Blame Bush

That's right folks, no matter what ails you, it is probably the fault of former President George W. Bush. Hangnail? Bush. Short? Bush. Bad relationship? Bush, of course. Idiotic leftist policies failing? Bush times 50.

The "supercommittee" negotiations failed to produce the cuts in deficit spending required to avoid automatic cuts in domestic and military spending. Why? Not because Democrats failed to address entitlement spending until the last minute (which Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) had already instructed her caucus not to agree to), not because Republicans wouldn't agree to effectively raise taxes by addressing exemptions while lowering the base rates (they did). It was because of Bush, specifically, the Bush tax cuts according to this report from ABC News.

So the lesson is, neither Democrats nor Republicans currently in office have any responsibility for their actions as long as the finger can point to President Bush. Whatever happened to the buck stops here?

Disgusting Union Behavior

Michigan, is not a right to work state. As a result, parents caring for their disabled children have been forced to join SEIU, one of the most evil institutions in America, so that they can take the medicaid money intended to help the parents care for those children.

Guilty

Well, I have to admit, I called it very early on Newt Gingrich when his campaign appeared to be tanking. Now, not only am I actively rooting for him to be either President or Vice President, it appears his surge in the polls may have in him a position to do so.

Occupy This

The various "Occupy" movements might want to think about occupying this million dollar vacation home owned by filmaker Michael Moore (who rails against the supposed 1%). I suppose Moore is truly part of the 99% in one way. That's about what percentage of liberal celebrities are hypocrites.

He's Baaaaaaaaacckkk!!!!!!!

Former Congressman Alan Grayson (D. Fl.), whose blatant idiocy has blessed these pages previously, is back running to regain the seat he lost in Congress. The "Congressman with guts" (which are presumably what he has in lieu of brains and character) is, at least this is my theory, some strange metaphysical manifestation of the "Looney Tunes" character Hugo the Abominable Snowman

and Private Pyle from "Full Metal Jacket"

all rolled into one but somehow only received 1/10 of the total IQ points and 1/100 of the moral fiber.

I'm actually a little torn. While his presence as a Congressman is an indictment of humanity (at least in his district anyway), he's always good to hold up as an example of exactly what is horribly, horribly wrong with the self-described progressive left.

Today's Recommended Reading

Ann Coulter digs into the history of sexual harassment claims and the Chicago political machine in this article.

Liberal Bigotry (Searching for a New Anita Hill)

This clip from Mel Brooks' classic comedy "Blazing Saddles" seems to sum up the modern liberal revulsion towards black conservatives. If you can't call them Uncle Tom's and assault their actual message, slander them with the fear that they are sexual predators. Let's put some context on this with a little journey back through recent history.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative black man and arguably the best jurist in modern times, was once nominee Clarence Thomas in 1991. Suddenly, out of the blue flew in liberal Anita Hill, now a professor of social policy, law and women's studies at Brandeis University. Miss Hill had told the FBI that about a decade prior to the hearings in 1982 and 1983 she had heard sexually unwanted comments from Mr. Thomas. Somehow this magically leaked to the press and voila! The hearings of a man with a sterling record of service became a firestorm of sexual harassment charges. Two other women stepped forward, though neither testified, one saying that she had heard similar remarks, the other saying she had heard the other one that wasn't testifying (you following this mess?) complain about the comments. Oh, did I mention that these were people working at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? Because no one ever filed a complaint. Hill was the only testimony, and her story was contradicted by telephone records that supported Thomas's testimony of continued friendly relations with his colleague.

That's enough for history. Don't get me wrong, liberals have never seen a black conservative they didn't like...to beat the crap out of. But the Thomas story has some easy comparisons to the unfolding events in the "Herman Cain is suddenly a serial rapist" storyline. First, Politico broke a story of an anonymous complaint as detailed by unnamed sources and unsubstantiated by any documentation. The accuser has yet to step forward. Then a second accuser story comes to light, unsupported as well as the incident was subject to a settlement and non-disclosure agreement. The settlement was rumored to be five figures. Let that sink in. The CEO of a multi-million dollar company with assets in the billions got somewhere between $99,999.99 and $10,000.00 for this alleged sexual harassment. The cost of actually defending the suit likely would have exceeded $1 million. That reeks of a nuisance case and a nuisance settlement. It looks like they settled for a year's pay, which they might well have owed in any termination package. A third accuser appears who says it isn't worth revisiting. Now a fourth, semi-tearful press conference arm in arm with that bastion of ethics, Gloria Allred. The best explanation I can think of for Gloria Allred's credibility is that if she were Pinocchio, her nose would have reached the heliopause in 1967. Even if the fourth accuser's story didn't sound ridiculous on the surface (he sexually assaulted me so I asked him to take me back to my hotel and he did? seriously?), Gloria Allred's presence implies that not only is Herman Cain innocent, he may actually be eligible for sainthood. And why are these stories floating without any confirmation in the press?

The point is, there is something about black conservative men that makes liberals reach back into their roots and try to scare the local town folk into a lynching by saying the black guy is on the prowl to rape the town's women. Where all the white women at, indeed.

I want to be clear that I have no way of knowing if there is any truth to any of these allegations. But I think history supports Mr. Cain and I personally hope he didn't do anything. But lynchings were rarely based on the truth. The girl got knocked up by her boyfriend and blamed a random black guy. The townsfolk got angry and scared and hung the innocent man. Remember that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Liberals apparently consist of large populations of amnesiacs.

Did Obama Err in Announcing Killing of Bin Laden?

In a story by the Daily Caller, former Navy Seal Chuck Pfarrer details how his new book disputes the story of the mission which resulted in the killing of Osama Bin Laden which was popularized by an article in the New Yorker. However, that isn't the interesting part of the interview. When speaking about the announcement from the White House, Pfarrer notes:

'"'There was a choice that night,' Pfarrer told the DC. 'There was a choice to keep the mission secret.' America, Pfarrer explained, could have left things alone for 'weeks or months...even though there was evidence left on the ground there...and use the intelligence and finish off al-Qaida.'

But Obama's announcement, he said, 'rendered moot all of the intelligence that was gathered from the nexus of al-Qaida. The computer drives, the hard drives, the videocassettes, the CDs, the thumb drives, everything. Before that could even be looked through, the political decision was made to take credit for the operation.'"

President Obama may have destroyed incredible operational intelligence that would have allowed the military to effectively destroy and unearth the al-Qaida network. On the other hand, maybe there wasn't any real actionable intelligence to utilize. We'll never know. I can only hope that a President with flagging popularity didn't jump to exploit a military success without thinking first about the consequences, or that his advisors failed to counsel him in that area. But I imagine the temptation is there.

Hell, President Obama has talked (i.e. bragged) so much about Bin Laden's killing, if we still had the body he'd be doing his own version of "Weekend at Bernie's" toting him around to campaign stops.

Today's Recommended Reading

Reason.com comments on the firebombing of a French satirical paper due to the use of a pitcture of Mohammed. Two points: 1) they do a good job of laying out just how restrictive speech is in Europe in fear of anti-muslim retaliation (funny, no one seemed to mind the French hurling racial epithats at Thierry Henry because he wasn't likely to bomb back) though it is contradictory at some points in instances such as the French banning burqas; and 2) any article that ends with me getting to look at S.E. Cupp is a plus.