Kathleen Parker Gains Coveted Victim Status

Via IMAO we get linked to the martyred Kathleen Parker who has achieved the dream of everyone on the media: she's a victim.

Election Day has produced fresh fury from self-proclaimed “conservatives” promising never again to read me or fellow apostates who criticized the Republican ticket.

She excerpts some of the mail she's received and then tells us in aggrieved tones that she's only the messenger; the one who correctly diagnosed the problem:

Where to begin? As the circular firing squad commences and Republicans begin seeking answers to what went wrong — and who will lead them through the desert — here’s one for the suggestion box: Don’t shoot the messengers.

No, Kathy, may I call you Kathy? You're not a messenger, you are providing your opinion. And others disagree.

FrankJ comments:

Just for the record, I’m sure Charles Manson got hate mail. That doesn’t prove how right he was. All getting hate mail proves is that you’re able to make someone angry. On top of that, death threats only proves you made a crazy person angry, which is certainly not that hard. It doesn’t make you a martyr to make people angry; it more often than not just makes you a jerk.

A Sarah Palin Hoax Smear is Reported As If the MSM Was the Victim

APObama “reporter” David Bauder tells us that the stories that smeared Sarah Palin as an airheaded, clothes obsessed slut were, wait for it …. a hoax. Now if you lived in the real world, you would assume that the victim of this hoax was Palin. But you would be wrong. In the bizarro world of the MSM,the victim was the MSM that trumpeted the hoax.

MSNBC was the victim of a hoax when it reported that an adviser to John McCain had identified himself as the source of an embarrassing story about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the network said Wednesday.

Somehow the layers of fact checkers that were said to distinguish the “respectable MSM” from the guys in pajamas blogging from their basements were taken in by a couple of hoaxers who, using the Internet created a fake person – “Martin Eisenstadt” – and a fake think tank – “The Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy” – and proceeded to put out fake stories.

The fact that no one in the press had actually met “Martin Eisenstadt” or visited the “Harding Institute” did not deter the MSM, and the bloggers on the Left from spreading the tales. Why? Well, one reason could have been that the target of these lies were Republicans.

From the NY Times story that discussed the hoax we find that

… there were videos showing him driving a car while spouting offensive, opinionated nonsense in praise of Rudolph W. Giuliani. Those videos attracted tens of thousands of Internet hits and a bit of news media attention.

Given the MSM’s position as a thundering herd of Liberals, this fit their template of Republicans and no more actual proof of the existence of these people on a corporeal plane was needed, or – frankly – wanted. If checking out such a good story should reveal it to be a hoax, don’t check it out.

Then (via the Times)

When Mr. Giuliani dropped out of the presidential race, the character morphed into Eisenstadt, a parody of a blowhard cable news commentator.

Mr. Gorlin said they chose the name because “all the neocons in the Bush administration had Jewish last names and Christian first names.”

Eisenstadt became an adviser to Senator John McCain and got a blog, updated occasionally with comments claiming insider knowledge, and other bloggers began quoting and linking to it. It mixed weird-but-true items with false ones that were plausible, if just barely.

The inventors fabricated the Harding Institute, named for one of the most scorned presidents, and made Eisenstadt a senior fellow.

The hoaxers pushed all the MSM’s buttons: Jewish warmongering neocons, Republican scandals, disgruntled insiders. What better way of smearing a person than to appear to be a friend who can't take the lies any more?

Oh, and that story that claimed Joe the Plumber was related to Charles Keating (disgraced S&L executive who bribed the “Keating Five”) …

Last month Eisenstadt blogged that Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, Joe the Plumber, was closely related to Charles Keating, the disgraced former savings and loan chief. It wasn’t true, but other bloggers ran with it.

So THAT's where that story came from!

The NY Times printed a picture of Dan Mirvish, one of the hoaxers. It looks like he perpetrated the hoax from …


....his basement.

Deep Denial - Those "FOX NEWS Conservatives"

Ace of Spades notes that Shep Smith Continues His Six Year Audition for MSNBC

The World Awaits HIS Coming

In case anyone is still in doubt how his adoring fans in the media will treat PRESIDENT Obama, glance at this headline from the NY Times:

World Leaders at Nation’s Doorstep, but Next President Isn’t Taking Meetings

Given the MSM’s track record as one arm of the Democrat national Committee and the official cheering section of the Obama campaign, the treatment of Obama by the press reminds me of the Adoration of the Magi. This is the kind of breathless prose you get when you are the "Savior of the World."

