Policia de Catalunya

Obama's Summer of Bummers -- Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard. Four self-inflicted wounds.
Going Mad in Herds -- Maureen Dowd, NYT. She's lost all patience.
Repeal of Obamacare Can't Come Fast Enough -- J.C. Watts, Las Vegas Review-Journal. A substantive indictment.
Does Barack Obama Want to be Re-elected in 2012? -- UK Telegraph. Scathing. And I do mean scathing.
A "Move-it" Movement -- Michael Goodwin, NY Post. Mosque divide reveals more.
Crime (Sex) and Punishment (Stoning) -- Robert Worth, NYT. Arguing, weakly, that barbaric practices are just Islamic politics. Still, a must-read for folks like Colin Powell, who say "so what if ___________ (insert name of politician) is Muslim?"

Labels: 2012, Barack Obama, Barbaric Practices, Debacles, Islam, Muslim, Obamacare, Re-Election, Stoning

And now, for my own "if it bleeds, it leads" story:
"I have no problem cursing out an unpatriotic treasonous piece of garbage." -- pro-Mosque man to an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor, at an anti-mosque rally.
Yes, shockingly, there is more to report on the smoldering (err, raging? throbbing?) mosque debate and the media's resultant, unquestioning Islamophilia.
The other day, the oh-so enlightened, clearly not Islamophobic Huffington Post picked up and posted YouTube footage of an anti-mosque rally in NYC.
HuffPo's headline? "Anti-Islamic Center Protesters Harass Random African-American Man."
The title of the video posted on YouTube was "Anti-Muslim rally" (lest there be any doubt about the poster's politics).
The video clip shows a black man wearing a skull cap (and an unusual medallion) slowly making his way through a crowd of mosque protesters. All is well until one of the protesters approaches the skull cap man for about oh, two blinks of an eye.
Whatever she says to him, and whatever he says back, we can't hear. But immediately afterward, the background noise is instantly, serendipitously(?) filtered out. We can see and hear the skull-cap man get really angry as he shouts out provocative expletives. (video length: about 4.5 minutes)

At least one of the protesters politely intervenes and talks another one down (if you listen hard, you'll hear a woman trying to calm Mr. Hard Hat, as she says, "don't give him your power").
It's hard to believe the protesters got so upset with a random, strolling "African American man" without any provocation whatsoever. But who knows? Maybe these folks were nonviolently demonstrating and became just a bit more vocal when Mr. skull-cap appeared.
Still, despite any meaningful or accurate context (remember Breitbart's Sherrod crucifixion?), the mainstream media reported on this exchange extensively and its coverage was way overblown.
It was widely reported in an attempt to show that anyone who is against the Ground Zero mosque is a sheer, should-be-committed, intolerant racist lunatic.
It wasn't a particularly effective strategy, but whatever. They tried.
Now then.
Compare that tape to this one, where a mosque supporter goes after an 82-year old holocaust survivor who objects to the Ground Zero mosque, at an anti-mosque rally. (And no, I'm not being melodramatic. Watch the clip.)
(Content warning: extreme profanity. Before you hit "play" get your kids out of the kitchen. Seriously.)
Granted, we have the same problem we did with skullcap-harassed-man: context. We don't know what came before, what was edited, what was spliced.
But we do know the conduct of the profanity-spouting mosque supporter was newsworthy. Undeniably so, given the wide coverage of random-strolling skullcap-man.
And we do know that this "curse-the-old-Jew-man" video wasn't covered by the mainstream media, widely or at all.
On a brighter note: our national IQ (as expressed by the percentage of the U.S. population that has little, if any, confidence in "mainstream" media)? 75 percent.

