Obama, The War-On-Women President, Slow-Jams On Jimmy Fallon Show To Same Band That Played ‘Lyin’ Ass Bitch’ When Michelle Bachmann Appeared As Guest

Yes, this is the Barack Obama who morally lectured Republicans for their “war on women” but kept Bill Maher’s money and support.

Remember this?

Michele Bachmann’s Late Night Intro Music: ‘Lyin’ Ass Bitch’

As the house band for dancing spider monkeyJimmy Fallon, The Roots are sometimes forced to express themselves via the intro music that they choose to play when various celebrities walk out onto Fallon’s stage.

Last night, Michele Bachmann came on the show. The intro song The Roots played for her: “Lyin Ass Bitch,” by Fishbone. Clip above.

Keep up the good work, fellas.

[via City Pages]

Yeah, Barack Obama was perfectly FINE with Jimmy Fallon’s war on women.  As long as they are women Obama and his liberal thugs hate.

Obama just appeared on Jimmy Fallon – the show that labeled the very accomplished Michelle Bachmann a “lyin’ ass bitch” and was serenaded by the same band that hated women.

According to the mass media propaganda mindset that Obama shares, it is perfectly wonderful to viscerally hate women; as long as those women aren’t liberals.

Throw that in onto the pile of which party truly hates and wars on women.

George Bush never wasted a moment of the American peoples’ times on these late night comedy shows.  Versus Barack Obama who has appeared on more of them than you could shake a dead cat at.  Because George Bush had more class in his pinky finger than Obama has ever had or will ever have.

Herman Cain Surges To Lead In The STILL-Early GOP Primary Race

The news is interesting – and not unwelcome:

IBOPE Zogby Poll: Perry Trails Cain in GOP Race
Monday, 26 Sep 2011 05:15 PM

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has tumbled among GOP primary voters and now trails business executive Herman Cain in the race for the nomination, according to the latest IBOPE Zogby Poll.

Cain’s campaign appears to have picked up steam after a win in Florida’s Straw Poll this weekend, while Perry continues to suffer from lackluster performances in GOP debates, the most recent held last Thursday in Orlando.

Perry, at 18 percent, has tumbled by more than 20 percentage points over the past month, according to IBOPE Zogby numbers and is now second to Herman Cain, who leads the field with 28 percent.

Mitt Romney trails the others at number three, with 17 percent of the vote.

The poll, conducted Sept. 23-26 was done after Perry’s performance last Thursday in the most recent debate, but was still in the field as Cain took the Straw Poll win in Florida. Cain was the choice of only 8 percent of the GOP voters a month ago.

The worst news came for Michele Bachmann, who took just 4 percent of the votes — down from 34 percent on June 30.

I took an early stand supporting Rick Perry.  And I STILL support Rick Perry.  But I’ve always liked Herman Cain, too.  My biggest reason for not supporting him was that he hadn’t demonstrated the ability to get a substantial following and WIN.

Perry has been abysmal in the three debates thus far.  He just aint cutting the mustard.  That isn’t fatal – if he can get his ‘A’ game working.  But at this point his poor performances lead to the question: Does the guy even HAVE an ‘A game’?

On Perry’s side, my understanding is that the man had major back surgery, and that the tendency is that he starts out well in debates, and then fades as the pain from standing takes over.  Pain has a way of being very distracting and interfering with the ability to focus and concentrate, and in my own experience when you’ve got a bad back or bad knees, standing is actually far worse than walking.  On the other hand, it doesn’t matter; somehow the man simply has to come through in a major debate or he is going to (deservedly) fade away.

Cain has done well in the debates; personally, I believe either he or Newt Gingrich have won all three (with two out of three going to Gingrich).  And while “debate skills” certainly don’t determine my choice of a candidate, that has got to be a factor.

Why has Bachmann tanked so?  I believe she’s tanked for the exact same reason that Tim Pawlenty tanked.  When Pawlenty tore into Bachmann, it really annoyed me and I lost a lot of respect for Pawlenty.  And now here Bachmann is PERSONALLY attacking Rick Perry, and it really annoys me and I’ve lost a lot of respect for Michelle Bachmann.

Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann have chosen to blast away at Rick Perry – who had the lion’s share of the “conservative” vote.  But if you like a candidate (the way I like Rick Perry), do you really think you can tear that candidate to pieces and then I’ll like the person who tore my candidate to pieces?  And it’s not just that; it’s that Mitt Romney – the establishment “moderate” candidate – is laughing all the way to the nomination.  If you want a conservative to win, the worst thing that can happen is that Bachmann, Santorum and Perry cancel each other out.

So with all that going on, it really doesn’t bother me that Herman Cain might be surging.  At least none of the other candidates have placed him in a suicidal death grip – at least yet.

Ultimately, what I most want is for the GOP to take the White House away from the worst president in American history.  Which means I’ll be a loyal soldier to whichever candidate emerges to take on our Marxist-in-Chief.

Rick Perry Surges To Huge Lead After TWO DAYS As A Candidate

From Rasmussen:

GOP Primary: Perry 29%, Romney 18%, Bachmann 13%
Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Texas Governor Rick Perry, the new face in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has jumped to a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann with the other announced candidates trailing even further behind.
 
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary voters, taken Monday night, finds Perry with 29% support. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who ran unsuccessfully for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, earns 18% of the vote, while Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who won the high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa on Saturday, picks up 13%.

Rick Perry announced his candidacy on Saturday.

I wrote about my own personal support for him that same day (with that article coming out early Sunday morning).

Two days, and he’s already got the lead in the primaries.

