The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Disapprove of Gay Sex With Teenagers? ‘In That Case Just Shut Your Mouth’

Posted on | December 7, 2013 | 433 Comments

Neutral Objective Journalism:

A columnist for the Huffington Post site says it is homophobic to criticize gay men who use Internet sex sites to meet teenage partners and only “bigots” are offended by such “nurturing intergenerational bonds.”
Publicity about a relationship between 39-year-old Hollywood screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and 19-year-old British diving champion Tom Daley has inspired criticism even from some gay rights activists.
Joshua Epstein, a blogger who identifies himself as a gay progressive Democrat, reacted to the Black-Daley affair on Twitter: “He could be his father. Yuk.” That reaction was condemned by Huffington Post columnist Michelangelo Signorile, who said only “internalized homophobia” could cause gays to criticize such relationships.
“There is an undercurrent in these comments — the ‘chicken hawk’ charge — that suggests that gay men are more likely to sexually abuse underage teens, the ugliest lie about gay men out there,” Signorile wrote Friday in Huffington Post’s “Gay Voices” section. “Hardcore homophobes are predictably pointing to Black and Daley as supposed proof. But many gay men too, so defensive about the charge and deathly fearful of how it’s used, overcompensate by saying ‘yuk.'”
Signorile specifically defended sites that promote “intergenerational” gay sex. “Some younger people are attracted to older people, and vice versa,” he wrote. “There’s even a gay website called Daddyhunt. The famed novelist Armistead Maupin’s 27-years-younger husband, Christopher Turner, founded it. The met on another one of Turner’s sites, HotOlderMale.com. If that’s not your thing, it’s totally cool, but in that case just shut your mouth.” . . .

Read the whole thing at The American Spectator.

 

Category: Gays, Sex

Grabbing the Other End of the Rope

Posted on | December 7, 2013 | 130 Comments

Rush Limbaugh occasionally says, “I don’t need ‘balance.’ I am balance.”

That is to say, when all the major institutions of politics, media and culture are dominated by liberalism, the conservative who aims to critique and counterbalance the regnant ethos need not concern himself too much with presenting The Other Side of the Story.

As Limbaugh also likes to say, if you don’t like what you hear on his show, you can turn almost anywhere else — ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. — and get the opposite viewpoint. The rise of conservative alternative media, especially Fox News, has somewhat attenuated Rush’s status as a lone dissenting voice, and conservative commentary now flourishes online, so it is possible to find an echo-chamber on the Right (what Julian Sanchez called “epistemic closure”). And during the Bush presidency, the Left created institutions (notably Media Matters) based on the dubious theory that Fox News and other conservative media had too much influence.

That theory cannot be reconciled with the facts:

NBC Nightly News  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 million
ABC World News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 million
CBS Evening News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 million
Fox News (The O’Reilly Factor) . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 million
MSNBC (Hardball with Chris Matthews) . . . . . 940,000
CNN (Anderson Cooper 360) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605,000

Fox News is, as it proudly boasts, Number One in Cable News, accounting for 68% of the cable news audience. Add in the major network evening news broadcasts, however, and the total news audience is closer to 30 million, of which Fox’s share is about 11%.

In other words, 89% of news on TV is reliably liberal in its perspective, and the Left’s obsession with Fox News is absurd. Why should Media Matters have an annual budget of $10 million to counteract the influence of a network that gets 11% of the news audience?

This understanding of how liberalism continues to dominate the news media should inform how we view the mission of conservative alternatives and, for those of us who operate within the universe of conservative New Media — including bloggers and those who use Twitter, Facebook, e-mail newsletters and podcasts to spread the message — it should shape our understanding of that mission.

Could I write a bullet-point presentation on the insights to be gained from this kind of analysis? Sure, but anyone can look at the data and draw their own conclusions, and one of the most valuable insights is that no one has a monopoly on truth. No blog is an island, as I like to say, and it is important to avoid the narcissistic temptation of thinking that your site is the Only Site That Really Matters, defining the limits of the known ideological universe, a one-stop source for Everything Anybody Could Ever Need to Know About Anything.

All of the forgoing 400-plus words are a sort of preamble to explaining why I sometimes “go off on a tangent,” as critics might say, writing about relatively obscure topics (e.g., “Free Kate“) that some readers view, quite rightly, as being outside the mainstream. Regular readers have come to expect this from time to time, but as it is not my habit to explain or justify my actions — just do the work, and let the work speak for itself — occasionally even the most loyal reader may complain.

“Gosh, Stacy, enough with Bill Schmalfeldt already!” or, “Why aren’t you writing about that awful thing John Boehner just said?”

  1. Modesty of Ambition: How much difference will it make for me to become the 423rd conservative blogger to denounce Boehner’s latest betrayal of the conservative grassroots? Will Boehner even notice? Who am I to imagine that my own criticism would add anything useful or helpful to the discourse?
  2. Avoiding Redundancy: If every blogger takes the same approach to covering current events, we are merely divvying up the same “pie” of readership. Suppose that there are five or six major national news stories being discussed on Fox News, being linked at the top of the Drudge Report and so forth. Unless I have something distinct to add to the discussion, what is the benefit to readers — or to myself — of jumping aboard the punditry bandwagon on every one of those big stories, or any of them, for that matter?
  3. Independent Judgment: Don’t outsource your decision-making to others. Don’t let other people tell you what to think, and don’t let other people decide on your behalf what is important. Part of what we despise about the liberal media is their godawful groupthink herd instinct: “Look! A school shooting! Cancel everything and go wall-to-wall 24/7 on this! Get me a banner chyron: A NATION MOURNS.”

This last point is another case where Rush Limbaugh’s example is helpful. Some days, Rush will begin his show by talking about golf or football — it’s just what he feels like talking about that day — and invariably, he’ll get complaints from listeners who call in to ask, “Why aren’t you talking about The Big Story?” As if Rush were obligated to spend all three hours of his show discussing whatever the latest political headline is at The Drudge Report. Limbaugh doesn’t outsource his decision-making. He didn’t become the most successful radio host in history by letting other people do his thinking for him.

There are some stories that everybody in the news business really is obligated to cover, e.g., a presidential election campaign. But even then, we don’t all have to cover the story the same way, and there are other stories that remain newsworthy.

