bowl. They were bit players. Pittsburgh was the story and was just supposed to win (not unlike Obama in 2008?). And I think that atmosphere affected the reffing and the outcome.
Of course, if a referee himself is biased, say, if he’s from Pittsburgh, the difficultly increases greatly.
The atmosphere and bias in the midst of the “mainstream” news media is so left of center, I think it is as difficult for them to do a fair poll as it is for someone from Pittsburgh to call a fair game when the Steelers are in the Super Bowl, even if they are trying their best to be fair. . . . And that’s a big “if” in the news media's case.
In any case, this poll is rigged indeed and a disservice to political discourse.
Housekeeping: I hope you did not miss me too much yesterday. My internet was down most of the day.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Lessons From *That* 10:10 Ad
It’s gone viral. So many of you are aware of a certain gory ad from environmentalists promoting 10:10, a UK campaign to cut carbon emissions by 10%.
I will post the ad here with the **STRONG WARNING** that it is both disturbed and disturbing. I made myself watch the whole thing just now, and . . . it is chilling.
The reason I find this so chilling, other than the disturbing imagery, is I know my history. The 20th Century was marked by regimes which slaughtered tens of millions for the common good, of course, because they would not go along with the regime’s group think . . . or simply would not go along well enough.
Regimes and ideologues of the Left were (and are) particularly prone to slaughter of non-supporters. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. To be blunt, Hitler (if he really was of the Right) and scattered Rightist tin pot dictators were far less prolific in slaughter than the Glorious People’s regimes. In the 20th Century, the Left demonstrated that it believes its causes and its power far more valuable that the lives of those who do not adequately support them.
And I see in this 10:10 ad the same mentality found in the mass murderers of the last century: an insufferable self-righteousness, overconfidence in the rightness of their cause and of their power that justifies virtually any means, and a callousness toward human life that even becomes casual. Note how easily the actors literally “liquidate” those who do not go along with politically correct groupthink. And how could those behind the ad produce it if they did not also have a low view of the lives of those who do not support them?
Hyperenvironmentalists are particularly prone to these qualities with their sometimes outspoken thinking that having too many polluting humans around is a bad thing.
(Disclaimer: I support conservation and environmental causes with donations of money and land no less. My beef is with environmental extremists and other brands of Leftists.)
In short, although I don’t think hyperenvionmentalistism=genocide or even that Leftism=genocide, this 10:10 ad quite literally displays the same sort of mindset that resulted in the genocide of tens of millions in the 20th century.
This is a good moment to get to the heart of why this blog took more of a turn toward the political in 2008, a turn I know many readers found unpleasant. I saw a rising danger from the Left. And events are proving me correct. And the danger from the Left is much more than matters of administration and economy, as important as those are. No, matters of freedom and slavery and of life and death are at stake. For the Left again and again and again has shown a profound disregard for human freedom . . . even the freedom to live.
The 10:10 ad may be only a small part of that history of profound disregard for freedom and life from the Left. But we ignore it at our own peril. History demonstrates that also all too well.
I will post the ad here with the **STRONG WARNING** that it is both disturbed and disturbing. I made myself watch the whole thing just now, and . . . it is chilling.
The reason I find this so chilling, other than the disturbing imagery, is I know my history. The 20th Century was marked by regimes which slaughtered tens of millions for the common good, of course, because they would not go along with the regime’s group think . . . or simply would not go along well enough.
Regimes and ideologues of the Left were (and are) particularly prone to slaughter of non-supporters. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. To be blunt, Hitler (if he really was of the Right) and scattered Rightist tin pot dictators were far less prolific in slaughter than the Glorious People’s regimes. In the 20th Century, the Left demonstrated that it believes its causes and its power far more valuable that the lives of those who do not adequately support them.
And I see in this 10:10 ad the same mentality found in the mass murderers of the last century: an insufferable self-righteousness, overconfidence in the rightness of their cause and of their power that justifies virtually any means, and a callousness toward human life that even becomes casual. Note how easily the actors literally “liquidate” those who do not go along with politically correct groupthink. And how could those behind the ad produce it if they did not also have a low view of the lives of those who do not support them?
