| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The home of America's Ambassador of Whoop@ss!
| ||
| |
| rwnadmin (read all posts) Liveblogging The Debate Tonight At 9 PM EST (October 15) Doing The Jaz McKay Show At 4:07 PM EST (October 15) Right Wing News Radio (October 15) Conservative Grapevine Promo (October 15) Listen To Right Wing News Radio! (October 14) The Rightblogs' Slate: Tom Rooney (October 14) Conservative Grapevine Promo (October 14) |
| Van Helsing (read all posts) Democrat Quote of the Day (October 15) Communists Ecstatic Over Economy, Obama (October 15) ACORN Registers Mickey Mouse (October 14) Textbooks Already Propagandizing on Behalf of Obama Regime (October 14) Smug Slate Moonbats Express Their True Thoughts (October 13) |
| Melissa Clouthier (read all posts) Delusion, Thy Name Is Democrat (October 15) Barack Obama Is A Socialist If........ (October 14) Boomers & Barack Obama (October 14) Mexico's Nepotism Problem And What It Means For America (October 13) |
| John Hawkins (read all posts) A National Enquirer Follow-Up: Obama's Commie Perv Mentor (October 15) Bye-Bye Buckley! (October 15) What I Really Think Of George Bush (October 15) Nailin' Paylin: The Palin Porn Flick (October 15) So How's That Global Warming Going? (October 15) Barack Obama Is An American Citizen (October 14) When Even The Policemen Have Criminal Records (October 14) The National Enquirer Story Of The Day: Barack Obama's Father Figure Is A Pedophile (October 14) MySpace Image Of The Day: A Very Apt McCain Bumper Stick (October 14) The Violent Left, In Quotes (October 14) Obama's New 400 Billion Dollar Welfare Program (October 13) |
| McQ (read all posts) The Politics of Making "Associations" stick (Update) (October 14) I'm Not So Sure Any Sane Person Would Really Want To Win This Election (October 13) |
| The RWN Website of the Day is: 
| ADVERTISEMENT |
We'll be liveblogging the final debate tonight at 9 PM EST. As you watch on TV, make sure to head over to RWN and refresh, refresh, refresh to catch the latest commentary.
| Rate this article: |
|
At 4:07 PM EST, I'm going to be on the Jaz McKay show.
Click on Stickam in the left corner to listen to the show.
| Rate this article: |
|
Every now and then Dems forget the election isn't over yet, and let loose with what they really think. A quote from Democrat Parker Griffith, who's running for Congress in Alabama, after he was asked about the threat posed by radical Islam:
I think America's greatest enemy is America and its materialism … we have nothing to fear from radical Islam.
Human Events has audio.
On a tip from Todd. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
| Rate this article: |
|
Delusion, thy name is Democrat. Here are tolerant West Siders cheering jeering McCain-Palin supporters:
In one of Barack Obama's ads, he talks about thinking about the working man, every single day. That his motivation is to help them. That would be nice, if liberal policies ever helped the middle class.
The kind of society that results from liberal policy is the kind of society you find in cities across America--Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago. In these cities, there are two classes of people: the rich power brokers and the poor people kept poor who support them.
Deluded Democrats hate capitalism even as they hypocritically enjoy the success of capitalism. Deluded Democrats preach environmentalism as they hypocritically hop on their private jets. Deluded Democrats speak of raising taxes as they hypocritically shelter their money, knowing damn well they won't suffer any loss of lifestyle.
Deluded Democrats preach tolerance even as they hypocritically denigrate anyone who does not hold the same ideology as their own.
The Democrats are anything but liberal and tolerant. Their ideas sound smart, but ignore human nature--including their own.
In conclusion: A parable.
Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com
| Rate this article: |
|
The recent economic turmoil and the terrifying possibility that Barack Obama could actually be elected President aren't bad news for everyone. The US Communist Party is delighted. At the party's New York headquarters, regional party chairman Libero Della Piana crows:
We are very excited, we feel that we are at a turning point. We can afford to be less on the defensive for the first time since Ronald Reagan, and we can say our word in rebuilding America on a new basis, rebuilding a better world, instead of one based on the greed of the few.
Of course, to rebuild the country as the Soviet Union II, first they'll have to bulldoze the old America. Obama plans to accomplish this by jacking up taxes in the face of a recession, which can be expected to produce a depression. The last depression gave us the New Deal, including a host of entitlement programs that will eventually bankrupt the country. But FDR's misguided socialist thuggery will look like a blossoming of liberty compared to what Obama's supporters have in mind.