The Apotheosis of a Secular Saint

Nine hundred words into this explanation, I hope readers get the general point. Maybe you don’t understand every choice I make, and I seldom bother to explain my choices, but just because you don’t know what I’m doing doesn’t mean that I don’t know what I’m doing.

So . . . Nelson Mandela.

Prior to his death Thursday, Nelson Mandela wasn’t a topic to which I’d ever paid much attention, but in the past two days I’ve written three long posts totaling something like 5,000 words:

Have I “gone off on a tangent” here? That thought crossed my mind this morning when I saw a few posts on the subject (including Doug Hagin at Daley Gator and Bob Belvedere at the Camp of the Saints) and felt the urge to write another long post.

Wait a minute. Why am I doing this? If I write yet another Mandela post, won’t it look like I’m obsessed with this story?

Sometimes you really have to second-guess yourself like that. Step back and ask whether you have lost perspective.

So I had to go through the process of remembering exactly what it was that got me off on this particular tangent. Thursday afternoon, I was working on something else (and babysitting my newborn grandson) when news of Mandela’s death was announced. The coverage on Fox News was not really different from the idolatrous praise issuing from every liberal media organ and, even checking Twitter — where I’m following 5,000 feeds, at least 80% of which are conservatives — I didn’t see much counterbalance to this apotheosis.

“Saint Nelson of the Blessed Necklace,” indeed.

Once I’d changed my grandson’s diaper, fed him a bottle and rocked him to sleep, therefore, I rolled up my sleeves and got to work, and I kept it up Friday when, with the TV turned to MSNBC, I consumed a steady diet of the over-the-top effusion of obituary praise to which my own fact-based writing was intended as an antidote.

Well, too much antidote can be a poison and, as noxious as is the liberal media’s lopsided depiction of Mandela’s legacy, you can only go so far to balance it before you start writing “Happy Tales of Apartheid: Recalling the Halcyon Glories of the Botha Regime.”

And that ain’t in my job description.

Like I said, it helps to step back occasionally and ask yourself, “Why am I doing this?” In this case, it was about an obvious example of media bias that I did not see other conservatives hastening to correct. And, worse, you had people like Max Boot at Commentary trying to sell conservatives a shiny Whig-history version of Mandela, to produce an Official Conservative Narrative from which no one might deviate without being deemed Unacceptable in Polite Company.

So . . . farewell, Bill Buckley and Russell Kirk.

Atheists, Madmen and the Cult of Progress

Think Progress has done us an unintentional favor by publishing “The Right Wing’s Campaign To Discredit And Undermine Mandela, In One Timeline,” a handy reminder for these youngsters (and Max Boot is only 44, which makes him a callow punk in my book) that those who stood athwart history yelling “stop” — to invoke Buckley’s description of the conservative mission — were generally of an opinion contrary to those expressed by some of their presumptive heirs.

Eminent alumni of elite universities are not prone to intellectual modesty and, although I’m sure Max Boot (BA, Cal-Berkeley, ’91; MA, Yale, ’92) could provide a plausibly persuasive argument for his moral superiority to Russell Kirk, excuse me for saying that Boot shouldn’t bother writing that argument, because I’m not buying it.

“Where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.”
— Viscount Falkland, 1641

“Thanks to our sullen resistance to innovation, thanks to the cold sluggishness of our national character, we still bear the stamp of our forefathers. We have not (as I conceive) lost the generosity and dignity of thinking of the fourteenth century; nor as yet have we subtilized ourselves into savages. We are not the converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helvetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers; madmen are not our lawgivers. We know that we have made no discoveries, and we think that no discoveries are to be made, in morality; nor many in the great principles of government, nor in the ideas of liberty, which were understood long before we were born, altogether as well as they will be after the grave has heaped its mould upon our presumption, and the silent tomb shall have imposed its law on our pert loquacity.”
— Edmund Burke, 1790

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.”
— G.K. Chesterton, 1923

An attachment to cultural inheritance, a preference for tradition over “innovation,” a skepticism toward the Cult of Progress — by such impulses is the conservative guided, disdaining political fads and intellectual fashions, and respecting the wisdom of his forebears.

My own forebears were, of course, all Democrats. My mother was especially stubborn in her partisanship and once, when I was about 13, she gave me a brief lecture on the virtues of partisanship.

One person, she explained, can make little difference in politics. Your ability to defend and advance your political interests is only effective if you do so through the instrument of your party. People who say, “I vote for the man, not the party” are therefore fools, blown around by the wind and prone to believe whatever they see on TV, because when you vote for the man, you get the party, and if the party in power is not your party, you don’t have any real influence.

Why did my mother feel the need to tell me that? At the time, I was somewhat mystified, as this sermon on party loyalty seemed to come out of nowhere, a fully elaborated argument delivered in response to some casual remark I’d made while my mother was driving me to school band practice. Not until many years later did it dawn on me: I was 13, and so that must have been in the fall of 1972.

My mother voted for George McGovern!

Understand that my parents were New Deal Democrats who had grown up on Alabama farms during the Depression and for whom FDR enjoyed an exalted status perhaps exceeded only by Jesus Christ and Bear Bryant, not necessarily in that order.

But in 1972, even such staunch Democrats balked at the prospect of voting for George McGovern against Richard Nixon.

My parents were Democrats, yes, and remarkably liberal in the context of the times, but they were also quite patriotic, anti-Communist and, because my father worked at the Lockheed aircraft plant in Marietta, their own economic interests were directly affected by the Pentagon budget which those damned hippie peaceniks proposed to slash. (God bless the military-industrial complex!)

Confessions of an Ex-Democrat

My mother died when I was 16, so by the time I had reason to reflect on her 1972 lecture on party loyalty, it was too late to ask her, but what I’m pretty sure inspired it was that she had been arguing with my father about how they should vote. Maybe Dad was thinking about voting for Nixon. My mother, however, was clear: Always vote for your party.

