One aspect of the healthcare reform that I can’t get past is this: In order to secure the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson from Nebraska, provisions were added to the bill to exempt Nebraska from the effects of the healthcare reform! This compromise demonstrated that the administration and its legislative deputies don’t see the effects of the bill as advantageous. This was a tacit admission that the bill is not advantageous and, indeed, will likely be quite expensive for all involved.

Nevertheless, on Friday, the Washington Post editorialized that the House should vote “Yes, with trepidation.” So the Washington Post, which prides itself on taking on and ousting a President, has decided to meekly encourage the current administration’s an Congress’s power grab. How do the Post’s editors justify their acquiescence?

First, it is a bet that the potential of controlling rising health-care costs will be fulfilled, thus justifying the fiscal risk of a $1 trillion entitlement program. Second, it is a judgment that the benefits of expanding coverage to 32 million Americans and giving new protections to those who are currently insured outweigh the dangers of restructuring such a huge chunk of the economy — dangers heightened by the party-line and likely razor-thin margin of the vote. Finally, it is an assessment that the pending measure represents the best that is achievable and that the choice is therefore between the bill and the status quo, not between the bill and a notional better version.

If you were looking for reticence over the Constitutional or financial overreaches of the bill (and associated maneuvering) you won’t find it. The paper, that three and half decades ago, fought against a corrupt government, no longer sees the need to to act as a watchdog.

How’d we get here? Perhaps not enough passion and a lack of scrutiny that’s routinely applied to other areas of government, matched by a false sense that anything historic is necessarily good.

What are the possible responses? Perhaps enough states have been provoked to take legal action against the overreach to convene a constitutional convention.

What’s next? Immigration reform or did this overreach doom that effort?

I focused on the Washington Post because its editorial position often can be sensible. But the Post has failed to do its job and protect us from governmental excesses. In that, it has been emblematic of a failure. The major overhaul that the Post and the rest of the MSM championed is unsustainable and too fraught with contradictions to be successful.

The Washington Examiner sums it up nicely (via Instapundit)

Never before in American history has a measure of such importance been imposed on the country by the majority party over the unanimous opposition of the minority.

And the watchdogs who were supposed to guard us from governmental excess have, instead, acted foxes guarding henhouses.

 From Barry Rubin:

The UN Gives an Award Named After a Murdered Man to One of His Murderer’s Best Friends

Making Your Option to Purchase Private Insurance Illegal

Journalists didn’t get more than 16 pages into 1000+ page House Democrat  “Health Care for all Americans” bill before they discovered a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

Congress: It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers. — (Src. Investors Business Daily)

Still think these lying bums in Congress have your best interests in mind? They don’t have the decency to call themselves anti-capitalist leftist radicals, even though they act the part every day.

Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune put it into perspective, calling the public option a scam:

Some statements are inherently unbelievable. Such as: “I am an official of the government of Nigeria, and I would like to deposit $60 million in your bank account.” Or: “I’m Barry Bonds, and I thought it was flaxseed oil.” And this new one: “I’m Barack Obama, and I favor more competition in health insurance.”

The New York Post also took a look and the findings are exactly what critics have been warning they would be; only worse:

It’s full steam ahead for ObamaCare — the radical health-care “reform” pack age that Congressional Democrats are trying to steamroll to passage by the end of the summer. And now America is beginning to learn how much it will cost — and who’ll pay the tab.

* How much? Somewhere between $600 billion and $1.5 trillion, depending on whether the Senate or House version ultimately is adopted.

* Who pays? You. In cash, for sure — and maybe with your job, too.

Indeed, an analysis by the watchdog Tax Foundation shows that the top combined federal and state income-tax rate in 39 states would exceed 50 percent under the House version.

For New York state taxpayers, the top rate would hit 56.92 percent, third-highest in the nation. And in the five boroughs, the top rate would be 58.68 per cent — highest in the nation.

Having abandoned any notion of lightening the load with spending cuts, House Democrats have put forward a 1,000-plus-page proposal dripping with new taxes, surcharges and fees.

The biggest losers? Small businesses — companies with as few as five employees, who’ll have to pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of income unless they provide their workers with health insurance.

