Skip navigation

Category Archives: DAMNED LIARS

The Bogus Death Statistic That Won’t Die
By Michelle Malkin
October 23, 2009

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida has found his calling: death demagogue. First, he accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to “die quickly.” Next, he likened health insurance problems to a “holocaust in America.” Now, he’s unveiled a new website entitled “namesofthedead.com” in memory of the “more than 44,000 Americans [who] die simply because they have no health insurance.”

Just one problem: The statistic is a phantom number. Grayson’s memorial, like the Democrats’ government health care takeover plan itself, is full of vapor. It comes from a study published this year in the American Journal of Public Health. But the science is infused with left-wing politics.

Two of the co-authors, Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, are avowed government-run health care activists. Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program, which bills itself as “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.” Woolhandler is a co-founder and served as secretary of the group.

Sounding more like a MoveOn.org organizer than a disinterested scientist, Woolhandler assailed the current health reform legislation in Congress for not going far enough: “Politicians are protecting insurance industry profits by sacrificing American lives.”

How did these political doctors come up with the 44,000 figure? They used data from a health survey conducted between 1988 and 1994. The questionnaires asked a sample of 9,000 participants whether they were insured and how they rated their own health. The federal Centers for Disease Control tracked the deaths of people in the sample group through the year 2000. Himmelstein, Woolhandler and company then crunched the numbers and attributed deaths to lack of health insurance for all the participants who initially self-reported that they had no insurance and then died for any reason over the 12-year tracking period.

At no time did the original researchers or the single-payer activists who piggy-backed off their data ever verify whether the supposed casualties of America’s callous health care system had insurance or not. In fact, here is what the report actually says:

“Our study has several limitations,” the authors concede. The survey data they used “assessed health insurance at a single point in time and did not validate self-reported insurance status. We were unable to measure the effect of gaining or losing coverage after the interview.” Himmelstein et al. simply assumed that point-in-time uninsurance translates into perpetual uninsurance — and that any health calamities that result can and must be blamed on being uninsured.

Another caveat you won’t see on Grayson’s memorial to the dubious dead: The single-payer advocate-authors also conceded in their study limitations section that “earlier population-based surveys that did validate insurance status found that between 7 percent and 11 percent of those initially recorded as being uninsured were misclassified. If present, such misclassification might dilute the true effect of uninsurance in our sample.”

To boil it all down in plain English: The single-payer scientists had no way of assessing whether the survey participants received insurance coverage between the time they answered the questionnaires and the time they died. They had no way of assessing whether the deaths could have been averted with health insurance coverage. A significant portion of those classified as “uninsured” may not have been uninsured, based on past studies that actually did verify insurance status. But the Himmelstein team just took the rate of uninsurance from the original study (3.3 percent), applied it to census data and voila: More than 44,000 Americans are dying from lack of insurance.

Next, the political doctors cooked up scary-specific death tolls for all 50 states (California — 5,302, Texas — 4,675). Newspapers dutifully cited the fear-mongering factoids. The single-payer lobbying group co-founded by Himmelstein and Woolhandler took it from there. Last month, the group set up its own memorial on the National Mall for the phantom 44,000 casualties of uninsurance.

Himmelstein (who was also the driving force behind another flawed study tying medical debt to personal bankruptcies) eschewed scientific nuance and caveats to take to the airwaves and declare starkly that an American “dies every 12 minutes” because of lack of insurance. And now Grayson has taken the monumentally dishonest concept online to solicit sob stories and put flesh on the weak bones of these dubious death numbers.

Where’s the White House health care “reality check” squad when you need it?

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2009).

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

——————–

Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

Read More »

Be a dog catcher, let alone president of this nation…

Newsmax.com

Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close, Ex-Farrakhan Aide Says

Saturday, November 1, 2008 2:59 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

A former top deputy to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan tells Newsmax that Barack Obama’s ties to the black nationalist movement in Chicago run deep, and that for many years the two men have had “an open line between them” to discuss policy and strategy, either directly or through intermediaries.

 

“Remember that for years, if you were a politician in Chicago, you had to have some type of relationship with Louis Farrakhan. You had to. If you didn’t, you would be ostracized out of black Chicago,” said Dr. Vibert White Jr., who spent most of his adult life as a member and ultimately top officer of the Nation of Islam.