That lecture stuck with me, and I remained a proudly partisan Democrat for years. Yes, I voted for Mondale in ’84, but didn’t even bother voting in 1988 because, really, what the hell was the point of voting for Mike Dukakis in Georgia? In 1992, however, I thought Democrats had finally come to their senses by nominating two moderate Southerners, Bill Clinton of Arkansas and Al Gore of Tennessee, and naively believed that at last we had vanquished the ridiculous ghost of McGovernism that had haunted us for 20 years.

Oh, foolish hope!

Scarcely had Bill Clinton finished the oath of office before he embarked on a series of left-wing initiatives that he had perhaps promised in various speeches or policy papers, but which I — relying on the news media’s depiction of the campaign — had not realized were part of his agenda. What I thought I was voting for was deficit reduction and some help for the working class. (Am I the only one who still remembers the “middle-class tax cut” that Clinton promised but never delivered?) The best way to describe my disillusionment in 1993-94 was what someone said about Clinton’s Cabinet appointments: He promised us a “Cabinet that looks like America” and gave us a Cabinet that looked like the Dukakis senior campaign staff.

Like my mother said: You vote for the man and you get the party and, within a year of Clinton’s election, I realized the Democrats had become a party that not only didn’t give a damn about me, but was in fact openly hostile to my interests and beliefs.

It’s weird how I’d made it all the way through the Carter presidency and the 12 years of Reagan-Bush without noticing this. But I was in college when Reagan was elected and, having grown up as a Georgia Democrat, my natural sympathies were with Carter. And I wasn’t remotely “political” at the time, more interested in women, beer and rock-and-roll than anything else. After graduation, I lived a few years as a happy-go-lucky bachelor, working hard to try to get ahead and playing hard when I wasn’t working, and there wasn’t much time left over to pay attention to what was going on in Washington, D.C. Sure, I became a journalist, but from 1986 to 1991, I mainly worked as a small-town sports editor, and politics had no impact on local sports.

By the time Clinton became president, however, I had become an assistant special projects editor at the daily Rome (Ga.) News-Tribune. I had also married a fine Christian woman, bought a little house and had three kids (our twin sons were born five weeks before Election Day 1992). In other words, I was now a responsible adult, a taxpayer and a citizen with a mortgage and a family, and a job that required me to pay attention to the tide of current events.

There was no single “Road to Damascus” moment, but the revolution in my political allegiance was quite rapid once it dawned on me: Bill Clinton was not my president and the Democrats were not my party. Clinton’s loyalty was to Ivy League intellectuals and radical interest groups — NARAL, the gay-rights lobby, environmentalists, gun-control fanatics, ethnic identity outfits and every other subversive hippie “cause” imaginable — and the collective influence of these various left-wing fringe groups on the Democrat Party was such that it had become hostile to the interests of everyone whose pursuit of the American Dream involved hard work and free enterprise.

God damn you Bill Clinton, and God damn the Democrat Party.

Having been lectured by my late mother about the value of partisanship, when I turned, buddy, I turned.

Those damned Democrats had hoodwinked, bamboozled and betrayed me. They had ripped me off, sold me out, stabbed me in the back and fucked me over, and from the moment I realized what a chump I had been, my mission has been simple: Revenge.

The Democrat Party must not merely be defeated, it must be utterly destroyed — humiliated, annihilated, wiped from the face of the Earth so that only a smoldering crater is left to mark its former existence — and my complaint with the Republican Party is that it is overcrowded with half-hearted weaklings and simple-minded hacks who lack the requisite cunning and relentless bloodthirsty eye for the jugular necessary to accomplish this work of political destruction.

See, this is what I understand about politics: It operates on a Newtonian principle. For every action there is an equal and opposition reaction, and the way you make a difference is not by aiming for the moderate center, posturing as The Voice of Reason.

Ultimately, there are only two sides in the fight, so if you’re not doing everything you can to help your friends (and, of course, hurt your enemies) then you’re pretty worthless in politics. To hell with moderation. Winning in politics is about gathering a mob, whipping them into a frenzy of hatred, and making sure they understand that the other party is to blame for whatever it is they’re pissed off about.

Politics is a tug-of-war, and if you see things going in the wrong direction, grab the other end of the rope and pull as hard as you can.

Things have been going in the wrong direction for way too long, and people ought to be more pissed off about it than they are. Sometimes I become angry that other people aren’t as angry about it as I am.

So if I occasionally lose my temper and go off on a tangent, try to understand what I’m doing: I’m pulling as hard as I can, and we need more people pulling on the right end of the rope.

Balance? I don’t need balance. I am balance.

 

Category: Fox News, Journalism, Media Bias, Rush Limbaugh

Shocking Video: ‘Coven’ of Pro-Abortion Women Attack Church in Argentina

Posted on | December 6, 2013 | 97 Comments

You may have seen this video earlier — Ed Morrissey featured it at Hot Air — but I didn’t see it until it was tweeted to me by Covenant College student Keifer Wynn and, because it was in Spanish, at first I wasn’t quite sure what I was looking at.

“Abortistas atacan a católicos que defendían la Catedral de San Juan,” is the headline, and the description: “Estas son las hordas de lesbianas y abortistas del Encuentro Nacional de Mujeres.”

So, translation via Google: “Abortionists attack  Catholics defending the Cathedral of San Juan. These are the hordes of lesbians and abortionists of the National Conference of Women.” Keep in mind that when I watched this, I hadn’t even translated the titles yet:

OK, so what the heck is going on there?

Every year in Argentina, the National Conference of Women — sponsored by various non-profit NGOs — gathers in some city and, in recent years, the event has featured a protest against the Catholic Church. So when the radical feminists marched on the cathedral in San Juan de Cuyo on November 24, they were met by 1,500 Catholics who locked arms to form a human shield around the cathedral:

The women, many of them topless, spray-painted the men’s crotches and faces and swastikas on their chests and foreheads, using markers to paint their faces with Hitler-like mustaches. They also performed obscene sexual acts in front of them and pushed their breasts onto their faces, all the while shouting “get your rosaries out of our ovaries.” . . .
While the site of the protest was the front of the cathedral . . . “the whole city awoke to graffiti in favor of abortion.”
Inside the cathedral, 700 people were also in prayer accompanied by their bishop . . .
After unsuccessfully trying to get into the building, the women burned a human-sized effigy of Pope Francis. “If the pope were a woman, abortion would be legal,” they shouted . . .
The police reportedly told the media they were unable to intervene because “they are women.”