The Times' designated acolyte du-jour, Peter Baker,

CHICAGO — The world is waiting for President-elect Barack Obama, and some of its most prominent leaders are flying into the United States this weekend clamoring to meet with him. But they will have to keep on waiting.

"Clamoring to meet with HIM!"

World leaders are travelling to pay homage, using a financial summit by President Bush as a lame excuse when their real objective to to be in The Presence, but they are to be left standing on the doorstep as The One prepares his rule.

The term lick spittle will get a little more of a workout as The One assumes the throne.

Ann Coulter on Why McCain Lost

For the first time in 32 years, Democrats got more than 50 percent of the country to vote for their candidate in a national election, and now they want to lecture the Republican Party on how to win elections. Liberal Republicans have joined them, both groups hoping no one will notice that we just lost this election by running the candidate they chose for us.

For years, New York Times columnist David Brooks has been writing mash notes to John McCain. In November 2007, he quoted an allegedly "smart-alecky" political consultant who exclaimed, in private, "You know, there's really only one great man running for president this year, and that's McCain."

"My friend's remark," Brooks somberly intoned, "had the added weight of truth."
...
But now Brooks presumes to lecture Republicans about what to do next time. How about: "Don't take David Brooks' advice"?

According to Brooks, the reason McCain lost was -- naturally -- that he ran as a conservative. If only presidential candidates would spurn polls, modern political history, evidence from campaign rallies, facts on the ground and listen to the wishful thinking of Times columnists!

If McCain lost because he ran as a conservative, then how come I knew McCain was going to lose before Brooks did? About the same time Brooks was touting McCain's uncanny ability to attract independents, I was writing, accurately: "John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth."

The New Obama Rules

Given the MSM’s track record as one arm of the Democrat national Committee and the official cheering section of the Obama campaign, it’s little wonder that now that “The One” has been elected bad news is good news.

Exhibit A is the headline that accompanied a recent bombing in Iraq that killed scores of people. Since the US invasion of Iraq, the Obamamedia have used violence as a metric of how badly things were going.

But now that Bush is on the way out and Obama is on the way in:

Iraq bombings show progress, challenges

It's a measure of progress that today's blasts, which killed at least 31 people in Baghdad and more elsewhere, according to the Associated Press, represented the worst day of violence since June.

Yes, believe it or not, bomb blast show how wonderful that world is now that Obama has been elected.

This is lick spittle reporting at it's finest. You can’t make this stuff up folks.

If you thought that the media would try to reclaim the mantle of objectivity, you are fooling yourself. Obama has done no wrong in the past and will do no wrong in the future. I wrote about this in Governing From The Center.

As evidence, exhibit B:

Obama Won’t Meet Everybody’s Expectations

This is Newsweek’s’ preemptive strike in anticipation of Obama failures. The rock star who received the adulation of hundred of thousand of Europe’s youth will, according to Newsweek, not get the world to love us:

America's allies got the candidate they overwhelmingly preferred, but that doesn't necessarily mean America's relationships with the globe will warm instantly. In fact, history is strewn with rock-star presidents whose first years were terrific disappointments for U.S. allies.

But we were told that Obama was the One that the world was waiting for. What do other Presidents have to do with the global adulation he received even before he was elected? His mere presence electrified all of Europe. What could he possibly do to disappoint the world? Newsweek goes on to list a few items that Obama promised and suggest he won’t do as he promised. But these are all within the power of a President whose party controls both houses of Congress. So what is Newsweek trying to tell us?

And then there’s exhibit C. If you remember nothing of the Obama campaign, you remember that he promised 95% of the American people a tax cut. Now we get this APObama headline:

AP poll: Public seems willing to wait on tax cuts

Why in the world would the MSM poll this question? Here’s the story:

People want the tax cuts promised during the presidential campaign, but may be willing to wait while President-elect Obama takes on the larger issue of fixing the economy.

