Rutherford B. Hayes Weighs In On #ObamaInHistory

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

News of #OccupyResoluteDesk’s tampering with Presidential biographies on whitehouse.gov, going back to Calvin Coolidge, is currently rocking Twitter. Also, note this brutal Tumblr feed.

Reached for comment, Rutherford B. Hayes, related BHO’s record to an aromatic old saw from the South:
Of course we refer to BHO's record, not the man.

By what miracle is Obama going to crawl out from under this derision and mount anything like a Presidential campaign, one is left to wonder. More at Twitchy.

Update: check out The Lonely Conservative, playing the Calvin Coolidge card!

Was #Anonymous Busted Because of Barrett Brown’s Betrayal — or Blunders? UPDATE: Hacker ‘Anarchaos’ Pleads Not Guilty in Federal Court Appearance

Posted on Comments

By sheer chance today, I happened across an intriguing post at Ameristroika suggesting that Barrett Brown played a key role in the takedown of the Anonymous/LulzSec criminal hacker conspiracy.

To summarize briefly: The indictment of LulzSec hacking suspects Ryan Ackroyd, Jake Davis, Darren Martyn, Jeremy Hammond, and Donncha O’Cearrbhail mentions an unindicted co-conspirator.

There are enough intriguing coincidences — e.g., a tip to the Feds from a Kansas IP address, some months after Brown had mentioned plans to visit Kansas — to raise suspicions. Was Brown an FBI informant? Has he turned snitch since the FBI raid in March? Was it all a clever scam by Brown to score a book deal?

Permit me to suggest an alternative theory: Brown isn’t as smart as he likes to think he is, and got sloppy. He trusted someone he shouldn’t have trusted, and that person turned out to be a snitch.

Has Brown now rolled over and started giving up his former accomplices in a cowardly effort to save his punk ass? We’ll find out eventually, I guess, but the question is how soon we’ll find out.

UPDATE: One of the accused hackers thinks he can beat the rap:

A Chicago man pleaded not guilty Monday to criminal charges that he participated in a series of cyber attacks allegedly carried out by “LulzSec,” a globe-spanning collective of computer hackers who targeted government and corporate websites last year.
Jeremy Hammond, 27 years old, briefly appeared in Manhattan federal court to be arraigned on the charges.
After the hearing, a small group of supporters gathered outside the courthouse with signs saying “Free Hammond. Solidarity With All Hacktivist Prisoners” and “Burn The Prison Society.”
In a new indictment returned earlier this month, federal prosecutors in Manhattan alleged that Mr. Hammond, who allegedly went by the online names “Anarchaos,” “POW” and “ghost,” was a member of the LulzSec conspiracy and participated in some of the group’s hacking activities.

UPDATE II: Remember that “LulzSec” was a spinoff of “Anonymous,” a pre-existing network of so-called “hacktivists” that made headlines by swarming online to defend Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks project. And the online battles continue between the pro-Anonymous and anti-Anonymous. Barrett Brown’s name is mentioned several times by Sean Gallagher today at the tech Web site Ars Technica in an article about “Jester,” an enemy of Anonymous.

Brown first came to my attention in September 2009, immediately after the Great LGF Blogwar. When I learned in February 2011 that Brown had emerged as a public spokesman for Anonymous, I immediately predicted that Brown was either already under FBI surveillance, or else soon would be under surveillance.

Barely four months later, the British made the first arrest in the “Lulzsec” case, and soon the hacker named “Sabu” had turned snitch against his accomplices — although his accompliced didn’t know it — and the whole thing came tumbling down. But I’ve always thought Brown’s dumbass idea of making himself the public face of Anonymous was the key by which investigators unlocked that puzzle.

PREVIOUSLY:

Feminists vs. Roxeanne’s Vagina

Posted on Comments

Roxeanne de Luca resents having her saintly ladyparts invoked by feminists as a political argument in service of a cause she entirely rejects:

Robertson’s description of the modern left’s version of feminism [as a movement that “encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians”] is eerily accurate.

Read the whole thing. My response? No comment. Certainly, I have no official authorization to speak on behalf of Roxeanne’s vagina.

UPDATE: In the comments below, you’ll note that the aforesaid Miss de Luca demonstrates her aptitude for vivid prose in wishing upon me a rather lurid means of violent death. Let this be a warning to any of you handsome, wealthy bachelors who might imagine yourselves worthy to pursue the parthenic redhead’s connubial companionship: It’s kind of like the First Rule of Fight Club.

Her blog is Haemet, and you can follow Roxeanne de Luca on Twitter.

 

Dumbest Liberal in Media: Guess Who Won That Tough Competition?

Posted on Comments

It was never much of a contest, really. Perennial champion Chris Matthews scored big-time, massively failing on Jeopardy, a show that Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters reminds us Matthews has frequently cited when mocking Sarah Palin’s intelligence:

In case you don’t keep track of “progressive” elite sentiment, know this: They hate Matthews, regarding him as a dimwitted embarrassment who can be counted on to recycle whatever secondhand conventional wisdom he picks up among his clique of D.C. cronies.

Chris Matthews has never had a single thought that was both good and original. Every good idea he’s ever uttered was borrowed (usually without attribution) from someone much smarter than him, and every original idea he has ever had was wrong. Matthews is a perfect example of how to game the D.C. system. He is the Beltway media’s unparalleled master of strategic sycophancy — knowing exactly whose butt to kiss — and manipulative cronyism, so that even the most blatant ineptitude and wrongheadedness are no obstacle to success.

