The Left's "Pack" Mentality

by Michael Graham February 29, 2008 @ 07:28

Everything you need to know about the human condition has already been written by H. L. Mencken. He observed nearly 100 years ago that "The chief preoccupation of mankind is to believe passionately in the palpably untrue."


This indisputable "Natural Truth" is one reason why Barack Obama is the political phenomenon among liberals that he is. It is also the reason why Misha Defonseca of Dudley, MA is a best-selling author...and an obvious fraud.


I had never heard of Ms. Defonseca's autobiography, Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years, until I read about it in the Boston Globe-Democrat this morning. This "true story" is a huge hit in Europe, has been translated into 18 languages and the French have made it into a film. If an unrelated lawsuit hadn't stopped US publication, the book would be sitting next to "The Audacity Of Hope" on bookshelves across America.


What's is Misha's story? The Boston Globe-Democrat reports:
In the book, 6-year-old Misha is rescued at school in 1941 when her parents are arrested and deported. She is spirited away to the De Wael family and given a new name, Monique. Unhappy with her host family, she runs away in hopes of finding her parents. Over the next four years she wanders alone across Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Yugoslavia, across the Adriatic Sea by boat to Italy, then through Italy across the Alps to France and back to Belgium. Along the way, she is sheltered by packs of wolves, kills a German soldier, witnesses an eastbound freight train full of Jews, wanders into the Warsaw Ghetto, and escapes. A 2001
story in The Boston Globe raised questions about the book's veracity, but Defonseca insisted that it was all true. [emphasis added]
Here's a hint: Any book that features the storyline "was raised by a pack of wolves" should immediately go in the "Fiction" section.

If you are a rational person, you won't be surprised to learn that, not only is Misha's story of being raised by wolves untrue, but this little Jewish girl wasn't able to roam in and out of the Warsaw Ghetto at will because a) she was in Belgium at the time; and b) she's not Jewish.

The author now insists that "the story in the book is mine. It is not the actual reality - it was my reality." It's a line that was no doubt well received in the English Lit Department at Harvard. In fact, it summarizes the philosophy of the modern Left on issues from global warming to the threat of Islamism: "Just because what I say isn't true doesn't mean I'm wrong."

Personally, I think Dan Rather and CBS News should sue Ms. Defonseca. Isn't "Fake But Accurate" their line?

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

I Hate To Say "I Told You So"...

by Michael Graham February 29, 2008 @ 06:11
OK, actually I love saying "I told you so" to anti-war weenies who've thrown away their brains.

Sen. "He's Not A Muslim" claimed in a debate that American soldiers in Afghanistan forced to rely on captured Taliban weapons and ammo because "it's easier to get weapons from the Taliban than from their Commander-in-Chief." I called BS on him, a call that was echoed through the media.

Many Bush-bashers insisted the story must be true because "Bush sucks." That's considered an argument by the American Left.

But Jack Jacobs, a retired Army colonel and Imus regular is no friend of Bush, and he confirms what every person I've told to who's served in Afghanistan has told me:

But last week, during his debate with Clinton, Obama tried speaking about substance when he mentioned the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he displayed an astounding ignorance of the military instrument. He said that an anonymous U.S. Army captain told him that his infantry platoon was split and sent to different areas of operations; that they were lacking vehicles; and that they had insufficient ammunition to fight.

Although problems do occur in combat situations to be sure, none of what Obama related makes any sense and is, according to people with whom I spoke, untrue. Units the size of platoons are not sent to separate theaters, ammunition has been plentiful, and an investigation indicates that the unit in question was missing only one of its Humvees, all to no peril of the unit.

In other words, Sen. "Not A Muslim" had no idea what he was talking about. But the mainsteam media ignored it, possibly because the Illinois senator not understanding military matters simply isn't news.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

He Made It Cool To Be A Conservative

by Michael Graham February 28, 2008 @ 07:29

There is a moment that many conservatives of my generation share, a moment that we owe to William F. Buckley. It goes something like this:


You're at a party in the '80s or early '90s with your smart, liberal friends. Some political issue comes up, and you discover to your own surprise that you are holding the floor alone. Five people are arguing, shouting, screaming at you, and you are answering every argument and...winning? Could it be true.


Then it dawns on you that you've already heard their arguments, and the answers. You know why their position makes no sense. You're not winning. The ideas, facts and logic are winning. And you got them all from Bill Buckley and National Review.


It wasn't that you were a better debater or had brilliant insights. It's that you had the advantage of being exposed to the wit and wisdome of WFB. That's to him, you really were the smartest person in the room. Your liberal friends, hobbled by their exposure to the feeble intellects featured in the New York Times, never had a chance. Buckley had them outnumbered, all by himself.