Eighty percent say trimming personal tax rates should be a goal when the new president takes office in January, but only 36 percent say the cuts should a very top priority, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. That was less than half the 84 percent who cited improving the economy as a No. 1 goal, and the 80 percent who said creating jobs should be a paramount task.

"I don't think it's going to work in this instance," said Ryan Anderson, 31, a Democrat from Bloomington, Minn., who thinks tax reductions would have little impact on most families' budgets. "That's kind of like shooting a BB gun at a freight train."

Obama promised to cut taxes for working families during the campaign.

Obama didn't simply promise to cut taxes, he pounded, pounded, pounded the theme that 95% of the American people would get a tax cut.

The theme is obvious, someone has leaked to the AP that the primary economic promise of the Obama campaign – that 95% of the American people will see their taxes cut – is not going to happen. And the AP dutifully commissions a poll that tells us that that’s all right; “the people” really didn’t want a tax cut.

So the ObamaMedia are preparing the American people for the future. In the future there are two rules. The first rule is that whatever Obama does is right. The second rule is that if he screws up, lies, or fails to deliver refer to rule one.

UPDATE:
And you thought Fox News was staffed by conservatives? Check out Shep Smith.

UPDATE 2:
Thanks, Glenn.

James Hansen's NASA Group "Doctors" Data On Global Warming

Via Small Dead Animals ...

Andrew Bolt reports:

Hansen: September the hottest October

The Goddard Institute of Space Studies of warming extremist James Hansen has released its latest surface temperature data - and, oh my god, the recent cooling has suddenly ended.

Yes, it shows a huge upward spike for October - one of the biggest monthly anomalies ever recorded. And when you check closely, you will find that ... September was the hottest October ever recorded.

Wait! September?

Er, yes. But first check this map of the huge hot spot that created Hansen’s temperature spike:

Gee, that’s some heat wave over autumnal Russia.

Or is it? Australian Climate Madness reports:


Comments on Anthony Watts’ article indicate that certain temperatures in Russia that contribute to the GISS anomaly figure have been copied over from September! ...

And here’s the comment, from Patrick Kiser:


Quite simply, there is an input error.
In completing random check of the cities in warm area, every city with October 2008 data has identical data for both October and September:

UPDATE 3

DeWitt Payne says check the satellite pictures. No snow on Siberia at the end of September. Snow everywhere at the end of October. And Hansen claims the two months were equally warm?

Kate at Small Dead Amimals:

Update - NASA acknowledges "some mishap might have occurred... "

Update - In the comments, John Cross defends NASA's quality control in response to my criticisms;

"Kate: There is always a trade off between how quickly you get the information out and how much quality control you can run."

OK then, let's make this simpler.

As in "Holy heat-seeking-map-missile, Batman! Look at the colour of Russia right next to Alaska there!"

FEC to audit McCain, gives a pass to Obama

Richard Fernandez:

Politics is creative in that it permits a society to express preferences with wide latitude. But it is also creative in that it sets precedent, tone and usage. What can create can also destroy. The legacy of the election of 2008 will be more than Barack Obama. It will also include the outright partisanship of the press, the less than satisfactory voting processes and now campaign funding reform failure. That’s what has been given to the future. And problem with the future, as the psychic Criswell once observed, is that it is the place where most of us — and our children — are going to live.

Could Obama Possibly Adopt the Evil, Despicable, Unethical, Unconstitutional Policies of the Bush Administration?

The Wall Street Journal reports that Obama’s intelligence transition team is unlikely to make major changes in Bush administration intelligence policies. How will that be received?

Let’s see what the “mainstream” liberals think about those Bush policies. We can get their unfiltered opinion by going to a respectable web site run by some law professors, The Volokh Conspiracy. Keep in mind that most of these comments are made by lawyers or law students; not by inmates from an asylum on an overnight pass.

Robert Farrell: (on the Bush administration’s detention policy regarding enemy combatants)

If you are comfortable with the idea that the government can point a finger at you, call you a terrorist, and haul you off in the middle of the night to prison, without ever having to prove or even to disclose the charges against you, you may want to ask yourself why you like living in a democracy at all.

Are you wondering why – in Bush’s America - Robert Farrell is still running around free?

In the same blog post, PLR writes:

Gitmo has been a long-term dumping ground for noncombatants like Boumediene, al Odah, the Uighurs and others, who are left in a legal vacuum for years on end. If they had been true battlefield captures, they would have been released from custody relatively quickly -- the military isn't interested in babysitting noncombatants.