There are probably three dozen liberal journalists — notably including Chris Hayes of The Nation, now host of a weekend show at MSNBC — who could do a better job than Matthews, a living example of the Peter Principle whose strangely extended (and inexplicably overpaid) tenure with NBC is one of the great mysteries of American media.

(Via Memeorandum with further commentary by No More Mister Nice Blog, Billy Hallowell, Jim Treacher and Doug Powers.)

Distraction Tactic Backfires: Romney Gains in Polls After Obama Gay Shift

Posted on Comments

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign strategy could be summarized in four words: “It’s Obama’s Economy, Stupid.”

Romney and his aides have made clear that they regard every other issue as a distraction from what polls — as well as common sense — indicate as the main concern of American voters: Jobs, the economy and the explosion of deficit spending under the Obama administration.

So when the news cycle last week was dominated by President Obama’s announcement of his support for same-sex marriage, this was viewed by Republicans as yet another attempt to distract voters from the economy — and thus, strategically, as another “win” for Team Obama.

Yet the first polls reflecting public reaction to the president’s endorsement of gay marriage show the move has, at least so far, backfired on the White House. A CBS/New York Times poll taken Friday through Sunday shows Romney leading Obama 46% to 43%, whereas a CBS/NYT poll taken April 13-17 showed the race a tie at 46%. This result verifies polling by Rasmussen Reports showing Romney moving ahead. Obama has clearly lost support since a month ago, and the New York Times article indicates voters are starting to see through the president’s motives:

Most Americans suspect that President Obama was motivated by politics, not policy, when he declared his support for same-sex marriage, according to a new poll released on Monday, suggesting that the unplanned way it was announced shaped public attitudes.

(Via Memeorandum.) Examining details of the latest poll, Allahpundit at Hot Air suggests “that some people who would otherwise support [Obama’s] shift on gay marriage have been turned off because he’s been so transparently cynical and opportunistic about it.”

There is also the possibility that the gay shift may undermine support for Obama among some socially conservative black voters. Yesterday we reported that Obama’s gay position was condemned by Texas pastor Dwight McKissic, who supported Obama in 2008. And Peter Ingemi’s suggestion that the “historic” Newsweek cover — “The First Gay President” — could unintentionally yield an anti-Obama undercurrent is not as far-fetched as it may seem, Ed Driscoll says.

UPDATE: “We’re Not as Stupid as Barack Obama Thinks,” says The American Spectator‘s Ross Kaminsky, but Democrats may be that stupid:

Despite the issue not working so far, Democrats are doubling down, with 17 Senate Democrats (actually 16 Democrats plus socialist Bernie Sanders) asking the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to stop refusing green cards to foreign gay “spouses” of Americans.

Hispanic voters are going to love that one, huh?

 


 

RECENTLY:

Narrative Trial Balloon: Obama Reelection #Fail Due To Homophobic Americans

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

The kettle of vultures circles the Obama administration, desperate to avoid talking about jobs, the economy, ObamaCare, or a raft of other historic firsts due it.

How does the Administration recover from the nose dive? They’re getting wrecked on every front.  Bluegrass Pundit relates a CBS poll indicating that, inter alia, BHO takes a 9% hit on voters over coming out of the closet on gay marriage. The strategy of blaming and shaming “Vote Barack, or you’re raaaaacist!” seems unlikely to succeed this time around.

  • Do they come up with another candidate in time for the DNC in Charlotte? “Vote Hillary, or you’re sexist!”
  • Do they just curl up in a fetal position after getting wrecked in Wisconsin next month, and take a hammering that makes 2010 look like a love tap?
  • Or, do they come up with some heroic line of hooey: “Barack is getting politically crucified for doing the right thing, and has decided to repair to the moral high ground rather than condescend to the level of American knuckle-draggers any longer.”

My overall point being that the Democrats don’t handle truth well. In fact, they are like Frenchmen with a thick layer of disinformatzia caked on.

Case in point, via The Lonely Conservative:

more recently, again from Bluegrass Pundit:
In defense of the Obama Administration, at least they made sure George Zimmerman was charged quickly.

Update: Erickson over at Red State is working on the obituary right now. Let us be mindful of overconfidence.

Jerry Wilson Finds a Winner

Posted on Comments

For the World’s Silliest Feminist Award, that is. The competition was, as you can imagine, savagely fierce. Yet who can dispute Margot Magowan’s worthiness for this coveted honor?

“The images promote gender stereotypes that are insidious, ubiquitous, and in this particular scene, actually dangerous.”

Ms. Magowan is talking about — wait for it — M&Ms.

I’m not kidding: The illustration on the package of new Coconut M&Ms is, I guess, in violation of the Violence Against Women Act or something.

Compared to Margot Magowan, such deranged lunatics as Amanda Marcotte, Melissa McEwan, Michelle Goldberg and Rebecca Traister are exemplars of stoic rationality and emotional stability. She finds patriarchal oppression in the candy aisle at 7-Eleven!

“Parents, do you really want your daughters and sons to see a ‘sexy’  female getting stalked on an M & Ms package as if it’s funny? As if  it’s normal?”

Forget the M&Ms, Margot — what about that obscenely phallic Zagnut bar, huh? How dare they expose our children to that?

Magowan is a socially prominent heiress type, her father being owner of the San Francisco Giants and her grandfather the CEO of Safeway, so she can afford to be a ridiculous ditzy feminist and people have to pretend to take her seriously, which explains why her absurd maunderings are published by the San Francisco Chronicle. Her bio informs us, “In 1998, Margot co-founded the Woodhull Institute, an organization that trains young women to be leaders and change agents.”

Oh, wonderful. Let’s train up a new generation of paranoid lunatics who think they’re being oppressed by candy companies!