Randy Newman is so back

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

Not only is this a conversation kickstarter, but it’s also the Old Randy. Before all that Hollywood/Pixar money diverted him from his tremendous gifts.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

92 thoughts on “Randy Newman is so back

  1. Tanya Castiglione

    Thanks for posting this. You are right, he is back. Sail Away, it still breaks my heart every time I listen to it.

  2. Michael

    The irony is that the song is racist in and of itself. He didn’t sing about not picking a candidate because of their skin color but about not voting for a candidate because they are white. This gives tacit endorsement to voting for a minority candidate because of the color of their skin. It’s white guilt at best and “plantation mentality” at it’s worst.

  3. peter brush

    “He won’t be the brightest, perhaps / But he’ll be the whitest / And I’ll vote for that.”
    Mr. Newman told The Associated Press: “I felt that sentiment exists in the country. I don’t know how many people you can get to admit it. I think maybe zero.”
    President Barack Obama continues to beat Mitt Romney among African American voters with a staggering 94 percent to 0 percent lead, according to a poll released Tuesday.
    According to a 2002 NYTimes report Herr Newman’s custom-built 6,500-square-foot house is in Palm Desert, Ca.; 82.5% White, 1.8% African American.

  4. peter brush

    Hey, Randy; wake up.
    “Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me,” Wright said. “I told my baby daughter that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office. …

    “They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. … I said from the beginning: He’s a politician; I’m a pastor. He’s got to do what politicians do.”

    Wright also said Obama should have sent a U.S. delegation to the World Conference on Racism held recently in Geneva, Switzerland, but that the president did not for fear of offending Jews and Israel.

  5. J.T. Hatter

    Barack Hussein Obama has always run his political campaigns to exploit racial, economic, religious, and political divisions. After nearly four years of Obama, the nation is furiously divided, and the political scene is positively treacherous. Everyone expects this campaign to be the ugliest and dirtiest in our nation’s history. It is certainly shaping up that way.

    The most poisonous aspect of this race is the Democratic Party political tactic of racial slander. The Democrats can’t campaign on Obama’s stellar accomplishments as president, and they can’t attack Romney’s qualifications. Most Americans agree with Romney’s policies. So the progressives are playing the race card.

    To the Democrats and the mainstream media, this is war. They now have the political power to advance their leftist ideology and they will stop at nothing to keep it. The progressives aren’t merely playing the race card. They are deploying the entire deck in a scorched-earth policy. If you oppose the Democrats, then you are a racist.

    Republicans and conservatives are now regularly smeared as racists. Their history of being the party and ideology that freed the slaves, overturned the Jim Crow laws, and fought for racial equality is being deliberately distorted. The progressive left is waging their race hate campaign against the American people as a whole — not just against the Republicans. The Democratic Party/mainstream media narrative is that virtually all Americans are racist, except for the enlightened ones who make their home in the Democratic Party.

    America’s Race Card Media

    The mainstream news media are reveling in their role as race hounds for the Democratic Party. Chris Matthews of NBC leads the pack of race howlers. In a recent Morning Joe show, Matthews viciously attacked Reince Preibus and accused candidate Romney of playing the race card. Matthews reviled the Republican for using the term “work requirements” when discussing welfare reform. That’s racist, you know. On his Hardball show on MSNBC, Matthews regularly accuses Romney of leading a racist campaign. He hears Republicans “dog-whistling” racial code words all the time — in practically every speech or announcement. He recently set up Cynthia Tucker, an über-liberal Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist, to declare of the Romney campaign that “[t]his is the Southern Strategy writ large. This is all about appealing to racially resentful whites.”

    I’ve got news for Matthews and Tucker. There aren’t enough “racially resentful whites” to matter. They represent the tiniest fraction of the American population. Then why are the Democrats and their media stooges woofing so loudly on these racialist hate themes? They continue to play on rapidly disappearing “white guilt” over slavery, which ended a century and a half ago, and racism, which will never end, according to liberals.

    The critical voting demographic for Obama is the white male professional. They are the target. How many of these people will flee to the embrace of the Democrats for fear of being labeled as racist, and to secure the badge of racial enlightenment? Enough to matter, perhaps. That’s what the Democrats are counting on. Their underlying strategy is to neutralize this demographic since they can’t possibly win it.

    The Racial Stink Brush

    Americans as a people are fairly free from racial prejudice. This is certainly true when Americans are compared to people living in the rest of the world. But you would never know that, and certainly wouldn’t believe it, if all your information came from American television.

    There are few real racists in our country, relatively speaking. They are considered wackos, out of mainstream thought and belief. We Americans believe that all men are created equal. We Christians are commanded to love one another as brothers. The only way we can reunite this nation is through brotherly love.

    And that is exactly why the Democrats are raising the specter of racism in this political race. The only way they can gain political power is through exploiting social division. Right now the Democrats and the mainstream media are vigorously conducting a broad-spectrum campaign of racial division across America.

    The current mainstream media propaganda sound bite lineup is as follows:

    •Voter ID and poll-watching equal suppression of minority votes. Shades of Jim Crow.
    •Racist code words uttered by Republicans will be regularly discovered and interpreted by the media.
    •Racist remarks and actions by Democrats do not exist. And those that do will be ignored.
    •Attacking President Obama is racist by definition.
    •Supporting or voting for Romney is racist by definition.
    This list will grow as we approach November 6. The mainstream media will repeat these racist political attack themes over and over again. Repeat the lie often enough, and people will believe it.

    The media is also carefully parsing every word of every statement made by Republicans. The mainstream media are desperately searching for racial slips, inferences, and “code words” they can amplify and wield. Just ask George Allen how this works. Allen lost the 2000 Virginia Senate race to Democrat political newcomer Jim Webb by only 10,000 votes — after an intense media campaign brushing him with racist stink paint. The racist slander worked, and the media won the race for the Democrats.

    The mainstream media will discover racist intent even if they have to fabricate it, as NBC did when it edited the George Zimmerman 911 recording in order to make him appear to be the racist killer of an innocent black boy. Think about that. NBC was willing to misrepresent the facts to make the Hispanic man (initially represented as white) appear racially motivated to kill a black man. No innocence until proven guilty. NBC convicted Zimmerman in the digital courtroom in which it is judge, jury, and executioner. Why did NBC violate Zimmerman in this way? To stir up racial division to enhance the leftist political paradigm.

    The media has been doing this for a long time. Remember the Tawana Brawley rape that never happened — the one that launched Al Shapton’s political career? How about the Duke lacrosse rape that also never happened? False accusations of rape against nine white men and a charge of murder against a Hispanic man. What the media are doing now is not merely a “tragic rush to accuse.” It is a deliberate political strategy. Think what the mainstream media are willing to do for Obama.

    The Ethics and Morality of Race Slander

    The political racial attacks are being coordinated between the Democratic Party and the mainstream media. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee Chair and Florida congresswoman, accused the Republicans on television of wanting to “literally [sic] drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally and very transparently block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates.”

    This is pure political deception. It is an outright lie. Wasserman Schultz neglected to mention that it was the Democratic Party that wrote and enforced the Jim Crow laws in the first place. It must have slipped her memory that it was the Republican Party that did away with those and other laws that discriminated against black people.

    At a recent campaign rally in Danville, VA, Vice President Joe Biden said, with a newfound Southern twang, that if Republicans won the election, “they gawn’ to put y’all back in chains.” The vice president of the United States was telling black people that if the Republicans win the election, slavery will return. What a scurrilous remark. How low can you get?

    According to the Daily Caller, Matthew “Mudcat” Arnold, national campaign manager for the liberal super-PAC CREDO, told supporters in Aurora, CO that calling Republicans racist was a more effective tactic than criticizing their policies.

    Americans will pay the price for the racial hatred being incited by the Democrats and their media shills. The price will be steep and paid in blood. In playing the race card, the Democrats show that they have no moral scruples whatsoever. To the progressive, the end always justifies the means. It is a dishonor and a sin to bear false witness against your neighbor. But this is the political party that booed God out of the DNC party platform three times before the chair ignored the majority and allowed the Almighty to return. And this was done cynically to avert political fallout and a possible loss of votes in November. Even God is a political calculation for Democrats.

    There are no moral or ethical constraints on the Democrats or their progressive ilk in the media. Race-baiting is a strategy they believe will work for them. We can expect a hellish campaign in the run up to November 6. If you plan to vote for Romney, be prepared. The Democrats will call you a racist. And they won’t think twice about doing it.

