An Honest Assessment Of Howard Zinn

As you probably know, Howard Zinn passed away last week.  I have been a fierce critic of Zinn for years and have watched in disgust as his book, A People’s History of the United States, has been integrated into high school history ciriculums across the country, helping him achieve icon status among the same clueless fools who walk around wearing Che Guevara t-shirts. 

David Horowitz doesn’t hold back in his assessment of Zinn and I say good for him.

Howard Zinn was a Stalinist in the years when the Marxist monster was slaughtering millions of innocent people and launching his own ‘final solution’ against the Jews. Put another way, Howard Zinn was helping Stalin to conduct those slaughters and to enslave  all those who had the misfortune to live behind the Iron Curtain.  Howard never had second thoughts about his commitment to leftwing totalitarians and never flagged in his political commitment to freedom’s enemies. In the years since Stalin’s death, Zinn supported every enemy of the United States in every war, and devoted his writing talents to every socialist tyrant including Mao Zedong who killed 70 million Chinese in peacetime because they got in the way of his progressive agendas.

When the Cold War was over and freedom had won — thanks to all the political forces and figures (e.g., Reagan and Thatcher) that Zinn opposed – Zinn continued his malignant course. He supported America’s enemies right to the end including the Islamic Nazis whose first agenda is to finish the job that Hitler started and then to impose a totalitarian theocracy on the infidel world.

Zinn’s wretched tract, A People’s History of the United States, is worthless as history, and it is a national tragedy that so many Americans have fallen under its spell. It is a political cartoon which even the socialist magazine Dissent described as an intellectual fraud, which it is. All Zinn’s writing was directed to one end: to indict his own country as an evil state and soften his countrymen up for the kill. Like his partner in crime, Noam Chomsky, Zinn’s life’s work was a pernicious influence on the young and ignorant, with destructive consequences for people everywhere.

Zinn’s death only strengthened my resolve to fight his repugnant view of this great country.

Where The Hell Is Secretary Napolitano?

That is the question that Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee were asking when she was a no-show for Wednesday’s hearing on the Christmas Day Bomber.  If they were ticked off off at the hearing, imagine their reaction when they saw her putting the nap in Napolitano at the State of the Union that very night?

Top Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee publicly scolded Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for failing to show up at a Wednesday hearing where the committee examined the attempted Christmas Day suicide bombing of Northwest Flight 253. One Democrat on the committee said he wanted to know “where the hell” Napolitano was.

That evening, Napolitiano [sic] did prominently show up at the Capitol to attend President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. But earlier in the day, she dispatched Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Jane Holl Lute to testify on her behalf in the Homeland Security Committee on what went wrong in the homeland-security process that allowed would-be suicide-bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board a plane bound from Amsterdam to the Detroit.

The committee has primary oversight over Napolitano’s department, and top Democrats on the panel made it clear they were angry that she failed to show up for such an important hearing.

She is Obama’s very own man-caused disaster.

Via Hot Air

The Associated Press (?!?!) Fact Checks Obama’s SOTU Claims

You know you’re in deep you-know-what when the Associated Press is calling you out on your lies.

A look at some of Obama’s claims and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t.”

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit — and that’s if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. “The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel,” he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year-to-year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain’s.

OBAMA: “I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.”

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

Read on here

I had no idea the AP employed so many tea bagging racists.

MA Dem Stephen Lynch Unloads On Turbo Tax Geithner

Rep. Stephen Lynch got his Southie on during the House Oversight Committee hearing on the AIG bailout today.  

Click the link below and behold as he unloads on tax cheat, Timothy Geithner:

GEITHNER PWNED BY STEPHEN LYNCH

I’ve always liked Stephen Lynch.  He’s what you would call a Kennedy Democrat.  For those of you who aren’t familiar with him, he grew up in South Boston, which is included in the district he represents in Congress.  Interestingly, Lynch considered running for the U.S. Senate seat that Scott Brown just won.  But Lynch committed the fatal error of not jumping blinding on the ObamaCare express, refusing to say whether he would endorse the public option or employer mandates.  The Pinky Ring Brigade was not pleased and refused to let Lynch (a former iron worker and union president) speak at their annual Labor Day breakfast.  It became clear to him that he didn’t stand a chance in the primary against Coakley or Capuano.  And we all know how that story ended.  Way to go, moonbats!

Who’s Angry Now?

Meet the new Angry – Democrats on the Hill.  And they are angry with each other, no less.

The anger is most palpable in the House, where Pelosi and her allies believe Obama’s reluctance to stake his political capital on health care reform in mid-2009 contributed to the near collapse of negotiations now.

 But sources say there are also signs of strain between Reid and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and relations between Democrats in the House and Democrats in the Senate are hovering between thinly veiled disdain and outright hostility.

 In a display of contempt unfathomable in the feel-good days after Obama’s Inauguration, freshman Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) stood up at a meeting with Pelosi last week to declare: “Reid is done; he’s going to lose” in November, according to three people who were in the room.

 Titus denied Tuesday evening that she had singled out Reid, but she acknowledged that she said Democrats would be “f—-ed” if they failed to heed the lessons of Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat last week.

Rahm piled on:

Emanuel, several Senate and House aides said, hasn’t been shy about assigning blame, either. He’s been especially critical of moderate senators, including Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), for wasting months negotiating with Republican senators, such as his friend Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

While shouldering some of the blame for the Massachusetts debacle, Emanuel has reportedly criticized Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez of New Jersey — and, on occasion, even Reid himself.