Exults Della Piana:
We hope to be part of the discussion. I can see a role for the Communist Party in this next period.
Many of his staff wear pictures of Obama on lapel buttons. All BHO has done is smoke a lot of dope and write two memoirs, but already he's up there with Marx and Stalin, based on what he threatens to do to the world's Last Best Hope.
Hat tip: Knowledge Is Power, on a tip from V the K. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
| Rate this article: |
|
Yesterday, I promised to buy a hard copy of the Enquirer and follow up on the story about Obama's mentor and father figure, Frank Davis.
Well, long story short, usually the Enquirer just does a teaser on the web and saves a lot of the juicy details for the print edition -- this time, not so much.
In fact, the print story actually undercuts one of the details that drew so much attention to the story initially (emphasis mine),
The ENQUIRER exclusively reports a "sex pervert" was Sen. Barack Obama's longtime mentor and "father figure".For seven years, the presidential candidate had a "father-son" relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, who has confessed to having sex with children, sadomasochism, bondage and practicing a wide array of deviant sexual activities.
...In Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote: "He would read us poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar.
"As the night wore on, the two of them would solicit my help in composing dirty limericks."
Obama described being counseled by Frank often and recalled drinking whiskey with him.
The unspoken implication there is, of course, that Davis was a pedophile who might have plied 10 year old Barack with whiskey, got him used to talking about sex with the "dirty limericks," and then seduced him.
However, it turns out that the child Davis seduced was a 13 year old girl. That's still perverted and wrong, but it undercuts a big part of the meme the Enquirer was peddling initially.
On the other hand, Davis is a communist pervert who seduced 13 year old girls, he did write the book (that has been floating around for a while), and he was a mentor/father figure for Obama.
Let me tell you something, folks: birds of a feather flock together and Obama has chosen to spend his life around a wretched hive of Marxists, terrorists, anti-white racists, and crooks. That tells you all the things about the man's character that the media, his supporters, and his campaign have been trying to hide.
| Rate this article: |
|
Christopher Buckley, the scion of William F. Buckley is now out as a writer at National Review after submitting his resignation in the wake of a vacuous column he wrote endorsing Barack Obama. Here's his take on the situation,
"Within hours of my endorsement appearing in The Daily Beast it became clear that National Review had a serious problem on its hands," Buckley wrote in a blog posted Tuesday on http://www.thedailybeast.com, the online broadsheet founded by Tina Brown."So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there. This offer was accepted -- rather briskly! -- by Rich Lowry, NR's editor, and its publisher, the superb and able and fine Jack Fowler."
...On his blog posting Tuesday, Christopher Buckley -- whose books include "Thank You for Smoking" and the recent "Supreme Courtship" -- said he had received a great deal of angry e-mails and observed that "conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it's a big tent. Looks more like a yurt to me."
Over at National Review, Rich Lowry is emphasizing that Buckley wasn't fired, he resigned,
Chris is up with a post at The Daily Beast, "Sorry, Dad, I Was Fired." I'd like to clarify this "firing" business. Over the weekend, Chris wrote us a jaunty e-mail with the subject line "A Sincere Offer," in which he offered to resign his column on NR's back page and said that if we accepted, there "would be no hard feelings, only warmest regards and understanding." We took the offer sincerely. Chris had done us the favor of writing the column beginning seven issues ago on a "trial basis" (his words), while our regular back-page columnist, Mark Steyn, was on hiatus. Now, Mark is back to writing again, and--I'm delighted to say--will be on NR's back-page in the new issue.Just one other point: Chris says that his Obama endorsement has generated a "tsunami," that e-mail at NRO has been running "oh, 700-to-1" against him, and that there's a debate about whether to boil him in oil or shoot him. Chris is either misinformed or exercising poetic license. We have gotten about 100 e-mails, if that (a tiny amount compared to our usual volume), and threats of cancellations in the single digits (we never like to lose any readers, but circulation is way up this year).
Here's the honest truth: Christopher Buckley is a non-entity in the conservative movement that no one would have ever heard of had he not been born a Buckley. In fact, I took the time to go back through the archives at Right Wing News & Conservative Grapevine and as far as I can tell, I have never linked a single thing Christopher Buckley has ever done. In other words, I probably dole out 8000 links a year between RWN and CG and he's never written or said anything interesting or enlightening enough to merit one of them.