The Left can’t seem to get their heads around the fact that the war we are in is not like the Napoleonic wars or even like the Great wars of the 20th Century, with men in uniform shooting at each other from well defined lines. Perhaps it’s their unfamiliarity with warfare, their obsessive desire to see everything within a framework that fits their world view. They have an idea of war and, like a procrustean bed; they will make all future wars fit that matrix. The idea that non-combatants by day can turn into combatants at night seems totally alien to them.

Here’s a thought experiment: what were the 9/11 hijackers; combatants or non-combatants? When did they become combatants? Defend your answer.


Randy R. – in what passes for sarcasm on the Left -

You're right! We should give up every liberty in order to maintain security, just like in that V for Vendetta movie. I also think the Bill of Rights is a quaint relic from the 18th century, and we should get rid of it. Including the Second Amendment.

Randy should give it a rest. Hysteria was a woman's trait.

Robert Farrell chimes in (again) with fears of a military coup:

An arbitrary system of detentions is not a safe thing because it is in the hands of the military; if you had to give a one-sentence summary of the most common way a democracy dies it would have to be "And then the military came in temporarily to restore order."

Actually, Robert, "arbitrary" (as in capricious) systems of detention are not a good thing in civilian or the military hands. Democracies are fairly rare in the history of the world. Most died at the hands of popular rabble rousers.

This from roan is fairly typical of the “reasoned” arguments conducted by the left:

…do people really believe that toxic, potently bad faith personalities like those of Dick Cheney and David Addington can ever be reasoned with at face value to an honest conclusion without taking stock of, and confronting, their bad faith and dishonorable conduct? Some people's arguments must be bypassed as the toxic and specious cover stories that they are - if one wants to make meaningful progress in ending repellent practices or excessive secrecy. Perhaps Greenwald is simply more motivated toward those ends, and less interested than Kerr in an academically-sterilized debate that seems more appropriate for a time after the worst of the ongoing atrocities have ceased

That, is hard to refute ...

Michigan liberals attack Lansing congregation in the middle of Sunday worship

Well, Obama did tell his followers to "get in their faces."

On Sunday morning, amidst worshiping congregants and following unifying prayers that our President-elect be granted wisdom as he prepares to lead our nation through difficult global, social and economic challenges, the Michigan left declared open war on peaceful church goers.

They did it with banners, chants, blasphemy, by storming the pulpit, by vandalizing the church facility, by potentially defiling the building with lewd, public, sex acts and by intentionally forcing physical confrontations with worshipers.

Red the rest.

Good Man or Bad Man?

A debate is raging between the forces of “can’t we all get along” and the “hell no” crowd. It was started by Patterico (Patrick Frey) who said (in recounting a discussion with his daughter):

Anyway, I have told her that Obama will probably win, and she was sad. “I don’t want Obama to be my President!” she said. I told her that McCain and Obama are both good men — and although I disagree with Obama, if he wins, we have to say: “Oh well, we tried. But he will still be my President.”

She’s still not very happy. Nor am I. But I want her to learn that no matter who wins, he’s a good man trying to do what he thinks is right for the country.

And Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom who responded:

Precisely the kind of self-righteous civility that fried McCain. Want to be clapped on the back for your decorum? Fine. Just say so.

But let’s not pretend you are being honest or principled. Graciousness is one thing; praise is another.

This “good man” was involved in ACORN blackmail schemes. With an attempt to fraudulently undermine the Second Amendment by gaming court rulings. He got rich off of schemes that led to the mortgage crisis — then stood by and let others fix it in order to keep his hands clean during the final stages of an election. He has thrown in with race hustlers,”reformers” who believe that domestic terrorism was a valid form of expression, odious foreign potentates –

There is nothing at all noble about praising a man and a party who reviles you simply because in doing so you appear noble. Jews have tried that. And it’s often ended with skeletons and ash, or the twisted wreckage of a bus in Tel Aviv.

In this case, it will end with more McCains — and so more Obamas and Reids and Pelosis and Olbermans.