Remember, I originally saw this in Spanish, posted by the blogger at Pagina Catolica, who said (Google translation):

Our readers know that the Spanish and American folk tradition, the Coven or Salamanca (in Argentina), is a meeting of witches, in which to realize the devil is present not only acts of sorcery, but also aberrant sexual practices.

Indeed, the raving frenzy of these radical feminists bespeaks an infernal origin. Susan Brinkmann at Women of Grace writes:

According to a report appearing on the Catholicism Pure and Simple blog, some of the youth who defended the cathedral said they had the impression that “it was a ‘satanic attack’ with ‘demonic figures’ being seen as part of an ‘anti-Christian world revolution.’  In one place the extremists lit a big fire and burned an effigy of Pope Francis as they danced around the fire.”

An “anti-Christian world revolution“?

Putas sucios comunistas! (That’s “dirty communist whores” in Spanish, at least according to the Google translation.)

UPDATE: Amazing the things you can learn on Twitter:

 

Category: Abortion, Argentina, Catholics, Feminism, Religion

‘They Started to Fight Over Her and I Knew She Was Going to Be Raped’

Posted on | December 6, 2013 | 197 Comments

 

Maybe if it had been committed by the Duke lacrosse team, you would have heard of this atrocity by now, but it happened five years ago in another country. Amanda Marcotte probably didn’t notice:

Jamie Paterson, 17: “I was lying down and I could hear them undoing the TV and then throwing it across and then something fell on me. I thought it was the TV, but it was my mother. And then I looked up. And then they dragged her away again and the carpet was covered in blood. They kept saying to my father, ‘We are going to kill you, we are going to kill you now.’ . . .
Alan Paterson (her father): “She was bargaining her flute, she was bargaining her [school] badge. She was doing it, almost knowing what was going to happen to her was almost inevitable.”
Jamie: “He said to me ‘I’m HIV positive. But you’re young, I don’t want to ruin your life. So if you could just give me gold. I want gold, money and I want your gun.’I said to him, ‘We don’t have it.’ He hit me around the head and said, ‘No, you have a gun, don’t lie to me.'”
Bronwyn Paterson (her mother): “They started to fight over her and I knew she was going to be raped.”
Jamie: “And then he took me into the bathroom and locked me in and raped me there.”

You never heard of Jamie Paterson or the criminal gang that attacked her, and I never heard about it either until I saw a video interview with Jamie, which was included at the end of a long post Kathy Shaidle wrote in July about another violent criminal gang:

During the 1950s Mandela was banned, arrested and imprisoned for challenging apartheid . . . and, following the 1960 banning of the ANC, he went underground . . .
During this time, he and other ANC leaders formed its armed wing — Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK). . . .
That “armed wing” carried out terror attacks at shopping centers, movie theaters and other civilian targets . . .
And when Mandela was arrested, the authorities claimed to have uncovered “210,000 hand grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 1,500 time devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminium powder and 1 ton of black powder.”
Governments around the world, such as the ones in the U.S. and Great Britain, placed the ANC on their terror lists, along with the PLO, the IRA and the FLQ.

You really should read the whole thing at PJ Media, because it explains how the violent terrorist Nelson Mandela got an image makeover with the help of liberal celebrities in America and England who jumped aboard the anti-apartheid crusade when it became a fashionable cause in the late 1980s. None of those celebrities live in South Africa, of course, and none of them gave a damn about the epidemic of violent crime that has afflicted South Africa in recent years, an epidemic of which Jamie Paterson and her family were victims.

Well . . . context, says our friend Drew when he derides David Swindle as a “conservative juiceboxer” for Swindle’s remembrance of Nelson Mandela’s communist past. Certainly I have labored to supply the necessary Cold War context of what the ANC actually meant during the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher refused to be intimidated by “further intensification of the armed struggle.”

Professor Donald Douglas also provides context:

We know that Mandela, in his membership with the African National Congress, was a terrorist and Communist, even though his ties to the Moscow-led revolutionary world program were disguised at the time. Here’s Telegraph UK from last year, “Nelson Mandela ‘proven’ to be a member of the Communist Party after decades of denial.” (And see the fascinating contemporary piece from Thomas Karis, at Foreign Affairs, “South African Liberation: The Communist Factor.” Also, here’s a communique from South African Communist Party Leader Joe Slovo from 1989, “Message by Joe Slovo, General Secretary of the South African Communist Party, to the Soweto rally for the released ANC leaders.”)
In any case, it’s no surprise that we’re seeing overwhelming acclaim for Mandela’s legacy from the left and the right, although it’s pretty pathetic that even so-called conservatives are attempting to tamp down the meme that Mandela was a Communist.

Some conservatives are like a dog that’s been kicked a few times and flinches at a gesture — this is especially true on the subject of RAAAAACISM! — and, as I said late night, “many conservatives are so intimidated by the enormous prestige of liberalism that it takes a stern contempt for mere popularity to speak unpleasant truths.” Nobody wants to be excluded from polite society, or to show up on a left-wing “kill map” for gay psychos with a Chik-fil-A rage.

Is that our job? To be interrogated as if we were suspects? To assume, and to confirm, the media’s self-vaunted status as the Judges of Truth and the Priests of Righteousness?
Why would we ever concede that to them? . . .
Do we ever swing the hot light around and begin Watching the Watchmen?

See, the media’s omissions from Mandela’s biography are not random.

It is impossible to believe that any figure on the Right, with a comparable history of association with terrorist violence, would be celebrated by the media as a secular saint when he died.

“Well, yes, but . . .” and then our conservative friends give us a lecture (which sounds a lot like what MSNBC has been saying in its wall-to-wall Mandela telethon today) about how Mandela embraced peace and democracy and everybody lived happily ever after.

Except maybe for the people who got killed or raped.

The Gospel of Saint Nelson does not merely omit the long-ago victims of ANC terrorism, but also manages to ignore the ultra-violent reality of contemporary South Africa, “The Rape Capital of the World.”

It’s not me, the Evil Right-Wing Racist, who’s saying this, it’s South Africans themselves, and most of the victims of South Africa’s world-historic rape rampage are black, as are their rapists.