 

White broke with the group in 1995 and is now a professor of African-American history at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

 

White said Obama was “part of the Chicago scene” where Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and radicals would go to each other’s events and support each other’s causes.

 

“Even though Chicago is the third-largest city in the country, within the black community, the political and militant nationalist community is very small. So it wouldn’t be uncommon for [Obama and Farrakhan] to show up at events together, or at least be there and communicate with each other,” White told Newsmax.

 

The Anti-Defamation League has denounced Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam as a “hate group.”

 

Farrakhan has called Jews “bloodsuckers,” “satanic” and accused them of running the slave trade. He has labeled gays as “degenerates.” In a 2006 speech, the ADL again condemned Farrakhan when he said: “These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding the American people and the people of the world and bringing you down in moral strength. … It’s the wicked Jews the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality. It’s wicked Jews, false Jews that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic!”

 

 

Obama was careful to “denounce” Farrakhan’s comments – but not the man — during the Democratic primary season earlier this year, but only after Hillary Clinton called him out for benefiting from Farrakhan’s support.

 

Farrakhan endorsed Obama in a videotaped speech to his followers at Mosque Miryam in Chicago in February. “You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth,” Farrakhan said.

 

He told the crowd that Obama was the new “messiah.” See Video: Farrakhan Endorses Obama, Calls Him Messiah.

Once the news media and the Clinton campaign got hold of those comments from Farrakhan, demands mounted from all sides that Obama “renounce” Farrakhan.

 

But as he has done repeatedly throughout this campaign, Obama was careful to parse his words.

 

“You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments,” he said during one appearance on “Meet the Press.” “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible.”

 

Obama hastened to point out that Farrakhan had been praising him as “an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”

 

But Obama, once again, was less than candid.

 

In 1995, according to a profile of Obama that appeared in the Chicago Reader newspaper, Obama “took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October’s Million Man March in Washington, D.C.”

 

At the time, Obama was running for the Illinois Senate from Chicago’s South Side, a seat he won after getting surrogates to challenge the signatures on nominating petitions for his chief rival, the incumbent Alice Palmer.

 

The march, which fell far short of attracting the million men it advertised, was organized by Farrakhan and by Obama’s then-pastor, the anti-white black nationalist Wright.

 

Obama spoke at length with the Chicago Reader upon his return from the Million Man March. “What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society,” he said.

 

“These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ’em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress,” Obama said.

 

“Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn’t care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing.”

 

“Black nationalism” is a current of thought and political action in the African-American community that has been championed by the likes of Farrakhan, Wright, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and Khalid al-Mansour. Obama discussed his attraction to black nationalism at length in his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father.”

 

Obama further parsed his words in a Feb. 25, 2008, presentation to a Jewish community meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, where he insisted that Wright “does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan.”

 

And yet, just months earlier, Wright’s Trumpet magazine gave Farrakhan its Lifetime Achievement Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying that Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.”

 

That award was the fruit of a long and deep relationship between the two men, White told Newsmax. In 1984, Wright accompanied Farrakhan on his much-criticized trip to meet Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, at a time when Gadhafi was considered an enemy of the United States.

 

Wright also accompanied Farrakhan and Jackson to Syria in 1986, where they successfully negotiated with Syrian strongman for the release of downed American pilot Robert O. Goodman.

 

Obama’s Speaking Style

 

In addition to the ideological affinity Obama expressed for the black nationalist movement, White believes that Obama owes much of his success as a public orator to speaking techniques that Farrakhan developed over the years, and exploited for years to great success.

 

“If you listen to the rhetoric and you take away Obama’s political jargon, you hear a religious tenor to it that is very much Nation of Islam-like. I don’t know if anyone has ever touched on it, but Obama’s speaking style is very Malcolm-like, very Farrakhan-like,” White said.

 

Any American who has listened to early radio or television interviews of Obama can hear how dramatically Obama’s speaking style has changed since he became a United States senator.

 

In clips dating from 2001 and even early 2004, Obama speaks haltingly and in long, rambling sentences packed with legalese and dense pseudo-academic rhetoric. But not today.

 

“As a former minister of the Nation of Islam, I know how they speak,” White told Newsmax. “I don’t know who was training Obama. But that style is not a ministerial style like in the Christian church. It’s a Nation of Islam style.”