So, if Christopher Buckley wants to back Obama or even go all the way over to the left, I'd just like to say good luck, pal -- maybe Sully needs a towel boy or David Brock at Media Matters needs a secretary.
PS: I am for a big tent Republican Party and welcome moderates, but there is a difference between "being a Republican" and writing for National Review, the flagship publication of conservatism. Publicly supporting a socialist like Barack Obama doesn't disqualify you from the first category, but it should disqualify you from the second.
| Rate this article: |
|
This week's Right Wing News Radio show on blogtalkradio sounded really good -- at least I think so. I talked about Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, the campaign, the future of the Republican Party, intellectualism, and moderate Republicans vs. conservatives.
Also, if you're a regular RWN reader and are wondering what happened to the "PETA" and "W" ads, you can listen to the show and find out.
| Rate this article: |
|
Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:
Bret Stephens: When the tide laps at Gulliver's waistline, it usually means the Lilliputians are already 10 feet under. (Great column)Cracked: The 6 most disastrous uses of work email ever
Ross Douthat: The liberal media's conservatives
Totally Crap: Kerri Parker in a bikini. Wow
You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!
PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.
| Rate this article: |
|
If you've been a long time reader of Right Wing News, you know I have a mixed opinion of George Bush. Well, today I decided to go ahead and tell you exactly what I think of him so that no one can say I withheld it until after the election.
First off, I don't regret supporting Bush in 2004. He was a better choice for the job than John Kerry and it's also worth noting that there's probably not a single problem this country has had in the last four years that we wouldn't have had under a Kerry presidency.
The federal government's reaction to Katrina would have been the same because the local government in New Orleans was supposed to handle the immediate crisis, not FEMA. The bailout issue would also have still occurred because Democrats created the underlying problems. The big differences today would probably be that...
1) We would have lost in Iraq, the Middle-East would be in complete chaos, and Al-Qaeda would be resurgent as a result.
2) The national deficit would be considerably higher.
3) Our national security measures would have been loosened and we may have been hit with a terrorist attack as a result.
4) The Republican Party would be in a much better position.
#4 pains me greatly, but country is more important than party and it was impossible to foresee what a lousy President George Bush would be in his second term.
........Which brings me to what I think of George Bush:
George Bush has not been all bad as a President. He was inspirational after 9/11, he took much needed security measures to safeguard our country, he has prevented another major terrorist attack for over 7 years, our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were brilliantly executed, and we have John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court as a result of Bush's efforts. He is also, despite the Left's unending slanders of him, one of the more honest politicians in Washington -- certainly, he's several cuts above Obama or McCain in that area -- and there's something to be said for that.
When it comes to foreign policy, many of the problems he's had would have been had by any President in his shoes. For example, the negative reaction around the world to the war on terror mostly had to do with the fact that the United States was actually asking the people of spoiled, ungrateful nations to help us for a change instead of our helping them. It was also difficult to deal with the politics of countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which are fragile and not hostile to us per se, but were big parts of the problem. Also, the situation was complicated by a habitually dishonest Democratic Party that essentially has the same policy positions as Al-Qaeda on most issues of significance that pertain to the safety and security of Americans. That wasn't an easy issue to work around.
Additionally, thank goodness for Bush's decision to hang in there in Iraq and back the surge and I really don't blame him for getting snookered on Iraq's WMD program. Intelligence agencies all around the world made the same mistake.
However, his horrific miscalculation on the costs in blood and treasure of that whole war has been disastrous. Had we known then what we know today, we'd have probably put a friendly Sunni general in charge of Iraq, let him make us some empty promises about democracy, given them a little aid, and walked away. Although that scenario wouldn't have presented the same transformative potential as the current one, it still would have been an improvement over Saddam and a baby step towards democracy without the massive expense and loss of American lives that we've seen since 2003.
However, once we got into a situation where we had taken over responsibility of policing the streets, we were put in a position where we had no good options other than to stick it out until the end. Will it be worth it? Over the long haul, if Iraq remains a free, democratic nation, it will likely be worth it -- but it still should have been handled much differently and it was Bush's responsibility to do that.
On the domestic front, all in all, Bush has been a nightmare. Beyond Roberts and Alito, what has he really done? What are his big achievements? No Child Left Behind, which the Right didn't like because it shifted power back to Washington and the Left hated because it enforced standards? The Medicare Prescription Drug Act, which was a huge Johnsonesque boondoggle? Tax cuts, which were a good idea, but aren't even permanent? And the deficits? No matter how loudly conservatives shouted or how much we complained, he refused to make a serious effort to cut down on Congress' out-of-control spending.