Now, these are the same businesses the administration thinks will hire workers laid off during the recession. But why would they do that if Washington effectively imposes a hiring tax?

Michelle Malkin urges pressure on the blue dogs that may be vulnerable to making deals:

Your calls to members of Congress and your hometown protests can and have made a difference. Look:

Pelosi cut deal after deal with individual lawmakers to squeak the bill out of committee and to the floor. Then lawmakers flew home and had to battle criticism from voters at the same time Republicans were saying Democrats passed an “energy tax.”

“They went home and got beat up about energy,” said a senior aide to a Blue Dog lawmaker. “Now you’re going to jam healthcare down their throat and send them home for a month?”

Buck up the Blue Dogs with a phone call – Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121:

Reps. John Barrow (D-Ga.)
Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.)
Baron Hill (D-Ind.)
Jim Matheson (D-Utah)
Charlie Melancon (D-La.)
Mike Ross (D-Ark.)
Zack Space (D-Ohio)

This is something that can’t wait until Democrats take away your choice. A change this big can’t be undone sometime later down the line, by then it will be too late. Once socialist Democrats dismantle the health care industry there won’t be any “back” to turn to. This is a disaster and Democrats should be held accountable. Help the Blue Dogs get a voice in their own party. Support them in their efforts to fight off the radical agenda of their colleagues and put American interests first.

Tell them in no uncertain terms: KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY HEALTH CARE!

No surprise here. Amnesty International released a report claiming that Israel committed war crimes against the Palestinians in the 22 day offensive at the end of last year. The BBC reported the alleged crimes in an article titled “Amnesty details Gaza ‘war crimes’” by citing the findings of the “independent human rights report” in an effort to further the propaganda being peddled by international leftists.

Israel committed war crimes and carried out reckless attacks and acts of wanton destruction in its Gaza offensive, an independent human rights report says.

Hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed using high-precision weapons, while others were shot at close range, the group Amnesty International says.

First things first, using the term “independent ” is another one of those trick words as if “independent” implies objective, honest and fair. However a simple reading of the BBC report underscores the lies in the report.

First the setup:

The 117-page report by Amnesty International says many of the hundreds of civilian deaths in the conflict “cannot simply be dismissed as ‘collateral damage’ incidental to otherwise lawful attacks – or as mistakes”.

It says “disturbing questions” remain unanswered as to why children playing on roofs and medical staff attending the wounded were killed by “highly accurate missiles” whose operators had detailed views of their targets.

Yes disturbing questions certainly need answers. But we actually get the answer in the BBC report although it is hidden behind another lie.

Human shields

The Amnesty report says no evidence was found that Palestinian militants had forced civilians to stay in buildings being used for military purposes, contradicting Israeli claims that Hamas repeatedly used “human shields”.

However, Amnesty says Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups had endangered Palestinian civilians by firing rockets from residential neighbourhoods and storing weapons in them.

It says local residents had in one case told researchers that Hamas fighters had fired a rocket from the yard of a government school.

The Israeli military has repeatedly blamed Hamas for causing civilian casualties, saying its fighters operated from buildings like schools, medical facilities, religious institutions, residential homes and commercial premises.

In the cases it had investigated, Amnesty said civilian deaths “could not be explained as resulting from the presence of fighters shielding among civilians, as the Israeli army generally contends”.

So you see the rub here. These idiots at Amnesty International, with the help of the BBC, have just redefined the term human shield. Imagine the children in the school telling the Hamas terrorists to leave their schools. What is there to resist? Somehow Amnesty International has found a way to report that there is no evidence of Hamas using human shields even though they themselves reported that Hamas did indeed fire rockets from residential neighborhoods and schoolyards; which is by definition, using human shields!

Think the logic couldn’t get more twisted? Wrong.

The report gets more anti-Semitic as it goes on as the platform provided by the BBC cherry picks the Jew Hater report to claim that Israel is the party using human shields.

However, Amnesty does accuse Israel of using civilians, including children, as human shields in Gaza, forcing them to remain in houses which its troops were using as military positions, and to inspect sites suspected of being booby trapped.