If that’s nobility, I’m not interested. Yes, Obama is my President. But that doesn’t mean I’m forced to forget all he’s done to get there — and all that’s been done on his behalf, either by the savage supporters who went after Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin, or by the “objective media” that sold its soul for a shot at establishing the government it desired.

A good man?

A good politician, sure. A dedicated husband and father, yes. But a good man?

Sorry. But good men don’t lie, cheat, steal, and throw longtime supporters by the wayside just so they can rise to power — even if they’ve convinced themselves they’re doing so for some Greater Good.

Because the fact is, in this country, they’re not supposed to get to decide what that is. We are.

The rest is hubris.

This led to several exchanges because Frey objected vehemently to the accusation that he was being, shall we say, politically correct. That he was mouthing platitudes to appear to be gracious and win the approval of others who value a good loser.

For the record, I am in Jeff's camp ... see here:

Congratulations? Bullshit!

There is an American habit of congratulating our opponents when we lose. And it’s appropriate when we have been bested in an equal contest. But when we have been cold cocked by our opponents and kicked to the curb by their friends, congratulations are the actions of a whipped cur.For me, in this race, congratulations are bullshit. Moreover, I have no intention of being a good loser. Show me a good loser, and I’ll show you a loser.

The discussion is interesting and actually carried out on a high level with partisans making the case for both sides.

Here’s MD in Philly:

First, as I previously said, I respect you and do not believe you have posted anything other than what you believe and have not played any “blog politics” (whatever that would mean).

Second, I am happy to not believe Democrats are evil because they believe differently. However, when specific individuals act dishonestly for political or other personal gain I do not consider that bad judgment, I consider that being morally wrong. In some terminology morally wrong and evil are grossly equivalent, others may save “evil” for particularly malevolent motives and behavior.

If I understand you correctly, I presume you consider many people you send to jail as not “evil”, but merely as making bad judgements and need a reality check as to what is and is not acceptable behavior. I certainly agree that a nonviolent offense while acting as a knucklehead is different from a pattern of sadistic violence, and the latter more readily fits the description as being evil.

Maybe 23% of Americans think partial birth abortion is ok- I would be surprised at that and hope that many of those doesn’t understand what is meant. But Obama hasn’t “just” wanted to protect that, but went beyond Nancy Pelosi and others when he wanted to guarantee the death of a child undergoing abortion, even if born alive and now it’s own living being outside of somebody’s womb. In addition, he persisted in trying to obscure his actions in this regard. That along with the multitude of bad judgements otherwise listed is problematic. I mean, we’re not talking about hanging with anti-war protesters, we’re talking about associating and furthering one’s career with someone who built bombs and blew up things. I guess you could say it is a really, really, really bad decision to assimilate and teach the views of someone who dedicates their book to Lucifer.

As far as being “our president”, does that have any boundaries? I agree that simply calling someone “a moron, he’s not my president” is not called for and is very poor form.
But-
Obama has spoken of the flawed and inadequate US constitution that needs change (his words were more strident, but I can’t quote them). If someone is in the office of president but makes clear he does not seek to uphold the Constitution is he still entitled to be called “our president”? I am not saying that is the case, but I am raising the question. If a President thinks something in the Constitution is flawed and wants to engage public debate on altering the Constitution in the accepted way, by the Amendment process, that is fine, that’s what is supposed to happen. But what if one wants to in effect alter the Constitution by packing the Supreme Court and other influential appointments, giving executive orders, and using Orwellian language and suppressing debate and dissent? If the executive branch refuses to enforce its responsibilities do we still owe allegiance to those individuals? At some point no, because all public servants take an oath to uphold the law and the constitution.

I’m not saying he will approach this level of breaking faith, but if the questions are not considered they will never get answered.

And Beldar:

I agree with — and incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth again here — Patrick’s many reservations about Obama and his bad policies. I’ll add to those that I think Obama has knowingly, and inexcusably, chosen to associate with some bad people — among whom I’d certainly include twisted dollop of evil scum Bill Ayers and convicted politician-buyer Tony Rezko. Obama’s decisions to associate with those folks, and with several organizations who shelter and attract bad people, would lead me to agree that Obama has consistently demonstrated very bad judgment.

But “bad man”? Naw, I’m just not there yet. Might get there, but not there yet.

