Mark Steyn was mis-quoted in the New York Times…so, what did the rest of the MSM do? Steyn lays it out:

…in my weekend column I noted my rare appearance in its august pages (well, okay, September pages):

Mark Steyn, a Canadian author and political commentator, speaking on the Rush Limbaugh show on Wednesday, accused Mr. Obama of trying to create a cult of personality, comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader.

Tim Blair, the great Australian wag, has a round-up of those hardworking types at other publications whose concept of journalism begins and ends with seeing what’s in The New York Times and passing it on. Tim missed a few, like The Sacramento Bee:

On Wednesday, Canadian-born writer Mark Steyn said on Rush Limbaugh’s nationally broadcast radio show that Obama’s ambitions to create a “cult of personality” were similar to those of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il or former Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein.

And The Las Vegas Sun:

The New York Times quoted Mark Steyn, filling in for conservative radio demagogue Rush Limbaugh, as saying Obama was trying to create a cult of personality like Saddam Hussein or North Korea’s Kim Jong Il.

“Quoted”, eh? Actually, if you read the Times piece – by two reporters, no less – the striking feature is that there’s no direct quote, is there? Not to worry. It’s even been picked up overseas. Lara Marlowe in Ireland’s newspaper of record, The Irish Times:

First prize for lunacy goes to Canadian commentator Mark Steyn, who accuses Obama of trying to establish a “personality cult” like Saddam Hussein or North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.

And first prize for laziness goes to Irish commentator Lara Marlowe. For the record, here’s the only thing I actually said about Kim and Saddam on Wednesday’s Rush show:

Obviously we’re not talking about the cult of personality on the kind of Saddam Hussein/Kim Jong-Il scale. (emphasis added)

The level of incompetence here is breathtaking – and it is just stunning that so many in the MSM still think the New York Times is something other than an adjunct of the DNC these days. I mean, I can understand if you’re a well-meaning, earnest liberal who wants to hopeychange the world with Obama…but isn’t there also a desire to not appear an idiot? A simple bit of fact-checking and anyone could find out that Steyn was mis-quoted. Its not like we needed secret agents to bring out the truth, here, ya know?

Telling Obama that he’d better toe the line:

Leading liberals are already thinking the unthinkable: Challenging President Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2012.

According to a report on the left-leaning Huffington Post website, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann and Eugene Robinson, an African-American national columnist for The Washington Post, discussed just such a possibility Thursday night. Robinson said Obama needs to be careful how he handles the health care reform issue and the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Olbermann said the president has “compromised on everything so far and as self-defeating as it may be, the progressive caucus and progressives would abandon him if necessary, if this was to be the policy of this administration into 2012. If it’s necessary to find somebody to run against him, I think they’d do it, no matter how destructive that may seem.”

This is something that I’m picking up on in leftist circles: a dismay that Obama and Co aren’t just muscling leftism through. After all, with the White House and solid majorities in Congress, it should be easy, right? It seems so, but only if you’re a liberal and thus think in tyrannical terms. To liberals, a win means absolutely – in other words, if they cross the finish line first, they get it all. They forget that Obama only got 52% of the vote – ie, one percentage point more than Bush got in 2004, and no liberal out there in 2005 thought that President Bush should have been able to rule by decree. Meanwhile, the Democrats House majority is by grace of 50 Democrats holding GOP seats – and winning those seats by being as close to GOP as you can get without changing party registration. Take away those 50 and pare away the Senate Democrats who also ran on GOP platforms, and you can see that even in this glory day of Obamunism, the Democrat majority is thin and easily broken.

But that, once again, is not how our liberals view it – Obama won and the Democrats won and the war in Iraq is supposed to be over, gay marriage implemented and President Bush up on war crimes charges. That they aren’t getting these things is starting to anger the left. Right now, its mostly being directed at Congressional Democrats – but it can easily be swung in Obama’s direction.

So, Obama will shortly have a choice – ditch the left and possibly draw a primary or Third Party challenger in 2012 (but still have a chance of winning) or embrace the left and have a united Democratic party to be trounced by the GOP and Independents coming together. Be interesting to see how it plays out.

Here’s a story about Pelosi’s reluctance to dump ethics-challenged Rangel – but here’s the part I found most interesting:

…Rangel has told supporters he’s committed to running for re-election next year and plans to run again in 2012 – when he’s 82 — health permitting…

…If Pelosi were to supplant Rangel, she’d face the prospect of choosing from a unappetizing menu of potential replacements at the Ways and Means helm.

“There are not a lot of good choices for her on that committee,” said a leadership aide.