It also says Palestinian militants rocket fire from the Gaza Strip was “indiscriminate and hence unlawful under international law”, although it only rarely caused civilian casualties.

Hamas leader in Gaza Ismail Haniya declined to comment on the Amnesty International criticism, but said: “We believe the leaders of the occupation state must be tried for these crimes.”

Get this? Hamas isn’t using human shields by firing from residential houses and schools but Israel is using human shields by searching those houses suspected of containing terrorists and weapons? This is how low, deceitful, dangerous and complicit the mainstream media and supposed “independent” groups are as they take on the propaganda war against Israel.  But how can we be surprised? This is the pattern nowadays. They are taking their lead from other lefties and international bodies that wear their anti-Semitic, racist, hatred of Jews on their sleeves.

As for the report you can read it yourself via the link provided at the top of this post. Amnesty International dedicated 66 pages detailing what they consider to be Israeli war crime, followed by 10 pages that pretends to cover the “conduct of Palestinian Armed Groups”. Of course part of that 10 page synopsis contains a section on the rational for firing rockets into Israel as told by the terrorists.

In their statements, leaders and spokespeople of the political and armed wings of Hamas and other Palestinian groups generally say that rocket attacks against nearby Israeli towns and villages are launched in response to killings of Palestinians and other attacks by Israeli forces in Gaza or the West Bank or in response to the Israeli blockade of Gaza. At times they mention specific Israeli attacks or assassinations of their leaders or militants, or refer to Israeli attacks or other abuses in general.

I suppose AI had to put this statement in where they did. Otherwise their 10 page coverage of Hamas might have been reduced to 8.

During WWII Joseph Goebbels used propaganda as a tool to in it’s mission to exterminate millions of Jews. It is no different today as the offensive against Jews continues with the help of government supported humans rights groups and state run media organizations that team up to paint a one sided picture in a collaborative attempt to bring Israel to her knees. Weasels one and all.

Update:

Soccer Dad notes that the BBC/Amnesty International collaboration occurred on the same day that Human Rights Watch launched it’s salvo against Israel with the same sort of claims. Coincidence? Doubtful.

That didn’t prevent the New York Times from picking up the story, which coincidentally maintained it’s record of pro-terrorist propaganda with it’s unquestioning platform for pro-Hamas activists.

Yesterday the New York Times reported on a recent Human Rights Watch report that claimed that during its campaign in Gaza Israel killed 29 civilians in six separate attacks.

Twenty-nine civilians, including eight children, were killed in what appeared to be six missile strikes by Israeli drones in Gaza in December and January, according to a report released Tuesday by Human Rights Watch. The group questioned whether Israeli forces had taken “all feasible precautions” to avoid civilian casualties.Israel’s military has never acknowledged using the remotely piloted planes to fire missiles. In a statement released Tuesday, it said that it had used an assortment of weapons and technologies to minimize the risk to Palestinian civilians.

There are two obvious problems with this report. The first is that Marc Garlasco wrote the report for Human Rights Watch. Garlasco doesn’t have such a good record when reporting on Israel. Yet the New York Times fails to acknowledge his spotty record.. Also the Times cites PCHR uncritically. Anyone who has been reading Elder of Ziyon recently knows that PCHR is not reliable.

When Elder of Ziyon, looked at the report itself, he showed why skepticism towards Garlasco and he PCHR was warranted – HRW’s report was riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods, including the identification of dead terrorists as civilians leading him to conclude.

However, HRW either ignored evidence that some of the “civilian” victims they are talking about were actually terrorists or it didn’t do any reasonable research (typing the names into Google should have been enough.) This is either sloppy work or it is purposeful deception on HRW’s part.

The NYT story on the HRW report concludes:

P. W. Singer, the author of a recent book on military robots called “Wired for War,” said Israel might also be finding that using the drones “certainly raises the bar of expectations.”"Because you can target more precisely, people hold you to a higher standard,” he said.

This is perverse. Israel’s being singled out because of HRW’s animus towards Israel.