I was hoping Perry would quickly move ahead of Mitt Romney, but who could have dreamed it would happen this quickly?

Rick Perry can unite the conservative-Tea Party-Republican base like no one else in the field.  And Democrats who think they can ignore Perry’s record of creating nearly half the jobs IN ALL AMERICA by trying to morph Perry into George Bush merely because both men happen to be from Texas, they are on the verge of a massive defeat.

Remember This When Democrats Try To Morph Gov. Rick Perry Into A Clone Of George W. Bush

The Wall Street Journal has already reported that their inside sources say that Governor Rick Perry of Texas will run for president this year.  And I hope he does.  His record of having created 38% of all the jobs in the entire NATION since Obama’s “recovery” began will make this proven leader a very compelling candidate.

He will immediately head to the top of my list if he runs.  And nothing would make me more exited than to see him select Michelle Bachmann for his VP.

That said, I’ve already heard how the Democrat Party and the mainstream media intend to attack Perry and Bachmann.  In both cases, they will do everything they can to link these two candidates to other favorite liberal bogeymen.

For Michelle Bachmann, why, she’s just like Sarah Palin.  They’ve already tried to use the EXACT same narrative to demean her.  Like Palin, Bachmann is “Barbie with fangs.”

For Rick Perry, why, he’s from Texas.  And isn’t that the same state that George W. Bush came from?  And therefore isn’t Rick Perry just another George Bush?  And of course the American people are tired of having their presidents come from Texas.

As ridiculous and factually wrong as this line of “reasoning” is, it appears to be the Democrats’ primary campaign against Perry.

I said “factually wrong” because it is just plain factually wrong.  Not that that ever stopped Democrats before.

The LA Times sub-title says, “despite obvious similararities”  in its comparison of Perry and Bush.  Let’s look at how much they manage to back up these “similarities.”  In the entire half page article, this was the sum total of “differences”: “The two share some characteristics, sometimes unnervingly so. They have similar accents, the same cowboy gait and many of the same mannerisms.”  AND THAT’S IT.  Read it for yourself if you don’t believe me.

The rest of the article is ALL difference, and it’s what makes all the difference.  So with that said, see what completely different men these two truly are:

Rick Perry has a history of acrimony with George W. Bush
As he considers a presidential run, some have tried to tie the Texas governor to his predecessor. Despite obvious similarities, their considerable differences have left a lingering hostility between the two men.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times
June 30, 2011

Reporting from Austin, Texas— Rick Perry was in Iowa three years ago, talking up a favored candidate, when the subject turned to George W. Bush, the president and a fellow Republican who preceded Perry as Texas governor.

Bush, or “George,” as Perry called him, was no fiscal conservative — “never was” — and his work on tort reform, a subject dear to Republican hearts, paled next to Perry’s achievements, the governor said.

“I mean, ’95, ’97, ’99,” Perry went on, elaborately ticking the years off on his fingers, “George Bush was spending money!”

Those are fighting words among Republicans — especially Texas Republicans, who pride themselves on their stinginess — and even more so to Bush loyalists who, years later, still simmer over Perry’s off-the-cuff remarks. (How dare he slap the president like that, the Bush faithful fume, and refer to the leader of the free world as George!)

If Perry runs for president, his critics hope to tie him to Bush and those who delivered the self-assured Texan from Austin to the Oval Office.

“Is America ready for a president who was George W. Bush’s lieutenant governor, who was George W. Bush’s successor as governor … and who, like George W. Bush, was also a Karl Rove puppet?” taunts Garry South, a Democratic consultant, referring to Bush’s strategist.

But that jibe ignores what has been, at best, a cool relationship between Bush and Perry, and a lingering hostility between their top political advisors.

The two share some characteristics, sometimes unnervingly so. They have similar accents, the same cowboy gait and many of the same mannerisms. But the two come from starkly different backgrounds, approach politics in utterly different fashions and even draw their support from different parts of the GOP. It is the difference, said a campaign consultant who has worked with both, between Yale and Texas A&M, between Phillips Academy Andover and Paint Creek High School.

To a certain upper crust of Republican, “Perry is the low-rent country cousin” who lacks Bush’s prep-school polish, said R.G. Ratcliffe, a longtime student of Texas politics who is writing a book about Perry. “They see him as a hick and are embarrassed having someone like that as governor.”

Privately, the former president has spoken of his successor as a political lightweight and someone not all that bright. Perry scoffs behind closed doors at Bush’s privileged background and popularity among country-club Republicans, suggesting the New England native is a faux Texan.

Perry’s story is the kind of up-by-his-bootstraps saga that Bush might have scripted for himself, had he been able.

He grew up in West Texas, in a farm town so small it literally was not on the state map until Perry, as governor, put it there. Life was austere; Perry was 6 before the family had indoor plumbing. His mother sewed his clothes, including the underwear Perry wore to college.

He graduated from Texas A&M with a degree in animal science, joined the Air Force, then returned to farming. On a whim he ran for state Legislature in 1984, as a Democrat, and won.

In 1990, under Rove’s tutelage, Perry switched parties and was elected agriculture commissioner. Eight years later, Perry ran for lieutenant governor. By then, Rove was working for Bush; the conflict between their political camps grew out of that year’s races.

Bush had been elected governor in 1994, and was already eyeing a run for president. Facing a weak opponent, he wanted to win reelection overwhelmingly and lift his numbers among blacks and Latinos to show crossover appeal. Perry faced the state’s popular Democratic controller, John Sharp, and had a much tougher time. The Bush and Perry teams squabbled over polling, voter targeting and the hard-edged tone of Perry’s campaign.