The next Democrat in line would be Pete Stark, an outspoken 77-year-old liberal with a firebrand reputation and a penchant for intemperate cracks – like calling Blue Dog Democrats “brain dead.”

Next up: Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, also 77, and Washington Rep. Jim McDermott, 72, who are not considered favored choices of Pelosi based on their ages and temperament. (emphasis added)

Nothing says “corrupt establishment” better than a collection of aged, political barnacles. Not a lot of good choices? Well, you Democrats did this to yourselves – continually re-electing the same, old cretins. These are the people who are supposed to lead us in to a vibrant, 21st century world?

Now, you liberals really need to think about this – you’ve got aged leaders who are in their positions entirely by seniority and they are becoming ever more corrupt as they feel their position is unassailable. Is this what you want?

If it isn’t, then you’d better vote Republican in 2010 – its the only way you’ll get rid of these guys.

Victor Davis Hanson starts the ball rolling:

In America of 2009 the following are “true”:

The Arabs invented the printing press, and spurred us on to the Enlightenment and Renaissance. Muslims in Cordoba advised the brutal Christians to show tolerance during the Inquisition. Slavery ended in America without violence. The Berlin Airlift was a worldwide effort. The Americans liberated Auschwitz. There are 57 states. FDR was President in 1929 and gave television addresses. We can either drill offshore or inflate our tires properly.

There are no terrorists or a war on same, but only overseas contingency operations and man-made catastrophes. Those who object to health care are ungodly, and the nation’s children must go to school and see the messiah address them en masse on state-run television screens. Nazis, brown shirts, a mob, insurance lackeys, Brooks brothers elites, etc. all go to Town Halls. Doctors chop off limbs and gleefully take out tonsils for profit. George Bush is our Emmanuel Goldstein whom we must hate collectively each morning for a couple of minutes.

Now, are there really people who believe that obvious, laughable falsehoods are true? The continuing popularity of horoscopes says, “yes”. Additionally, the continued prosperity of those who peddle theories about things like the Kennedy assassination and aliens at “Area 51” demonstrate the unwillingness of people to contradict those who will state something with great earnestness. This is especially true if the person making the assertion has a college degree and/or has published a book. We can be suckered and even when not easily taken in, we are ill-disposed to make trouble by calling a huckster on his scam.

The unfortunate thing for us is that those who are most susceptible to this sort of thing managed to elevate one of their own to the White House this past November. This is not to say that Obama, himself, believes in horoscopes and Kennedy conspiracies (though I’ll bet money he does, at least, believe in some sort of Kennedy conspiracy) – but those who most ardently back him are that incapable of critical thought and/or unwilling to contradict what they see as the consensus. In short, we’re dealing not just with nitwits, but nitwits holding power.

Now, we must not excuse this. The knaves who vend and the fools who swallow are responsible for their actions. The con artists are, of course, engaged in an act of deception and know they are doing it – but the rubes who believe it are not innocent victims. No, not at all – you see, once a person steps in to a false position, only a humble admission of error will get him out of it. You’d think this would be easy to do but the fact that God had to come down here and sacrifice himself in order to redeem us from our sins indicates our unwillingness to admit error. Its much easier – and appears safer – for the gullible to keep up the pretense. To, in a large sense, become part of the con – there being a false sense of safety in having larger numbers believe the lie.

We can’t argue these people out of their position – because, once again, they’d have to admit error. Personal error; the hardest thing to do (come now, you know it is – how often have you reviewed your errors and discovered a hundred reasons to justify or mitigate your sin?). All we can do is fend them off and delay them until we regain power – and once we do regain power, we really have to root-and-branch this sort of thing out of our public life. We must, once and for all, expose these liars for what they are – lest they come back, again, with new lies to deceive the people.

A timely warning:

What takes place in the Security Council more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving. – Jeane Kirkpatrick

The story:

Looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, President Obama has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations. On September 24, the president will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council.

No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. But Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi — who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right — will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that the perilous state of the nation’s economy, the health-care fiasco, and a summer of “post-racial” scapegoating will pale by comparison.

If the President does this, it will destroy the last shred of credibility he has among GOPers and Independents in America. News flash for you liberals: the United Nations is held in utter contempt by all non-leftists in the United States. Our President sitting at a table with the the dictators of Libya and Vietnam will be a national humiliation. He’ll look like a fool and we’ll all pay the price in diminished respect around the world (I know you liberals out there think that President Bush destroyed our respect – but what he “destroyed” as the willingness of global leaders to say nice things about us…but the way we fiercely defended right and justice for 8 years made us profoundly respected where it really matters). Only sheer idiocy or megalomania can account for a decision such as this.