Watcher’s Council Member Mere Rhetoric also picked up on this farce:

So let me understand this. Human Rights Watch, which is staffed in part by pro-Palestinian activists, produces inaccurate reports “discovering” that Israel commits war crimes…

The IDF on Tuesday questioned the credibility of a Human Rights Watch report which claimed that Israeli attacks with guided missiles fired from aerial drones killed civilians during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza earlier this year. The 39-page report, “Precisely Wrong: Gaza Civilians Killed by Israeli Drone-Launched Missiles,” detailed six incidents resulting in 29 civilian deaths… The IDF said the report appeared to be based on “unnamed and unreliable Palestinian sources” whose military expertise was “unproven.” “It’s strange that despite the great efforts that the IDF made to avoid harming civilians,” the army continued, “the organization decided to ignore these statistics and to base the information it presented on Palestinian testimonies.”

… of exactly the kind used when the Islamic world launches one of their periodic legal wars on Israel…

The world’s largest Muslim body will accuse Israel of committing war crimes against Palestinian civilians, according to a draft of the final communique of an Islamic summit in Senegal seen by Reuters on Friday. “The conference denounces the current and increasing Israeli military campaign against the Palestinian people and the serious violation of human rights and war crimes including the killing and injuring of Palestinian civilians,” the draft said. It called Israel’s “collective punishment of civilians” in Gaza a violation of international human rights law and said “the occupying forces must be held responsible for these war crimes”.

… and then they cite those biased reports as reasons that Saudi Arabia should give them money?

In May 2009, leaders of Human Rights Watch (HRW) visited Saudi Arabia… to raise funds for the organization. Arab news reported that “senior members”… attended a “welcoming dinner” and encouraged “prominent members of Saudi society” to finance their work. HRW’s anti-Israel obsession was stated as the major reason for holding this Saudi fundraiser: “The group is facing a shortage of funds because of the global financial crisis and the work on Israel and Gaza, which depleted HRW’s budget for the region.” Whitson’s appeal for Saudi support and money acknowledged and cited HRW’s anti-Israel focus extensively, claiming that “Human Rights Watch provided the international community with evidence of Israel using white phosphorus and launching systematic destructive attacks on civilian targets.”

Admittedly, that’s a bit suspicious. But as long as their need for cash isn’t coloring any of their reporting, I guess it’s legit.

Like I said, no surprises here.

In other Weasel related news Michael Malkin notes that the Washington Post is charging lobbyists for access to the news room AND Obama administration officials. Sure, no coordinated effort by the media to whore itself out as the Obama Department of Propaganda. See video at Hot Air of Helen Thomas smack down on Gibbs.

Gateway Pundit reports that the liars that the Iranian liars that Obama wants to have tea with have been refuted in their claims that the death of Neda was being investigated by Interpol.

Finally, the Anchoress tears apart the staged Obama Townhall for health care “reform”.

A few months ago good friend and Webloggin contributor Megan Fox got into it with a rude staffer from Illinois Republican Mark Kirk’s office. Megan was all up in arms over legitimate concerns about Mr. Kirk’s voting record. She had called into his office to voice her complaint and was met by a staffer that tried to convince her that she was wrong and gave her the cold shoulder after learning that she did not live in Kirk’s 10th district (this kind of treatment will hopefully come to haunt Kirk’s potential Senate bid).

Megan was challenged by a reader to her blog to provide evidence that Kirk was as bad as she said he was after writing about her issues with the flimsy Republican.

Before I detail Megan’s illuminating response let’s consider last night’s sellout by Mr. Kirk and 7 other tax and spend Republicans that voted on the bogus global warming boondoggle, forever known as the Waxman-Malarkey bill. Kirk joined another Illinois sellout in endorsing that legislation as he joined hands with Democrat Debbie Halverson who had at one time stated that Barack Obama could not pressure her into voting for cap-and-trade legislation, (video here), Halverson’s lie exposed here.  (please read all about Halverson at the video link provided.)

Elected weasels like Halverson and Mark Kirk couldn’t get away with this crap without the help of a complicit media. Kirk has used his past experience in the military to chum up to the normally responsible radio talk show hosts Don Wade and Roma at WLS. The wade’s son is a flying ace and up and comer in high places in Washington D.C. Every time Kirk shows up on the morning show the hosts give him a kissy lovefest and an agenda is furthered.