And hey, let’s talk about murder: In 2011, the murder rate in South Africa was 31.9 per 100,000. The U.S. rate is 4.7 per 100,000.

How is it that all these liberals on MSNBC who wring their hands and blame the NRA for the horrible murder rate in America don’t blink an eye in praising the wonderful post-apartheid government of South Africa, where the murder rate is six times as high?

In 1991, at the height of the crack cocaine epidemic, the U.S. murder rate was only 9.8 per 100,000 — less than a third of the murder rate in South Africa today. Mexico, wracked by drug cartel violence, managed to get its murder rate down to 22 per 100,000 last year.

Three years ago, a government study of South Africa’s crime problem described several factors, including  “a subculture of violence and criminality” and “problems of inefficiency and corruption” in the criminal justice system. Gosh, that sounds kind of like . . .

Detroit, where the murder rate is 54.6 per 100,000.

OK, so South Africa is 40 percent less dangerous than Detroit, but that’s small comfort to the 15,000 or so South Africans who are murdered every year. This crime epidemic is why many South Africans live in gated communities protected by private security forces, but this was not enough to protect university professor Alan Paterson and his family when they were attacked at their home in Sandton, an affluent suburb of Johannesburg.

The family’s attackers became notorious as the Razor Gang, named after their leader Raymond “Razor” Bheki Zulu, and they “carved a devastating crime swathe through nearby suburbs,” according to a recent article about another of the gang’s victims:

Diana Thomson’s life was changed forever on the stormy night eight years ago when her son Mike was stabbed and shot repeatedly as he fought for his life, while trying to protect his wife and little children in their Johannesburg home. . . .
He, his wife Lorna and their three children aged between seven and 11, were at home on Thursday, September 27 2007 as a wild storm dumped so much water into the swimming pool that it began to overflow.
Mike went out to backwash the pool when he saw four men hiding in the corner of his courtyard.
He shouted and Lorna heard the crack of a handgun amidst the thunder. It was a shot going into Mike’s torso. He was a big, strong man who was running a karate school with his brother Allan, and he continued to fight the gang, sustaining 14 stab wounds before another shot killed him.
The gang moved into the house where Lorna and her children were tied up and threatened with death before the robbers fled in a waiting car.

The same gang attacked a pastor’s family:

In the robbery of Pastor Neil Rischbieter, his wife Carol and two other women were raped and his elderly parents terrorised for three hours. . . .
On December 17, five men broke into Rischbieter’s Buccleuch home — where he and his wife Carol throw swimming parties for children from a nearby shelter.
Neil’s parents, Joey and Noel, and a woman renting a cottage also live on the property. On the night, the tenant had three friends over, including another woman in her 20s.
The gang tied up their victims and rounded them up in Joey and Noel’s cottage.
Carol was brought to the cottage but then marched back to the house. Her assailant tried to force her into the bathroom, but she refused, and he raped her in the bedroom.
“I was praying for him and his forgiveness,” she said.
“I told him: ‘You don’t need to do this. You don’t know how much Jesus loves you. Jesus will forgive you’.”
The young tenant and her friend were also raped and one of their male friends was beaten by the robbers after he slipped out of the phone cords used to tie him up.

Alan Paterson described the sadistic glee of the criminals who attacked his family:

“They enjoyed every bit of the attack. It was brutal.” . . .
[T]he robbers pistol-whipped [Paterson’s wife] and then stabbed her in the back of the head and neck with a pair of scissors.
“All the time they kept shouting at her: ‘You f***ing white bitch.’ “

And, in case you forgot, 17-year-old Jamie Paterson got raped:

 

Raped by an HIV-infected criminal? All too common in South Africa, which is not only “The Rape Capital of the World,” but also a country in which more than 5 million people are infected with the AIDS virus, according to official statistics:

At least 28% of South African schoolgirls are HIV positive compared with 4% of boys because “sugar daddies” are exploiting them, Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi has said.
He said 94,000 schoolgirls also fell pregnant in 2011, and 77,000 had abortions at state facilities, The Sowetan newspaper reports.
About 10% of South Africans are living with HIV, official statistics show. . . .
Last year more than 260,000 people with AIDS died — almost half the figure of all those who died in the country.

Nobody else is going to remind you of that today. There are a lot of things the media doesn’t want you to know about, aren’t there?

 

Category: Crime, Terrorism

1987: Thatcher Responds to ‘Further Intensification of the Armed Struggle’

Posted on | December 6, 2013 | 79 Comments

When Margaret Thatcher died in April, the British Left reacted with the kind of ugly viciousness you would expect of the British Left. This is worth remembering today when liberals are demanding that everyone must now forget the reality of who Nelson Mandela was.

Thatcher’s death, in fact, was the occasion for the Left to recycle a misquote about South Africa intended to smear Thatcher. Her enemies claimed she said, “The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation… Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud cuckoo land.” The first sentence is a decontextualized misquote; the second is a distorted misattribution.

In the 1980s, the leadership of the ANC (African National Congress) included Marxist revolutionary Chris Hani, who was both an official of the South African Communist Party and the Political Commissar of the ANC’s military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (also known as “MK”). Hani, who had engaged in guerrilla warfare in Zimbabwe, set up “an underground infrastructure” for MK inside South Africa.

This background is necessary to understanding the Cold War context of the situation in South Africa during the ’80s, a context to which I alluded Thursday evening in recalling Mandela’s anti-American rhetoric. Liberals would now have us forget both those words, and the historic context of Soviet-backed “wars of national liberation” that characterized Moscow’s policy in the Third World.

Along with Ronald Reagan, Thatcher was a leader of worldwide opposition to communism and, in the 1980s, the West was under intense pressure to impose economic sanctions on South Africa, pressure which both Reagan and Thatcher resisted.

My conservative friend Joel Pollak’s reaction to historic evidence of Mandela’s alliance with communists reminded me that Pollak, born in 1977, can be excused for forgetting — as he was only a child at the time — when left-wing students on American university campuses staged protests demanding “divestment” from South Africa.