    1. Matt

      “Americans as a people are fairly free from racial prejudice.”

      As a thesis, that pretty much sinks this entire diatribe. (C’mon, SUBHEADS in a blog comment?)

  6. J.T. Hatter

    You can’t have it both ways Matt. A racist country would not have elected Obama in the first place. Don’t whine when this half-white so-called president loses on November sixth.

    Don’t like my subheads? Not crazy about you hiding behind a one-name pseudonym…and what’s up with the photo? Are we suppose to get a glimspe into your soul?

    1. Jimmy Boggs

      JT: I hope you realize that nobody reads that lengthy crap no matter what it may say. But I guess it soothes your bloated ego to cut and paste it.

      Hey JT: I offered a bet to Todd Z and I will extend it to you: I bet 10,000.00 pesos (American dollars)that Obama takes it. Wanna put your money where you fat stupid mouth is, pal.

    2. Cynical Susan

      “A racist country would not have elected Obama in the first place”

      So — what percentage of a country has to be racist for it to qualify as a racist country? 100%? 50%? 45.7, the percent that DIDN’T vote for Obama? 25%? How about just the percentage of people who still call Obama a n***er? How about the percentage who are trying to get stringent voter ID laws passed in order to eliminate poor people (many people of color) from the polls? I think it’s either extremely naive or manipulative to claim that this isn’t a racist country.

      1. Todd Zaino

        Still playing the tired, old, race card Cynical…really? That’s so 1970s of you. God forbid we should actually have American citizens voting in this election…instead of the dead, and made of folk that reside in Chicago.

        I love this:

        “If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove that you’re not a racist, you’ll have to vote for someone else to prove that you’re not an idiot.”

        I’ll ask you one simple question Cynical Susan: What exactly has Barry done to deserve another four years?

        1. Cynical Susan

          “Still playing the tired, old, race card Cynical…really?”

          Why no Todd, I’m not. I’m questioning whether this country is or is not a racist country.

          1. Cynical Susan

            My reply to “Still playing the tired, old, race card Cynical…really?”


            “Why no Todd, I’m not.”

            That looks like an answer to me. May I ask the same, why do you not address questions that are asked of you?

          2. Todd Zaino

            Cynical and her ilk love the race card
            It’s easy to play and not very hard
            Our economy has burst
            Obama’s clearly the worst
            Our first white black socialist presidential retard

          3. Cynical Susan

            Wow. Retard. Wow. So much for your sensitivity.

            And you accuse me of something I’ve quite correctly denied. Whatever.

        1. Todd Zaino

          @John McCommas: Cynical and Wild Bill have no shame while they hide behind pen names…for all we know they both could be creations of Susan Campbell…they way they both trip over themselves to mention her it seems that way.
          John, Cyn and Billy both know, and fear, that the Democratic gravy train ride is coming to a grinding halt in just weeks. It’s sad that they fear adult, responsible government…but what do you expect from liberals?

  7. John Galloway

    Romney could get up in the morning, down a 32 oz Pepsi, transfer a few million dollars into his off shore accounts, make his own anti-Islamic video, kick a few puppies, and the majority of Americans people would still shove little old ladies out of the way and crawl over broken glass naked to cast their vote for him.

    Obama is that bad.

    Jimmy and Matt, what cave have you two been living in the past four years?

    1. Jimmy Boggs

      Yo, put your money where your mouth is and bet. Anyways Galloway, our side wins either way. Romney is a liberal but he just can’t come out yet.

      Ha ha…

  8. Lynne

    I never had the pleasure of meeting you, but I love your comments, Jimmy Boggs. (Personally, I think JT has one too many “t”s in his last name!)

  9. Karin McQuillan

    I have a lot of liberal friends. I know they disagree with Republican principles and proposals — profoundly disagree. That’s fine. They are decent, big-hearted, smart people. They love our country. I’m proud to have them as friends. There are many problems that face our nation that should not be partisan.

    So when will they say “Enough” to President Obama?

    Will I ever hear them say things like what’s below? For example:

    I want honest talk when our embassies are overrun and our ambassador and others murdered — not nonsense that it had “nothing to do with the United States,” 9/11, the killing of bin Laden, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda. I don’t want to hear about how “it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video — a film.” Do not tell me that it was a spontaneous riot caused by an obscure YouTube posting from last June. Please. We are really not that stupid.

    I don’t want one more lecture on Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance. Your job is to protect our country from the jihadis, not interfaith outreach.

    Why is our national security being limited to drone strikes? What about the need for intelligence? If we still had a functioning intelligence capability, wouldn’t we have known about the planning of the attacks in Cairo and Libya?

    I want free speech — it is not okay that a man who posts something obnoxious on YouTube was carted off by federal agents in the middle of the night.

    I don’t want my president to meet with Letterman and Beyoncé and refuse to meet with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. It is a dereliction of your responsibilities. It is unbefitting and disrespectful to the office of president. Israel is facing the looming threat of a nuclear Holocaust from Iran. What on Earth are you doing choosing Letterman over your job as president?

    I don’t want my president to hold a fundraiser in Las Vegas instead of staying in Washington when there are anti-American riots in 21 Muslim countries across the globe.

    I don’t want my president to tell me that the Muslim Brotherhood are moderates, when their motto is “Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

    I don’t want my president to not protect our embassies on 9/11.

    I don’t want a president who fought against sanctions on Iran in Congress, then gutted them with hundreds of exemptions, including oil for China, and claims that that’s all he has to do to deal with the threat of a nuclear Iran.

    I want a president to attend his national security meetings each day in person so he can ask questions and discuss options, instead of half the time skipping the meeting and reading a brief summary.

    Will my Democrat friends ever hold Obama accountable on the economy? Republicans were revolted by Bush’s overspending, and they created the Tea Party to insist on fiscal responsibility. Where are the rebels in the Democrat party? Will they ever say any of what follows?

    I want a president who works with his own party and submits a budget to Congress, as required by law.

    I want the president to take the debt seriously.

    I want to hear how you’re going to save Medicaid and Social Security from going bankrupt. People rely on those programs. We can’t afford for them to fail while you are milking them for votes.

    Don’t lie to me that “taxing the rich” is going to pay for your yearly trillion-dollar overruns.

    Stop printing money to finance our crushing debt burden. You are jacking up oil prices and the price of everything that is transported. You are killing the middle class every time they fill up their cars or buy groceries. You have doubled the price of gas. Enough. Stop spending money we don’t have.

    Twenty-three million Americans don’t have work. Fewer people are working now than when you took office. The recession and banking crisis ended in 2009. Mr. President, what policies did you put into place to stimulate the private sector, and where are the results? Any new ideas other than attacking the rich?

    My friends are silent, which leaves me with nothing but questions. Where is their sense of holding Obama responsible — for anything? Where is there sense of what is creepy behavior by a president? Obama has time for The Pimp with a Limp, but not for national security briefings? Where is their sense of our constitutional rights and protections? A citizen is carted off by federal agents for posting something on YouTube, and they are silent? Why aren’t they crying like Clint Eastwood when 23 million fellow Americans are out of work? How can they want four more years of the same?

    This is not what they voted for. They voted for something much better. Is there any broken promise, any failure, any lie, any flouting the law, any dereliction of duty, any divisive political tactic that would make them say “Enough”?

    1. Jimmy Boggs

      Could you elaborate a little further?

      BTW: It is illegal to yell “fire” in a theater and it should be. Perhaps addressing in law limiting obnoxious statements made on a new medium called cyberspace which is instantly sent out globally and created for only one purpose – to inflame, should occur.

      Just a thought. Freedom of speech, as with every other right of freedom, has attached responsibilities. Don’t think it does not.

  10. Todd Zaino

    As the crazy season begins last night I saw a Chris Murphy advertisement and it was priceless. Team Murphy put three letters in front of Linda McMahon’s name CEO. Only a liberal creep like Murphy could use CEO as a pejorative. Libs never fail to amaze.

  11. Stuart Schwartz

    Randy Newman is so back…but so is Linda!

    Linda McMahon, the tenacious and successful business executive, who two years ago beat the Republican establishment in the U.S. Senate primary in Connecticut, is shaping up to be a nightmare for Connecticut Democrats. The candidate for U.S. Senate threatens an upset of their anti-business, redistributionist, and nanny-state agenda in a state they have taken for granted.

