Someone at Vanity Fair is not paying attention in regard to the Tea Party

The Tea Party Is Revolting | VF Daily | Vanity Fair:
by Matt Pressman
February 9, 2011, 7:50 AM

"The Tea Party’s first major legislative revolt against the Republican establishment has come over…an extension of the Patriot Act? Well, the founding fathers didn’t say anything about monitoring citizens based on the library books they check out, so therefore it must be unconstitutional. [Washington Post]"

Matt, sweetie, why the question mark of surprise? Were you under the impression that the Tea Party only liked the parts of the Constitution that you hate? Sorry to bust your hat bubble, the Tea Party is all about the Constitution and their supporters typically read it.  You know, like what happened on the floor of the House of Representatives a few weeks ago.  The country club Republicans that think they are in charge might have just been doing an appeasement stunt then, but this is real action. Really, I tried to use small words for you.

From the WaPo (see? still trying to help you, babe) story, it looks like Paul Kane and Felicia Sonmez have the same confusion that you do -

Patriot Act extension fails in the House by seven votes:

By Paul Kane and Felicia Sonmez

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 8, 2011; 9:21 PM

Country Club Republicans

Hey kids! I'm Suki, from outside the beltway, and I am here to help.

House Republicans suffered an embarrassing setback Tuesday when they fell seven votes short of extending provisions of the Patriot Act, a vote that served as the first small uprising of the party's tea-party bloc.

That should read "House Republican Leaders" suffered a setback. Oh, you modified it a little with "embarrassing". Try this: "House Country Club Republicans were reminded who is in charge now"  . . .

The bill to reauthorize key parts of the counter-terrorism surveillance law, which expire at the end of the month, required a super-majority to pass under special rules reserved for non-controversial measures.

That part was nice. Keep it.

But it fell short of the required two-thirds after 26 Republicans bucked their leadership, eight of them freshman lawmakers elected in November's midterm elections. With most Democrats opposing the extension, the final tally was 277 members in favor of extension, and 148 opposed.
The Republicans who control the House made plans to bring the measure back for a quick vote later this month under normal rules, requiring only a simple majority for passage. They blamed House Democrats for the bill's downfall, noting that they provided the lion's share of votes against a bill that President Obama supports.

Here country club Republicans, use some of this.

I notice your quotes, much farther down, for the Republicans blaming the Democrats are from Republican leaders of the country club variety.  "Bucked their leadership"? Really now? Those border on racially charged words, especially since the Democrats voted in an almost solid, minority block against the President's wishes (just between us, he is a Democrat and leads their party). Fresh back from a Common Cause meeting? Just kidding! I do not engage in the baseless smears that 'professional journalists' are paid for.

The vote was the latest signal, though, that on certain matters House leaders could face a sizable resistance to compromise from within their own ranks, both from the 87 GOP freshmen and from conservative veterans who have been emboldened by the newcomers. 

 Yea! You actually distinguish the "House Leaders" from "Republicans" as a group!

Earlier Tuesday, House Republicans pulled a bill to extend assistance to workers who lose jobs due to competition from imports. Conservatives had complained that the bill would put the federal government too squarely into the private economy.

And leaders of the Appropriations Committee heard complaints Tuesday from fellow Republicans on the panel that their bill to slash at least $32 billion in fiscal year 2011 spending was insufficient. 

I hope this was not a surprise to you two. Maybe it was, but by the time you got this far you used up your quota of surprise words.

The Patriot Act measure would have extended through the end of the year three provisions that are set to expire Feb. 28. One authorizes the FBI to use roving wiretaps on surveillance targets; the second allows the government to access "any tangible items," such as library records, in the course of surveillance; and the third allows for the surveillance of targets who are not connected to an identified terrorist group.

Do you research any of this stuff?  The FBI can still do all of those things with a court order or warrant. You know, like the 4th Amendment allows the government to do. Um, you know the Constitution is not a "you can do" list for the citizens, it is a "you are allowed to" list for the government, right?

Democrats hailed the day's events under a press release from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's office asking a simple question: "Disarray?"

Nice! The first quote of the story showcases Nancy Pelosi's Stalinist view of dissent in one word.

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has presented an occasionally lonely opposition to the Patriot Act, said that Tuesday's vote demonstrated that he now had company from more than two dozen Republicans who support the Bill of Rights. "The Patriot Act represents the undermining of civil liberties," Kucinich said after the vote. Republicans "brought [the bill] forward not knowing the votes."

See? Even that little man from Mars understands this bit of Tea Party goodness.

House leaders rejected that analysis. "Democrats in Congress voted to deny their own administration's request for key weapons in the war on terror," said Erica Elliott, spokeswoman for Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

 Your editor either started or stopped reading before that paragraph. Leaders were distinguished from "Republicans" again.