My colleagues at National Review share their thoughts today. It is today's "must-read."
UPDATE: This Charlie Rose WFB retrospective is good, too.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

For Democrats, No Idea Is Too Good To Bash

by Michael Graham February 26, 2008 @ 17:22
Back before she faced a challenger on her left, Hillary Clinton bragged about the success of free trade under her husband, Bill Clinton. But today, with Barack Obama taking the Democratic Party back to the halcyon days of McGovern and Mondale, she's all about hatin' the NAFTA, too.

The Natural Truth, as virtually every economist in the world will tell you, is that free trade makes more people more wealthy, and it has been a boon to the US economy.

Rich Lowry from National Review offers a few basic facts about NAFTA in his most recent column:

Since 1993, the U.S. economy has grown by 54 percent. The jobless rate has dropped from 6.9 percent in 1993 to 4.9 percent today. Manufacturing output has increased by 63 percent. Canada and Mexico are our first- and second-largest export markets, and U.S. merchandise exports to them have increased at a slightly faster clip than exports to the rest of the world.

A Canadian journalist also tries to help Barack Obama with his math:

Over the past 10 years, average real compensation paid to American workers has gone up by 22 per cent, according to a Washington-based policy think-tank called the Cato Institute. It also estimates trade accounts for only about three per cent of dislocated workers, far less than technology and other domestic factors. While 3.3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last 10 years, there has been a net gain of 11.6 million jobs in better paying sectors.

And the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has said the combination of income gains and tariff reductions has provided the average American family with additional income of up to $930 a year.


And we're going to get RID of NAFTA? That's change, all right. From better to worse.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Could A Beacon Hill Legislator Find This Liquor Store With Both Hands?

by Michael Graham February 26, 2008 @ 09:38

Good question.
There's an entire web posting of "ill-advised business names" and our friends at Bunghole Liquors made it to the top!

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Massachusetts Democrats: 15 Years Older, 0% Wiser

by Michael Graham February 26, 2008 @ 09:02
Our friend Andy McCarthy from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has the "must-read" article of the day. It's about this date, February 26, a date that should live in infamy. The fact that it means nothing to most Americans speaks volumes about American culture and politics today.

It was on this day 15 years ago that the Islamist War Against Modernity first came to our shores. The truck bomb attack on the World Trade Centers should have been a wake up call. Instead, we all but ignored it. President Clinton treated it the same way he treated the repeated attacks against America on his watch: No bid deal.

That mentality should have ended on 9/11/01. The fact that Democrats in the House of Representatives have stopped our foreign surveillance program over the issue of trial lawyers hounding US telecom companies shows that, for some people, the past 15 years never happened.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Tries The "Fried Chicken And Watermelon" Strategy

by Michael Graham February 25, 2008 @ 10:27
Is there some OTHER reason why her campaign is mailing out this photo?

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Your "Holy Crap These People Are Out Of Their Minds" Audio...

by Michael Graham February 21, 2008 @ 07:47
...is provided today by Michelle Obama during a recent appearance at UCLA.

At one point, Ms. Obama says that we can be confident of her husband's qualifications for LOTFW because Oprah Winfrey says so. Well, I guess that settles that...

And both Mark Steyn and Jim Geraghty focus on this high (low?) light from Ms Obama:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you
engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.


Yikes.

My reaction is similar to Steyn's:

The "shed your cynicism" bit sounds like a scene from one of those dystopian movies where you get slid into the Cynishedder as a bitterly sardonic old crank in a pork-pie hat and after 30 seconds bathed in the rays of the Obamatron you emerge in a turquoise 1970s catsuit with a glassy-eyed stare.

President Obama? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

America's Favorite High School Newspaper

by Michael Graham February 21, 2008 @ 06:19
The longer I live, the more I believe that life is just like high school. The same, arrogant, clueless dopes who ran the Student Government eventually grow up to run America. And, they run it the same clueless, arrogant way.

And remember the snarky gits who ran the student paper, trying to whip up campus anger of the sugary snacks in the vending machines? They're now running the New York Times.

I have no idea what the truth is regarding John McCain and the blonde lobbyist the NYTimes is writing about today. I suppose it's possible that, back when McCain was a youthful 64 years old, he was puttin' the moves on the ladies. I suppose it's possible that he was cutting deals in the US Senate on behalf of her clients in order to get into her undergarments.

Sure, all this is possible. But unfortunately for the NYTimes...it's not IN THE STORY! They got nuthin'. Bupkis. This is the entire story: "I talked to a guy who said he thought it LOOKED like McCain might be having a naughty relationship so we told her to stay away, even though we never saw anything." So the NYTimes is reduced to reporting a literal rumor as a news story.