These protests were the kind of childish radical tantrums Pollak would certainly abhor. The “shanty wars” at Dartmouth, where conservative students were suspended for attempting to dismantle protesters’ huts on the campus green, were memorialized in a 2006 book, The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent. Pressure for “divestment” and sanctions against Johannesburg was a perfect example of how Western liberals enthusiastically embraced Soviet policy aims during the Cold War.

It was predictable: If the KGB wanted something, the hippie scum at American universities would march in favor of it, and whatever the Kremlin opposed, the hippie scum would denounce as an intolerable abomination. Hell’s bells, the fact that the United States doesn’t have more nuclear power plants today can be blamed on those idiotic Commie stooges in the “No Nukes” movement of the 1970s and ’80s.

Historical context is everything, you see, and in 1986, the communist leader of the ANC’s military wing, Chris Hani, warned that the ANC was “going to step up attacks against those factories, transnational corporations and monopolies, which exploit and maltreat the South African working class and in the process it is more than probable that white civilians will lose their lives.”

Communist ANC leader Chris Hani.

This was an outright threat of terrorism which Western leftists found perfectly acceptable, at a time when Fidel Castro had 40,000 Cuban troops in Angola where, with the Soviet Union’s active support, Cuban solders were fighting South African troops deployed in support of anti-communist UNITA insurgents in a bloody civil war.

The sanctions and “divestment” campaign against South Africa was therefore an effort to advance Soviet foreign policy aims in Africa by sabotaging the economy of a key Western ally.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

In October 1987, at a summit conference of the British Commonwealth held at Vancouver, ANC official Mfanafuthi Johnstone “Johnny” Makatini “said Britain’s refusal to support these measures would result in ‘the further intensification of the armed struggle’ and also in attacks on British corporations in South Africa.” At a press conference in Vancouver, Thatcher answered a question about these threats:

“When the ANC says that they will target British companies, this shows what a typical terrorist organization it is. I fought terrorism all my life and if more people fought it, and we were all more successful, we should not have it and I hope that everyone in this hall will think it is right to go on fighting terrorism. They will if they believe in democracy.”

You can read the rest of Thatcher’s October 1987 press conference and find a handy lesson on the nature of liberal media bias in the fact that so many of the media questions amounted to parroting Johnny Makatini’s demand for sanctions against South Africa. Thatcher said “apartheid is a totally repugnant system and must go,” but also pointed out the political, military and diplomatic reality:

So far as Britain is concerned, we believe that sanctions would only harden attitudes rather than promote progress . . .
There is a very considerable Soviet influence throughout Africa. There are main Cuban forces, as you pointed out, in Angola, but I understand that there are Cuban people or forces or advisers in something like twelve other countries in Africa and also there are of course East German advisers and, of course, as you know, a considerable number of the ANC leaders are communists. . . .
I will have nothing to do with any organisation that practices violence. I have never seen anyone from ANC or the PLO or the IRA and would not do so. Nor will we have any truck with any of the organisations; we never negotiate with hostage taking or anything like that. But please, I hope you will fight terrorism and violence and not in fact embrace it.

The status of the ANC as a terrorist organization — comparable to the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Irish Republican Army — was quite clear to Thatcher, as was also the communist allegiance of many ANC leaders, who sided with the Soviets in Angola. The same Johnny Makatini who at Vancouver threatened “intensification of armed struggle” and attacks on British companies in South Africa, turned up a month later at an ANC meeting to denounce South Africa’s “criminal warpath” against “the People’s Republic of Angola.”

If it walks like a Communist duck and talks like a Communist duck . . .

Having supplied the proper historical contest to Margaret Thatcher’s (accurate) description of the ANC as a “terrorist organization,”  what about the “cloud cuckooland” part of the quote her enemies falsely attribute to her? This leftist smear stems from a question asked of Thatcher’s spokesman, Bernard Ingham, about the potential for a violent revolution in South Africa in 1987:

“When a Canadian reporter suggested that the African National Congress might [forcibly] overthrow the white South African regime, Thatcher’s spokesman responded, ‘It is cloud cuckooland for anyone to believe that could be done.'”

Wait a minute: Haven’t the liberal myth-makers told us that Mandela’s ANC was a peaceful movement? Why, then, would a reporter have asked in 1987 whether the ANC might stage a violent revolution? Well, if it walks like a Communist duck . . .

 

IRONIC FOOTNOTE: Chris Hani, the Marxist revolutionary who in the 1980s threatened violence against “white civilians,” was assassinated in 1993 by a Polish immigrant, Janusz Walus, using a pistol loaned to him by a pro-apartheid official, Clive Derby-Lewis. Hani’s assassination increased tensions and fears of further violence. Nelson Mandela gave a speech calling for peace: “Now is the time for all South Africans to stand together against those who, from any quarter, wish to destroy what Chris Hani gave his life for — the freedom of all of us.” The crisis sparked by Hani’s assassination is credited with hastening the first post-apartheid election in 1994 that elected Mandela president.


Category: History, Terrorism

LIVE AT FIVEEIGHT: 12.06.13

Posted on | December 6, 2013 | 8 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


TOP NEWS
Nelson Mandela Dead At 95

The former South African president in a 1986 photo

A flood of emotion from around the world


French Reinforcements Arrive In Central African Republic
UN authorizes French, African military action


“Ice Friday” Bears Down On South, Midwest
Snow, freezing rain, sub-freezing temperatures from Texas to Indiana



POLITICS
Congress Nears Modest Accord On Budget

Speaker of the House John Boehner

House Democrats insist on extension of unemployment; Boehner not averse

Bratton Returns To Lead NYPD

Obama Tries To Quell Youth Revolt

White House: Oh, You Mean THAT Uncle

Shoppers Face Rising Milk Prices If Congress Can’t Break Farm Bill Impasse

Administration Close To Giving Wind Farms A Decade-Long Pass On Killing Eagles

Study Says Union-Backed Fast Food Wage Proposal Could Cost Half A Million Jobs

Bipartisan House Votes Against Patent Trolls

Fast-Food Protests Spur Backlash



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Asian Crude Prices Mixed As Data Point To US Economy Rebound: NYMEX $97.37, Brent $111.02
Arts, Culture Add $500B To GDP
Markets Steady Despite Talk Of Fed Stimulus Cut
Economy Grows At 3.6% In Q3, Beating Estimates
Shell Scraps Plans For Gulf Coast Gas Plant
Kohl’s Tries Overnight Hours In Runup To Holiday
Apple Guides Shoppers Inside Stores With iBeacon
Microsoft And Law Enforcement Team Up To Disrupt “ZeroAccess” Click-Fraud Botnet
Android Flashlight App Caught Collecting & Selling User Data
Ryan Seacrest Just Invested $1 Million In This iPhone Keyboard
The Next USB Plug Will Finally Be Reversible