I don’t think that’s because I’m being “noble,” and I would vigorously dispute that it’s because I’m being naïve. I’ll go so far as to concede that I’m deliberately giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on some of his associations, to call that merely “bad judgment” as opposed to evidence that he, himself, is also a “bad man.” And I respect Jeff, and others, who disagree, and I credit them with good faith in making that decision (at the same time I urge them to return that respect to those who haven’t).

By rls:

Patrick..may I call you Patrick? I disagree with you, and if you say that you truly believe Obama to be a good man, then I will believe that that is what you truly believe. It does sadden me that, if that is the case, then your moral code of values is vastly different than what I have interpreted in the past.

I read Jeff’s post(s) and the many comments. I read Belder’s post and the comments. Belder makes the fine distinction between Obama being a bad man and a good man. I left this comment at Belder’s:

Words have honor. Or to put it another way - linguistic integrity. I really believe to call Obama a good man is akin to never calling another man good. What would the use be?

It is something so simple, as is done countless times every day in countless restaurants across the country. When the server or the cashier asks how the meal was, the invariable, unconscionable answer is something like, “great” or “wonderful” or “excellent”. Done simply without thinking of the harm one is doing to the real infrequent “excellent” meal.

If all of ones meals are excellent, what word does one use to describe that rare extraordinary meal? Super excellent?

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging adequacy using the word “satisfactory”..one may be the recipient of some blank stare, but try it some time. I have gone as far as using the word “marginal” when it is appropriate.

It is the same as telling every person you date that you love them. What word do you then conjure up to describe that emotion when it becomes real?

I don’t have the the linguistic ability of a Jeff Goldstein, but I know, for the most part, when a descriptive word is inappropriate.

I don’t know whether Obama is bad,mean,wicked,evil or all nasty inside. I do know that according to the moral code of most moral people, he is not a good man.

And Bains:

Xrlq brings us back to the origin of this kerkuffle. Jeff did not admonish Patrick for not calling Obama a bad man, Jeff admonished Patrick for calling Obama a good man. Like Xrlq, I will not say Obama is a bad man, and like both Jeff and Patrick have acknowledged, Obama appears to me to be a good father, and is a good politician… BUT, that does not necessarily mean he is a good man.

And Patterico, while Protein Wisdom may have been unduly harsh on you, I read it as a case-in-point to a larger argument, an argument with which I, and I think you, wholly agree. (Go back to Jeff’s recounting of the Bill Bennett incident if you need a refresher.)

And Jeff summarizes:

... Catalano and Frey aren’t the problem per se. But posts like the two on offer today most certainly are part of the problem. Somebody spends eight years telling you you’re a racist warmongering hater, you don’t respond by kissing them on the ring and pretending you’ve done so out of some manner of nobility.

You haven’t. And you’ve suggested that such behavior works.

The case made by those who advocate graciousness in defeat is partly moral but primarily political. The case is made that you can attract more adherents by showing good manners and being friendly. There is evidence that this may be true. It’s one of the characteristics of Obama himself who projects an image of studious calm.

But he has in his corner people whose job it is to demonize the opposition. He does not have to call George Bush a racist warmonger; the second coming of Hitler who has turned this country into a fascist police state that imprisons and tortures people for fun, who started a war for oil and to make profits for Halliburton, his surrogates do. He doesn’t have to question the paternity of Sarah Palin’s baby or accuse her of being a stupid airhead who is clothes crazy, his surrogates do.

The enemy defines the rules of engagement. This may be the battlefield that the Right is called on to fight. Frey is not a member of that army that is prepared to do the fighting of the kind that the Left is waging. Neither is he the candidate who will present the sunny image. He is the bystander who offers his opinion on the warriors in the arena. That is a role that most people have in any country. There’s nothing dishonorable about it.

It does remind me of Revelations 3:16.

{My apologies to Jeff Goldstein for incorrectly referring to him as Goldberg. I may have been thinking of Jonah Goldberg as I was writing. Jeff is one of my favorite bloggers and I meant no disrespect. I have corrected my error.}

The Evils of the Past. The Evils of the Present.