    In Connecticut, as in neighboring Massachusetts and New York, it’s long been what the Democrats want, the Democrats get. But polls show that McMahon has been “unexpectedly” pulling ahead — mainstream media-speak for “we sure hate to report this, but integrity demands an occasional stab at the truth”– and offer a ghostly glimpse of the future in the national contest between another successful business executive — Mitt Romney — and a president who would feel right at home in this New England state’s Democrat establishment.

    Indeed: she’s baaaaack. That’s an adaptation of the line from Poltergeist II: The Other Side, the second in the classic horror film series that featured the chilling catchphrase “They’re back.” And for the Connecticut political establishment — think Chicago machine with a hint of clam chowder (regional favorite) — life appears to be imitating cinema art as the former chief executive officer of $1.2-billion entertainment juggernaut World Wrestling Entertainment is poised to do what seems to media and political elites only supernaturally possible, if at all: beat a Democrat in a deep, deep, deep blue state.

    Behind in double-digits two months ago, McMahon is quietly making a race out of it for the seat of retiring U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman (the independent pushed out of the party by the state’s increasingly radical Democrat establishment), with the Real Clear Politics poll average showing her about even. And, when you take out of the average the really-seriously-in-the-tank-for-Democrats pollster PPP and the poll of New York Times wannabe Hartford Courant, Linda — as she prefers to be called — is up by three points.

    How did this happen? After all, the New York Times and its columnists led the state’s newspapers and broadcasters in writing Linda’s epitaph two years ago after she lost a U.S. Senate bid to a media and inside-the-Beltway progressive favorite. Speaking of cinema and the supernatural: they thought they had driven a stake through her heart, having done in that campaign two years ago what they’re doing to Mitt Romney now. Scarcely a day went by in which a mainstream media outlet did not declare Linda’s campaign dead, her presence an insult to professional politicians (in Connecticut as in the rest of the country, defined as those under indictment or about to be), her business acumen irrelevant to the real business of government (redistribution of individual wealth), and her insistence on both individual and government responsibility hopelessly out of touch. Sure, she beat the Republican establishment to take the nomination, but she had met her match in an insider-anointed Senate candidate who had spent his entire adult life on the public payroll, had an elite education, spouted leftist generalities, and was a member in good standing of a major Democrat constituency…the morally challenged.

    But Linda learned. Media approval — Fugedaboutit! The New York Times can’t be reasoned with, the state newspapers were and remain staffed by political commentators drawn from the Democrat ranks, and the state’s broadcasters take their cue from the neighboring New York and Boston media. Linda McMahon, she of business experience, wrestling, money earned rather than acquired the preferred way through taxpayers — how frightfully un-PBS, how tawdry, how…how…how commercial! No, to Linda McMahon, caviar is just fish eggs, fall weekends a good time to grill (“I love barbeque,” she says), and a Yale University (the cultural center of the state’s Democrats) lecture on the transgender roots of the working class a great reason to be somewhere else. In Connecticut, where New York City’s elite goes for relief from nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s cascade of regulation, disdain is the best McMahon can hope for from a ruling class that regards all things Linda as the reincarnation of 19th-century Connecticut huckster P.T. Barnum. She doesn’t fit the traditional political mold…and therefore must be innately and “brazenly dishonest,” as the Daily Kos puts it.

    And so everyone who is anyone knows, absolutely knows that the Democrat she’s running against, Washington and Connecticut insider U.S. Rep. Christopher Murphy, is infinitely more qualified for the job. He’s a protégé of former U.S. Senator Chris Dodd, whose career the New York Post described as “a cavalcade of scandal.” Murphy has been accused of following in the footsteps of his mentor, having allegedly accepted a Dodd-like special mortgage deal in return for his vote for TARP money. And he’s a lawyer, Oxford-educated (the one in England, not the small town in Connecticut), and voted with friend Nancy Pelosi 98 percent of the time. Hint of scandal, elite schools, powerful Washington buddies, lawyer — does it get any better than that?

    The problem is, the polls are showing that the support of everyone who is anyone is not enough to overcome the growing conviction of the anyones who are everyone that Democrats have made a train wreck of the state’s economy. Employers are fleeing a tsunami of Barack-like regulation emanating from the state’s capital, while residents are running for the exits in a state that ranks third nationally in taxing property. In the face of this, McMahon is simply doing what she now does best: treating voters as adults with hopes and aspirations, who recognize that voracious politicians, government debt, and out-of-control regulation have become our greatest obstacle to opportunity. Her energetic crisscrossing of the state shows a low-key, serious candidate with a pro-business slant who simply doesn’t care what the insiders think of her or her campaign.

    She’s toast, she’s already lost, goes the conventional Connecticut/Democrat wisdom in a state owned-and-operated by unions, mainstream New York media, and the party of Barack Obama (The One beat McCain by 23 points here).

    But those darned voters. They just won’t cooperate. And maybe there’s a lesson here — that no election is lost just because the New York Times, the mainstream media, and the political and cultural elites say it’s lost.

    And maybe, just maybe, as Connecticut goes, so goes the nation. Good news for Linda and, perhaps, good news for Mitt. Because…she’s baaaaack!

    1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

      Murphy has finally taken the fight to go ole Linda Lovelace. He has momentum and he will win though not by much.

      Wanna bet?

          1. Stella Paul

            Go to the casino Bill, they could use the business, and you really seems to be jonesing for a bet.

            2010 midterms, and Walker recall vote…exploding cigars in faces of anti-American leftists liberals!

  12. peter brush

    Wanna bet?
    Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
    Mencken confirms, a.)don’t bet on Americano, and particularly Nutmeg, electorate to do the right thing, and, b.)no wonder job-creators can get so wealthy producing something as dumb as WWE. Too much democracy our problem, not too little.

  13. Thomas Lifson

    Nobody knows for sure how Barack Obama managed to get into and pay for the elite higher education he received, particularly given his self-admitted lackadaisical approach to school in his younger years. The president’s decision to keep his higher education records a secret is considered unworthy of attention by the mainstream media.

    Students of Obama’s rise have long been intrigued by a television interview granted by Percy Sutton, e borough president of Manhattan, and one of the most influential black politicians in New York City, in which he stated that:

    he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (snip)

    He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”

    Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”

    At the time the interview was granted in 2008, the Obama campaign succeeded in keeping it out of the mainstream media by having family members put out the story that Sutton in essence was a doddering old man. That’s all the media lackeys needed as an excuse to consign the interview to the memory hole, protecting the American public from any disturbing connections of President Obama to the Saudis.

    But, as the Bard write, “The truth will out.” Not from the media lickspittles of Manhattan and the beltway, of course, but from a newspaperman in Kalispell, Montana fercryin’outloud. Frank Miele, of the Daily Inter-Lake newspaper was reading through old newspaper and came across a syndicated column written by a Chicago Tribune columnist in 1979 that provides a fascinating light on the nature of the cabal that seems to have formed around Barack Obama.

    So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”

    Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer – Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.

    Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified.

    You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.

    Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.

    The kicker here is that the 1979 column was written by none other than Vernon Jarrett, longtime influential Chicago black leftist, close friend of Frank Marshall Davis, and father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, the closest aide to President Obama, and a major figure in his rise within the Chicago political world.

    There is no proof of anything here, of course. We don’t know that a close associate of the Saudi royal family funneled oil money into the education of Barack Obama (and presumably other Americans) on spec, hoping he would rise through the political system and be in a position to cripple American oil production and take a hard line against Israel’s defense against a nuclear attack. There is no proof ot it. But there is a reasonable suspicion, given the pedigrees of Jordan and Sutton, that these influential figures actually do know something about the inside story of the curious, inexplicable rise of Barack Obama on the slender reed of his actual accomplishments in life.

      1. Bill from susan Campbell's blog

        Cynical: Oh that’s so funny. They don’t even quote… those carpet-baggin, thiefin’ bunch of conservative plagiarists.

        Would you expect anything different? They probably attend a class taught by rush Limpboug called, “My Zombian History Experience.

        1. Cynical Susan

          Most if not all of these essay-length entries are cut and pasted from The American “Thinker” blog, or its ilk.

          1. Bill from susan Campbell's blog

            Cynical: Susan’s dear sister, Jenifer Jaff has passed and it is sad. I didn’t know her and I didn’t realize how devoted to health care or I might have gotten involved.