 

White began in the late 1970s as a foot soldier in the Fruit of Islam, the military branch of Farrakhan’s Black Muslim group, then rose to become a minister of the Nation of Islam and a top deputy to Farrakhan himself.

 

Known initially as Brother Vibert L.X., and later as Minister V.L. Muhammad, he parted ways with Farrakhan not long after the Million Man March, after nearly 25 years within the organization.

 

White’s 2002 book “Inside the Nation of Islam” prompted death threats by Farrakhan loyalists, so he left Illinois and moved to Florida to teach at the University of Central Florida.

 

He told Newsmax that Obama’s remarkable speaking style, even his manner of standing at a podium to appear larger than life, is directly copied from Farrakhan.

 

“If the Nation of Islam can’t do anything else, it can train people how to speak. And nobody can outspeak a Muslim minister,” he said.

 

Earlier this year, a pro-Clinton blog run by former CIA officer Larry Johnson unearthed a 2004 photograph showing Michelle Obama and Farrakahn’s wife, Mother Khadijah Farrakhan, at an event hosted by Jackson’s Citizenship Education Foundation.

 

 

Newsmax queried Obama’s U.S. Senate office, his Chicago office and his campaign press office about his ties to Farrakhan, but did not receive a reply.

 

Ever since he appeared before the annual policy conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama has attempted to convince the Jewish community that he is pro-Israel.

 

But his longstanding ties to Farrakhan, Wright and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi, among others, have disturbed many Jewish community leaders.

 

Sen. John McCain publicly chastised The Los Angeles Times on Thursday for not releasing a videotape the newspaper said it possessed of a 2003 dinner for Khalidi, where Obama reportedly accused Israel of carrying out a “genocide” against the Palestinians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Democrats Sink to New Low in Ohio Legislative Race

Posted by Bobby Eberle
October 27, 2008 at 6:29 am

To say that we are in troubling times is a huge understatement. We have an organization like ACORN running around the country in a blatant attempt to steal an election. We have a Democrat presidential candidate garnering huge support by talking about “hope” and “change” while never being questioned about his socialist agenda. We have the media carrying his water. And, of course, we have the media, whose blatant bias for Barack Obama throws the integrity of the whole profession into question.

There is another problem which has been seen over and over again with the Democrats, and it has now shown up in a legislative race in Ohio. That problem is the double standard that the media and Democrats hold Republicans too. How dare anyone question Barack Obama’s associations. It doesn’t matter that one of his chief financial backers is a convicted felon, or that one of his political mentors is an
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} p.h2, li.h2, div.h2 {mso-style-name:h2; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

There is another problem which has been seen over and over again with the Democrats, and it has now shown up in a legislative race in Ohio. That problem is the double standard that the media and Democrats hold Republicans too. How dare anyone question Barack Obama’s associations. It doesn’t matter that one of his chief financial backers is a convicted felon, or that one of his political mentors is an unapologetic terrorist, or that his long-time spiritual advisor engages is America bashing. All that is off limits. However, as we see in the race between Ohio State Rep. Josh Mandel and his Democrat opponent Bob Belovich, nothing is out of bounds for the Democrats, including attacking Mandel’s service in Iraq and his religion.

As noted in a column by Joel Mowbray, Josh Mandel has become a top target of the Democrats since winning his seat in 2006 in a highly Democrat district. Already a veteran of the Iraq war, Mandel received a call from the Marines asking him to serve in Iraq again.

As Mowbray writes, Mandel said, “I didn’t join the Marine Corps to say no when my country called.”

Now, not only that service, but Mandel’s religion is being used by the Democrats to try to oust Mandel from office.

Even Mr. Mandel’s motives for serving in Iraq are being questioned. Mrs. Belovich claimed in an interview with this columnist that Mandel “put his personal ambitions ahead of his constituents.” Asked why anyone would enter a war zone out of “personal ambition,” Barbara Belovich replied curtly, “Certainly he wasn’t serving our needs.”

Mowbray also reports on comments made by Belovich and his wife at a party, when they were discussing Mandel:

As Mowbray notes, “The obvious implication is that by serving in Iraq, Mr. Mandel was a do-nothing legislator. Yet he was one of the two people who lead the successful fight to force Ohio’s multi-billion dollar pension funds to divest from companies doing energy-related business in Iran and Sudan. Pension fund managers agreed to start divesting when legislation co-sponsored by Mr. Mandel and Rep. Shannon Jones was poised for passage.”