In the end, Bush won by 1.4 million votes. Perry scratched out victory by fewer than 70,000. Afterward, there were harsh words; today Rove and Dave Carney, a top Perry strategist, are bitter foes.

Perry took over as governor when Bush resigned to become president. (He did nothing to improve relations by hastening the Bush family’s exit from their living quarters.)

Both men hewed to the tenets of Texas Republicanism: low taxes, small government and limited regulation. But Bush prided himself on his ability to work with Democrats, while Perry took a much more partisan approach.

Bush also showed a greater willingness to spend on programs, especially education, with potential long-term benefits. Perry, by contrast, has cut billions from public education to help balance the state budget.

The governor has little use for the philosophy Bush dubbed “compassionate conservatism.” At a recent foray to the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, he told a cheering crowd that conservatives should “stand up” and “stop apologizing” for their beliefs.

Perry has long been a favorite of Christian conservatives, embracing their issues with a zeal Bush lacked. He also has strong support in the “tea party” movement; Perry was at a local rally in 2009 when he broached the prospect of his state seceding from the union, a statement he later disavowed.

More recently, Perry used an emergency session of the Legislature to push for tighter restrictions on abortion and legislation to criminalize aggressive airport searches. The pat-down bill died Wednesday.

To supporters, Perry’s move demonstrated a fealty to fundamental principles, not least reining in what they consider the overly obtrusive federal government. To critics, including some in the Bush camp, it was another case of showmanship triumphing over substance.

For all of that, however, Carney said accounts of a Bush-Perry spat are overblown.

“They’re different people, bringing different experiences and philosophies to the process,” Carney said. “But they’re not at odds. That’s a silly, overblown urban myth that’s developed a life of its own.”

But last year’s gubernatorial contest was telling. Perry was bidding for an unprecedented third term. His opponent, in an unusual primary challenge, was U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Rove served as a Hutchison advisor, along with other Bush loyalists. Bush’s father, former President George H.W. Bush, endorsed Hutchison. (George W. Bush stayed neutral.) Even so, Perry came from far behind and not only beat Hutchison, but did so overwhelmingly.

Carney insists there are no hard feelings. If Perry decides to run for president, he said, he will not focus on his Republican rivals or the governor he followed in office.

“[President] Obama is the person we’re trying to defeat,” Carney said. “That’s what Republicans are looking for.”

Since I believe that Gov. Perry WILL run, and since I believe we’ve already seen the “Bush III” attack that will be used against him, it seemed to me that this article would be worth preserving.  I have learned from hard experience that liberal newspapers have a bizarre tendency to conveniently purge their archives of stories like this one.

Perry and Bush not only have gigantic differences between them, not only do they come from completely different set of key supporters, not only do they have vastly different visions of what it means to be “conservative,” but Perry’s clear disdain for many of Bush’s policies would make a comparison of the two completely off limits if either the Democrat Party or the mainstream media that serve as the propagandists for the Democrat Party were honest.  Only, of course, they aren’t honest, are they?

If Perry enters the race, you can bet that we’ll start seeing him “morphed” into George W. Bush.  Becuase George W. Bush is the “Emmanuel Goldstein” of the Democrat Party.  Democrats keep saying that George Bush was the one who drove the economy into a ditch.  And so, if Rick Perry is George Bush, he’ll do the same thing.  The fact that that is completely wrong, and the fact that Rick Perry has created 40% of the ENTIRE NATION’S new jobs, won’t matter to these lying demagogues.

Just remember they will be abject liars when they do it.  And that even the liberal Los Angeles Times recognized that it would be a lie in the body of its story about the so-called “similarities.”

One of the things that I’ve found about mainstream media is that they often WILL report a story that favors a conservative.  The major difference is that, when it favors the conservaitve, they will cover it once and drop it.  And that story just goes away.  But if if HURTS conservatives or favors liberals, they will run such stories again and again and again.

Don’t forget what the Los Angeles Times said about Rick Perry being a completely different candidate than George W. Bush.

Michelle Bachmann A Gaffe Machine? If Liberals Want To See A Gaffe Machine, Have Them Look At Their Fool-In-Chief

You want to see a gaffe?

Here’s a pretty darned good gaffe:

“Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma. They end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs when, if you, they just gave, you gave, treatment early, and they got some treatment, and uhhh a breathalyzer, or uhh, an inhalator, not a breathalyzer…”    

Here’s a REAL good one:

“I’ve now been in 57 states  I think one left to go.”

Oh!  There was this one, where Obama clearly couldn’t tell the difference between Memorial Day and Veterans Day (unless you want to argue Obama was having an “I see dead white people” moment):

“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes and I see many of them in the audience here today.”

There was this gem of intellectual horsepower in which Obama went to Israel and assured that country:

“Well let me be absolutely clear.  Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.”

There was the very recent moment in which Obama spoke to the 10th Mountain Division and said that their hero SFC Jared Monti was “the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually  came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”  SFC Monti had in fact been mortally wounded in action.  His audience was grieving for their fallen comrade, not celebrating a living hero.

There was this statement of Obama meeting his future self and talking about the encounter:

“I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.”

Which of course was balanced out by Obama’s future self going back in time and signing in for him:

Obama got the date wrong by THREE YEARS.  I’ve done that “sign the check with the wrong year” in January thing.  But this is beyond the pale.

Obama has also demonstrated that he didn’t understand the difference between the Congressional Medal of Honor (which is ONLY given to war heroes who demonstrated extraordinary heroism and gallantry under enemy fire) and the Presidential Medal of Freedom (which is a political award a president can give to anyone he wants for whatever reason he wants to give it).  And the surrounding instance of that horrendous gaffe was even more horrendous as Obama was giving “shout outs” AFTER he had just heard American soldiers had just been ruthlessly gunned down on an American base by a Muslim terrorist Major.