SPORTS
Pounded On The Glass, Heat Fall To Bulls

No Wade? No Rose? No problem for Bulls

Boozer, Bulls hand Miami 107-87 defeat

Are The Mariners Dumb Enough To Pay Cano What He Wants? Probably Not


Jags Hand Texans 11th Straight Loss

Lundquist Solid As Rangers Top Hapless Sabres

Pens Cruise To 5-1 Win Against Sharks

Poms Melt As Aussies Turn Up The Heat In Adelaide

Knicks Crush Nyets In First Meeting Of Big Apple Busts

Hall’s Hat Trick Leads Oilers To Rout Avalanche



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Amanda Bynes: “I’m Doing Well”

So what’s she doing after rehab?

Heading home for the holidays after months in rehab

Keri Russell, Shane Deary Filing For Divorce

Liam Hemsworth Wants Another Shot At Miley Cyrus?

Jennifer Lawrence Talks Fame, Fortune And Family


Mila Kunis & Ashton Kutcher Secretly Engaged

ABC Brass Turn Thumbs Down On Barbara Walters’ Pick Of Ed Snowden As Most Interesting Person Of The Year

Mark Wahlberg: “My Mom’s Not Speaking To Me Right Now”

“Real Housewives” Star Porsha Williams Officially Divorced From Kordell Stewart

Katy Perry, Niall Horan Meet Up For Dinner In NYC

Britney Spears May Retire After Las Vegas For Marriage, More Kids

Couple Recalls Paul Walker’s Secret Act Of Kindness A Decade Ago



FOREIGNERS
Bundesbank Raises German Growth Projections
PRC Stocks Fall As Coal Shares Slump Amid Pollution Concerns
Lethal Storm, Tidal Surge Forces Thousands From Homes In UK
Jihadi Attack On Yemen Defense Ministry Compound Kills 52
Pope Forms Commission To Advise On Prevention Of Sex Abuse
Russia PM: No Amnesty For Political Prisoners
Aide To Nork Leader’s Ousted Uncle Seeks Asylum In ROK
US Charges Russian Diplomats With Healthcare Fraud
Thailand’s King Calls For Unity In Birthday Speech



BLOGS & STUFF
The Looking Spoon: Settling Whether Santa Is Liberal Or Conservative
Aewl’s Abode: The True Spirit Of Christmas
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: More Magical Thinking From The Post-Modern President
Proof Positive: They Say That A Conservative Is A Liberal Who’s Been Mugged…
Doug Powers: Obama Says Christmas Is No Time To Tell People They’ve Lost Insurance
Twitchy: No, Paris Hilton Did Not Confuse Nelson Mandela With Martin Luther King
American Power: Obama To Paint The Golden State Red?
American Thinker: Is ObamaCare Barack Obama’s Vietnam?
The Necropolitan Sentinel: Obamacare Watch – The “Working” Part Of The Enrollments Doesn’t Work
Don Surber: Daily Scoreboard, December 5
Jammie Wearing Fools: Obama Admits He Lived With Illegal Alien Uncle In Boston
JustOneMinute: Tales From The South
Pat Dollard: Trey Gowdy Asks “What’s To Stop Obama From Deciding Not To Enforce Election Laws?”
Protein Wisdom: “Obamacare Architects Plugged Their Ears And Misled The Public”
Shot In The Dark: Open Letter To Minimum Wage Strikers
The Jawa Report: Melanie Phillips On Islam In Britain – Parts 1 & 2
The Lonely Conservative: Liberal Group Hijacks Message Of The Hunger Games
This Ain’t Hell: WWII Veteran Bumped – He Made The Plane Too heavy
Megan McArdle: “Doc Shock” On Deck In Obamacare Wars


Deadline to submit links for this weekend’s FMJRA is noon tomorrow, December 7.
DO IT.


Category: Live at Five

‘Unspeakable Atrocities’

Posted on | December 5, 2013 | 135 Comments

“It’s a tragedy what is happening, what Bush is doing. All Bush wants is Iraqi oil. There is no doubt that the U.S. is behaving badly. Why are they not seeking to confiscate weapons of mass destruction from their ally Israel? This is just an excuse to get Iraq’s oil. . . .
“If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America.”
— Nelson Mandela, Jan. 30, 2003

De mortuis nihil nisi bonum, eh?

History is distorted beyond recognition because liberals insist that their heroes must be everyone’s heroes, and many conservatives are so intimidated by the enormous prestige of liberalism that it takes a stern contempt for mere popularity to speak unpleasant truths.

The news of Nelson Mandela’s death at age 95 was announced while I was babysitting my newborn grandson Jimmy, and between attending him and my desire to be properly decorous, it was surprisingly easy to say nothing until I happened to see Mark Krikorian RT a message from the Communist Party of Scotland:

Ah, ancient history. There’s no one under 40 who really remembers the Cold War and the era of those Third World “wars of national liberation” in places like Algeria, Cuba and Vietnam. Locked into a worldwide battle for survival against communist aggression — the “long twilight struggle,” as John F. Kennedy called it — the United States supported or opposed foreign governments with a single-minded view toward defeating the Soviet menace. Under the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, the CIA masterminded coups in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954), while under Kennedy, we attempted to overthrow Castro in 1961 and supported the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem in 1963. Various other such adventures, less noted in history, were undertaken in many countries — hell, Greece nearly went Red after World War II — and if U.S. foreign policy was not defined by “unspeakable atrocities,” it was certainly not always a peaceful or pleasant business.

Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan executes a Vietcong terrorist, February 1968.