The real problem here is the double standard to which the media treats Republicans and Democrats. Where is the outrage?!?! Someone puts their life on the line to serve our country in Iraq, and that service is used against him? This is disgraceful, and the use of religion is equally pathetic.

“I really believe that no matter how someone feels about the war, just about everyone truly supports the troops,” says Mr. Mandel in Mowbray’s column. I hope he is right, because attacks like this, as well as actions by left-wing groups, show that the Democrats will do anything to win, and the media will let them.

, or that his long-time spiritual advisor engages is America bashing. All that is off limits. However, as we see in the race between Ohio State Rep. Josh Mandel and his Democrat opponent Bob Belovich, nothing is out of bounds for the Democrats, including attacking Mandel’s service in Iraq and his religion.

As noted in a column by Joel Mowbray, Josh Mandel has become a top target of the Democrats since winning his seat in 2006 in a highly Democrat district. Already a veteran of the Iraq war, Mandel received a call from the Marines asking him to serve in Iraq again.

As Mowbray writes, Mandel said, “I didn’t join the Marine Corps to say no when my country called.”

Now, not only that service, but Mandel’s religion is being used by the Democrats to try to oust Mandel from office.

Even Mr. Mandel’s motives for serving in Iraq are being questioned. Mrs. Belovich claimed in an interview with this columnist that Mandel “put his personal ambitions ahead of his constituents.” Asked why anyone would enter a war zone out of “personal ambition,” Barbara Belovich replied curtly, “Certainly he wasn’t serving our needs.”

Mowbray also reports on comments made by Belovich and his wife at a party, when they were discussing Mandel:

As Mowbray notes, “The obvious implication is that by serving in Iraq, Mr. Mandel was a do-nothing legislator. Yet he was one of the two people who lead the successful fight to force Ohio’s multi-billion dollar pension funds to divest from companies doing energy-related business in Iran and Sudan. Pension fund managers agreed to start divesting when legislation co-sponsored by Mr. Mandel and Rep. Shannon Jones was poised for passage.”

The real problem here is the double standard to which the media treats Republicans and Democrats. Where is the outrage?!?! Someone puts their life on the line to serve our country in Iraq, and that service is used against him? This is disgraceful, and the use of religion is equally pathetic.

“I really believe that no matter how someone feels about the war, just about everyone truly supports the troops,” says Mr. Mandel in Mowbray’s column. I hope he is right, because attacks like this, as well as actions by left-wing groups, show that the Democrats will do anything to win, and the media will let them.

Person Barbara Belovich
Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Radical Loon When Obama Was Only 47

by  Ann Coulter

10/22/2008 Radical Loon When Obama Was Only 47

by  Ann Coulter

10/22/2008

The media are acting as if they completely and fully vetted Obama during the Democratic primaries and that’s why they are entitled to send teams of researchers into Alaska to analyze Sarah Palin’s every expense report.

In fact, the mainstream media did no vetting. They seem to have all agreed, “OK, none of us will get into this business with Jeremiah Wright, ‘Tony’ Rezko, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers and everyone’s impression of an angry Michelle Obama on ‘The Jerry Springer Show.'”

During one of the Democratic primary debates, Hillary Clinton was hissed for mentioning Syrian national Rezko, and during another, ABC moderator George Stephanopoulos nearly lost his career for asking Obama one question about William Ayers.


In the past week, TV anchors have taken to claiming that Obama “refuted” John McCain’s statement that Obama launched his political career at the home of former Weather Underground leader Ayers.

No, Obama “denied” it; he didn’t “refute” it. If “denying” something is the same as “refuting” it, then maybe the establishment media can quit harping on Palin’s supposed lack of qualifications to be president, since she too “refuted” that by denying it.

Back before the media realized it needed to lie about Obama launching his political career at Ayers’ house, the Los Angeles Times provided an eyewitness account from a liberal who attended the event.

“When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”

The Times has now stripped this item from its Web page, but the great blogger Patterico has preserved it for posterity on his Web page.

Obama’s glib remark that “Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago; 40 years ago when I was 8 years old he engaged in despicable acts with a domestic group. I have roundly denounced those attacks” — doesn’t answer anything.

First of all, the fact that Ayers is a professor of education proves only one thing: He is dumber than any person without an education degree.

