Dumbest Quote Of 2010

While there were more than a handful of ridiculous blatherings from conservatives in 2010, it wasn't until the final days of that year that the ultimate idiocy came forward in unblushing platitudes.

From none other than Sean Hannity's second-favorite black man Eik Rush - calling himself the "Other Rush" with almost no sense of how laughably ironic that is - from the confines of the uber-fringe World Nut Daily.

It is more or less common knowledge among conservatives that the entertainment industry has done more than its share in abetting far-left social engineering in America. While I would certainly not be the first commentator to enumerate the multitudinous examples thereof, I did thoroughly analyze the machinations of film and television producers with respect to race issues since the 1970s in my book, "Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America's Racial Obsession."

An interesting phenomenon has recently come to light, however, suggesting that at least one faction in Hollywood is attempting to directly influence public opinion as regards President Obama. If this is true, it goes far beyond simply carrying the water for those with whom they are ideologically kindred, as described in "Negrophilia."

The presidency of Barack Obama has been injurious to the image of black Americans in politics. Prior to his election, one of his glaring deficiencies was his lack of experience. While even his detractors realize that his race has nothing to do with his being an anti-American, Marxist scoundrel, one still has to consider the superficial associations people can make in this vein. I have stated that it's unfortunate that our first black president had to be a person of Obama's character, because he does represent a blemish on the legacy of black Americans. In the best-case scenario, he will wind up merely being a footnote: our first black president. The specter of the worst-case scenario is what has motivated and mobilized Americans toward thwarting his agenda.

As a result of the dim view this president has cultivated, and its potential cultural blowback, it appears that the producers of certain television shows might have come on board to effect damage control in this area. In order to to counter the perception of ineptitude that has come about associated with Obama and his lack of leadership skills, an effort seems to have been made to portray blacks in high places as competent leaders in dramatic roles.

Not a truncated quote by any means, but one that could use some examination.

First off, it's pretty much common knowledge to anyone with even a marginally functioning brain stem that this notion that Hollywood is out to destroy American with some anti-capitalist message is just pure hyperbolic nonsense that only people like Erik Rush would buy into.

Secondly, it's really telling of the type of person Erik Rush is, as he apparently considers himself "more black" than Obama, considers Obama "the wrong kind of black", or thinks his color means nothing even though his entire piece is predicated on the notion of race being ultimately "bad". If I'm off the mark in any or all of those assumption, he clearly has no clue what a Marxist is and insists on using that as a fill-in word for "bad", because it just sounds scary and makes the ignorant masses within the modern conservative movement cringe. And boy, are there a LOT of those.

But in the end, it appears that Rush is more in fear of how his "blackness" is going to be viewed because of the type of person Obama is both within and without the political realm. And his rationalization for this is that because a few television dramas have new characters that are black that there must be an entire movement within Hollywood that is going to "save" black people from Obama's legacy - or something.

How incredibly stupid is this man? Better yet, how is it that Erik Rush thinks that the bulk of black Americans are as stupid as him.

If anyone is guilty of regressive standpoints and causing any sort of "blowback", it's people like Erik Rush.

Have you ever seen him on Hannity? Is the "token black guy" brought on to show that there are "black conservatives" and is more than willing to play this part, even in the face of having to defend the racial animus that is vomited from Hannity himself and the Fox"News" network. Now this isn't to say that simply because he is black that he must act and react in a certain fashion to satisfy a particular stereotype, but you wouldn't expect a Jew to defend Mel Gibson would you? The same principle applies here.

This all goes back to this question I have continually asked myself - how could a black person ( especially a woman ) even consider aligning themselves with conservativism, particularly in it's modern form?

I continually see stories of "Hey, there really are black people at Tea Party rallies! LOOK?", like they are some gimmick to be used by Freedom Works, Fox, and Glenn Beck. But you know what, that's exactly how they are viewed by the bulk of the modern conservative movement, which is about as lily white as anything I have ever seen. That is what Erick Rush wants blacks in America to be - gimmicks to be used by a group of people that is a majority white just so he can make some preposterous point about how more blacks are turning to conservativism.

It's all just really sad and really dumb.

Catering To The Fringe

Further proof that the Fox"Nation" is nothing more than Fox"News" without the "Fair and Balanced" mask, a highlighted story from, World Net Daily that attempts to connect Barack Obama to the alleged "Anthrax attacker", Bruce Ivins.

FBI documents detailing the investigation into Bruce Ivins, the government scientist suspected in the 2001 anthrax mailings that left five people dead, reveal he was a cross-dresser, fixated on a college sorority, purchased pornography and was a fan of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Ivins committed suicide in 2008 during the investigation. The FBI later closed the case, essentially confirming it had no other suspects.

There's just one problem with this write-up, Obama was a little known State Senator at the time and NOT a Presidential candidate. But don't expect details that glaringly obvious stop people like WND from pushing such nonsensical prattling.