The best articulation of sound Cold War policy was Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” from which I quote:

The American commitment [under the Carter administration] to “change” in the abstract ends up by aligning us tacitly with Soviet clients and irresponsible extremists like the Ayatollah Khomeini or, in the end, Yasir Arafat.
So far, assisting “change” has not led the Carter administration to undertake the destabilization of a Communist country. The principles of self-determination and nonintervention are thus both selectively applied. We seem to accept the status quo in Communist nations (in the name of ‘diversity” and national autonomy), but not in nations ruled by “right-wing” dictators or white oligarchies. . . .
Something very odd is going on here. How does an administration that desires to let people work out their own destinies get involved in determined efforts at reform in South Africa, Zaire, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere? How can an administration committed to nonintervention in Cambodia and Vietnam announce that it “will not be deterred” from righting wrongs in South Africa? . . .
[T]he Carter administration . . . came to power resolved not to assess international developments in the light of “cold-war” perspectives but to accept at face value the claim of revolutionary groups to represent “popular” aspirations and “progressive” forces — regardless of the ties of these revolutionaries to the Soviet Union. To this end, overtures were made looking to the “normalization” of relations with Vietnam, Cuba, and the Chinese People’s Republic, and steps were taken to cool relations with South Korea, South Africa, Nicaragua, the Philippines, and others. These moves followed naturally from the conviction that the U.S. had, as our enemies said, been on the wrong side of history in supporting the status quo and opposing revolution.

What Kirkpatrick was saying was that the Carter administration’s policies were a departure from three decades of U.S. policy, and had set aside both opposition to communism and the pursuit of other U.S. interests. It did so because of its commitment to abstract ideals and its miscalculation of Soviet intentions. Carter was thereby weakening our friends and strengthening our enemies:

The foreign policy of the Carter administration fails not for lack of good intentions but for lack of realism about the nature of traditional versus revolutionary autocracies and the relation of each to the American national interest.

It was in this difficult context, then, that the U.S. was obligated to support the friendly (and staunchly anti-communist) government in South Africa, not because of apartheid, but despite apartheid. Furthermore, so long as the worldwide struggle against communism continued, the United States could not afford to “accept at face value the claim of revolutionary groups to represent ‘popular’ aspirations and ‘progressive’ forces.” Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress was one such group. I’m grateful to Bob Belvedere at the Camp of the Saints for calling attention to the file on Mandela at David Horowitz’s Discover the Networks site, which details the ANC’s resort to violent terrorism and includes this:

In 1990, as the government of Frederik DeKlerk moved to end apartheid, the ANC was legalized and Mandela was released from prison. In part, DeKlerk was motivated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had made no secret of its desire to control South Africa’s vast mineral wealth and keep it out of Western hands.  With the USSR gone, the Communist threat vanished. For his part, Mandela, in a 1991 speech to a joint meeting of the ANC and IFP, urged black Africans to abandon terrorist tactics and to use peaceful methods to end apartheid.

This is a key point: Revolutionary groups with no worse reputation than the ANC, and leaders with no worse reputation than Mandela, had in other nations posed as “agrarian reformers” and critics of abusive governments, until such time as they succeeded in toppling those governments, at which point they cast aside the “reformer” mask, unfurled the banner of Marxism, and aligned their “popular” regimes with the Soviet bloc. Such was the story in Cuba and Nicaragua, and the U.S. could not ignore Soviet aspirations in Africa.

Only after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and with the Soviet Union collapsing into “the ash heap of history,” could a peaceful transition to a post-apartheid South Africa safely occur. The tsunami of obituary praise for Mandela — “an international emblem of dignity and forbearance,” the New York Times proclaims — threatens to wash away the historical reality of who Mandela actually was.

Now, Joel Pollak is a friend, but he was born in 1977 — the year I graduated high school — so that by the time he was old enough to vote, the Cold War was already a fading memory. And I appreciate Pollak’s concern that conservatives observe decorum on this occasion, but if conservatives do not insist on remembering history as it really was, we acquiesce in liberal revision of that history.

Nelson Mandela was at all times a man of the Left — anti-Western, anti-American and anti-Israel — as attested by the fact that as late as 2003, he could say, “All Bush wants is Iraqi oil,” make a sneering reference to Israel, accuse the U.S. of “unspeakable atrocities,” and even play the race card over the Iraq War:

Bush is now undermining the United Nations. . . . Both Bush, as well as Tony Blair, are undermining an idea which was sponsored by their predecessors. They do not care. Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations is now a black man? . . . They never did that when secretary-generals were white.

Mandela’s tenure as president of South Africa was, thank God, not the nightmare that Mugabe inflicted on neighboring Zimbabwe, but we ought not be fooled by liberal myth-makers who wish to reinvent Mandela as a secular saint whom all are obligated to revere.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
— John Adams

 

 


Category: History

Obama’s Underpants Gnome Economy

Posted on | December 5, 2013 | 73 Comments

Remember the infamous business plan from the South Park episode?

  1. Collect Underpants
  2. ?
  3. Profit

Say hello to the president’s economic theory:

It would be an insult to readers to explain why this won’t work, but I will say that in my adult lifetime, every increase in the minimum wage has been followed within a year or two by a recession. Drew M. at AOSHQ endeavors to address the flaws in Obama’s idea, but it’s depressing to think that any adult can’t figure out why raising the minimum wage inevitably causes an increase in unemployment.

And speaking of depressing things to think about, we’ve got 9 million people on disability, 15% of them for mood disorders!

Mood disorders! More than a million Americans are currently collecting a check every month because they feel sad.

It that’s not enough to make you fly into a manic rage . . .

The Declaration of Independence speaks of “the pursuit of happiness” as a natural right, but we can’t re-distribute happiness, can’t we?Nevertheless, we’ve got 1.3 million people getting disability payments for mood disorders, and Medicaid pays for their happy pills.

If that’s not enough to drive you crazy, try this:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday said Democrats would not support a budget deal that does not extend emergency unemployment benefits, which are set to lapse on Dec. 28 for about 1.3 million people.

Right: We must spend more money we don’t have to pay people not to work and WE ARE SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT!

OK, so now that you’re in a frothing bipolar rage, hurry to the nearest mental hospital and get diagnosed: Obama-Induced Mania.

There’s a lot of that going around lately . . .

 

 


Category: Barack Obama, Economics
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin