From the Fox Nation:
From Joseph Curl's January 22 Washington Times column:
When the handsome new student arrived on Thursday for a tour of his new school, fellow classmates swooned with delight, lining up to meet the mysterious cool kid and maybe, just maybe, win him over to their clique.
But the newcomer played it coy, running a hand through his perfect hair and flashing his Hollywood smile as he got his flirt on, clearly intent on playing the field for a bit.
"I understand there's an interest in who I am and what makes me tick," he said aloofly. But with a James Dean-like defiance, he added, "I don't owe anybody anything."
Sen.-elect Scott Brown won a special Senate election Tuesday in Massachusetts, giving Republicans 41 members in the Senate, just enough to thwart any legislation pushed by the majority Democrats. While he signed autographs Thursday at the Russell Senate Office Building with his new moniker - "41" - he also made it clear that he may, on occasion, be signing the number "60," too.
But just to make sure, Mr. McCain heaped praised on the charismatic newbie, who isn't yet a senator and who, as the once-obscure state senator joked repeatedly on Thursday, doesn't have an office or even business cards.
"Senator Brown represents, I think, the dreams and the hopes and the frustrations that Americans feel today, and they want the kind of leadership that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts just sent us," Mr. McCain said.
The maverick won chivalry points by escorting the rookie to his next class, past a throng of ogling reporters and photographers, lined up at times 10 deep. He handed the newcomer off to the senior senator from Massachusetts, who immediately tried to make amends to his new classmate for the mean things he'd said behind his new friend's back.
From Sarah Palin's Twitter feed:
From Pat Buchanan's January 21 syndicated column, headlined at WorldNetDaily "Has Obama lost white America?":
Republicans have won three major races -- two of them upsets and one a Massachusetts miracle -- because the white share of the vote in all three rose as a share of the total vote, and Republicans swept the white vote in Reagan-like landslides.
What explains the white surge to the GOP?
First, sinking white support for Obama, seen as ineffectual in ending the recession and stopping the loss of jobs.
Second, a growing perception that Obama is biased. When the president blurted that the Cambridge cops and Sgt. James Crowley "acted stupidly" in arresting black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates -- a rush to judgment that proved wrong -- his support sank in white America and especially in Massachusetts, where black Gov. Deval Patrick joined in piling on Crowley. Deval is now in trouble, too.
Then there was Obama's appointment of Puerto Rican American Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Her militant support for race and ethnic preferences and her decision to deny Frank Ricci and the white firefighters of New Haven a hearing on their case that they were denied promotions they won in competitive exams because they were white caused 31 GOP senators to vote against her.
Immigrants are 21 percent of the uninsured, but only 7 percent of the population. This means white folks on Medicare or headed there will see benefits curtailed, while new arrivals from the Third World, whence almost all immigrants come, get taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. Any wonder why all those tea-party and town-hall protests seem to be made up of angry white folks?
What the McDonnell, Christie and Brown victories teach is that the GOP should stop listening to the Wall Street Journal and start listening to these forgotten Americans.
An end to affirmative action and ethnic preferences, an end to bailouts of Wall Street bankers, a moratorium on immigration until unemployment falls to 6 percent, an industrial policy that creates jobs here and stops shipping them to China appear a winning hand in 2012.
From a January 21 post by Mark Krikorian on National Review Online's blog The Corner:
Derb and Jonah's discussion on why Haiti is a basket case misses the point, I think. The question is not "Why isn't Haiti like Denmark?" It's "Why isn't Haiti like Jamaica or Barbados?" Those places certainly have their problems, but they're not dystopian like Haiti. (Haiti doesn't just have the lowest per capita GDP, based on purchasing-power parity, in the Western Hemisphere; the next-lowest, Nicaragua, is at twice Haiti's level.) It's obviously not race -- Caribbean blacks are all from the same basic background. It's not because of their different colonial masters; while Britain's influence in the world has certainly been more salutary than that of France, Guadeloupe and Martinique are also French former sugar colonies in the Caribbean, and they're infinitely better off.
My guess is that Haiti's so screwed up because it wasn't colonized long enough. The ancestors of today's Haitians, like elsewhere in the Caribbean, experienced the dislocation of de-tribalization, which disrupted the natural ties of family and clan and ethnicity. They also suffered the brutality of sugar-plantation slavery, which was so deadly that the majority of slaves at the time of independence were African-born, because their predecessors hadn't lived long enough to reproduce.
But, unlike Jamaicans and Bajans and Guadeloupeans, et al., after experiencing the worst of tropical colonial slavery, the Haitians didn't stick around long enough to benefit from it. (Haiti became independent in 1804.). And by benefit I mean develop a local culture significantly shaped by the more-advanced civilization of the colonizers. Sure, their creole language is influenced by French, but they never became black Frenchmen, like the Martiniquais, or "Afro-Saxons," like the Barbadians. Where a similar creolization took place in Africa, you saw a similar thing -- the Cape Coloureds, who are basically black Afrikaaners, and even the Swahili peoples of the east African coast, who are Arabized blacks. A major indicator of how superficial is the overlay of French culture in Haiti is the strength of paganism, in the form of voodoo -- the French just weren't around long enough to suppress it, to the detriment of Haitians.
Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his January 21 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
With today's announcement that Air America is shutting down, I'm sure it'll only be a matter of minutes before conservatives start gleefully insisting that this demonstrates that there is no market for liberal news outlets.
Two quick points to keep in mind:
1) You can either claim that ABC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC/NBC/NPR/NYT/WAPO/ETC are "liberal media," or that there is no market for liberal media -- but not both. Please pick one.* Thanks!
2) The Washington Times has been losing money for two decades. In the early days of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch paid cable companies $11 per subscriber to carry FNC (and Rudy Giuliani pressured Time Warner to carry the outlet in New York City.) Point being: conservative media outlets have succeeded not only because of market forces, as conservatives would have you believe, but because right-wing billionaires like Murdoch and Rev. Moon have been willing to subsidize them.
* Or neither. That works, too.
From an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) press release:
ADL: Rush Limbaugh Reaches New Low With 'Borderline Anti-Semitic' Remarks About Jews
New York, NY, January 21, 2010 ... The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said Rush Limbaugh reached a new low with "borderline anti-Semitic comments" on his radio show, in which he raised the possibility that liberal Jews were having "buyer's remorse" with President Obama in light of the outcome of the Senate election in Massachusetts.
Limbaugh told his listeners: "To some people, banker is a code word for Jewish; and guess who Obama is assaulting? He's assaulting bankers. He's assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there's - if there's starting to be some buyer's remorse there."
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
Rush Limbaugh reached a new low with his borderline anti-Semitic comments about Jews as bankers, their supposed influence on Wall Street, and how they vote.
Limbaugh's references to Jews and money in a discussion of Massachusetts politics were offensive and inappropriate. While the age-old stereotype about Jews and money has a long and sordid history, it also remains one of the main pillars of anti-Semitism and is widely accepted by many Americans. His notion that Jews vote based on their religion, rather than on their interests as Americans, plays into the hands of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.
When he comes to understand why his words were so offensive and unacceptable, Limbaugh should apologize.
HotAir.com is linking to video of a floor speech by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) under the headline "Pence: Why is deficit commission barred from recommending discretionary cuts?" and reporting that a bipartisan commission to study deficit reduction would "be limited to one option" -- presumably tax increases.
In his floor speech, Pence stated that "the devil is always in the details in Washington, D.C.," adding, "the president's proposal as I've heard about it is prohibited from recommending cuts in any discretionary spending."
HotAir gave no further indication as to the source of the claim.
But The New York Times tells a different story:
The agreement is tentative, pending consultations between Congressional leaders and some House and Senate lawmakers. Some details remained in flux.
But according to people familiar with the deal, in principle it commits Democrats to work with Republicans to do what they have not been able to do for a decade through the regular process: compromise on spending cuts and tax increases to produce reductions in annual deficits that, under George W. Bush and now Mr. Obama, have reached the highest levels since World War II.