Reid and his staff were infuriated when they got word Emanuel was apparently telling associates the majority leader did too little to force Baucus to accelerate his work, according to two people familiar with the situation.

Pass the popcorn.

NY Daily News Sports Writer: Saints Fans Cheered For President Bush Because They Are All White Or Something

Just what we need.  Another lefty sports writer with a chronic case of BDS – and a serious case of stupid.  Yesterday, Filip Bondy of the NY Daily News wrote a race-obsessed piece about how expensive Saints tickets are and how most of the fans in the Superdome during the NFC championship game were white.  To bolster his point, he notes that the crowd “heartily cheered” for Katrina villain, President Bush.  The problem with this “aha!” moment is that it was President George H. W.  Bush at the game, not his son.

Newsbusters notes that the paragraph has gone down the memory hole, but they have a screen capture of it in all of its ignorant glory.

If you needed further proof of this [New Orleans racial] divide, then it came during a pregame introduction of former President Bush. Once pilloried for his approach to the Katrina catastrophe in 2005, Bush was heartily cheered at the Superdome – which tells you all you need to know about the crowd’s demographics.

Bondy must have been too busy conducting his Superdome Census to notice the wrong President Bush was being cheered by all of the rich white people in the stands.

Collins and Lieberman: Does The Obama Adminstration Really Believe We Are At War?

In a letter to Eric Holder and John Brennan, Senators Collins and Lieberman rip the Justice Department a new one for mirandizing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab while he was signing like a canary and push to have him transferred to the Department of Defense – where he should have been since Northwest flight 253 landed on Christmas day. 

Citing reports that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was “speaking openly about the attack” and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s involvement in it before he was read his Miranda rights, Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins said that reading the suspect his rights shortly after his arrest was an opportunity lost. 

Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Collins, R-Maine, the committee’s ranking Republican, said officials would be able to continue interrogating Abdulmutallab and try him before a military commission if they treat him as an enemy combatant.

“The decision to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal rather than (an unprivileged enemy belligerent) almost certainly prevented the military and the intelligence community from obtaining information that would have been critical to learning more about how our enemy operates and to preventing future attacks,” the senators wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and counterterrorism adviser John Brennan. 

“Though the president has said repeatedly that we are at war, it does not appear to us that the president’s words are reflected in the actions of some in the executive branch, including some at the Department of Justice,” they wrote. 

Contrary to what Dough Boy Gibbs et al are saying, this was one of the driving issues behind Scott Brown’s win last week.  Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to treating terrorists like common criminals and reject trying them in our civilian court system.

This line at The People’s Rally drew thunderous applause:

“WE WILL USE OUR TAX DOLLARS TO PROVIDE WEAPONS TO KILL TERRORISTS AND NOT USE TAX DOLLARS FOR LAWYERS TO DEFEND TERRORISTS!”

But then again, we were a bunch of racist, redneck, truck-driving homophobes so what the hell do we know.

Technical Difficulties

Internet has been down since Friday, but up and running now.  We will return to our normal schedule tomorrow.

In the meantime, feast on Howie Carrr’s takedown of Barry’s behavior in the wake of Scott Brown’s awesomely awesome victory Tuesday.

Can we start calling Barack Obama “embattled” yet?

Hey, Mr. President – the first thing you have to do is figure out where somebody hid all your ties. That Ahmadinejad look didn’t go over big here in Boston a week ago, and it certainly didn’t cut it in Elyria, Ohio, on what you must have figured was “casual Friday.”

You wanted to be The Man? Well, The Man wears a tie, OK.

For a guy who ran on hope and change, Barack is looking rather hopeless. As for change – well, how about that Scott Brown? And how long has it been since you saw this phrase in print: R-Mass.?

Last weekend, Barack didn’t appear to know Scott Brown’s name, although to be fair he also fumbled with the names of both the state he was in and the senior senator. By Wednesday, Barack was as shameless as Bill Hudak in trying to hitch his imploding star to Brownie’s 2005 GMC Canyon truck.

Read on.

I’ll Have The Martha Chokely Sandwich, Please.

Very busy here getting caught up from the lost days leading up to and following the election.

In the meantime, enjoy this Boston Globe article detailing the moonbat mourning from Amherst to Cambridge.

They filed in and out of coffeehouses, all but crying in their cappuccinos, barely touching their carrot cake muffins, still in shock that Scott Brown – a Republican! – had been elected to the US Senate in the state that pioneered universal health care, legalized same-sex marriage, and normally sends 12 Democrats to Congress.

In the days since the unthinkable happened, diehard Democrats have been forced to confront results that suggest Massachusetts votes much the way rest of the country does – blue on the edges with a big red swath in the middle. They have grappled with the possibility that the Commonwealth, until this week viewed by the much of the country as an outpost of extreme liberalism, may not be all that. And that has left them blue – in the other meaning of the word – over Martha Coakley’s defeat.

The horror.  A Republican.  Welcome to my world.  How’s the view from the other side?

In Amherst, Seamon, owner of The Black Sheep, was planning to put a new item on the menu to express his disappointment in the Democratic candidate: The Martha Chokely sandwich.

I’ll have one of those to go, please.

A Victory For Free Speech

The Supreme Court has issued its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and it has come down on the side of the First Amendment.

The case arises from a Citizens United documentary which portrayed Hillary Clinton in a very negative light.  The FEC barred Citizens United from airing television commercials promoting  the documentary within thirty days of the presidential primaries – a provision of McCain-Feingold.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.

“The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.”

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

The Wise Latina ruled against free speech in her first high-profile decision as a Supreme Court Justice.  How utterly predictable.