Hyperenvironmentalists are particularly prone to these qualities with their sometimes outspoken thinking that having too many polluting humans around is a bad thing.
(Disclaimer: I support conservation and environmental causes with donations of money and land no less. My beef is with environmental extremists and other brands of Leftists.)
In short, although I don’t think hyperenvionmentalistism=genocide or even that Leftism=genocide, this 10:10 ad quite literally displays the same sort of mindset that resulted in the genocide of tens of millions in the 20th century.
This is a good moment to get to the heart of why this blog took more of a turn toward the political in 2008, a turn I know many readers found unpleasant. I saw a rising danger from the Left. And events are proving me correct. And the danger from the Left is much more than matters of administration and economy, as important as those are. No, matters of freedom and slavery and of life and death are at stake. For the Left again and again and again has shown a profound disregard for human freedom . . . even the freedom to live.
The 10:10 ad may be only a small part of that history of profound disregard for freedom and life from the Left. But we ignore it at our own peril. History demonstrates that also all too well.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Abomination of the Week
This week’s abomination is not a particular offence, but a prevalent practice. In many uberlibchurches, “Hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches” is said after scripture lessons.
Now some readers may ask what is offensive about that? After all, that is taken straight from scripture itself, from the Revelation of John. And we should certainly be sensitive to what the Holy Spirit is saying.
What “Hear what the Spirit is saying . . . ” replaces gives a big clue to the problem. For untold centuries, the reader of the Epistle Lesson in the Mass concludes his reading with “the Word of the Lord.” Unless I’ve missed something, it has never been “Hear what the Spirit is saying” until recent and sordid decades.
So by using their alternative conclusion, libchurches intentionally avoid saying “This is the Word of the Lord.”
There is a reason for that in addition to disregard for tradition. Liberal “Christians” do not believe all scripture is the word of God. At best, they think scripture “contains” the word of God, which is another mealy-mouthed dodge.
On the other hand, they blame their own violations of the authority of scripture on the Holy Spirit. In their nonsensical view, the Holy Spirit happens to be oh-so-progressive like them and goes around guiding churches in a very different direction than scripture guides. Thus, saying “Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Churches” after scripture lessons is a pious, self-righteous, and if I may add, a treacly dodge of the authority of scripture.
It is part of their rejection of the authority of scripture. They might as well say, “Ignore some of the scripture I’ve just read if you like. But hear what the more progressive Holy Spirit is telling us.”
That they cloak this rejection of the authority of the Lord and of his word with a pseudo-pious abuse of the scripture from Revelation makes the stench in God’s nostrils (and in mine) that much worse. It thereby richly deserves being named the Abomination of the Week.
Now some readers may ask what is offensive about that? After all, that is taken straight from scripture itself, from the Revelation of John. And we should certainly be sensitive to what the Holy Spirit is saying.
What “Hear what the Spirit is saying . . . ” replaces gives a big clue to the problem. For untold centuries, the reader of the Epistle Lesson in the Mass concludes his reading with “the Word of the Lord.” Unless I’ve missed something, it has never been “Hear what the Spirit is saying” until recent and sordid decades.
So by using their alternative conclusion, libchurches intentionally avoid saying “This is the Word of the Lord.”
There is a reason for that in addition to disregard for tradition. Liberal “Christians” do not believe all scripture is the word of God. At best, they think scripture “contains” the word of God, which is another mealy-mouthed dodge.
On the other hand, they blame their own violations of the authority of scripture on the Holy Spirit. In their nonsensical view, the Holy Spirit happens to be oh-so-progressive like them and goes around guiding churches in a very different direction than scripture guides. Thus, saying “Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Churches” after scripture lessons is a pious, self-righteous, and if I may add, a treacly dodge of the authority of scripture.
It is part of their rejection of the authority of scripture. They might as well say, “Ignore some of the scripture I’ve just read if you like. But hear what the more progressive Holy Spirit is telling us.”
That they cloak this rejection of the authority of the Lord and of his word with a pseudo-pious abuse of the scripture from Revelation makes the stench in God’s nostrils (and in mine) that much worse. It thereby richly deserves being named the Abomination of the Week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)