Ayers is such an imbecile, we ought to be amazed that he’s teaching at a university — even when you consider that it’s an ed school — except all former violent radicals end up teaching. Roughly 80 percent of former Weathermen are full college professors — 99 percent if you don’t include the ones killed in shoot-outs with the police or in prison — i.e., not yet pardoned by a Democratic president.

Any other profession would have banned a person like Ayers. Universities not only accept former domestic terrorists, but also move them to the front of the line. In addition to Ayers, among those once on the FBI’s most-wanted list who ended up in cushy college teaching positions are Bernardine Dohrn (Northwestern University), Mark Rudd (a junior college in New Mexico) and Angela Davis (History of Consciousness Department, University of California at Santa Cruz).

While others were hard at work on Ph.D.s, Susan Rosenberg was conspiring to kill cops and blow up buildings, and was assembling massive caches of explosives. This put her on the fast track for a teaching position at Hamilton College!

Despite having absolutely no qualifications to teach, having earned only a master’s degree in “writing” through a correspondence course, Rosenberg was offered a position at Hamilton within a few years of President Clinton pardoning her in 2001, releasing her from a 58-year prison sentence for participating in the murder of cops and possessing more than 700 pounds of explosives.

But Obama thinks it’s a selling point to say that Ayers is a college professor.

Hundreds of college professors have signed a letter vouching for Ayers, which would be like Lester Maddox producing a letter from George Wallace assuring us that Maddox is a respected member of the community. No, really, I’ve got the letter right here!

The media keep citing the fact that the money Obama and Ayers distributed to idiotic left-wing causes came — as The New York Times put it — “from Walter H. Annenberg, the billionaire publisher and philanthropist and President Richard M. Nixon’s ambassador to the United Kingdom.”

Great Republican though he was, Walter Annenberg died in 2002. The money came from the Annenberg Foundation, which, like all foundations, distributes money to projects that its founder would despise. John Kerry ran for president on the late John Heinz’s money. That didn’t mean Republican Heinz was endorsing Kerry.

As John O’Sullivan says, any foundation that is not explicitly right-wing will become a radical left-wing organization within a few years. It could be the Association of University Women, the American Association of Retired People, the American Rose Growers, the Foundation for the Study of Railroad Engineers or the Choral Society of Newport Beach.

Left-wing radicals swarm to free foundation money, where they can give gigantic grants to one another and they will never have to do a day’s work. That’s exactly what Obama and Ayers did with Annenberg’s money.

None of the Annenberg money went to schoolchildren. It went to Ayers’ left-wing crank friends to write moronic papers that we hope no one ever reads.

Instead of teaching students reading and writing, Ayers thinks they should be taught to rebel against America’s “imperialist” social structure. In 2006, Ayers was in Venezuela praising communist dictator Hugo Chavez, saying, “We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution.”

He has backed a line of schoolbooks such as one titled “Teaching Science for Social Justice.”

Forget about Ayers’ domestic terrorism when Obama “was 8 years old.” Does he agree with Ayers’ idiot ideas right now?

Daily Kos

The New Stabbed In the Back Myth

Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 02:35:37 PM PDT

(From the diaries. Susan)

Germans had been shaken to their roots by defeat in 1918. The emotional impact was all the more severe because German leaders had been trumpeting victory until a few weeks before. So unbelievable a calamity was easily blamed on traitors.

Robert Paxton
The Anatomy of Fascism
2005

With the prospect of a bone-crushing election defeat staring them full in the face, the diehard rump of the conservative movement is already busy fashioning a narrative to explain the dissolution of its world — the one that Ronald Reagan built and that George W. Bush (with an assist from Wall Street) has thoroughly trashed.

And the emerging story line appears to be, roughly, that ACORN did it.

Given the underlying proclivities of the modern conservative movement (Sarah Palin division) we should have understood that sooner or later it would come to something as absurd as this. Failed authoritarian movements needs scapegoats the way fecal coliform bacteria need a steady supply of raw sewage, and this one has a lot of failures that need explaining.

The remarkable thing, of course, is the right’s effort to make the ACORN boogie man do double duty: responsible not only for the looming “theft” of American democracy (per John McCain) but also for bringing the US and global financial system to its knees (per any number of conservative quacks economists and cranks pundits).

You have to admit: That’s a damned impressive revolutionary track record for an obscure group of community organizers operating on a shoestring budget. I mean, who needs the Red Army when you’ve got ACORN and the Community Reinvestment Act?