A large majority of the freshman Republicans did support the extension of the law, which the last GOP president, George W. Bush, staunchly supported. Even some who wavered eventually decided to support the bill.

Invoking the president who inspired the Tea Party to begin forming is not helping the truthfulness aspect of your story, if that matters.  Oh, I forgot, "truthieness" is what matters to you people.

Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Fla.), a freshman who voted yes, said the measure is "going to need some examination going forward, so all I did today is just, hey, instead of making a wrong decision, we're just going to do a little more due diligence to make the very right decision to both protect our security as well as protect the civil liberties of the American people."

If he voted for extension, then he really does not understand and should be hearing from the Tea Party segment of his constituency for a while.

Contemplation goes with reading.

"This is just a temporary extension, so the Judiciary Committee can dive a little deeper into the details," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a second-term lawmaker closely aligned with tea party activists. "That seemed fair. I don't want to let it expire without giving it full contemplation." 

Maybe you have no idea what a great public service you are doing.  That one needs a targeted message too. Something like "hey Jason, you needed to contemplate before that vote."

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who sponsored the extension, told reporters after the vote that opposition had little to do with the particular provisions being considered Tuesday and more to do with other counter-terrorism tools that have received scrutiny. "People didn't understand it," he said. "A lot of the complaints that we heard were about sections [of the law] not in this bill."

 Another reporter missed opportunity. Three parts to complain about were listed in this article above (find FBI).

The White House said in a statement Tuesday that it "does not object" to extending the three Patriot Act provisions until December. However, it added, the administration "would strongly prefer" an extension until December 2013, noting that the longer timeline "provides the necessary certainty and predictability" that law enforcement agencies require while at the same time ensuring that Congress can continue to review the law's effectiveness.

 Well give me a case of the vapors! Obama wants to be emperor and secure it into the empire of his successor.

The Senate is considering three competing timelines, in addition to the House legislation. Among them are proposals that would permanently extend the three provisions or extend them through 2013.

Readers, your helpful list of which Senators need a phone call, in addition to your own, is right here.

Now bring on the EPA and carbon rationing!

Femdom Cave - Adult Literature for the Discerning Reader
Read Controlling Sarah free at Literotica.Com

Now only 99¢

ORDER SUKI SERIES eBOOKS AND PAPERBACKS
Suki Series Tech
Order the paperback edition of Suki V: The Collection
Browse the series on Google: Suki I, Suki II, Suki III, Suki IV, Suki V
Fan Fiction: John and Suki: Vacation Fun
John and Suki's news and comment area, from a Libertarian perspective.
Copyright 1970 - 2011, SJE Enterprises, all rights reserved.

Ezra Klein: Boy Genius

Ezra Klein sporting the effects of the Photoshop beard filter.

Witness below, the genius of Ezra Klein, in full streaming video, as he declares the Constitution of the United States to have "no binding power." He continues, revealing his confusion with anything written over 100 years ago, maintaining that the words from then mean different things now. I wonder what he thinks "Congress shall make no law" means now vs. then?  I am pretty sure I have read his take on "shall not be infringed" before, but I am not sure where.

Klein was the famous creator of the "JournoList" where he exposed his full-tilt DNC whoring skills, along with the great David Weigel.  At least Weigel got shit-canned from Reason for his schilling for positions too far outside of their Cosmotarian sensitivities.  Klein is safe, for now, at the Post while Weigel is safe at Socialist Worker, or wherever he is.

Femdom Cave - Adult Literature for the Discerning Reader

Read Controlling Sarah Free on Literotica

ORDER SUKI SERIES eBOOKS AND PAPERBACKS
Suki Series Tech
Order the paperback edition of Suki V: The Collection
Browse the series on Google: Suki I, Suki II, Suki III, Suki IV, Suki V
Fan Fiction: John and Suki: Vacation Fun
John and Suki's news and comment area, from a Libertarian perspective.
Copyright 1970 - 2010, SJE Enterprises, all rights reserved.

Islamophobia at the Washington Post and a Gallery in Colorado?

The news of the day is the Washington Post and other papers refusing to run this instance of the Non Sequitur cartoon, below by Wiley Miller, via GoComics.Com:

"Picture book titled voted least likely to ever find a a publisher" is at the top and the title at the bottom is "Where's Muhammed?"

Note, this story in the Washington Post talks about why they did not run the cartoon (click for full size image). They write about it as if it was supposed to run on 10 October 2010, but the cartoon is dated 3 October 2010

 . . . Style editor Ned Martel said he decided to yank it, after conferring with others, including Executive Editor Marcus W. Brauchli, because "it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message." He added that "the point of the joke was not immediately clear" and that readers might think that Muhammad was somewhere in the drawing. 