Along with Obama’s saluting of a Navy “corpse man,” demonstrating he had absolutely no idea whatsoever what corpsmen are or what they do.

And there was that recent moment when Obama continued to chatter on and on over the British National Anthem – which is a no-no pretty much EVERYWHERE.

Now, I see those, and I’m supposed to think that liberals are right for believing that Michelle Bachmann is too stupid (or what’s that word?  Flaky?) to be President of the United States because she mistook John Wayne – who was born in Winterset Iowa – with John Wayne Gacy – who was born in Waterloo Iowa?

But you consider the mainstream media that pretty much glossed over ALL of that, and then suddenly making Michelle Bachmann’s gaffe about John Wayne Gacy the absolute CENTERPIECE of their questioning of her, and you realize that there are two Americas out there – the one the liberal mainstream media propagandists hate and the one the liberal mainstream media propagandists love.

Unlike Barack Obama, Michelle Bachmann doesn’t take a teleprompter every damn where she goes.  Unlike Barack Obama, Michelle Bachmann isn’t a hand puppet reading a script.  And unlike Barack Obama, most of Michelle Bachmann’s gaffes have nothing whatsoever to do with governing the nation.

If you believe that Michelle Bachmann isn’t fit to be president because of gaffes, and you aren’t loudly demanding that Barack Obama resign from office for crimes against intelligence, than you are a hypocrite and a fool.

The media gets on the liberal warpath, and it just doesn’t stop.  So they are already on another one out of their contention that our founding fathers were a bunch of racist bigots bent on keeping black people in slavery forever (because liberals always have hated America and always WILL hate it until it embraces Marxism and becomes the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of America.  Until that glorious day when the workers of the world truly unite into global socialism and America crawls into that coalition of hell they will continue to come unglued over candidates like Michelle Bachmann.

The founding fathers did NOT want slavery; but they were in the impossible position where they either allowed it or did not have a nation.  There was simply no way the pro-slavery states were going to give up slavery in 1787.  What the founding fathers did was compromise in such a way while writing our nations Constitution and laws in such a way that it was merely a matter of time before slavery would necessarily have to be abolished.

Take the three-fifths compromise that liberals often dump on to dump on America.  First of all the compromise had nothing whatosever to do with the ontology or humanity of black persons; it was completely directed at the extent of representation that slaves would have politically in determining the number of representatives and the distribution of taxes.  Second, which side wanted the slaves to have full representation?  THE SLAVERY SIDE.   The anti-slavery side wanted slaves to be accorded no representation at all, because counting them meant the slavery states would have more power and more money and therefore be able to resist demands to end slavery forever.

The southern states wanted to count slaves in the population of the nation, so that they could have more seats in the Congress, thereby increasing their political power. The northern states, on the other hand, were against including slaves in the population for the fear of increased Congressional seats in the southern states.

It was the pro-slavery side that demanded FULL representation.  In other words, Democrats – who demanded to hold on to slavery during the Civil War – CONTINUE to support the pro-slavery side even 225 years later!

Just to point out one more fact about the three-fifths compromise, one of the agreements reached was an END to the transatlantic slavery trade after twenty years.  Apparently, Democrats have always wanted that trade to continue.

P.S. Just in case you didn’t already think the media is cynical, vicious and biased enough as it was, George Stephanopoulos basically warned Michelle Bachmann that if she ran, the media would crawl through her five children’s and 23 foster children’s lives with the same anal probe they used on Sarah Palin’s emails.  ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos, for the official record, was a Democrat media spinner prior to becoming a “journalist.”  If ABC asks Karl Rove to be an anchor, call me.

And, of course, we’re already seeing the same rabid leftwing dishonest smear propaganda beginning from the media that they used against Sarah Palin.

The media is just crossing out “Sarah Palin’s” name and scrawling in “Michelle Bachmann’s” name.  Because they’re cockroaches.  A recent attack on Michelle Bachmann was to call her “Barbie with fangs.”  Because liberal “journalists” can hate on women as much as they want to knowing they have a Holy Warrior’s Absolution from the so-called “feminist groups” to do so.

Update, June 29: How about THIS for a gaffe: Barack Obama screwed up the age of HIS OWN CHILD.  Obama TWICE referred to his oldest daughter Malia as being 13; she’s 12.

Turning The Tables On Vicious Rolling Stone Leftist Attack Piece On Michelle Palin (Among Other Things, They Plagiarized).

There was a particularly vicious leftwing assault by leftwing rag The Rolling Stone. The only time I ever hear anything about Rolling Stone Magazine is when they do something particularly vile, because on their best day they are still vile and so why read them?  Their last infamous hit piece (on General Stanley McChrystal) was also filled with fraud.  But what can you say?  Liberals are people who swim in an ocean of lies; and why should they be troubled when the people they trust to lie to them turn out to be dishonest???

There are such lines in the Rolling Stone piece as “Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.” I don’t need to read further than that. It was a toxic, rabid hit piece by toxic, rabid secular humanist liberals.

But let us consider the “standards” of journalism that these people follow. Let us consider who the REAL religious zealots whose brains are raging electrical storms of demonic visions and paranoid delusions are. Let us consider who should have the last laugh, and who should be fired as disgraces:

Rolling Stone caught in potential plagiarism flap over Michele Bachmann profile
By Joe Pompeo & Dylan Stableford
June 24, 2011

It’s been a few months since we’ve had ourselves a good-old plagiarism incident to get riled up about. But thanks to Rolling Stone, our sleepy summer Friday just got a bit more scandalous!

The magazine is taking some heat today for lifting quotes in Matt Taibbi’s hit piece on Minnesota’s 2012 Tea Party hopeful Michele Bachmann.

In the story, posted online Wednesday, Taibbi borrows heavily from a 2006 profile of Bachmann by G.R. Anderson, a former Minneapolis City Pages reporter who now teaches journalism at the University of Minnesota. The thin sourcing, as Abe Sauer argues over at The Awl, is part of a “parade of uncredited use of material” from local blogs and reporters who “have dogged Bachmann for years now.”

But the larger issue for journalism’s ethical watchdogs concerns the several unattributed quotes Sauer spotted in Taibbi’s piece, which Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates explained away by saying he’d cut out the attributions due to “space concerns” and that he would “get some links included in the story online.”

At least one plagiarism “expert” doesn’t buy Bates’ logic.

“Attribution is the last thing an editor should cut!!!!” Jack Shafer, who is known to grill copy-stealers in his media column for Slate (and who used to edit two alt-weeklies similar to City Pages), told The Cutline via email. “How big was the art hole on that piece? Huge, I’ll bet.”

Shafer added: “If an editor deletes attribution, can the writer be called a plagiarist? I don’t think so. Is that what happened? If Taibbi approved the deletions, it’s another question.”

We emailed Taibbi, who is no stranger to press controversies, with a request for comment and will update this if we hear back.

UPDATE 4 p.m. “I did in fact refer to the City Pages piece in the draft I submitted,” Taibbi told The Cutline. “I did not see that those attributions had been removed. I grew up in alternative newspapers and have been in the position the City Pages reporter is in, so I’m sympathetic. They did good work in that piece and deserve to be credited. But you should know also that this isn’t plagiarism–it’s not even an allegation of plagiarism. It’s an attribution issue.”

In the meantime, Anderson is giving Rolling Stone the benefit of the doubt, although he didn’t let them off the hook entirely.

“I would not consider what the Rolling Stone [piece] contained in it to be plagiarism,” Anderson told City Pages. “What I will say, as a graduate of the Columbia J-School, and an adjunct at the University of Minnesota J-School, I do know that if a student handed in a story with that particular lack of sourcing, not only would I give it an ‘F,’ I would probably put that student on academic fraud.”

You can check out a side-by-side comparison of the two Bachmann profiles over at The Awl.

What is particularly ironic is the use of an image of Michelle Bachmann as holy warrior, gripping the Bible in one hand and a sword dripping in blood in the other as a bloody slaughter continues unabated in the background. It’s an image that is intended to summon the most grisly spectre of the Crusades, of course.

Accompanying the Rolling Stone article on Bachmann:

At the worst of the Crusades, the “Christian warriors” were given Absolution for their sins for taking part in the Holy War. You could literally get away with murder. And too many did just that (at least until they found out the hard way that the Pope’s absolution didn’t give them absolution from a just and holy God).

Now, let us consider the irony of the “Absolution” given by the left. Women are sacred cows (now watch me get attacked as calling women “cows”) in liberalism. You do not DARE attack women. Unless they are conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. And then liberals are given total Absolution to attack them as women, as wives, as mothers, as sexual beings, as anything that smears them and degrades them. And they have absolution to do it; no women’s group will come after them. Their sins are pardoned.

Call it a leftwing Crusade; better yet, call it a leftwing jihad.  “Kill thee all the enemies of liberalism.  Nullus Dues lo volt! [No God wills it!].  Thous hast absolution to murder thine opponents by any means necessary!”  And off these “journalists” (or JournoLists) go to do their demonic bidding.

A similar case of such liberal Absolution just occurred with Jon Stewart, who mocked black conservative Herman Cain in an obviously racial and racist manner using his Amos and Andy voice. It’s fine; a Jon Stewart liberal can openly racially mock a black man, provided that black man is a conservative. It’s no different than the most cynical criticism of Pope Pius in the Crusades, who said it was okay to murder as long as you were murdering a Muslim.

We see their “objective” work when they flood to Alaska to search through tens of thousands of Sarah Palin emails and even enlist their readers to help them dig for dirt.  They never would have DREAMED of subpeoning Barak Obama’s emails.  We see their “objective” work when they trip all over themselves to buy a story about a bogus lesbian Muslim heroine (i.e. more liberal fraud) just because she was lesbian and Muslim, and that’s exactly what they wanted to see.

I would love nothing more than to have all the Western “journalists” who have played these games grabbed up and taken to a country governed by Islam and watch the look on their formerly smug faces as they were tortured and killed one after another. Until that day, they will continue to serve as useful idiots for communism and terrorism and pretty much every other “ism” that is eroding Western Culture from within.

Add that abject hypocrisy of the left to the fact that for a writer anything resembling plagiarism is the greatest sin imaginable, and you get to see just how utterly vile these people are. They have no honor, no integrity, no decency. Period.

And then we compare the sheer number of plagiarism cases at leftwing papers such as the New York Times (I’ll just drop a couple of names like Jayson Blair and Maureen Dowd and Zachery Kouwe) to conservative papers like the Wall Street Journal, and you see which side simply has no honor, integrity, or decency at all.  But what should we expect from such a rabid little bunch of Goebbels?  Honesty?