It would be easy to dismiss this lunacy as a manifestation of what the social scientist Richard Hofstader called the “paranoid style” in American politics. And some liberals have already made the connection. As far as the grassroots hysterics are concerned(i.e. the sort of people who are obsessed with the kerning and font size on Barack Obama’s “alleged” birth certificate) this is no doubt true.

But I think by now it’s also very clear that the GOP high commmand — as far back as the Twin Cities white power rally, if not before — deliberately adopted the demonization of ACORN/community organizers/the poor as a proxy for the hatred that no longer dares to speak its real name (except at the occasional Sarah Palin rally).

I think this strategy serves two purposes. One is obvious: to play upon traditional racial and class resentments to try to win back middle-class and working-class voters who might otherwise be waivering as they watch their jobs, their homes and their already inadequate retirement savings go spinning around the hole in the bottom of the economic toilet bowl.

We can take a page from John Lewis and call this the George Wallace gambit — not the Wallace of the stand in the schoolhouse door or the bridge at Selma, but rather the Wallace who ran for president in 1968, ’72 and ’76 and managed to attract quite a few Northern Democratic votes with his attacks on school busing, affirmative action, fair housing laws and other examples of “social engineering” foisted upon Regular Joe (Joe Sixpack’s dad and Joe the Plumber’s granddad) by Ivy League professors and pointy-headed government bureaucrats.

Exactly who was supposed to benefit from all that social engineerin’ was left unsaid, just as it is today.

Students of American politics know that Wallace’s populist rabble rousing was quickly expropriated by the GOP and — watered down for respectable middle-class consumption — became one of the weapons used by Richard Nixon and his pit bull of a running mate, Spiro Agnew (Sarah Palin with jowls) to crack open the New Deal coalition.

The ACORN monster, in other words, is a stock character out of a play the Republicans have been performing with mind-numbing efficiency for the past 40 years — making it the political equivalent of what The Fantasticks is for suburban dinner theater.

Given that the same attacks have been used, in some form or another, against a long line of lily white Democratic candidates, it would be unfair to characterize them as coded attempts to make an issue of Obama’s race per se. That’s a line the GOP high command apparently is still not willing to cross, even as coded attacks on Obama’s alleged “foreignness” (i.e. his middle name) have become the order of the day. It is, however, an obvious coded attack (and very lightly coded at that) on the inner-city poor. And in American political slang, “inner-city poor” is simply a five-syllable substitute for “black”.

However, as the McCain campaign descends into bitter futility (clinging to its guns and its religion all the way) and the band of the USS Republican Party assembles on deck to strike up “Near My God to Thee,” the anti-ACORN hysteria is starting to look less like a coherent campaign attack and more like a post-defeat rationalization. Clearly, conservatives are preparing themselves to take a knockout punch. Unfortunately it appears a big part of this psychological armouring will be convincing themselves the election was stolen, not lost. Even worse: stolen by the same “socialist” extremists who destroyed the American economy by forcing the banks to give loans to the n——.

This, of course, is not how the new stabbed-in-the-back myth will be expressed in polite conservative company (i.e. among the David Brooks and Ross Douthats of the world). But anyone who doubts that is the way it will be internalized among the many new members of the Sarah Palin Fan Club simply hasn’t been paying attention.

Choosing ACORN (and/or its constituents) as the scapegoat for the implosion of the biggest credit bubble in American history and, simultaneously, a wholly fictional attempt to steal a presidential election, may seem like a bit much. Why not pick on someone a bit more believable — like, say, the demon id from Forbidden Planet?

The GOP at times has tried to do this — citing, variously, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Democrats in Congress (i.e., the demon id from Forbidden Planet) and greed and corruption on Wall Street as the prime villains. But for various reasons (such as the fact that Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, was a Fannie Mae lobbyist, or that Wall Street is the ideological Vatican of the same militant free market doctrine that modern conservatism has sworn to defend) none of these have proven very satisfactory. As I once noted of the effort to blame the nearly invisible anti-war movement for the debacle in Iraq:

The best scapegoat is one that is both blameless and weak. Blameless, because it relieves the truly guilty parties of the need to decide who among them must take the fall. Weak, because the guilty themselves have been weakened by defeat, and even a modest defense might enable a truly blameless set of scapegoats to convince the country of their innocence.