That is why bloggers like Megan are so indispensable because they are not afraid to say what needs to be said; and neither are we. We are not afraid to tell the NRCC NOT ONE MORE RED CENT!! Megan did the job that the friendly media refused to do and exposed Kirk for the sellout phony that he is nearly two months ago!

Mark Kirk, IL RINO… Exposed

“I support the decision of President Obama to back stem cell research. His decision will be broadly backed by a strong bipartisan coalition on Capitol Hill” – Congressman Mark Kirk

I’ve been challenged by one of my fellow Republican readers that Mark Kirk is not such a bad guy. I am supposed to believe, according to this reader, that Mark Kirk is the best we can do in the 10th district of IL. That he is as conservative as it gets for that part of our state. Well, that argument was like waving a red cape in front of a bull. Are you ready for your close up Mr. Kirk? Just a minute while I snap on my rubber gloves and prepare to dive into your dirty voting record. Votes are forever, Mr. Kirk.

ABORTION

Voted NO to S-403 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act-Vote to pass a bill that criminalizes the transportation of pregnant minors across state lines with the intention of the minor obtaining an abortion, with certain exceptions. (What’s the deal, Kirk? Want to protect your right to take your 13-year-old girlfriend over the border for an abortion without her parent’s consent? I think you have children and I wouldn’t imagine you would want some scumbag taking one of yours over state lines to have a major operation that could sterilize her for life without your knowledge…)

Did not vote in the Partial Birth Abortion Bill in 2003-(nothing like not standing up and not being counted when it matters. But then again in the same year, he did stand up to those dastardly babies and say YES to the dismemberment of live, unwanted babies outside the womb in HR760

Voted YES to HR815-Overseas Military Facilities Abortion Amendment- Vote to adopt an amendment that lifts the ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. (Nothing like spreading abortions and moral decay in our military community)

NUTTY LIBERAL CAUSES
Voted YES HR536-distributed large sums of money to kook groups including

-$2.23 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (what the heck do they do?)

- $1.79 billion for the Bureau of Land Management

- $1.2 billion for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (UPDATE: My husband assures me that the Fish and Wildlife Service is worth every penny because of their service to the hunting community and that I am thinking of the Army Corps of Engineers-which spends its time bankrupting builders and homeowners who happen to have beavers living in their backyards)

- $986.45 million for the United States Geological Survey

- $624.09 million for the Smithsonian Institute

- $157.5 million for the Minerals Management Service

- $145.96 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities

- $129.41 million for the National Endowment of the Arts (Most famous for supporting “art” including a performance artist who cuts a man on stage, soaks napkins in his possibly infectious blood and then hangs them over his audience, the ever-so-popular portrait of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung, and the unforgettable “Piss Christ”.)

BUDGET

Voted YES on HR146-Among other things it authorizes $1 million to provide grants to states and Indian tribes to compensate ranchers for livestock killed by wolves and to assist with non-lethal methods to reduce wolf attacks (Title VI, Subtitle C). (Seems to me it would be more cost-effective for everybody to just let the ranchers SHOOT THE WOLVES. Why are we paying to replace the livestock killed by wolves when the ranchers could just put a bullet in them? People, this country has gone INSANE.)

Voted NO to HJ Res. 3-Releasing Funds for Economic Stabilization Act-This act was sponsored by Republicans after the first 300 billion dollars went unaccounted for to block the remaining funds from being released without oversight. (Nothing like not caring where the money goes)
EXPANDING WELFARE AND TAXES
Voted YES HR2-The CHIP Program-basically an expansion of welfare (that includes $1 tax on CIGARETTES to “fund” the program! How they sneak that stuff in, huh??? Brilliant, evil geniuses.)

Voted YES-HR 3997-First Economic Package (this is the one that failed the first time through)and Voted YES HR-1424:Second Economic Package (This one was bigger than the first!)

Have you heard enough yet? I have. Mark Kirk has the wrong voting record on the protection of the unborn. He is no friend to babies. He has the wrong record on spending…clearly he likes to spend your money and LOTS of it. He has the wrong record on supporting kooky bureaus we don’t need. He has the wrong record on the expansion of the welfare state. What more do you people in the 10th district need to know? Electing a Democrat to vote the same way as Kirk has would at least be honest. But allowing a guy to put an “R” behind his name and yet vote with the Democrats on darn near every issue is just plain STUPID.