But, the place where Bush really fell down was on the political side of things. I'm not entirely sure what happened to George Bush in his second term, but he was not up to the job. Why that is exactly, I don't know. Maybe he felt like he was beyond "mere politics" since he didn't have to run for reelection again. Maybe he had a crisis of confidence because of his lack of speaking skills. Maybe he was just tired or having some other horrible personal problem we don't know about, but however you slice it, George Bush has fallen down on the job over the last four years.
The Democrats came out and slandered him. Bush said nothing. The Democrats accused George Bush of being a liar. Bush said nothing. The Democrats blamed Bush for the failings of New Orleans' local government after Katrina. Bush said nothing. They've attacked his policies, his fellow Republicans, and the country -- and Bush has said nothing. The man has the biggest megaphone in the country and with a few exceptions, he has kept it under his desk for 8 years while the people who trusted him politically went down in flames. Why did the guy who spent so much time in his first term working to build a bigger Republican majority allow that to happen?
Why did he try to ignore his biggest supporters on issues like spending, immigration, the Dubai Ports Deal, and Harriet Miers? Did he get bad advice? Did he have horrible instincts? Was he out-of-touch? Was he just indifferent to the fall-out his decisions created? Whatever the case may be, Bush inflicted calamitous amounts of completely unnecessary damage to the Republican Party with his decisions -- and by "unnecessary," I mean that if we would have had a politically adept Republican President, the GOP might control the House or the Senate today -- or worst case scenario, we might be a few seats down, as opposed to the total collapse we've seen as a result of George Bush allowing his approval rating to sink into the twenties.
In summary, despite the slanders and calumnies heaped upon him by the Left, I think George Bush is a decent, honest man who has done his best to keep this country safe and prosecute a very difficult war on terror. Although his presidency has not been all bad and many of his "greatest sins" were creations of the media (the government's Katrina reaction, the Valerie Plame scandal) or were actually good decisions (Gitmo, choosing not to give up in Iraq), he has been bad for the country, particularly domestically, and he has been a Hindenburg-style disaster for the Republican Party.
| Rate this article: |
|
As you may have heard, Hustler is making a Sarah Palin porn flick called "Nailin' Paylin" and apparently, it will be out before the election. The first shots from it have already started to leak out to the gossip mags. Here's what the lead actress looks like,
Is is wrong to be grossly offended by this movie and still sort of want to see it? Yeah, it is actually, I think.
PS: I think we could have done without this little detail from TMZ,
There's also a threeway with Hillary and Condoleezza look-alikes.
| Rate this article: |
|
Will the sweltering heat of global warming every stop? This collection of headlines from the Drudge Report says, "Yeah, even if we weren't already there, we're pretty much there now"...
Will the lack of actual global warming ever actually have any impact on the Chicken Littles declaring that global warming is going to kill us all? Sure...just give it another decade or so for the actual scientific evidence to break through the mindless, politically motivated hysteria masquerading as science..
| Rate this article: |
|
Forget Jeff Foxworthy, that's too low-brow, Rethuglican humor for ya'll. Enter the erudite Dr. Obama.
You might be a socialist.....
......if you believe in the redistribution of wealth. Obama said to a small business owner yesterday and Rachel Lucas reports:
"It's not that I wanna punish your success, I just wanna make sure that everybody behind you, that they have a chance at success, too. I think we need to spread the wealth around."
You might be a socialist...
......if you believe in "refundables". Says Ace:
How does he intend to spread the wealth? By increasing the size of federal programs?Well, that's a start. But I'm afraid he's going to spread it around more directly -- by taking money away from people who pay taxes to directly give it to those who don't pay taxes in the form of a "tax cut."
A tax cut? For people who already don't pay taxes? That's not a tax cut, is it? That's more like a... well, a government handout. It's a welfare check.
Not so.
Obama prefers to call it "refundables." Even though you're not being "refunded" anything, you're just being sent a thousand or two dollars from someone else's tax payments.
Here's a little Wiki for ya'll who were deprived of a Harvard education and must use online references to educate yourself:
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]
What part of this definition does Barack Obama disagree with, actually? You see, when the government taxes a company disproportionately and redistributes the money made, it is taking profits of the company and essentially controlling how the money is spent. No doubt, the business owners have limited choices because they cannot choose how to spend the money they earn.