Given the fratricidal war brewing on the right over which faction (neo, paleo or psycho) is responsible for conservativism’s 1918, that comment appears particularly relevant now.

We don’t need to hark back to the unfortunate history of a certain Central European country in the 1930s to understand how poisonous this kind of political myth making can become. Powerful elements of the Republican Party and the conservative “movement” aren’t just preparing themselves to go into opposition, they’re preparing themselves to dispute the legitimacy of an Obama presidency — in ways that could, if taken to extreme, lead to another Oklahoma City.

It’s hard to tell to what degree the GOP high command fully understands or is trying to feed these dynamics (indeed, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to even tell who the GOP high command is these days). The last thing I want to do is get into an arms race with the wingnut right when it comes to paranoid conspiracy theories. (That’s one race the left will always lose). Still, the recent statements of John McCain and his Bircher-influenced running mate aren’t exactly reassuring:

My opponent’s answer showed that economic recovery isn’t even his top priority. His goal, as Senator Obama put it, is to “spread the wealth around.”

You see, he believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism.

I’ve been following politics for going on 35 years now, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Republican candidate publicly refer to his Democratic opponent as a “socialist” — not even while hiding behind a cardboard cutout like “Joe the Plumber”. This from a man who told the entire nation on Wednesday night that believes an obscure nonprofit group is “perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”

Likewise, I don’t think there’s ever been an American vice presidential candidate who explicitly referred to entire regions of the United States as “pro-American” — with the clear implication that other regions are something less than “pro-American.” Not since the Civil War, anyway.

We’ve crossed some more lines, in other words — in a long series of lines that have made it increasingly difficult to distinguish between the ultraconservative wing of the Republican Party and an explicitly fascist political movement. And John McCain and his political handlers appear to have no moral compunctions whatsoever about whipping this movement into a frenzy and providing it with scapegoats for all that hatred, simply to try to shave a few points off Barack Obama’s lead in the polls.

To call this “country first” only works if you assume your opponents (and scapegoats) are not really part of that same country. And we all know where that leads.

It may lead us there yet, or to something like it. Middle class America has clearly entered a prolonged period of economic pain — on top of the existing climate of cultural disorientation and rapid demographic change. Conventional assumptions (401k plans are an adequate substitute for company pensions; black men can’t be elected president) are toppling left and right. Scapegoats that seem remotely plausible only to the most deranged partisans may appear less fantastic to the apolitical majority by and by. And even a party that has nothing left to offer America but fear itself may eventually find itself in a seller’s mar

Ann Coulter

Pull The Hair Plug On This Guy

by  Ann Coulter

10/08/2008

If Sarah Palin had made just one of the wildly inaccurate statements smugly uttered by Sen. Joe Biden in last week’s vice presidential debate, there would have been 3-inch headlines in newspapers across America. (I can almost hear Katie Couric asking me, “Which newspapers?”)

These weren’t insignificant errors, such as when Biden said, “Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie’s restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time, and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years.”

It turns out that Katie’s restaurant, where Biden gets his feel for the average American, closed 20 years ago. The only evidence that he spends any time in Home Depot is that it appears that a pipe wrench fell on his head one too many times.



Palin would surely have been forced to withdraw from the ticket had she said something like that, but most of Biden’s errors were not trifling mistakes like these. They were lengthy Lyndon LaRouche-like disquisitions that were pure fantasy from beginning to end.

For example, Biden said about Hezbollah: “When we kicked — along with France — we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.” Hezbollah was never kicked out of Lebanon.

He continued: “I said and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.'” This is madness — Lebanon is not a NATO country, nor had any NATO country been attacked by Lebanon.

Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn’t picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of foreign policy.

Biden also stoutly denied that Obama ever said he would sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Liberals find it hilarious that McCain can’t use a computer keyboard on account of his war injuries, but Biden is apparently unaware of the Internet, because there are clips all over the Internet of Obama saying exactly that during the CNN/YouTube debate last year.

Biden might have remembered that debate since: (1) He was there, and (2) he later attacked Obama’s answer, telling the National Press Club in August 2007: “Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president? Absolutely, positively, no.”

And that’s still not all! Obama’s own Web site says: “Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.”

Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn’t picked for the Democrat ticket based on his ability to remember well-known facts.