  14. Stella Paul

    Hey, Obama Lovers, now that our Ambassador is dead, our Benghazi consulate is a smoldering ruin, and its top secret documents have been snatched by Al Qaeda, do you still think your hero’s Libyan war is a smashing success?

    Because I sure do. Not from America’s point of view, of course; it’s a nightmare for our national security.

    But from the perspective of Obama’s biggest donor, the convicted felon and renowned Israel-hater George Soros, the Libyan War is a triumph. Why? Because Obama waged it illegally and without the consent of Congress. And he did it in the name of the political philosophy that Soros bought and paid for: Responsibility to Protect, or, as it’s so zippily dubbed by our global elites, R2P.

    Let’s lay the big facts on the table: Soros paid a flame-haired foreign policy vixen named Samantha Power to develop and popularize Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as a catchy tool to invade countries that he feels like invading.

    See for yourself: Soros’s Open Society Institute is a major donor of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, a terribly high-minded international institute of terribly high-minded people pledging terribly high-minded interventions with our military.

    Despite her busy schedule of posing provocatively for Men’s Vogue, Samantha Power found the time to serve as Obama’s top policy advisor on Libya. And in that glorious capacity, she persuaded him to send our military to Libya for the first self-proclaimed R2P intervention.

    Before I go much farther into our Libyan disaster, I want to tell you some pertinent facts about Samantha Power, a.k.a. Mrs. Cass (“The Most Dangerous Man in America”) Sunstein.

    Samantha Power doesn’t like Jews very much, and she really doesn’t like Israel, probably because so many Jews live there. Like Stephen Walt, her anti-Semitic colleague at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Power regards American Jews as a subversive element pushing America to side with its enemy, Israel.

    Chillingly, in 2002, Ms. Power told a television interviewer that America should use its military to invade Israel to protect the Palestinians. Alas, said Ms. Power with a rueful chuckle, that would require “alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import” – i.e., Jews.

    You see where this is going, right? Ms. Power proposes that America invade Israel on humanitarian grounds. Soros then pays her to develop this insanity into the benign-sounding “Responsibility to Protect,” and creates a lofty international institute to promote it. Obama then hires Power to try out R2P in Libya and, thereby get everybody desensitized to the concept.

    Here are the monumentally terrifying words that Obama said, as he sent our forces to Libya:

    “And that’s why building this international coalition has been so important because it means that the United States is not bearing all the cost. It means that we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally.”

    Dear George Washington, will you ever forgive us? In her infinite wisdom, America elected Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama, who offers up our best and bravest to be “volunteered by others.” And Obama got away with it.

    Sure, a few editorials squawked about Obama waging war illegally, on the basis of a United Nations Security Council Resolution, instead of a Congressional vote. The New York Times even scolded him for “legal machinations” that “set a troubling precedent that could allow future administrations to wage war at their convenience — free of legislative checks and balances.”

    I’m sure Obama was quaking in his golf shoes when he read those words — not. He was too busy plunging ahead in the next phase of his attack on Israel: unleashing his bare-fanged, unconcealed hatred.

    Nobody can accuse Obama of pandering for Jewish seniors’ votes in Florida this time round. He refuses to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and denigrates Israel’s concerns about Iranian threats of nuclear annihilation as “noise.” (Perhaps Obama and Ahmadinejad share the same press agent, because, oddly, that’s what the Nazi dwarf called it, too.)

    Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey even proclaimed he doesn’t want to be “complicit” in an Israeli strike on Iran, equating Israel’s potential self-defense against genocide with a crime.

    Meanwhile, the “international community,” of which Obama is so fond, continues its ceaseless work of demonizing Israel. If Obama gets a second term with “more flexibility,” it’s not much of a stretch to imagine the day when the United Nations and its assorted culture warriors screech that the poor Palestinians need R2P! And whether the American people want it or not, Obama will eagerly offer up our military “to be volunteered by others” to attack Israel.

    As the “catastrophic intelligence loss” of our Benghazi assets reverberates, it’s clear that Obama wasn’t defending American interests in Libya. His “responsibility to protect” didn’t even extend to our Ambassador. Even now, two weeks after the attacks, Obama hasn’t bothered to secure the consulate.

    But, Allah be praised, Obama still scored big in Libya. He and Soros are significantly closer to creating a United States of Islam to encircle Israel, and they’re armed with a proven doctrine to get America in for the kill.

  15. Christopher Chantrill

    Everyone’s getting their knickers in a twist about the 47 percent that Mitt Romney figures are going to vote for Barack Obama, no matter what. But do you know why they will vote for Barack?

    Wyatt Emmerich did the math back in 2010 for The Clevelend Current in Mississippi. It’s been written up at ZeroHedge and by Kathy Shaidle.

    The message is simple. Earn $3,600 per year as head of a family of three, and your net earnings (after taxes and government benefits) will amount to $31,630. But if you earn $60,000 a year, your net earnings will be $34,366. In other words, if you work your tail off and increase your earnings by $56,400, you will be only $2,736 ahead in take-home pay. The reason is that your government benefits will be cranked down from $30,762 a year to zero, and your taxes (including child care) will crank up from $2,787 a year to $25,634. Talk about chump change.

    But I am not interested in the raw numbers; I am interested in the science behind the numbers. It is true that I never read “Science Tuesday” in The New York Times or listen to “Science Friday” on NPR, but I am still interested in science. In this case, of course, the science in question is economic science. It is the branch of economic science called “marginal economics” that came in ten years after Karl Marx nailed his colors to the labor theory of value in Capital.

    Marginal economics solved the problem that had hag-ridden the classical economists. How could a jewel, that has high exchange value but low use value, be more valuable than a tractor that has low exchange value but high use value? The answer was that use value and exchange value are meaningless concepts. What counts is what the next buyer is willing to pay for a jewel or a tractor. Ever since, lefties have been in denial about this settled science. Some might even call them “deniers.”

    Here, we are interested in a question: suppose I am a welfare recipient and I decide to earn some more money. What will be the bottom line? How much extra money will I take home if I earn more money? What is the marginal tax rate I will experience? So I have Wyatt Emmerich’s spreadsheet to show his results using the settled science of marginal economics (xls here). The result is not pretty. If you are squeamish about oppression, hegemony, marginalization, and all that stuff, I suggest you stop reading now.

    You can see what our liberal overseers have being doing down at the liberal welfare office. They have made it extremely difficult for any of their helpless victims to leave the liberal plantation. Of course they would.

    If a worthy striver tries to break the bonds of dependency and increase her income from $3,625 to $14,500, the government will take away 43 percent of every extra dollar earned. But that is not the worst of it. If that welfare recipient really tries to bootstrap her way out of the poverty trap by increasing her earnings from $14,500 up to $30,000 per year, the government will take away 167 percent of every extra dollar she earns. Let’s rephrase that. If a worker earns a dollar more in wages the government, will take away that dollar and 67 cents more besides. Only when she starts earning over $30,000 per year will her marginal tax rate come down to a mere 77 percent.

    So now you see what President Obama really means by “fairness.” He wants chaps like himself and Dave Letterman to get a taste of the unjust and cruel marginal tax rate that a helpless welfare victim pays, the murderous fire of canister and grape she must hope to survive, as she and her sisters try to rush up the welfare-state glacis to capture the citadel of middle-class prosperity.

    Now, I am not accusing our liberal friends of deliberately setting up a killing ground for the 47 percent or even something as mild as a trap for welfare Heffalumps. Not at all. Few liberals understand marginal economics and marginal tax rates for all the time they spend consulting their various Science Tuesdays and Science Fridays.

    But I am suggesting that liberals have over the years instinctively learned, with what Michael Polanyi called “tacit knowledge,” how to build a welfare state that imprisons 47 percent of Americans or more under the bureaucratic domination of the administrative welfare state and that keeps that 47 percent voting Democratic.

    And I demand to know how much longer liberals propose to continue oppressing the 47 percent with this monstrous, unjust, cruel system that subjects so many Americans to a life of breaking rocks on the road to serfdom.

  16. Keith Edwards

    For Bill from Susan’s blog:

    When you can’t run on your failed record, the economy is heading straight over a cliff and the Middle-East is on fire, there’s nothing left to do but try and discourage your opponents’ voter base. And one way the Obama media is trying to discourage Romney voters is to barrage the public with skewed polling data on a daily basis showing Obama ahead nationally and across swing states.