Richard Fernandez on the sale of babies:

The AFP describes a police raid on a baby trafficking syndicate in Nigeria. Babies were being bred for resale at a hospital “in Enugu, a large city in Nigeria’s southeast”

The doctor in charge, who is now on trial, reportedly lured teenagers with unwanted pregnancies by offering to help with abortion.
They would be locked up there until they gave birth, whereupon they would be forced to give up their babies for a token fee of around 20,000 naira (170 dollars, 135 euros).

The babies would then be sold to buyers for anything between 300,000 and 450,000 naira (2,500 and 3,800 dollars) each, according to a state agency fighting human trafficking in Nigeria, the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP).

...

We live in age of the concentration camp oven, the post-partum dumpster and infant trafficking. Moloch is still with us. He had many ancient names; and maybe modern pedophiles and ideologues know a few more.

Is John McCain Afraid? It Depends.

Beldar asks a valid question of John McCain.

To Sen. John McCain: Although you were far from my first choice as the GOP nominee, I've spent hundreds of hours working on your campaign's behalf, as have many others who were thrilled by your selection of Gov. Palin as your running mate.

I never thought I would have cause to label you, of all people, as a coward or dishonorable. You're acting in a cowardly and dishonorable fashion, however, by permitting people identified with your campaign to make these anonymous attacks on Gov. Palin. Identify them. Make them famous. If what they say is true, then make them back it up. If it is not — and I believe it is not — then expose them as liars so that no GOP politician will ever again dare hire these sniveling worms. They have no honor, but they are besmirching yours.

This is same person who went out of his way to condemn people who used Obama’s middle name. And now he stands by while unnamed aides smear Sarah Palin.

McCain has always cared about his image. He admits his cockiness as a fighter pilot and even as prisoner was parts a pose. He had an image of himself as a hero and worked to maintain that image even as he was being tortured in prison in Viet Nam.

His “maverick” image was part pose to show the media that he was an independent; a Gary Cooper type who stood alone against the odds.

His campaign was a reflection of his self-image as a man above the fray. He was not going to invoke Reverend Wright because it would have brought down on his head the approval of all those people whose approval he wanted, desperately above all else.

In the end they didn’t care enough about him. So now, on his way back to the Senate, he seeks to regain the “maverick” title. But the media’s maverick can’t very well support the media’s devil du jour.

So Sarah Palin will not get “The Maverick” to stick up for her as she stood up for him. There may be worse things than being tortured by the Vietnamese. Apparently the MSM is far more frightful.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

If it were not so dreadful, the Obama Presidency could be the source of untold fun.

Election Analysis: America Can Take Pride In This Historic, Inspirational Disaster

Iowahawk:

Although I have not always been the most outspoken advocate of President-Elect Barack Obama, today I would like to congratulate him and add my voice to the millions of fellow citizens who are celebrating his historic and frightening election victory.

He says it like no-one else.

Racism End Forever

H/T Vanderleun

Bill Ayers

We know the answer to that question.

Man Arrested at Philly Obama Victory Rally for Wearing a McCain/Palin T-Shirt

Via Ace of Spades:

And just like that, dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism, but rather a jailable offense.

If I were to try to defend the Philadelphia cops I would say that they were doing what they needed to do to prevent a violent confrontation. But…

What if the situation were reversed? If McCain had won, would an Obama supporter have been the focus of a riot? Republicans don’t riot. It would mess up their Brooks Brothers suits. There may have been some name calling, but the threat of violence would not be there. Obama supporters are quick to take offense, especially racial offense. During an Obama administration we will not see the type of disrespect that we got to know so well, like the “Buck Fush” signs and bumper stickers. Obama supporters are not going to put up with that and – to keep the peace – we’ll see a lot more police action and a lot more sensitive college administrators like the ones at Purdue.

Governing from the center.

The media has pulled Obama across the finish line. The focus on McCain was vastly negative and the MSM nuked Sarah Palin. It ignored the gaff-prone Joe “I’m much smarter than you are” Biden altogether. John McCain never gave anyone a reason to vote for him. The MSM made the case that voting against Obama would make the Baby Jesus cry. It’s a wonder the margin of victory was as small as it was.

So here we are and the pundits right and left, having acknowledge that the MSM was in the tank for Obama have predicted that they are now going to get tough – to repair their tattered reputation and show how ethical they are.

Please! How gullible are these people? How gullible do they think we are? Do they actually believe this?