That’s right, I called you stupid. Get your cojones out of your purse and KICK KIRK TO THE KURB.

Way to go Megan, someone has to help expose these Weasels!

Relying on Mark Kirk to do the right thing for the electorate is like sticking your foot and a live electrical chord in water at the same time and hoping that the electricity will play nice and not shock you to holy hell. Wouldn’t work there and it doesn’t work when relying on Mr. Kirk.

Let’s not forget that Sir Kirk the Sellout is planning to run for Roland Burris’s Senate seat in 2010. Count me in as the first person in line to help defeat him before he gets near that seat. Don’t bother trying to contact Kirk at his website because he screens out e-mailers that are not in his district.

You can however contact Kirk at the number provided here in a list provided by Michelle Malkin:

The 8 cap-and-tax Republican turncoats again are:

Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385 (And he’s seriously considering running for Senate!)
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

(Phone numbers h/t commenter rightwingmom)

Send the right message to Kirk and all all the other sellouts that allowed these people to run roughshod over the electorate and pass a bogus global warming bill that not only separates you from your money but also plays into Al Gore’s global warming farce that has been debunked long ago.

See Also: Michelle Malkin

EPA plays hide and seek; suppressed report revealed

This week’s weekend weasel is a no brainer; especially considering the mind numbingly ignorant claims being made by the recipients.

First out of the gate is President Barack Obama with claims he made in a speech that Winston Churchill said “we don’t torture” at a time when London was being bombed by the Germans.

The British, during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, we don’t torture—when the entire British—all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And the reason was that Churchill understood you start taking shortcuts, and over time that corrodes what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

The only problem is that Churchill never made such a statement. Our historically illiterate President picked up the meme from a blog and repeated it with the typical liberal head bobbing speed.

This is how liberal fantasies begin, rooted in ignorance, passed by word of blog or mouth, and then regurgitated by the exulted orator Barack Hussein Obama and then, stunningly, repeated by even bigger idiots such as Amy Davis of The New Yorker.

Churchill historian Richard M. Langworth set the record straight:

While it’s nice to hear the President invoke Sir Winston, the quotation is unattributed and almost certainly incorrect. While Churchill did express such sentiments with regard to prison inmates, he said no such thing about prisoners of war, enemy combatants or terrorists, who were in fact tortured by British interrogators during World War II.

The word “torture” appears 156 times in my digital transcript of Churchill’s 15 million published words (books, articles, speeches, papers) and 35 million words about him—but not once in the subject context. Similarly, key phrases like “character of a country” or “erodes the character” do not track.

Obama seems to have been misled by Andrew Sullivan’s recent article in The Atlantic, “Churchill vs. Cheney,” which calmly urges that Vice President Cheney be prosecuted. The British, Sullivan wrote,

captured over 500 enemy spies operating in Britain and elsewhere. Most went through Camp 020, a Victorian pile crammed with interrogators. As Britain’s very survival hung in the balance, as women and children were being killed on a daily basis and London turned into rubble, Churchill nonetheless knew that embracing torture was the equivalent of surrender to the barbarism he was fighting….

“Churchill nonetheless knew” appears suddenly and with no evidence to back it up. Sullivan makes no other reference to Churchill, or to how he divined Churchill’s views on torture.

Of course Andrew Sullivan doesn’t provide any references; that’s not the ignorati way. In fact the article in question is a repost of one he made months earlier. Thus we are witness to a repeat lie, right out of the left’s playbook.

And the dummies in the mainstream media lap it all up just because they are too stupid to question Barack Obama. A man that must succeed for his cheerleaders in the media to maintain any semblance of credibility. (Sorry that horse has left the barn.)

As if on cue along comes Amy Davis on her Close Read blog in the New Yorker with her Daily Kosian followup to BHO. After citing the Sullivan inspired reinvention of history ignorantly uttered by Barack Obama Amy Davis uses his statements to further her position that Barack Obama is the next Winston Churchill and that President Bush was the modern day Neville Chamberlain.