    But pollsters like conservative Dick Morris and Democrats Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen are adamant that the presidential race between Obama and Romney is actually close enough to be within the margin of error when polling is done without bias in the sampling models.

    Interestingly, when polling is done with models that match more closely today’s electorate, Romney is either ahead of Obama or well within the margin of error.

    So don’t get discouraged and when you see those skewed polls being touted by the media as evidence that it’s over for Romney, just picture your favorite liberal media hack doing their daily spinning on a shiny poll in some sleazy club on 14th Street in Washington.

    I know that’s not a pretty picture, or maybe it is depending on your hack-de-jour, just remember the only poll that really counts in this campaign is the one we’ll be participating in on November 6th.

    1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

      Kieth: Wow. It is so special of you to site me. May God bless your heart and may the demons doom your pathetic soul. I guess you can’t speak for your self. But then again, you are a conservative. From the grand old Mental Party.

      Hey Mental Party member, do enjoy 4 more years of Obama. Then 8 years of our future beloved paramount leader, the future President Hillary.

      1. Keith Edwards

        @Bill from Susan Campbell’s blog:

        First off my name is spelled “Keith” not “Kieth.” Yourself is one word. You should have spelled “4” and “8” out, but I digress. Hillary will be far too old come 2016. As I read the following quote below, I thought of you and that bitter Cynical person:
        “The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their President.”

        1. Bill from susan Campbell's blog

          Hey, IPads have their drawbacks and I was not writing a dissertation -especially to you. I noticed the mistakes and didn’t care to fix them, Edfard Kieth.

          For one brief moment, I will engage you seriously then I will return to the kind of response that is befitting a person with your kind of comments.

          While Barack Obama is not a perfect president, he has shown as much guile, wisdom and understanding of the needs of the system then you will ever understand. He in inherited a country whose financial system was in free fall destined to bring on a real depression. You will never understand this point because you seem not to be intelligent enough.

          Obama has finally spearheaded a long overdue health care reform act. It falls far short of the goal of single-payer universal coverage. He had Republican obstructionists to deal with. He was unable to reel in the big pharma and they force this country to subsidize the rest of the world marketed who have pay guidelines on drug costs.

          I would have preferred Hillary Clinton who doesn’t have domestic chores and could have devoted more time in DC to furthering the agenda. Obama loves his family and insists on being there for them many evenings.

          I am sure a guy like you voted for and was satisfied with W Bush – a true madman and one inadequate and unable to handle the responsibility of the office.

          I gave you and I wasted too much time. I prefer to lob insults at your ignorance then waste time and words.

          1. Keith Edwards


            Were you living in a cave 2009-2011? Republican obstructionists? Please! Obama’s first two years were run with a Democrat controlled DC. If you don’t believe me…look it up. Obamacare is so unpopular that Fancy Nancy Pelosi’s district leads the way in waivers to avoid Obamacare. Billy, if Obamacare is the best thing since sliced bread…wouldn’t people be running towards it…instead of from it?

          2. Cynical Susan

            “Were you living in a cave 2009-2011? Republican obstructionists?”

            Let me think — who was it who said “we will break him?” And who was it who said “you lie!”?

  17. Roger D. Luchs

    Joe Biden’s comment “They gon’ put y’all back in chains” has shone a light on a truth the Democratic Party and its adjutants in the media have suppressed for over half a century. That is that the party’s electoral victories have been built upon the suppression of the aspirations of many of the nation’s most disadvantaged American citizens: blacks living in the nation’s inner cities. A look back at the party’s history reveals how this came to be.

    The Democratic Party was founded in the early 1830s, to challenge what its members thought were concerted efforts to grant the federal government additional powers to expand commerce. Their opposition, the Whig Party, believed in a stronger central authority to develop needed infrastructure and incentives. But the issue of slavery tore the Whigs apart, and many of its former members joined others in establishing the anti-slavery Republican Party.

    The South’s defense of slavery and its bitterness over the North’s destruction of its way of life gave rise to “the solid South” voting bloc, which endured as a potent political force for over a century. The nascent American progressive movement tied its fortunes to the Democratic Party early in the twentieth century because, like their Southern brethren, progressives were suspicious of what industrialization had wrought, including the formation of well-capitalized corporations so critical to growing economies.

    As it happened, the nation’s first progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, was a Southerner. He was born and raised in Virginia and spent his formative years in the South. In an era when social Darwinism fed into segregation’s guiding principle, that all men are not created equal, Wilson fit right in. He was an ardent segregationist, and his administration reinforced separation of the races in the public realm.

    Despite this, Wilson sought black support for his run for the presidency. He promised blacks that if they voted for him, he would take up their cause. Many did. But once in office, he reneged. He hounded blacks in the federal government out of their jobs and appointed Southern segregationists in their place. He even reversed the Navy’s longstanding policy of integration and took steps to insure that the nation’s armed forces followed suit. Wilson’s handiwork would take decades to overcome.

    It can be fairly said that the Republicans presidents who served between the end of Wilson’s term and the inauguration of the nation’s second “progressive” president, Franklin Roosevelt, did little to reverse Wilson’s policy on race. Yet at the same time, they did not engage in a Wilsonian “bait-and-switch.”

    Roosevelt, as it turns out, was more receptive to addressing societal abuses of black Americans and took some limited steps to assist them. But to maintain Southern support for his New Deal agenda, Roosevelt largely left Wilson’s policies intact. In kind, Roosevelt refused to support his wife’s crusade for an anti-lynching law. Southern blacks remained on their own in the face of the mob.

    In a less brutal vein, New Deal agencies continued the federal tradition of treating blacks as second-class citizens. But in spite of this, many blacks found jobs in New Deal projects and were grateful for that. Thus, in ever greater numbers, they switched their allegiance to the Democrats.

    Notwithstanding this shift, white Southerners exercised an unbending influence on Democratic politics and, over time, rose to chair the most powerful committees in Congress. Their positions and clout ensured that those advocating equal rights for black Americans would for the foreseeable future run into a stone wall.

    It was the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education that portended the eventual demise of the status quo in race relations. One of the South’s own, Lyndon Johnson, foresaw that black support for Democrats might dissipate if the party’s position on civil rights remained frozen in time. But Johnson’s Southern compatriots resisted his taking up the cause for a comprehensive civil rights statute. In the end, of course, Johnson prevailed, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law, but it is telling that, to achieve passage, Johnson had to secure massive Republican support and strong-arm Southern Democrat holdouts to cease their obstruction of what he called “the nigger bill.”

    Johnson then turned to pushing through Congress his “Great Society” agenda. Its supporters naively believed that if sufficient funds were spent on federally engineered anti-poverty programs, the government could lift the poor into a middle-class lifestyle.

    Dissenters, including one of Johnson’s assistant secretaries of labor, thought otherwise. Daniel Patrick Moynihan believed that there was something far more fundamental at play. After studying the matter intensely, Moynihan concluded that slavery and segregation had led to the breakdown of black family structure, and money alone could not put it back together again. Unfortunately, Moynihan experienced the sort of derision and charges of racism that have become a staple of Democrat electoral politics. His findings fell on deaf ears.

    Over the ensuing years, prominent Democratic leaders from the South aged and faded from the scene. Their successors were largely from the Northeast states and the West Coast, and these new Democrats’ worldview was informed by a different war and the urban riots that followed the murder of Dr. King. For them, their own experiences marked “the end of history,” their ideas for addressing the nation’s “shortcomings” definitive and unassailable. But it would take time to translate those ideas in policy, and so, in the meantime, they chose to do nothing to alienate their party’s key constituencies. Despite the increasingly obvious failures of the Great Society, and the havoc it was wreaking on its intended beneficiaries, its programs and their progeny became untouchable. So long as the inner-city poor were dependent on federal “largesse,” they were not going anywhere.

    Southern whites, however, had no interest in playing this game, and they balked at the idea of concentrating even more power in Washington. As time went by, they voted in ever greater numbers for Republicans. This forced the Democrats to come up with a new strategy for attracting voters and dollars. In this vein, they made identity politics one of their key political weapons, looking increasingly to narrowly focused interest groups already in their base to do some of the heavy lifting. Soon enough, though, the party found itself dependent on those very interest groups it had intended to harness to its cause, and it was those groups that gave the marching orders. Average citizens became more of a burden to Democrats than a benefit, and so organizations such as labor unions and pro-choice groups took charge.