They believed in Obama enough to bury his racist, America-damning pastor, the bombers he hung with, and the crooks he dealt with, even ignoring the hundreds of millions of dollars he raised in untraceable contributions. Now they are going to turn on him? No way! Now they have to validate their decision.

At least Chris Matthews is honest about it. He sees his job as making the Obama presidency work. That will be the goal for the rest of the MSM even if they will not state it as baldly.

And validate they will. The first thing we will be told is that he will “govern from the center.” “He has to” say the wise-men, because we are in an economic crisis. Are these people so clueless as to realize that economic crisis and wars are the seedbeds of radical changes in governing? Times like these are tailor-made for people who want to fundamentally re-structure society. Just in the 20th century we have Lenin, Hitler, Mao, even Roosevelt. History is littered with examples, both here and overseas.

The largest US banks were virtually nationalized during a REPUBLICAN administration, some – like Wells Fargo – against their will because they didn’t want to take the government’s money. Will a Democrat congress led by Pelosi and Reed and an Obama presidency balk at a take-over of the US auto industry? Especially when Ford and GM are virtually begging for a bailout and bankruptcy could lead to the loss of thousand of jobs and billions in loans?

Plans are being made to nationalize health care. Who wants to bet against another successful rear guard action if opposition can be termed not just brutal and cold hearted but also racist?

Transportation is ripe for a socialist government. The airlines are perennial basket cases. Why would an Obama administration not nationalize airlines and railroads if it could be sold as economically sound, and good for the environment? Why not a US Air that really is owned by the US? Maybe they can be made to fly on time. I see a vastly expanded US government rail system in our future. The selling points: construction jobs, technological innovations and the “green” benefits of getting people to travel by train. The railroads have planted the seeds by advertizing how much more efficient they are than truck transportation. It will not only be patriotic to pay taxes but also to travel by train.

The Obama education initiative will be another centerpiece. No more crazy quilt control over education by local school boards. Why not adopt the French system where every child in every school is taught the same thing from the same books at the same time? And local governments will go for a Federal takeover in a heartbeat when the only thing standing between them and draconian cuts in services is Uncle Sam’s money. Think of the equality, think of the efficiency, think of the opportunity to indoctrinate malleable minds in the good, the pure and the correct thoughts. Racism, sexism and superstition (e.g. belief in God) will be expunged in a generation.

And why not have one of the foremost experts in education in the country – William Ayers – as the new secretary of education? He’s may have done or said some things when Obama was only eight, but today he is a respected members of the Chicago community with a number of books on the subject of improving education. And if someone wants to quibble about his past, let’s remember that he was never convicted of anything, never killed anyone personally, and received the coveted “citizen of the year” award from Chicago city government.

Look at the way the appointment of Rahm Emanuel was greeted by the MSM, including many on the Right. He was labeled not as a vicious political infighter and hyper-partisan, but a respected insider with - what were termed - “sharp elbows.” Any chance that Emanuel will get the Rove treatment? Don’t hold your breath waiting for calls to have him frog-marched from the White House if it turns out that he advises Obama to fire all the US attorneys and replace them with Democrat loyalists as Clinton did.

There will be many opportunities for other members of the Obama administration to be termed “centrists.” Euphemisms will get a new workout. Robert F. Kennedy. Jr. is a genuine nutcase who was the guiding light behind the fake scare about the preservative in vaccines causing autism. He routinely demonizes people he disagrees with and appears to be a sexual harasser (a Kennedy family trait). His name has been floated as the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Want to bet that he will be referred to as a “well respected environmental attorney” rather than someone who writes about conspiracies by auto companies to keep gas mileage low and claiming that hog farms are more of a threat to America than al-Qaeda terrorists?

The MSM will find the right word to label anyone Obama chooses to appoint a “centrist.” If he appoints Jeremiah Wright to a government post, you can be sure that his stint as a Marine will be hailed as proof of his “centrist” position.

The MSM has so much invested in the Obama presidency that nothing, literally nothing, will shake their determination to hallow his tenure in office. They are like Chang and Eng, the original Siamese twins. They are joined at the hip and when one dies, the other cannot survive.

Obama Officials Blame Palin for Death Threats - Press Lies. (Well, that part's not news)

Read the expose by Robert Stacy McCain.