It is also interesting to add that the Crusaders were in fact responding to CENTURIES of Muslim aggression. While many of the monstrous acts that occurred on both sides could never be justified, “the Crusades” themselves were quite justifiable. I make mention of this because the left continues to do to the Crusades what they are doing even today; take the side of the aggressive vicious murderers against Western Culture. And when you look at a major rundown of major plagiarism cases in journalism, it’s the leftwing names like the Washington Post and the Boston Globe and ESPN rather than Fox News.

When America is sufficiently toxic and ripe for judgment, it listens to lies and the bad people who tell those lies and votes for Democrats.  That’s basically where we seem to be now.

Oh, by the way, Barack Obama is a documented plagiarist, too.  That’s part of the reason liberal journalists love him so much; he’s truly one of them.

Before Demonizing ‘Crosshairs,’ CNN Used Word To Refer To Target Palin And Bachmann

This pretty much sums it all up when it comes to blatant media hypocrisy and propaganda:

Before banning ‘crosshairs,’ CNN used it to refer to Palin, Bachmann
By: Byron York 01/19/11 8:08 AM
Chief Political Correspondent

CNN’s John King is attracting a lot of notice — and some ridicule — in the blogosphere for his on-air apology after a guest used the word “crosshairs” during a report on Chicago politics Tuesday.  (The guest, a former Chicago reporter, referred to two rivals of mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel, saying Emanuel is “in both of their crosshairs.”) “We were just having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race,” King told viewers.  “My friend Andy Shaw…used the term ‘in the crosshairs’ in talking about the candidates out there. We’re trying, we’re trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he’s covered politics for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from using that kind of language.  We won’t always be perfect, so hold us accountable when we don’t meet your standards.”

King’s statement comes after widespread discussion of whether Sarah Palin’s now-infamous “crosshairs” map targeting vulnerable Democratic candidates in last November’s elections somehow caused the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson January 8.  There has been plenty of that kind of speculation on CNN, including on Tuesday, the day of John King’s statement, when one brief discussion of Palin used the word “crosshairs” five times.

Now, King says, CNN is “trying to get away” from such terms, suggesting that in the wake of the Tucson shootings, such language should no longer be part of the public conversation.  But if Palin is to blame for using crosshairs in her much-discussed map, then CNN, by its own use of the allegedly inflammatory term “crosshairs,” might also share some blame for creating the atmosphere that led to the violence in Arizona.  A look at transcripts of CNN programs in the month leading up to the shootings shows that the network was filled with references to “crosshairs” — and once even used the term to suggest the targeting of Palin herself. Some examples:

“Palin’s moose-hunting episode on her reality show enraged People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and now, she’s square in the crosshairs of big time Hollywood producer, Aaron Sorkin,” reported A.J. Hammer of CNN’s Headline News on December 8.

“Companies like MasterCard are in the crosshairs for cutting ties with WikiLeaks,” said CNN Kiran Chetry in a December 9 report.

“Thousands of people living in areas that are in the crosshairs have been told to evacuate,” Chetry said in a December 21 report on flooding in California.

“He’s in their crosshairs,” said a guest in a December 21 CNN discussion of suspects in a missing-person case.

“This will be the first time your food will be actually in the crosshairs of the FDA,” business reporter Christine Romans said on December 22.

“The U.S. commander in the East has Haqqani in his crosshairs,” CNN’s Barbara Starr reported on December 28, referring to an Afghan warlord.

“We know that health care reform is in the crosshairs again,” CNN’s Joe Johns reported on January 3.

Seven uses of “crosshairs” in just the month before the Tucson attacks, and just one of them referring to an actual wartime situation.  And one reference to Sarah Palin herself as being in “crosshairs.”

And not just Palin.  On September 14, Mark Preston, CNN’s senior political editor, referred to another controversial politician, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, as being “in the crosshairs.” “Michelle Bachmann is raising lots of money, raising her national profile,” Preston said on September 14.  “She is in the crosshairs of Democrats as well.”

It turns out Preston was back on CNN’s air on Tuesday, discussing Palin’s recent interview on Fox News. “We saw her on Fox News last night where she is a paid contributor,” Preston said.  “A kind of a friendly setting, but she defended herself from all the criticism that’s been directed at her regarding a Web site that she had put out where she had used crosshairs over 20 Democratic candidates.  Now a lot of people said that her rhetoric is inciting violence. She said that that is not true…”

“Crosshairs” again.  Just for the record, CNN anchors, reporters and guests did absolutely nothing wrong with their use of the word in the last month and before.  It would be impossible, at least for any reasonable person, to argue that the network’s use of “crosshairs” in any of the various contexts it was used, was an incitement to violence by anyone, anywhere.  But by announcing that “we’re trying to get away” from “crosshairs” and other allegedly incendiary language, CNN is aligning itself with those who blame “rhetoric” for the killings.  And by doing that — plus inviting the public to “hold us accountable” — CNN could open itself up to an examination of its own uses of the word and accusations that it helped create an environment that led to violence.  Does that make any sense at all?

In the bizarro world of Democrats and their propaganda allies in the mainstream media, truth and moral consistency are the very first “targets” that are placed in the “crosshairs” and killed.

When It Comes To Charges Of Racism And Violence, Democrats Need To Do A Lot More Shutting The Hell Up

We’ve got Democrat extraordinaire Harry Reid on the record saying:

“I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?”

And the fact that Reid still has his job is proof that this is an acceptable Democrat position.  The official Democrat position is now revealed: Hispanics – and surely blacks as well – are basically merely group-thinking herd animals who dumbly recognize that Democrats promise them free hay for life.  A cow is a cow, and not smart enough to be much more.  A cow must also now be a Democrat, and for the same reason.