I hope the story is wrong. If its true, I hope Obama changes his mind – he’s my President, too, and like him or not I need him to be effective on the world stage. This will undercut the ability of my nation to make its weight felt in the councils of the world.

If George Bush had hired, say, a member of the John Birch Society to advise him, it would have been a major news story – Obama hires a hate-filled, self-described kook of a commie…and what do we get?

From a Nexis search a few moments ago: (Ed. Note: time stamped from September 4th)

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.

Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.

Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.

Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama’s Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, “Huh?” If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, “What?” And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line — otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.

There’s been a little bit out there – some of the kooks on the left are making hay over the fact that Meg Whitman – of E-Bay and now running for the GOP gubernatorial nomination in California – said nice things about Van Jones (this may toastify Whitman’s GOP chances – she’s already got two strikes against her – RINOish proclivities and a friend of John McCain – as far as the GOP base goes, and this is not going to be helpful, even though she’s now denounced Jones’ views). This Washington Post story has the most detail seen in the MSM, but even it is clearly a cover-up job.

But other than a few peeps, its mostly been a conspiracy of silence on what would be with a responsible MSM a massive news story. That such a hater and fool could commend himself to the Democratic leadership just shows how far they’ve fallen – and real journalists would have this guy for lunch, plus everyone who advanced his career, into the bargain. But, we get next to nothing. Naturally – because the MSM is a mere adjunct of the DNC these days.

UPDATE: Kooks of a feather – Van Jones was one of Ariana Huffington’s political directors in her quixotic run for governor of California. I’m telling ya, people, Van Jones is no one-off screwball – he’s mainstream on the left. The sort of idiocy he parrots is believed, deeply, on the left.

Amazing how very stupid the people who manage our money really are:

FHA-insured loans have more than tripled from 530,000 in fiscal year 2007 to 1.7 million thus far in 2009. The Government National Mortgage Association, which securitizes FHA loans, has boosted its mortgage-related issuance to $287 billion from $85 billion.

Yet during that same period, the FHA’s loan delinquency rate has climbed to 14.4% in Q2 from 12.6% two years earlier.

Adding to the concern, the FHA’s fund to cover losses has dropped to a projected 3% of insured loans. That’s a leverage ratio of 33-to-1, the level banking giant Bear Stearns was at before it failed.

At a time of rising unemployment, the FHA is lending money as if its boom times – anyone see anything wrong with this? Of course you do. Unless you’re a liberal, of course.

This does explain the so-called bottoming out of the housing market. Via the FHA, funds are being made available for loans all other banks are unwilling to fund due to the risk of the borrowers and the pressures of the overall economy. Once again, our tax dollars at work – stupidly, and for the benefit only of insiders. But the bottom created by this upsurge in FHA loans is false – the rising delinquency rate shows it to be a fraud. We’re lending money – essentially, taxpayer money – to people who shouldn’t be borrowing at the moment. When you loan to people you shouldn’t, you end up with high default rates.

And the worst part about is that since FHA is government-banked, it can actually go on longer with this sort of thing, thus making the eventual crash worse when it comes. Now, a wise President would pull up the reigns on FHA and tell them to knock it off…but that would kick out one of the “green shoots” Obama is using to convince us that all is going well. Adherence to Obamunist fairy tales is to be placed firmly in front of the well being of the American people over the long term.

Get ready for Crash II: I figure it for March, but it could come at any time over the next two years.

Can’t think of anything relevant or true to write about for Saturday morning, so have at it.

The Other McCain writes:

Think about this. Van Jones is a Yale Law School graduate (just like Glenn Reynolds) who according to a 2005 interview, had already landed a D.C. job after graduation but instead decided to move to the San Francisco area to become involved in a radical protest movement. He subsequently received a Rockfeller Foundation fellowship and, eventually, landed a “czar” job at the White House.

And yet, somehow, despite all his success, this Ivy League-educated Fortunate Son sees nothing but misery and oppression everywhere. Am I the only one who finds this bizarre?

The President of the United States of America sat for 20 years in the pews of a racist, anti-American church; the first lady only became proud of America once her husband started to have a shot at the White House; the Vice President is an ignorant fool; the Speaker of the House states that the CIA is always lying to Congress; the Majority Leader of the Senate has stated that everything he’s done since 2004 has been geared towards getting re-elected in 2010; the Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee is a tax cheat; the Secretary of Homeland Security worries that our troops might be terrorists-in-waiting; the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Defense has used defense funds to have an airport named after himself; one senior member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations was appointed to his spot by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson in 1959; the Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat…Van Jones? He fits right in there – nothing odd about him at all.

This is liberalism, boys and girls – its all bad; based on a false premise, it can’t do other than go completely wrong.