    This turnabout presented the Democratic Party with a number of irreconcilable conflicts. Most recently, we’ve witnessed the divergence of the pro-choice lobby and Catholic institutions appalled by being forced to include birth control in insurance policies for their employees.

    But before this, another even more prominent conflict arose. It pitted the teachers’ unions against one of the Democrats most reliable voting blocs: black inner-city residents. As the school choice and school reform movements gained steam, many inner-city parents recognized that these might provide the tools to advance their children’s futures. Teachers in the public schools, on the other hand, saw these movements as a mortal threat and demanded that the Democrats maintain the status quo. And the Democrats obliged. Black children were consigned to “the back of the bus” while the teachers’ pay, benefits, and jobs remained sacrosanct.

    That this was the party’s choice was unashamedly announced by President Obama early in his term. He quite publicly proclaimed that he was ending of the District of Columbia’s school voucher program. No reason was given, nor did Obama find one necessary. He and his like-minded “progressives” more often than not had the means to send their own children to prestigious private schools, often located in the suburbs, so what difference did the pleas of the parents of voucher recipients make to them? For all practical purposes, then, Obama’s decision was a replay of Wilson’s reneging on his promise to blacks after he was elected and Roosevelt’s refusal to back anti-lynching legislation. Between the progressive agenda and quest to transform the United States into a European-style social welfare state and the future of disadvantage black children, the choice was obvious. One ignorant child is a tragedy, a million a statistic.

    It is truly ironic that a party which had for most of the 19th century enforced a doctrine of separate and unequal should, in the 21st century, impose an almost identical state of affairs dressed up in contemporary guise. Indeed, this is an especially remarkable twist, given that in the antebellum South, it was a crime to teach slaves to read and write. There is no such crime on the books today, because slavery is long gone. But in a moral sense, the crime has been revived, its victims there for all to see.

    Biden’s pander, then, was more than just a crude campaign ploy. It was also a signal that the Democrats have no intention of abandoning the enduring fiction of their own creation — that the future welfare of black Americans is safe in their hands, and a return to servitude is just one election away.

  18. equality 7-2521

    Colin PLEASE! We need a new post in order to get away from this nursery school playground. I am so tired of these comments by folks who may have been best defined by Spiro Nixon’s, (intentional merge of names) effete individuals speech.

  19. peter brush

    As it happened, the nation’s first progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, was a Southerner.
    Good report, Roger. I’m interested in the historical mechanics of the transformation of the Dems from Jacksonian states rights party into Wilsonian/FdR/Lbj centralized social engineering one. Put differently, why wouldn’t centralizers have been Republicans? It is the Republican Party of 1865, et seq, that, after winning its war to keep the South in the union, shifted power away from the states and to D.C. Any thoughts?
    And, Randy Newman is still a white liberal phony. How about a song for Little Squinty’s speech today in honor of Yom Kippur?

  20. Keith Edwards

    @equality 7-2521,

    Are your liberal knickers all in a bunch because common sense is finally going to prevail over all of this Reid, Pelosi, and Hopie Changie nonsense? Murphy the career politician is going down too…and Malloy CT’s Obama-lite is going to crash and burn in two years. The leftist Lovefest is O-V-E-R!

    You have to love the job the media is doing…cheerleading for Obama and the Dems…when Barry and Moochelle go down in a landslide-perhaps the media will finally get back to doing the job they are suppose to do.
    Randy Newman is overrated!

    1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

      You are either wealthy and stingy, or you a patsy for those who are. A poor Republican or a middle-income Republican is an oxymoron and you may be one without the “oxy.”

  21. Keith Edwards

    So much anger from Bill. Not surprising at all. Susan Campbell’s blogs celebrated Catholic-bashing, male bashing, drive-thru abortions, and anything else that was anti-American. Go swim in Campbell cesspool.

    1. Jimmy Boggs

      Keith: I recently viewed a video of a chimpanzee taking a crap while pulling at a long green turd as it exited from his behind. He then proceeded to bring the massive green turd to his face and began eating it. This is what you do with your convoluted, ignorant printed nonsense.

      Keith, my only question is, how does it taste?

      I know who you are.

      1. Cynical Susan

        We all know who he is. And once upon a time he couldn’t get enough of Campbell’s blog, went to at least three of her book-signings/readings, brought her a snack, brought his girlfriend, seemed happy when she suggested he was like the little brother she never had. But he turned on her when she prevented him from posting his then-nascent nastiness on her blog.

        1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

          Sounds like someone who is mentally unbalanced. They are all over the place and at times one is surprised by the sudden change of behavior. Edwards sound like such a person.

    2. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

      Hey Keith, I don’t have anger here or towards you or anyone else. You haven’t done anything to my family. You haven’t insulted my friends. No,this is just a little venting and I find it to be fun. I happen to like insulting a stranger who i will never meet and who happens to believe in myths.

      No, no anger. I’m just having a little fun as I did when the Courant allowed comments on their political stories.

  22. Michael


    This is what comes of you neglecting your blog.

    A few suggested titles for blog entries:

    1. Double-blind taste test reveals that Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable to 99%.
    2. The sun is not a black hole; will kill you nonetheless.
    3. A glimpse at the cutthroat world of country fair pie contests.
    4. Nice weather we’re having.

  23. John R. McCommas

    I am not sure what this is supposed to mean other than the Republican is winning and the Democrats have to play the RACE KARD again in order to try to change the subject.

    Are you better off than you were four years ago? That is the real question.

    I thought I had arrived at a certain state of security with my partner and I. Instead we struggle to pay our bills even after eliminating the frills such as eating out which we loved to do.

    0bama is not working out.

    1. W Bush

      Mr McCommas, when I occupied the seat, I carefully avoided that question. Instead, I fressed up my Secretary of State Condi Rice and this made Laura so made that she threw a bottle at me once hitting me in the eye and I had to conconct a story about chocking on a pretzel and falling out.

      1. W Bush

        “choking” that is. Ahh never could talk very well nor spell. In fact, ahh couldn’t even run the country very well.

    2. Todd Zaino

      John, you won’t an answer from this crowd-they are busy lying about the unemployment figures, telling everyone how great Obamacare is, how nice Barry is, how pretty Moochelle is, and how much of an out of touch that rich fellow Mitt is.
      I’ll answer your very simple question John:

      Nope, I am not better off than I was four years ago.

      1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

        Todd; the truth is you have never been very well as you were in the past. The problem is that every time you look back four years, you were worse off then the time from which you look back. Translated, this means that you did OK as a new-born.

  24. Bruce Walker

    Conservatives are rightly concerned that the left wins close elections by fraud. The photo identification laws which Republican legislatures have passed are a sensible reform to make the theft of votes harder, but judges whose partisan allegiance and ideological tendencies are transparent invent reasons not to enforce those laws.

    The left already buys votes by the tens of millions using our tax dollars to elect toadies who will oppose our economic interests and moral beliefs. The left creates a vast superstructure of taxpayer-funded public schools, libraries, and colleges to brainwash young minds into becoming robots of leftism. The left does not need or want to buy or coerce individual voters; it does not even think of Americans as individuals.

    So why does the left still need to steal votes? The left needs voter fraud because at its core, the corrupt, vain, and dumb left is just that weak. What can we do, though, if judges step in and stop laws intended to stop voter fraud from being enforced?

    There is one sure cure, which sounds draconian and maybe even weird, but which is simple, clear, fair and pure. We ought to revise our election laws so that Americans vote in elections the way that we used to do when all four presidents on Mount Rushmore were elected president: we ought to restore the public ballot.

    The way it should happen is that when we cast a ballot in an election, we do it in the open, with a photo taken and mailing address recorded at the time our vote is cast. The secret ballot was an Australian, not an American, creation, and the rationale was that this way, employers and landlords could not punish those who voted against the interests of the rich. It has not worked, and it no longer makes sense for several reasons.

    The issue of abolishing the secret ballot has just become very timely because a federal judge in Denver has ruled that there is no constitutional right to one. Judge Christine Arguello is absolutely right in her legal reasoning, and conservatives — some of whom perversely support yet another federal control over how states run elections — need to understand that confusion and secrecy are the allies only of thuggish leftism.

    Even now, how Americans vote is no secret. Any good political statistician can tell with very high confidence how a married white male who works in private industry is going to vote or how any single black woman who works in government is going to vote. That is why elections are “called” with only a few votes cast.