Harry Reid’s statement of Democrat racial totalitarianism as applied to Hispanics is clearly even MORE true of blacks, who are statistically even more likely to be Democrats than Hispanics.  Ergo sum, racist mass murderer Omar Thornton is a Democrat by virtue of the fact that no one of African-American heritage could reasonably be anything else.  Just as was the gang of young black thugs who started a “beat whitey night” at the Iowa State Fairground.

Omar Thornton set aside the fact that he was literally on video stealing from his company.  He said it was all about racism.  And an avalanche of Democrats agree with everything Thornton said about white business owners being racist by the simple fact that they are white business owners.  Oh, with the possible exception of going out and killing everybody who make the giant chips on their shoulders itch.  Take for example the opinions of Obama’s latest replacement for racist spiritual adviser Jeremiah Wright, Jim Wallis:

The United States of America was established as a white society, founded upon the genocide of another race and then the enslavement of yet another. […]

What has not changed is the systematic and pervasive character of racism in the United States and the condition of life for the majority of African Americans. In fact, those conditions have gotten worse.

We can look back over the last couple of years and readily see that Democrats as a matter of routine have demonized Tea Party members and maliciously and FALSELY accused them of things they haven’t said and haven’t done.  We’ve recently got the New York Slimes on the record retracting it’s false charge that Tea Party people spit on a black congressman; and now we’ve got a Democrat caught red-handed posing as a racist Rand Paul supporter (mind you, he IS a racist; he’s posing as a Rand Paul supporter).  Which continues the already-revealed despicable Democrat strategy to pose as conservatives and say and do horrible things in order to demonize them.  Democrats haven’t bothered to associate actual events with Republicans and Tea Party members in order to demonize them; they’ve just created those events themselves.

Liberal Mary Frances Berry admits that the Democrats’ attempt to label the tea party as “racist” is essentially nothing more than an incredibly vile political strategy to escape blame for Democrat incompetence:

“Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats.  There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November.  Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

The biggest Democrat charge is that conservatives are inciting violence with their violent rhetoric.  Here’s one example among many candidates:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Democratic National Committee will amplify its charge that Republicans are responsible for “inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists … to disrupt” town hall meetings in a new 65 second Web video that will release Wednesday morning.

That when all the “angriest mobs” have been bussed in union workers (definition of AstroTurf) who have created all kinds of tension and violence (see here and here and here for three of many examples).  That when pro-Democrat SEIU thugs beat a black man to the ground and then kicked him outside of a town hall.  That when a liberal literally bit off a finger of an innocent man at a protest.  That when liberals are targeting tea party members with death threats (and see also here).

And that when at least two Democrat officials tell us they wish Sarah Palin could have been in the airplane crash that killed her fellow Alaska Republican Ted Stevens.

In case you missed it, on Tuesday Keith Halloran, a Democrat candidate for the New Hampshire House, posted in a Facebook thread about the plane crash that killed former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, “Just wish Sarah and Levy [sic] were on board.”

New Hampshire State Representative Timothy Horrigan replied Wednesday, “Well a dead Palin wd [sic] be even more dangerous than a live one … she is all about her myth & if she was dead she cldn’ t [sic] commit any more gaffes.”

And even though all of the actual violence has been steadily coming from the left.

Recently, a leftist environmentalist whackjob was shot and killed while threatening to murder hostages in the Discovery TV building.  Earlier this year a leftwing loon professor murdered three people, and had killed before and been set free by Democrats.

There’s plenty of vile and violent Democrat rhetoric amping up and inciting the liberal base.  And lo and behold we’ve got black people that Democrats claim as theirs (that doesn’t sound racist, does it?) now taking it to the next level and killing white people for the crime of being white people.

Democrats demagogically attacked Sarah Palin as inciting violence when she used surveyors’ symbols to map vulnerable Democrat districts, just as Democrats attacked Michelle Bachmann as inciting violence for using the term “gangster government.” I pointed out at the time that if anyone was inciting violence, it was Barry Hussein for talking about guns and knives. What was it Obama said to incite Democrats to violence? Ah, yes:

OBAMA: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

And here we are: Omar Thornton did just what Obama told him to do and brought a gun.  And the damn thing (by which I mean Omar Thornton) went off and killed a bunch of people.

When it comes to charges of racism, or charges of inciting violence, Democrats need to do a lot less talking, and a whole lot more shutting the hell up.

Left Attacks Michelle Bachmann For Inciting Violence; Obama Told Crowds To Bring Guns

The chutzpah of the Democrat Party and their mainstream media lackeys is alarming.

From CBS:

Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Republican from Minnesota, railed against the “gangster government” before thousands of Tea Party protesters on Thursday, but that kind of rhetoric can have serious consequences, former President Bill Clinton said Thursday.

“They are not gangsters,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview with the New York Times. “They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do.”

The former president, who was in his first term in office when Timothy McVeigh bombed an Oklahoma City federal building, drew parallels between the anti-government rhetoric being used now and what was being said then. He will speak about the Oklahoma City terrorist attack and its current relevance at a symposium today.

You’ll have to forgive me for being somewhat confused: Is Michelle Bachmann’s “gangster government” remark worse than Bill Clinton’s remark about Barack Obama that “he’s got the political instincts of a Chicago thug“???

You see, given the fact that Bill Clinton himself said that the country is being run by a Chicago thug, why would it be so surprising that we’ve got a gangster government?  I mean, Chicago thug + president = gangster government.  It’s like a math equation.

In any event, I’m just 100% certain that Slick Willy decried the hateful and violence-inducing rhetoric of Barack Obama:

Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

Sen. Barack Obama talks at a town hall meeting at Radnor Middle School in Wayne, Pa., Saturday, June 14. (AP)

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.