Some readers accused The Post of censorship. "Cowards," e-mailed John D. Stackpole of Fort Washington, one of several who used that word.
Miller is fuming. The award-winning cartoonist, who lives in Maine, told me the cartoon was meant to satirize "the insanity of an entire group of people rioting and putting out a hit list over cartoons," as well as "media cowering in fear of printing any cartoon that contains the word 'Muhammad.' "

"The wonderful irony [is that] great newspapers like The Washington Post, that took on Nixon . . . run in fear of this very tame cartoon, thus validating the accuracy of the satire," he said by e-mail.

Through an apparent oversight, the "Where's Muhammad?" cartoon was put on The Post'sWeb site. Brauchli said he was unaware, adding, "Ideally, we wouldn't have done that if we withheld it from print."

Oddly, The Post published a similar cartoon by Miller at the height of the Danish cartoon controversy in 2006. It showed a street artist next to a sign reading: "Caricatures of Muhammad While You Wait!"

Wow! Shocking stuff. Good thing you came to my blog where you can find it and I am not afraid to post it.

In other news,

Crowbar Wielding Art Critic Attacks "Jesus Porn" in Loveland, Colo.

LOVELAND, Colo. (CBS/KCNC) Everybody's a critic, but not every critic wields a crowbar.

Police in Loveland, Colo., about 50 miles north of Denver, say that not only did Kathleen Folden, a truck driver, have a crowbar, but she drove all the way from Montana to use it on a print that depicts a Jesus-like figure engaging in sex.

The image below is what is left of the picture that had one character, thought to resemble Jesus, receiving oral sex from another that some say resembled Mohamed. I wanted the "before crowbar" version and will post it if I find it. This comes just in time for National Coming Out Day. Congratulations Muhammad!

In "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals," by Enrique Chagoya, Jesus gets oral sex from Mohamed. It was defaced by truck driver Kathleen Folden.

Ah, here we go. Update 21 SEP 2012

ORDER SUKI SERIES eBOOKS AND PAPERBACKS

Suki Series Tech
Order the paperback edition of Suki V: The Collection
Browse the series on Google: Suki I, Suki II, Suki III, Suki IV, Suki V
Fan Fiction: John and Suki: Vacation Fun
John and Suki's news and comment area, from a Libertarian perspective.
Copyright 1970 - 2010, SJE Enterprises, all rights reserved.

Fun with Reason's Morning Links: Obama's Muslimness

Expect B. Hussein Obama to blitz Christian Churches of every stripe, most Sundays and maybe Wednesdays, from now until Novembeer 2012. - John Tagliaferro*

If you are not familiar with Reason's Morning Links, you haven't been reading Suki's posts much. I don't remember the last time I posted anything about them.  However I do read them regularly.

After Reason's barrage of Ground Zero Mosque (stories that had little or nothing to do with libertarian issues), that seemed like months but was probably just a few days, my annoyance level has been elevated.  Today's morning links diffused that a bit when I spotted one to have some fun with: New poll: One in five Americans believes Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. Unfortunately, Rush was talking about this for over an hour (he is talking about it again now) and I just got to it after hearing his take.  I did hear about the poll long before Rush's show came on the air.

What would be the libertarian take on this bit of electorate confusion?  I know the Libertarian issue: Barry Hussein Obama is not Bob Barr, the small L issues are many.

First, something Rush observed that dovetails with mine: It really does not matter what Obama's religion is. Unless you are a member of a religious party in the US, it really should not make any difference if he is in a Christian sect, a Muslim sect, Jewish or none of the above.  It probably matters greatly to Cosmotarians, in some shallow and meaningless way, but to those of us who value freedom of choice, his personal choices matter not one bit to us.

Rush played some MSNBC audio from a Pew Research Center representative who was being interviewed about the survey. I am going to start with the Washington Post article that Radley Balko linked to. Remember his title? One in five Americans believes Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. In the first paragraph, the Post informs us that this is an increase since B. Hussein Obama entered the presidency. Now that is the makings of a headline!  Obama has had more air time in a few months than any other president since television was created.  No telling how many internet eyeballs he gets. He is mentioned on this blog regularly too.  We report, you do what you want.