    Moreover, federal and state laws require the reporting of political contributions. In fact, the Federal Election Committee makes it very easy to search online political contributions from individuals and to find out not only how much money they have given, going back many elections, but also a great deal of personal information going back years.

    Do you want to find out how much “John Smith” has given in Minnesota federal elections? A quick check shows all of those individuals, dating back to 1997 and the federal website, at no cost, and provides you the resident address, the employer, and other information to make sure that you have the correct identity. Surely an individual or business would face more potential intimidation because it gave money to an opposition candidate than if a voter voted for an opposition candidate.

    Beyond giving money to political campaigns, people register to vote, and those records are public; there are firms which actually rent this information to political organizations, like Voterslistonline. This shows much more than just support for a particular candidate; it shows support for a particular political party. Overwhelmingly, registered Republicans have indicated that they will vote for Romney, and overwhelmingly, registered Democrats have indicated that they will vote for Obama.

    There simply is no real secrecy about who is supporting whom for political office in America, but the mystical talisman of the non-constitutional “secret ballot” insures that Democrats can steal votes. It also means that mistakenly cast ballots of the sort that was alleged in Florida 2000 can be resolved by the easiest possible method: ask the voter whom he intended to vote for on his muddled ballot.

    Secrecy in politics, including elections, is the enemy of good government. We do not expect members of Congress or any state legislature to cast a “secret ballot” for a particular bill, and when murkiness attempts to hide the votes of legislators, we quite properly get angry. When the Electoral College meets, would we deign to allow its members to vote by secret ballot? Even the Supreme Court issues opinions in which justices concur, dissent, or concur in part and dissent in part.

    Voter fraud became possible when vote-counting became secret. Republican legislators have tried every reasonable plan to keep the secret ballot while also keeping the vote honest. It is impossible. Some state legislature — any state legislature controlled by Republicans — ought to restore to our nation the utter integrity of the ballot by rejecting that failed experiment known as the secret ballot. It is the gateway drug to voter fraud.

  25. Don Wilkie

    In a recent article, “Dreams From Governor Abercrombie,” the relentlessly false claims Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie made concerning our president’s birth were exposed. Upon examination, it appears that Ann Dunham’s girlfriends from high school were having “dreams” just as fanciful as Abercrombie’s.

    Like Abercrombie’s story, the girlfriends’ early versions of Ann’s visit to Seattle track with details from Obama’s autobiography, Dreams from My Father. This is the same story Obama rolled out in both convention speeches — the “improbable love,” the multicultural marriage, the hopes for Barry’s future. Unfortunately for Abercrombie, Susan Botkin Blake, and Maxine Box, we now know that their recollections are in no small part erroneous.

    The question that needs to be asked is whether these recollections were innocent or orchestrated. The evidence suggests the latter. The evidence also suggests collusion between the storytellers and the major media to shape the narrative to fit the myth of the charmed multicultural family upon which Obama built his candidacy. To see how dreamlike are the girlfriends’ memories, one need only analyze the story they tell of Ann’s “visit” to Seattle with baby Obama.

    In a March 27, 2007 video interview, Blake said artlessly that “[Ann] came to visit briefly one afternoon in 1961 when Barry was just a few weeks old.” Blake recounts how the baby “pooped,” and she ended up changing his diaper.

    By January 2008, Blake has begun to add convenient detail. In a Puget Sound Business Journal article, she recalls that she and Ann had kept in touch by mail, that Ann said she “was in love with an African exchange student from Kenya,” and that in spring 1961 she “wrote to say she was marrying him.” As to the late August 1961 visit, Blake tells that story much the same as she had in 2007 — “He was sweet and pink and very new”– but she adds the detail that Ann was “on her way from Hawaii to join her husband at Harvard.”

    In a February 2008 Seattle Times article, Maxine Box echoes Blake. According to the Times, “Box last saw her friend in 1961, when she visited Seattle on her way from Honolulu to Massachusetts, where her then-husband was attending Harvard.” Adds Box, “She seemed very happy and very proud. She had this beautiful, healthy baby. I can see them right now.”

    Box also claims that Ann told her earlier, presumably by mail, that she had “met a Kenyan grad student named Barack Obama” and that “they married and had a son.” According to Box, “the marriage fell apart a few years later.” It would seem that by early 2008, both women had aligned their story with the official narrative.

    In summer 2008, conservative author and truth-teller Michael Patrick Leahy interviewed both women for his book, What Does Barack Obama Believe. Blake embellishes the story she has been telling about the late August visit: “[Ann] was very excited about her new life, and her husband. She was nuts about [Obama Sr.], crazy in love.” Blake also adds a clarifying detail: “She left [Hawaii] just as soon as she had clearance from her doctor to travel with her new baby.” In his conversation with Blake, Leahy got the sense that Obama Sr. had not been present for the birth, and he certainly did not prevent Ann from leaving with the baby immediately afterward.

    According to Leahy, a week or two after the Blake visit, Ann stopped by to visit Box. Box relates essentially the same story Blake did. “Ann was only a year out of high school and was already married with a child,” she told Leahy. The baby was brand-new. “She was on her way to join her husband,” she adds, “but I don’t know where.” In this retelling, neither Blake nor Box ever saw Ann again.

    From early 2008 on, Blake’s and Box’s recollections agree with the fable in Dreams: Ann and Obama Sr. were madly in love. He left Ann to go to Harvard, and she followed, with child in tow, to be with him. These recollections, however, are simply impossible. In reality, Ann Dunham was not “visiting” Seattle. She moved there by August 1961 and began class at the University of Washington that fall semester.

    Ann could not have been on her way to Harvard or even have mentioned Harvard. No one, including Obama Sr., knew he was going to Harvard until May of 1962. Blake, however, anchors the date of the visit to late August 1961 by referring to a young baby, “pink and very new.” If we accept the president’s date of birth as August 4, 1961, then Blake has to be talking about 1961. In fact, she describes the baby as being about “three weeks old,” a much too specific recollection.

    Blake’s description of Ann as being “nuts about him, crazy in love” does not mesh with reality. Ann had just left Obama Sr. for good. The marriage, if indeed there was one, did not fall apart “a few years later” as Box stated. It had already fallen apart.

    In an August 2008 Washington Post article, ace reporter David Maraniss took a crack at telling the Obama origins story. Despite the fact that he was writing a lengthy biographical piece on the next president three months before the election, and in the Washington Post, no less, Maraniss made a hash of it.

    Maraniss acknowledges that Obama Sr. graduated from the University of Hawaii in June 1962. “Then,” he writes, “before the month was out, he took off, leaving behind his still-teenage wife and namesake child.” By “behind” he means Hawaii. As Maraniss tells it, Ann and the baby followed Obama Sr. to Harvard, but first they stopped in Seattle for a visit.

    Yes, Ann drops by Blake’s mother’s house with the baby for iced tea and sugar cookies, but here Blake’s story changes again. “[Ann] was on her way from her mother’s house to Boston to be with her husband,” she tells Maraniss. “[She said] he had transferred to grad school and she was going to join him.” Blake adds, “She seemed so confident and self-assured and relaxed. She was leaving the next day to fly on to Boston.”

    “But as [Blake] and others later remembered it,” Maraniss writes, “something happened in Cambridge, and Stanley Ann returned to Seattle. They saw her a few more times, and they thought she even tried to enroll in classes at the University of Washington, before she packed up and returned to Hawaii.”

    Here, virtually every fact is wrong. Ann’s friends saw her in 1961, a year before Obama Sr. went to Harvard, and she did enroll at the University of Washington. In late August 1962, Ann was not coming from her mother’s house in Hawaii. She was residing in Seattle. She had been in Seattle for at least a year and certainly had no intentions of “leaving the next day” to see her husband in Boston. There is no reason to believe she ever went to Boston.

    With the spring 2010 publication of The Bridge, New Yorker editor David Remnick became the first orthodox scribe to concede that Ann actually moved to Seattle with the baby. Leahy, by contrast, had figured this out in 2008. Remnick buffers the news of the move by claiming that Ann took “extension courses” in the fall and implies that she did not arrive until the winter. This finesse allows for at least a few months of happy family life in Hawaii.

    In the Remnick book, Blake fully endorses the official phony narrative: Ann falls in love, flies off to Maui to get married, and then visits Blake in Seattle with the baby. “I was so impressed by how relaxed and calm she was when she had Barack — she was excited about going to Africa — and how in love she was, how her husband was going to take a serious role in government.” Observe that now Ann is going to Africa, not Cambridge.