And murder in Philadelphia is over three times the national average.

What’s that?  Bill Clinton DIDN’T decry Obama’s invocation of clearly violent metaphors?  He didn’t even say, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘bring’ is”?  But that would mean he’s just a cheap political opportunist, not to mention a demagogue.

Barack Obama implored his supporters to arm themselves with guns and shoot people who would only have knives.  He was inciting people to violence in a city that has a documented record of murderous violence.

Michelle Bachmann merely used a term to describe our government as thieves.  She didn’t advocate mowing them down with guns, as Obama did.

At least according to the “logic” of the left, he did.  Too bad they’re too dishonest to look at their own rhetoric before demonizing everybody else’s.

I’ll tell you what: let’s demand that Barack Obama and Michelle Bachmann both resign in disgrace for their hateful rhetoric.  Just don’t be a bunch of screaming hypocrite turds for decrying Michelle Bachmann unless you first yell yourself hoarse decrying Barack Obama.

Before this nonsense the Democrats and their media tools were out decrying Sarah Palin’s “targeting” Democrat seats.  It didn’t matter one iota that Sarah Palin didn’t used a “target” symbol, but rather a surveyor’s symbol; nor did it matter than Democrats used actual “target” symbols to “target” Republican seats.  Neither the Democrats nor the media are either honest or fair enough to concern themselves with such facts.

And where were either Bill Clinton or the mainstream media when the left was demonizing George Bush something fierce? Where were they when Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters got a crowd frothing mad? Where were they when that same crowd starting chanting, “FUCK THE USA!!!”??? Where were they when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told a screaming crowed, “I’m a fan of disruptors!”??? Why was it so okay during the Bush derangement years, but so terrible now?

Why was “dissent the highest form of patriotism” when dissent was directed against George Bush, but the most loathsome form of evil when it is directed at Barack Obama?

There was a time when ‘D’ stood for Democrat; today it stands for Demagogue, Dishonest, Deceitful, Despicable, and Depraved.

Arlen Spector Admits Democrats Never Had ‘Prosperity’ In Their Program

We hear Arlen Specter being the same sort of contemptible troglodyte that Bill Clinton and Harry Reid have revealed themselves to be (well, they’re racists; Specter is sexist) in his “act like a lady” comments to very-much-a-lady Michelle Bachmann.

Arlen Specter and Michele Bachmann had been debating at a radio talk show by Dom Giordano on the first year anniversary of the Obama administration.

Michele Bachmann had been asked by the host to highlight the policies of Arlen Specter that she had supported over the year. Taking an economic turn in the answer, she had remarked that prosperity would happen when the income tax rate would be cut to 22 per cent and capital gains tax and estate tax would be finished.

At this point the Arlen Specter interjected, criticising her reply. When she started to explain, he said, “Now wait a minute. I’ll stop and you can talk. I’ll treat you like a lady. So act like one.”

To this Michele Bachmann quipped “I am a lady.”  He began counter questioning her about whom she had voted for. When she replied prosperity, he commented that it wasn’t a bill. Michele Bachmann commented that it should have been one and Arlen Specter lost his temper, making the comment, “I didn’t interrupt you. Act like a lady.”

Specter looks every inch like the arrogant hypocrite fossil that he is in that exchange.

Poor Arlen Specter (I said sarcastically).  This vile little man who never fit in with the Republicans due to his pathological nature for betrayal betrayed them for the last time when the Democrats took over.  He joined the Democrats to ride their coattails.  And now he’s watching his betrayal backfire on him as the Democrat Party starts to implode all around him.

And his quintessential rodent-like nature emerged under stress.

But there’s something more that comes out of this than the revelation of another Democrat’s loathsome personal character: a Democrat acknowledging that his party never had any bills to create actual prosperity (so how could Bachmann vote for it, given that the Democrats haven’t allowed anything the Republicans offered to actually come up for a vote?).

Look at the exchange:

Specter had asked Bachmann what she has proposed or supported this year and was in the middle of criticizing her answer when she interjected.

“Now wait a minute. I’ll stop and you can talk,” Specter said. “I’ll treat you like a lady. So act like one.”

“I am a lady,” Bachmann replied.

Specter later went after Bachmann for saying she voted for “prosperity.”

“She said ‘I voted for prosperity,'” Specter said. “Well prosperity wasn’t a bill.”

“Well why don’t we make it a bill?” Bachmann responded.

“Now wait a minute, don’t interrupt me,” he said. “I didn’t interrupt you. Act like a lady.”

Michelle Bachmann asks a very good question: “Why don’t we make prosperity a bill?”  Doesn’t that sound better than a massive porkulus bill that created a Democrat political slush fund, but didn’t create any actual jobs?

A solid plurality of Americans now recognize that the stimulus has hurt the economy.

But Democrats were never interested in the American peoples’ prosperity; they were only interested in their power, and their ability to impose their power on Republicans, and on the American people.

The Democrats want to grow the size of government; Michelle Bachmann and the Republican Party want to grow the size of Americans’ households.  Democrats want to redistribute the wealth, and shrink the size of the pie as they take wealth created by producers and give to those who haven’t produced anything; Michelle Bachmann and the Republican Party want to allow producers to produce more wealth, and make the size of the pie bigger so that everyone can benefit.

Undermining producers and taxing prosperity is hardly the way to create more prosperity.  The Democrats have only succeeded in creating a permanent non-producing underclass.

Unfortunately, the only way we can ever have a “prosperity bill” is if Democrats are voted out of power.