So, on the social issue, fit for Entertainment Tonight or the 700 Club (is that still on?) more and more people believe Obama is a Muslim.  Soon after the Post informs us that this is a trend, they mention that it could be a political problem! "Rising trend in Obama's Supporters Percieving Him as a Muslim could be a Reelection Problem" might sound a little better and more accurate, but the Post article does not mention Democrats and runs off into 'mean media' conspiracy theory for an answer.  For some reason, they mention only Republicans and Independants:

More than a third of conservative Republicans now say Obama is a Muslim, nearly double the percentage saying so early last year. Independents, too, are now more apt to see the president as a Muslim: Among independents, 18 percent say he is a Muslim, up eight percentage points.

Note the interesting phrasing. For Republicans, the percentage doubled in a year. For Independents it went up eight percentage points to 18%.  Pretty much double there too.  What of the Democrats?

First, I had to dig up the Pew results, since neither the Post nor Reason bothered to link there.  From their headline and first paragraph, it is a bit of a stretch to say "one in five" since they cite 12%:

A July Pew Research survey found 12% of Americans continue to say Barack Obama is Muslim, virtually unchanged from 10% in March. This misperception is not limited to voters who oppose Obama. Identical percentages of Republicans and Democrats (12% each) think he is Muslim, and 37% of those who think he's Muslim intend to vote him. A quarter doesn't know, but significantly those who have heard different things back McCain (48% to 33%) while those who just don't know back Obama (48% to 33%).

Ah, Democrat perceptions are identical to Republican and rising at the same rate.  I like my headline better :)

What could possibly explain all this?  Rush pointed out, he does not attend services like other presidents have. I will add that Bill Clinton only went Church crazy when he was well on his way to his impeachment hearings.  Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Bush did not need any prompting to attend and made no secret about attending.  Maybe something in Obama's actions is giving people these impressions?

George Stephanopoulos tried to help him out, but a copy of the interview floating around does not help:



Looks like about 1:20 into this clip.

How about other factors? Like running to the rescue of the "Allahu akbar" shouting MAJ Hasan, to the point that command influence may be a major defense strategy. Maybe it is how he jumped into the Cordoba/Project 51 Mosque/recreation center issue?  Maybe it was when he gave NASA a new mission, to stop exploring space and help Muslims with math and science?  How about all that bowing?  Skipping the National Day of Prayer?  Phoning in his address to the Boy Scouts?  Sending the Ground Zero imam on a vacation at tax-payer expense?  The only thing the Post can blame on talk radio is the tendancy for them not to ignore these things like the Post and MSNBC tend to do.
*I have heard similar from others already today.
 ORDER SUKI SERIES eBOOKS AND PAPERBACKSSuki Background Suki Series Tech
Order the paperback edition of Suki V: The Collection
Browse the series on Google: Suki I, Suki II, Suki III, Suki IV, Suki V
Fan Fiction: John and Suki: Vacation Fun
John and Suki's news and comment area, from a Libertarian perspective.
Copyright 1970 - 2010, SJE Enterprises, all rights reserved.

David Weigel back at the Post again

JournoLister David Weigel back on the pages of the Washington Post

At least he got this one right. Not sure if it is going to help him get a job with Pat Buchanan.

Five myths about the 'tea party':

The tea party is racist.

2. It's a phenomenon that some activists call 'nutpicking' -- send a cameraman into a protest and he'll focus on the craziest sign. Yes, there are racists in the tea party, and they make themselves known. But tea party activists, in most cases, root them out. Texas activist Dale Robertson, who held a sign comparing taxpayers to 'niggars' at a 2009 rally, was drummed out of that event and pilloried by his peers. Mark Williams, formerly the bomb-throwing spokesman for the Tea Party Express (he once told me he wanted to send the liberal watchdog group Media Matters 'a case of champagne' for calling him racist), was booted after penning a parody essay that had the NAACP pining for slavery.

Liberal critics of the tea party make the case that conservative opposition to social spending is often racially motivated. That's not new, though, and it's certainly not the basis for the tea party.

h/t Johnny Longtorso

I missed this the first time through:

The tea party will transform American politics.

5. Here, Sen. Graham has history on his side. A popular, and correct, aphorism about grass-roots movements is that they act like wasps -- they sting, then die. 

Emphasis mine.
Yes, the standard of excellence that is both Weigel and the Post. For those who don't know, wasps keep stinging, bees sting and die. H/t to the others in the Johnny Longtorso thread for noticing. They also noticed the Post changed "wasps" to "bees", ROFL!

ORDER SUKI SERIES eBOOKS AND PAPERBACKS
Suki BackgroundSuki Series TechOrder the paperback edition of Suki V: The CollectionBrowse the series on Google: Suki I, Suki II, Suki III, Suki IV, Suki VFan Fiction: John and Suki: Vacation Fun




John and Suki's news and comment area, from a Libertarian perspective.
Copyright 2009, 2010, SJE Enterprises, all rights reserved.

So that's where the Copyright Application is sitting!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.