    As cause for the breakup, Blake cites the excuses Obama had offered in Dreams: a hostile father-in law, Mau-Mau uprisings, and the “beheading [of] white women.” As to the timing of the breakup, Remnick offers no real clues. He does, however, say that Ann and the baby followed Obama Sr. to Cambridge in the fall of 1962, “but the trip was a failure, and she returned to Hawaii.”

    Four years after his 2008 article, Maraniss’s book, Barack Obama: The Story, was published. By now, he was acknowledging that Ann had moved to Seattle in August of 1961. This fact forced him to change the date of the “visit” from 1962 in his earlier version to 1961 while keeping many of the details the same. In this new version, Ann is still drinking lemonade and eating sugar cookies at the Blake house with her newborn, but all talk of happiness, excitement, and future trips to Cambridge are gone.

    Here, too, we catch Maraniss in a likely bit of literary fraud. In the original 2008 version, which is repeated in his 2010 book Into the Story: A Writer’s Journey Through Life, Politics, Sports, and Loss, Maraniss quotes Blake as saying, “She seemed so confident and self-assured and relaxed. She was leaving the next day to fly on to Boston.” In the 2012 book, he quotes her as saying that Ann appeared “so confident and self-assured and relaxed. She nursed him and was burping him, and oh, he pooped, and she handed him to me — ‘Here, Botkie.'” Unless Blake just happened to begin each sentence with exactly the same word sequence years apart, Maraniss inserted the Boston quote on his own. He does not give a date for his interview with Blake in the book.

    Looking at the many versions of the “visit,” one sees that as conflicting facts have been revealed in the conservative blogosphere, recollections have been conveniently modified to fit them. From the initial version of a young woman, “crazy in love,” stopping off in Seattle in 1961 on her way to see her beloved in Boston, we subsequently are told that the “visit” really happened a year later in late summer 1962 when Obama Sr. was at Harvard.

    When it becomes clear that Ann had moved to Seattle and was never on her way to see her husband in Boston, the “visit” is reset to 1961. In this final version, a somewhat subdued and cryptic Ann is on her way, in Maraniss’s words, “to bigger and better things,” not Kenya or Cambridge.

    How do we explain that all three narrators — Blake, Box, and Abercrombie — remembered events that validated the fictional story told in Dreams and then amended those stories to fit newly revealed facts? One has to wonder whether these three were told what to remember by someone who wanted to protect the official story. A complicating factor, of course, is that mainstream authors like Maraniss and Remnick were helping the women protect the myth of Obama’s origins. Abercrombie did not need help. He is a self-actualized serial dissembler.

    Did Team Obama knowingly defraud the public? Were Abercrombie, Blake, and Box instructed to confirm a story the candidate and his people knew was false? Was the false story peddled to get our Obama elected? If Abercrombie, Blake, and Box were encouraged to lie about something this basic, the rational man has to wonder what else Obama is hiding.

  26. Daniel Joppich

    I was listening to the local public radio station this morning and the Liberal host of the talk show was debating – I mean, interviewing Herman Cain. In the interview he asked Mr. Cain to explain his public statement about voters being stupid.

    I personally think this is a pretty harsh view on the part of the ex-presidential hopeful.

    In my family we have a saying, “there are no stupid people.” There may be stupid animals, a stupid tv show or a stupid computer, but we don’t call anyone stupid. So when Herman Cain referred to stupid voters, my interest was piqued.

    Over the last couple years since Obamacare passed I have been conducting a stealth survey on the subject. It involves no questions, just one statement and I evaluate the response.

    On a regular basis I will throw out the comment, “I can’t wait for Obamacare to begin so that I can get my healthcare for free.”

    The typical reaction to this statement may serve to prove Mr. Cain’s point. An informed voter will immediately point out correctly that that is not how it works. Unfortunately the vast majority of the people will either agree with me verbally or nod in agreement.

    The latter I might consider to be stupid.

    Merriam Webster defines stupid as, among other things, “acting in an unintelligent or careless manner” or “lacking intelligence or reason.”

    So maybe on this topic those voters are stupid. They are certainly acting carelessly and lacking reason. If they are not informed enough to understand something that will have such a profound impact on their own lives and the lives of everyone around them that they care about, then I would have to say they are “given to unintelligent decisions or acts.”

    These people shouldn’t feel bad though because based on these definitions of stupidity they may be in good company.

    This week Governor Romney released another year of tax returns. Like 2010, his 2011 effective federal income tax rate was around 14% and he paid close to $2 million to the IRS.

    I just happened to be meeting with a client who is a veterinarian, so she is no doubt very intelligent. The topic of Romney’s tax returns came up and she shrugged and said that she wishes she only paid 14%. I informed her that the average middle class taxpayer pays less than that. The conversation ended there because I don’t know her well enough to discuss politics with her.

    I just happen to have access to her tax return information and calculated her family of five’s effective federal income tax rate at a little over 7.2% on $144,000 income. Also on my desk was a tax return for another couple with about $116,000 of income and their effective federal income tax rate was 6.03%.

    These veterinarians, engineers, nurses and such are not stupid if they think they pay more income tax than Romney. They are just misinformed. Misinformed by our Liberal media and misinformed by our president.

    President Obama is claiming repeatedly on and off the campaign trail that somebody making $50,000 pays a higher tax rate than Romney.

    My real life experience tells me that Obama may be “acting in an unintelligent or careless manner” or maybe just “given to unintelligent decisions or acts,” but in my family we never call anybody stupid.

      1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

        Cynical: But we already knew that these neo conservs don’t have an original thought in their heads. They are smirking because they can take up space that no one reads. That is childish, of course. Be we already knew that. Since, politically speaking, they are on the loosing side, their child-like behavior is but the last refuge of an idiot. They are probably sociopathic, beer-drinking belly-sagging with a cig in one hand, couch potato where the indentation left in the couch is rather large as this retired male who has too much time on his hands runs to the fridge to crack open another cold one.

        1. Cynical Susan

          Wellllllllllll — that seems to be opposite-but-equal stereotyping, too similar to what the right does to the left. I do agree with some of your points, calling it childish behavior when someone takes up so much space with material that’s not related to the original post in any way, just going to American “Thinker” etc. and cutting and pasting for the fun of it, and the hurling of ridiculous insults. I’m interested in the surveys that have suggested that liberals tend to see more shades of grey and conservatives tend to see things as black or white — I think that contributes a lot to the kinds of posts made here. There’s so much nastiness that’s launched that it’s hard not to respond, which is of course what we shouldn’t do, eh?

          1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

            Susan, you are correct but I just happen to roll out the insults better then they can – once I get going. And besides, it’s fun.

          2. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

            Cynical Susan, I recall reading a survey that id’d liberals as a group that would rather laugh and have fun and conservatives who are predestined to watch shows like CSI Miami.

            I prefer to laugh. And be a liberal. In truth, I my belief system is taken from all sides but when pushed, I swerve to the left, LOL.

  27. Todd Zaino

    Moonbats are sweating like a bunch of whores in church. Perhaps comparing liberals to whores is unfair, to the decent, and kind whores out there. They realize that the cutain has been pulled back on the whole Obama Hope and Change fairy tale. Shame on Obama for putting future generations in debt up to their eyeballs. Shame on anyone who would vote for someone based on their skin color. The sad thing is that leftists have little or no shame. November sixth is coming fast, and I suspect after Romney is declared the winner we will once again see the Occupy crowds rushing to American cities to burn and tear them up…leftists always leave such a nice legacy don’t they? The only way Mitt doesn’t win in a landslide is if the anti-American leftists steal this election, and would anyone be surprised if that happened?

    Cynical and Willy Wonka…are you better off now then you were four years ago? Cue the crickets sound effect.

    1. Cynical Susan

      “Moonbats are sweating like a bunch of whores in church. Perhaps comparing liberals to whores is unfair, to the decent, and kind whores out there.”

      I rest my case. (And no Todd, I’m not a lawyer, I’m using a cliche.)

    2. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

      I am better off now even though the question is essentially meaningless to those of us who think before speaking unlike yourself.

      But I sense your frustration at the prospect of another 4 years of Obama and 2 not one senators representing Connecticut.

      Tough luck, paisano.

Comments are closed.