Labels: Ground Zero Mosque, Islam, Islamophilia, Islamophobia, Muslim, Nyc, Racist, Skull Cap

So law enforcement officials in North Carolina want access to the state's "data base" so police officers will know the name of every North Carolinian who was legally prescribed pain pills (or Ritalin or what not).
The hell, you say?
Oh, come on. Pretending to be shocked doesn't become you.
I mean, we already get naked and radiated for the government at the airport (and no, I see little distinction between disrobing and the naked people machines). Or we are forced to let them feel us up instead.
First Mother Michelle Obama wants Congress to make doctors measure our children's BMI and enter it into their permanent file in a "secure" federal data base.
We've let the feds force us to buy Obamacare health care insurance.
Heck, every single bit of our medical history will soon be logged into a national government data base, per Obamacare. (Ever get cross-ways with a doctor? Or need a second opinion? Oh, woe be unto you, my trusting friend.)
Indeed, respected health care analysts say Obamacare authorizes the feds to directly access our bank accounts, instantly, in real time. It's just more efficient this way, you see. Co-pays and all of that. Yaay.
So why shouldn't we tell the government what drugs we take? Why shouldn't the government hand over a list of our prescription meds to the police? What on earth could be wrong with that?
Just imagine all the prescription drug abuse police could uncover and stop. Hooray!
And while we're all "the door's wide open, come on in!" I've got a better idea. How about we let the government put cameras in our kitchens and living rooms?
Seriously. Stop and think about it. Imagine the child abuse, alcohol abuse . . . gosh, every kind of abuse(!) we could stop dead in its tracks if we invited more government into our home.
We need to give law enforcement the tools it needs!
Remember, it's not about you. And from here on out, it never will be again. Forget that your grandfather charged the beaches of Normandy to keep you and our country independent and free from governmental intrusion and overreaching.
Girlfriend, that kind of conservative thinking is so passe' -- so pre-Millenium yesterday. It's 2012, you insane, gun-toting, religious, racist bitter tea bagger!
Get over yourself and get with the program. It's time to get down and groove for the greater good!
What? You still feel weird? Squeamish? Sorry friend, but don't look to me for any answers. Don't ask me to think straight -- I've got post financial stress syndrome. I got mowed down a long time ago.
Besides, it's getting mighty crowded in my stinky little tent, ever since I let the camel's nose come in. Frankly, I'm ready to cave and let the damned camel take it over.
Sure, I'm human, and yeah, I panicked there for a minute. "Once I give the camel my tent, where will I go? What will I do? What if, GOV forbid, I need an experimental drug and the feds say, 'No!'?"
But then it came to me.

Little middle-aged me? Ha! Watch out. I can still muster some attention. I'll just hold the entire world hostage to Islam and its "Muslim extremists" by threatening to burn the Koran.
Snap!

Labels: Government Intrusion, Islam, North Carolina, Prescription Drug Data Base, Tea Baggers, Tea Parties, Tsa

Today NPR fired Juan Williams (the only African American male on the air at NPR).
NPR fired him after the Council on American-Islamic Relations ("CAIR") issued a strongly-worded complaint about his recent "irresponsible and inflammatory" comment on Fox News.
Fasten your seat belts before you watch this "outrageous" comment:

But, NPR hastened to add, it didn't fire Mr. Williams because CAIR commanded immediate "action" against him (although it "may have been a "factor").
Nor was it because of the substance of his comment: that he has a moment of worry or nervousness when he's on an airplane and sees someone in Muslim garb, a person who has chosen to identify himself "first and foremost as Muslim."
No, NPR incredibly claims, the real reason it fired Mr. Williams is because he has turned into a . . . pundit!
Okaaaaaay. And NPR star Nina Totenberg isn't?

From NPR's internal email:
NPR News analysts have a distinctive role and set of responsibilities. This is a very different role than that of a commentator or columnist. News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that�s what�s happened in this situation.But while we're on the subject of objectivity, what does NPR stand for, anyway? It's certainly not "Neutral Public Radio." Just watch this oh-so-clever spoof on the "Tea Party" that NPR posted on its website.
A website, I might add, that you help to fund -- to the tune of $422 million, this year alone. (This CBS link references the specific page on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's financials. But, alas, NPR's parent corporation has taken the page down.)
If Rs and Independents weren't already fired up to vote on November 2nd, they are sure juiced now.

Labels: Cair, Fox News, Islam, Juan Williams, Muslims, Npr, Taxpayer-Funded, Vivian Schiller