One day, in the heat of the 2008 presidential election, the mainstream media’s anointed candidate was strolling through a swing-state neighborhood looking for a quick photo-op so he could be seen touching the flesh of a few “bitter-clingers” — and then something amazing happened. One of those “bitter clingers,” a man simply minding his own business in his front yard, dared to ask the mainstream media’s anointed candidate the kind of tough question the mainstream media never would. The Anointed One, not used to tough, probing questions, revealed something in his answer about his True Beliefs — the kind of thing neither he nor his media pals ever wanted made public.

We all remember what happened next, a “spread the wealth” YouTube moment was born, Sen. John McCain amplified it, and Obama faced a few tough news cycles. And unfortunately for Obama, the moment itself was so raw and revealing there was no way for him to squirm out of it. And so there was only one solution: change the narrative by destroying the messenger. Obviously Obama couldn’t be seen openly destroying private citizens (he’d have to wait until he was elected and the tea party came to life to do that), so the dirty work was left to his media minions, who were all too happy to do whatever was necessary.

Desperate to change the subject from Obama’s default socialism, Jonathan Martin at Politico stepped in and did something that can only be described as morally obscene…

Read More: Big Journalism

Watch this amusing video that shows the misplaced hostility of the left in calling Tea Party members terrorists.

One day climate change skeptics will be seen in the same negative light as racists, or so says former Vice President Al Gore.

In an interview with former advertising executive and Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky broadcast on UStream on Friday, Gore explained that in order for climate change alarmists to succeed, they must “win the conversation” against those who deny there is a crisis.

“I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an impression on me,” Gore said. “My generation watched Bull Connor turning the hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, ‘Whoa! How gross and evil is that?’ My generation asked old people, ‘Explain to me again why it is okay to discriminate against people because their skin color is different?’ And when they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really started.”

The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.

Read More: The Daily Caller

So says the headline in The Guardian, but I’ve read the accompanying article three times, and I’m blowed if I can see where the headline comes from. The writer, Amanda Marcotte, says some disobliging things about the Tea Party (”they’re the most Bible-thumping-est part of the rightwing base as well as the most racist – these things tend to go together”), and then mentions that a high school in Missouri has banned a novel by Kurt Vonnegut. Banning books is, of course, always and everywhere a bad idea, but there is no suggestion that the Missouri parents are Tea Partiers or, indeed, part of any wider movement.

What interests me here is not one jejune article, but the almost desperate insistence by Lefties that the Tea Party is not, in fact, what it claims to be, viz a protest against big government. On both sides of the Atlantic, Tea Partiers are portrayed in broadcast and print media as a gaggle of stump-toothed Appalachianmountain men who can’t get used to the idea of a mixed race president. So far, though, the US electorate has refused to fall for it. To most American voters, the proposition that levels of taxation, spending and borrowing are too high seems remarkably moderate.

The book-banning trope is an old favourite. When Sarah Palin was chosen as a Vice-Presidential candidate, bogus emails about the books she had supposedly banned from Alaska’s libraries surged…

by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-CA

Federal spending has ballooned 28 percent during the Obama presidency, while the government has amassed more debt than it acquired from the first day of George Washington’s administration to the last day of George H. W. Bush’s.

Our nation is racing toward a fiscal cliff. Yet, as Sen. Jim DeMint noted, instead of hitting the brakes, Congress and the president just set the cruise control. “The Budget Control Act of 2011” offers an object lesson in exactly the sort of empty compromise that has gotten our nation intoits present mess. Faced with the devastating consequences of unprecedented and unsustainable federal spending, both parties agreed on only one thing: to lock in that spending for at least the next two years. Bypassing the normal legislative process, the deal was written behind closed doors and dumped it into the laps of both houses under the threat that failing to pay the government’s bills would jeopardize the nation’s triple-A credit.

Unfortunately, the deal didn’t just pay our current bills – it gave the most spendthrift administration in history an open credit line to continue…

Read More: Floyd Reports