Item number 4,954,672 in the imagine what the media would do if a Republican had said this files.

Barack Obama yesterday said "When Kennedy Met With Khrushchev, We Were On The Brink Of Nuclear War."

Hugh Hewitt points out,

For the record, Kennedy and Khrushchev met in Vienna in June of 1961. We were not on the brink of nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis was 15 months in the future.

BHO: Not. Ready. For. Prime. Time.

The Washington Post has now moved into full-throated election-meddling mode. Using a misleadingly edited YouTube video making its rounds among the nutroots, a former Clinton official has written lies about John McCain's position on Hamas and his remarks about Barack Obama.

Not de facto falsehoods...lies. The details are here and here.

This morning, in our inbox, we received an action item on this from Redstate. Since the point is to elicit the action, I'm sure they'd appreciate it if we reprint the item here:

The Washington Post is running an article by Jamie Rubin today titled "Hypocrisy on Hamas." The article is a total fabrication. There is video of John McCain's remarks that Jamie Rubin totally edited to distort. Mr. Rubin alleges John McCain was willing to unconditionally meet with Hamas, just like Barack Obama.

Unfortunately, the video makes very clear John McCain would not unconditionally meet Hamas.

The Washington Post was willing to let this lie get into the newspaper either carelessly or intentionally.

As of tonight, the Washington Post has neither taking this fabrication off its website nor issued an apology to John McCain for this total, intentional lie about his record.

To be clear: Jamie Rubin's article is a total fabrication totally misrepresenting John McCain's position and there is video to prove it is a lie.

You can get the details and video here.

The editors have failed in their job. They've allowed this deliberate, lying hack job onto the page and demeaned the paper. Write to them now, and demand a retraction. Public, and with lots of mea culpa goodness.

Fred Hiatt: hiattf@washpost.com

Considering the reach this lie had, the backlash ought to reach as far. The Post Ombudsman should explain how something so completely, transparently opposite from the truth made it through their process. You can reach the ombudsman at:

Deborah Howell: ombudsman@washpost.com

We cannot let the media steal this election by writing intentional lies as truth.

By Christopher Cook

Oh shucks, that describes pretty much everything the left does.

However, I keep hearing, again and again, that...

...the country doesn't like partisanship,

...people don't want to hear talk of "destroying" the other side,

...people want the two sides to work together.

The only reason that "the country" (for which we can read "swing voters and independents") say stuff like that is because they've been duped.

As much as I admire the general common sense of the American people, it's hard for them to get the truth. Since we have a free press, they believe that that freedom somehow protects us from the kind of control exercised over an unfree press. Unfortunately, since the press is not in the business of reporting truth, but rather of giving succor to liberal/left ideas and people, the American people are generally trusting of an information stream that is heavily polluted with agenda.

This pollution is extreme, and it causes the American people, collectively, to believe things that simply aren't true.

A few examples:

1.
In The 'Recession' Is a Media Myth, John Lott makes the following point:

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy was viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn’t realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy started shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought that the economy was fine.

But over the last half-year, the media and politicians have said we were in a recession even while the economy was still growing.

He then goes on to give some specifics. The general point, however, is what matters most. Once again...

Under Clinton 2000, the economy was in recession, but people thought the economy was fine

Under Bush 2007-2008, the economy was growing, but people believed we were in a recession.

There is only one explanation for that disconnect between reality and belief. The sources from which people are getting their information were not telling the truth. It isn't that everything reported is a falsehood, it's that using a series of fibrication™ techniques, they create a false impression.

If it doesn't enrage you that our information stream is controlled by people who use their power to create a disconnect between what people believe and reality, it should. In fact, it should motivate you to seek out ways to take away, overcome, or circumvent this power.

2.
In Consistency Is Not Required, John Hinderaker points out that the Democrats are now outpolling the Republicans on all ten major issues regularly surveyed by Rasmussen.

This includes issues like national security—an issue upon which the American people rarely trust the Democrats more. And yet the permatantrum™ continues jangling their frayed nerves until they give the "baby" whatever it wants. Even if that means believing that the Democrats would be better on national security, something that the American people intuitively know is next to impossible.

Interestingly, Americans' intuition shines through this poll, in spite of the general results. As Hinderaker points out:

The most important issue, currently, is the economy, where the Dems enjoy a 14-point margin. What's odd about this is that the Democrats' actual policies are not preferred by many of these same respondents. Rasmussen also reports that 60% of likely voters say that tax increases will hurt the economy. Interestingly, this sentiment is strongest among young voters, 70% of whom think tax increases will damage the economy. Presumably a large majority of voters realize that the Democrats are yearning to raise taxes, so it is hard to reconcile this finding with respondents' expressed preference for Democrats on this issue.