I'm not sure that even a high school paper would do that.

The NYTimes defends itself by saying "Hey, the story is really about McCain's corruption problem." Then they fail to give a single example of said corruption. Instead, they show just how clueless they are with "reporting" like this:

By 2002, he had succeeded in passing the McCain-Feingold Act, which transformed American politics by banning “soft money,” the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and the rich that were funneled through the two political parties to get around previous laws. [emphasis added]

It did? Really? Gee, I've been watching the 2008 race since, well, 2004, and I haven't noticed a transformation. Instead, we've seen candidates from Ron Paul to Barack Obama setting new records for campaign donations. Mrs. Bill Clinton and Sen. Obama have each raised more than $100 million already, and Obama is almost certain to break his pledge to take taxpayer campaign money in lieu of private donations. He could raise $300 million by November.

Some transformation.

The New York Times is already a joke from a journalism perspective. Their intentional misreporting and newspage bias has been so thoroughly presented that no honest observer can claim it is anything more than a propaganda outlet for the American Left.

But running stories about rumors? If it were a high school paper, the editor would get an "F."

Alas, the standards at the New York Times aren't that high.


Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Sorry, Hil, But I'm Reaching For The Fork

by Michael Graham February 20, 2008 @ 07:35

If I had to bet today, I would still bet on Mrs. Bill Clinton getting the Democratic nomination for president. But I wouldn't bet a dime I couldn't afford to lose.

My bet would be out of respect for the Clintonistas and their relentless, shameless, vicious determination to win at any cost. For me, the Clintons are like political vampires: things that would kill another politician (lying to federal judges, obstruction of justice, hiding evidence from courts, illegal possession of FBI files, sex on the floor of the Oval Office with young interns, etc) only make them stronger. I won't believe the Clintons are defeated until I see the wooden stake in her political heart, and the candidate corpse surrounded by garlic and crucifixes.

And even then, I'd wait for daylight and make sure she didn't move.

Having said all that, after Sen. Obama's big win in Wisconsin, we are almost at "the fork" moment in this campaign. As in "stick a fork in her, she's done." Read
Jay Cost's analysis at RealClearPolitics, and the question arises "where does she go to win?"

Sen. Obama got more votes from black people, white people, educated people, folks with no college degrees, and he even got more votes from women. He tied Hillary among WHITE women and union households. All in a midwestern, moderate-income, "looks like America" state.

And, it should be noted, in a state where pre-election polls showed Mrs. Clinton was supposedly competitive. Wisconsin isn't Hawaii or Illinois for the Clintons. The RCP poll average had her within 5% of Obama the morning of the election. She lost by 17%!

So we have reached a new moment in the Democratic presidential race. We are now at the moment when, for Mrs. Clinton to win the nomination, something must happen. The candidate of "change," Obama, wants nothing to change at all. He'd happily have votes in Ohio and Texas tomorrow.

Meanwhile. Mrs. Clinton needs something to happen or, to be more direct, is looking right now at how she can make something happen that will change the course of this election. The two upcoming debates offer opportunities, but no guarantees. She'll probably take a few punches at Sen. Obama, but don't look for a "Hail Mary." Debates are tricky. You never know how Obama, the moderators or the audience will react.

The Clintonistas need something they can control.

We will find out in the next two weeks leading up to Ohio and Texas if the Clintons have something real on Obama. Is there a drug crime he's successfully hidden, is there some paper he wrote on the dietary value of cannibalism or--if they're really prepared to dive into the sewer--is he a secret fan of talk radio?

If there is a scandal to be sold, the Clintons will be working it in the press like a hooker at Shriner's convention.

This is the moment. Now or never.

I doubt that there is, not because we haven't seen it yet (if Hillary had won Wisconsin, she'd still have a shot without the scandal card), but because Sen. Obama has been so open about his problems. He brought up his youthful drug use, he's written about his childhood in a Muslim country. His wife loves telling us how "stinky" he is. What's left?

But if it's true that the Clinton's don't have anything on Obama, don't be fooled into thinking they won't play the scandal card anyway. They'll make it up. They'll grab some statement, twist it out of context and spread outrage over the fact that the media aren't twisting it, too. Or they'll just lie.

They're Clintons. That's what they do.

Which is why I'm just reaching for the fork this morning, and not sticking it in. With anyone else, this race would be over.

With the Clintons, it's just starting.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Powered by BlogEngine.NET 1.4.5.0

© 2008 Greater Media Boston

Michael Graham

Natural Truth of the Day

“We are going to cheerfully provide that loyal opposition  -- Rep. Mike Pence, R-IN 

Poll of the Day