Biden also gave a long speech at the debate on vice president Dick Cheney’s “dangerous” belief that “he’s part of the legislative branch.” The great constitutional scholar Biden cited Article I of the Constitution as proof that Cheney “works in the executive branch” and has “no authority relative to the Congress.” Biden huffily added: “He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.”

Palin would have had to deny that Alaska is a state in the union in order to say something comparably stupid.

Article II, not I, describes the executive branch. Someone tell Biden, who is supposed to be a lawyer. Apart from getting the Articles of the Constitution mixed up, what on earth does Biden mean when he says that the vice president “has no authority relative to Congress,” apart from breaking ties?

The Constitution makes him president of the senate every day of the week. I realize that Biden may not be able to count to two, but Article I says the vice president is president of one of the two houses of Congress — the one Biden is in, for crying out loud — which is what you might call “authority relative to Congress.”

Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn’t picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of the Constitution.

In one especially hallucinatory answer, Biden authoritatively stated: “With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen. … We spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country.”

According to the Congressional Research Service, since 9/11, we’ve spent $172 billion in Afghanistan and $653 billion in Iraq. The most money spent in Iraq came in 2008, when we have been spending less than $3 billion a week. So by Biden’s calculations, we’ve spent only about $9 billion “on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country.” There isn’t even a “9” in $172 billion.

Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn’t picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of math.

In the same answer, Biden went on to claim that “John McCain voted against a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that every Republican has supported.”

The last nuclear test ban treaty the Senate voted on was the one Clinton signed in the ’90s. As The New York Times editorialized on the Senate vote a few years later: “Last week, Senate Republicans thundered ‘no’ to the nuclear test ban treaty, handing the White House its biggest defeat since health care in 1994.” Forty-nine Republicans voted against the treaty; only four liberal Republicans voted for it. That’s the treaty Biden says “every Republican has supported.”

Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn’t picked for the Democrat ticket based on his ability to function as vice president.


Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Slander,” ““How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” “Godless,” and most recently, “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans.”


Reader Comments: (

1064

)

Here are a few of the comments submitted by our readers. Click to view all

Everyone with an ounce of sense knows Biden is a dumbjerk!!!stupid is not the word for it. keep it coming Ann!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MCCAIN/PALIN ’08!!!!!!!!!

Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:20 PM

LIGHTS,, in the Desert Southwest/LRWGA

Just goes to show, libs can lie from dawn to dusk and the obots will love them all the more.

Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:23 PM

Jerry

tBiden certainly is a dimby. The idea of both of them “in control” of the government is downright scary. About a few days ago, I saw a hilarious article on a conservative web site, the story was called “Two Years” about what it would be like if these two pickle heads stole the election.. Hope it doesn’t happen.

Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:24 PM

Tim R., Baoton MA.

Palin has more integrity and intelligence than Biden and Obama put together. Too funny. I love how all you zombified libtards slammed McCain for his pick, and look what you’ve got. Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

P.S. But, let’s not forget that Biden won the debate. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!

Jay
Say it ain’t so, Joe.

Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:24 PM

Jay, Olathe, KS

But Ann, EVERYONE in the media says that Biden won “on substance”… HAHAHA! I heard Bob Schieffer say so himself. Even I knew that Biden was full of crap. He was simply making stuff up… like always does and always has. He’s a pathological liar of the highest order.

Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:29 PM

Gerry

tSenator Biden and young inexperienced boss, are both stupid. The scary thing is it appear Senator McCain is planning to loss this election. Governor Palin may be strong, but she is not running for President.

Instead of the strong Sarah Palin we have the weak Senator McCain. Senator McCain who does not seem to believe it is proper for a Presidential Candidate to be mean to his opponent. Senator McCain who is not willing to tell the TRUTH about what happen with the Economy since it might offend his opponent. Senator McCain just does not seem to have leadership qualities.

We need a strong leader who will fight for the American People, and the American Constitution. We need Dr. Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.

Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:36 PM

Thomas, Fargo


How about the one that took my breath away—the riff about the primary importance of IDEOLOGY in qualifying a SCOTUS nominee!

Not only is Biden deeply disturbed, he has a badly flawed memory (or is it just the usual leftist mental filter distorting everything that enters his head?).

The saddest part of all is that most Americans are so ignorant that relatively few were even aware of his erroneous statements—certainly not perky but stupid Katie Couric, who undoubtedly reads the NT Times!