And while Ivin's may or may not have had mental issues, it should be pointed out that the investigation into him as the man who carried out these attacks does have some issues of reliability. The case against Ivins was largely circumstantial, with many key elements of the case unable to be proven. And the media at large took the FBI's and DOJ's "case closed" statement and ran with it. So much for "liberal media bias".

But this isn't the only example of the fringe, conservative, elements within the country attempting to connect Obama with murderous activities. Conservatives used this same tactic with Amy Bishop.

Misleading The Letter Of The Law

As is to be expected, Fox"News" and various conservative blogs, message boards, and "news" sites are pushing the story of the White House gathering your "data" or your "info". And while the Presidential Records Act requires that all correspondance with the White House be archived, the way the story is being framed is that your "personal information" - not just your name and your comments that were posted - is somehow in danger.

The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.

"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said.

If one were to simply read the lead-in, you would come away with the impression that ALL of the social networking sites are being monitored even if there is no direct correspondance with the White House.

Even the Washington Times article explains this rather poorly. The average reader might not catch the word "its" in the opening paragraph which is the only signifier that it's not the entirity of Facebook or Twitter that is being archived, but the White House's personal sections. Trust me, your MySpace pic folder where you put your emo pics and videos of that drunk kid from the party last weekend, as well as your home address, phone and social security number, are safe.

And while the spectre of identity theft is real, it is these fears within people that conservatives are hoping to stoke to a boiling point. People should worry about their own use of personal information on social networking sites rather than respond to the fearmongering of conservatives.

Who Is Jerusalem21?

Fox"News" - and many of it's employees - LOVE a juicy story about Obama, ficticious or not.

So, it is with little suprise that we find that they are continuing the William Ayres / Obama "connection" non-story:

Critics noted over the weekend that President Obama's page on the free online encyclopedia had been edited to remove any mention of his links to former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, and to allow only a brief citation of his connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — though pages for Ayers and Wright are heavily peppered with references to the president, including subsections on both pages that detail their past affiliations with him.

The restart on this was triggered by WorldNetDaily ( you know, that same place where Jerome Corsi touted all his Obama nonsense ) writer Aaron Klein:

A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year.

Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.

The last sentence was an obvious reference to the lunatic-fringers that insist that Obama was not born in the US and can't be President.

As I was reading through the Fox story and the WND piece, I came across this article by Kevin Poulsen @ Wired.

He talks about The Fox story and the WND piece, but goes a step further and notes that the person that edited Obama's page to add the "juicy tidbits" was a user named Jerusalem21.

Poulsen goes on to note:

Curiously, it turns out that Jerusalem21, whoever he or she might be, has only worked on one other Wikipedia entry since the account was created, notes ConWebWatch. That's Aaron Klein's entry, which Jerusalem21 created in 2006, and has edited 37 times.

Klein, who serves as WND's Jerusalem bureau chief, did not immediate respond to an e-mail Monday.

Doesn't really take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

Poulsen tried to contact Klein about this "exclusive" piece and wasn't immediately contacted back. Also, he seemed to realize the Wired and Poulsen were onto him and he changed the text of the story

Update: March 10, 2009 | 1:40:00 PM

This morning the WorldNetDaily story, which is headlined "Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility," was scrubbed clean of the name Jerusalem21, who's now referred to only as "one Wikipedia user." Fortunately, Google cache never forgets.

Second update: March 10, 2009 | 7:20:00 PM

Aaron Klein has answered my e-mail. Klein says that there's an "undeniable trend" of Ayers and Wright references being scrubbed from Obama's entry — as he wrote in his article. But he now admits that he's responsible for the Jerusalem21 edits that he reported on, and says he's updated his WorldNetDaily story to reflect that.

While Klein's pathetic attempt to resurrect the notion that Obama, Ayres, and Wright are somehow interconneted on such a level is more than just laughable, it is also a signifier that the conservative media at large are willing to modify history in order to fit their tilited ideology.

Remember Jill Stanek?

She's the flailing ignoramous that started the "Obama supports infanticide" nonsense. Now, she's back on World Net Daily to tell all those that will read her drivel that Americans just elected a "barbarian". But, it's the first line that caught my attention:

Barack Obama was elected president despite the fact he supports abortion into the fourth trimester.

Either the 63 million people voting for him didn't know about his radical record, which includes abandoning abortion survivors to die, didn't care, or didn't believe it.

More here.


4th trimester?

I appears that Stanek doesn't seem to understand that "tri" means 3. This is not suprising.

For a refresher, Obama voted "present" in response to proposed legislation in reference to infants born alive after a failed abortion. The protections were already in place in Illinois State Law and the legislation was even frowned upon by The Illinois Medical Society.

And, to cap everything off, the Republican that introduced the legislation wrote that "none of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide" even though he disagreed with them.

Apparently, Stanek is now calling on all the religious wingnuts in America to all start chattering at once that Obama is a threat. There is nothing more dangerous than an ill-informed Christian.