Obama out-Churchilled Bush—not bad, given Bush’s constant and increasingly tedious invocations of the Prime Minister. (Obama may have been citing a very good Andrew Sullivan post.) Bush saw himself as a latter-day Churchill—though there’s an argument that the better parallel is Neville Chamberlain—and put his bust in the Oval Office, saying, “He watches my every move.” Obama ditched it for a bust of Lincoln, which hurt British feelings—back in February, the Telegraph speculated that Obama was mad at Churchill because of the torture of Kenyans, including, perhaps, Obama’s grandfather, in the Mau Mau rebellion during his second premiership. So it took the British a few years to realize that Kenyans deserved to be treated like Germans. (And their treatment might not have been so lovely, as Politico points out.) Still, sentiment counts for something. And anyway, we can be better than Churchill.

Yes folks, a so called journalist whose biggest accomplishments seem to be rooted in ignorance believes that she can be better than Winston Churchill; the WWII era British Statesman that held a firm line during Great Britain’s finest hour in the face of fascism and the scourge of the Nazi invasion. Churchill did this alone after the fall of France. He also denied Hitler a surrender and went on to to become the greatest of all of Britain’s wartime leaders.

Frankly, Amy Davis is an idiot. And to think that she gets paid for writing her trash.

If we are going to compare Presidents to Neville Chamberlain my vote goes to the guy that accepted America bashing books from Hugo Chavez, bowed to a Saudi King, watched helplessly as North Korea shot a rocket over the Pacific, is paying the Palestinians blood money and last, for the sake of brevity, is looking to sit down and negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier that has repeatedly vowed to destroy Israel and her Zionist allies (i.e. us). And Bush gets her vote?

So that’s it in a nutshell, dumb and dumber: Andrew Sullivan, Barack Obama and Amy Davis. Our weekend weasels. Order is optional.

(Hat Tip: Warner Todd Huston at Newsbusters)

This looks like a perfect time to introduce an irregular segment on WoW called Weasel Watching. The way it works is quite simple, spot a weasel and we will spotlight that person (or group) on the WoW main page. I think I might even create a wall of shame.

The first member nominated to the Watcher of Weasels wall of shame is none other than San Francisco celebrity liberal Stephen Fowler. This elite ass appeared on wife swap and was paired up with Gayla Long, a woman from a small town in Missouri that Fowler affectionately referred to as a “dumb redneck” and “lower class.”

Included in Fowler’s antics were bashing the American military and talking down to wife swap partner Gayla Long because she “barely graduated high school”. Both of these activities by Mr. Weasel irk me the most. First and foremost I am an avid supporter of the U.S. military. Cowards like Fowler enjoy the protections of free speech afforded by the men and women that he holds nothing but scorn and condescension for. He is so unbelievably ignorant that he doesn’t even get it.

Second, and this is something that very few people know about The Watcher, I got kicked out of high school because I was nothing but trouble, received my GED and went on to earn a Masters Degree in Computer Science, computer sciences department. Barely graduating high school is not any kind of ruler to judge a person by; you know nothing.

Here is a video clip of Fowler’s cheery personality:

This losers activities were so reprehensible that it spawned an internet web site called StephenFowlerSucks.com among numerous others.

The best description of this cretin and his behavior was found here on the Wife Swap message board, penned by an Harvard educated fan of the show. (excerpt below)

The priorities you preach to be important (education, environmentalism, etc.) are indeed so; however these are all tools for self-improvement. It seems you would rather use them in the context of measuring your own self-worth or more disgustingly the lack of worth in others. I usually attribute some of the characterizations I see on reality shows to editing, but not in your case. You just came off as an incredibly small-minded, petulant, narcissistic jerk.

Unfortunately Stephen Fowler is not an exception. His attitudes epitomize so many that make an appearance in the Watcher of Weasels chronicles of weaseldom.

So there you have it, Stephen Fowler, business owner, bigot, anti-military San Francisco elitist; our first off member of the Watcher of Weasels wall of shame.

See Also: NewsBusters, WordPress.com

Correction: I believed Gayla had received here GED, the statement was actually that she barely graduated high school.