While I can't support the proposition with poll data, I'm pretty sure the same principle would hold with regard to national security and terrorism, where the Democrats now hold an advantage. I'm confident that most voters, if you laid out the parties' approaches on this issue and asked which they prefer, would choose Republican policies, i.e., security through strength rather than security through conversation.

So, once again, we have this disconnect between reality and perception of reality. This cannot continue. If Republicans—and by extension, Western civilization—hopes to survive, we cannot continue to have this massive gap between the truth and the people's perception of the truth.

3.
Perhaps the most disturbing example of all is found in Vote Fraud, Intimidation, and Suppression in the 2004 Presidential Election.

In 2004 alone, the Democrats made dozens of allegations of vote suppression, fraud, and intimidation by Republicans. The theme of disenfranchised minorities and a "stolen" Ohio rippled incessantly through American discourse. None of it was true—nearly every allegation was refuted, proved false, or thrown out of court.

Meanwhile, in 2004, Democrats engaged in serial acts of electoral fraud and violence against Republicans resulting in indictments, fines, and prison sentences.

At the risk of repeating, take a moment and wrap your mind around the insanity:

The Democrats made dozens of allegations of vote fraud. None of them were true.

Meanwhile, they engaged in serial acts of REAL vote fraud (some of which they got away with, some of which resulted in punishment).

And yet, what was the only vote fraud meme known to the general public? The absurd (and completely debunked) notion of an Ohio "stolen" by Republicans. Meanwhile, only a tiny percentage of people are aware of the instances of real vote fraud committed by Democrats during that period.

D-I-S-C-O-N-N-E-C-T.

And then...there's the violence. Read the list in that PDF. Dozens of acts of political violence, all perpetrated by Democrats against Republicans.

We've been doing our own research on this subject for quite some time. There simply is no equivalent coming from our side. The Democrats and the left regularly perpetrate physical violence and crime upon us. We do not do the same to them. Oh, and it's not just a recent phenomenon, either. This has been going on for 150 years.

I wonder what the American people—whose common sense is under constant assault—would have to say about "partisanship" upon learning of this uni-directional wave of political violence?

If they knew the truth, they wouldn't be all rah-rah for a bi-partisan spirit of cooperation:

They would know that there is no equivalence between the two sides.

They would know one side is far more partisan than the other.

They would be able to separate the truth from the waves of dishonest propaganda.

They would know that the Democrats have been trying to destroy the Republican Party since 1860, by all means—even physical violence.

They would know the truth, and the truth would set them free.

Not that any of us should be the least bit surprised, but left-wing Hugo Chavez and left-wing guerrillas in Colombia are indeed linked. Now that the computer files seized from FARC have been authenticated, we have proof of that relationship.

Interestingly, but also not surprisingly, Venezuela and FARC also have links to the Middle East, Iran, Russia, and China.

Bad guys tend to hang with bad guys.

Oh, and speaking of which...

Let's not forget that they want Obama to win. Bad guy, or just an appeaser of bad guys? 

C'mon, everybody's doing it!
By Christopher Cook

Look, I know that President Bush has disappointed us in many ways. He's lousy at selling even his best ideas. His first term was a smashing success; his second term has been much less effective. He's made some mistakes, and he's deviated from core conservatism in several areas.

The left hates him the way the Democrats hated Lincoln—not just political hate, but a burning, visceral, personal hate. But we conservatives and Republicans, however disappointed we may be in aspects of his conduct of the office of president, should do two things:

a) we should remember all of the good things he has done...and there are a lot of them.

b) we should never allow our disappointment to become a personal, emotional hatred.

Reading some pundits and writers, I think that some on our side have failed on both of those. Peggy Noonan's most recent piece contains a lot in with which I agree, but the trend in a lot of her other recent pieces has seemed to indicate a growing personal bitterness towards the man. That's sad.

I am reminded of all this stuff today because of a speech Bush just gave in Israel. (News here. Excellent summary and analysis here.)

Read the man's words. Read how much he, on the deepest level, gets it.

Some excerpts:

My country's admiration for Israel does not end there. When Americans look at Israel, we see a pioneer spirit that worked an agricultural miracle and now leads a high-tech revolution. We see world-class universities and a global leader in business and innovation and the arts. We see a resource more valuable than oil or gold: the talent and determination of a free people who refuse to let any obstacle stand in the way of their destiny.

We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation. (Applause.)
We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world. (Applause.)

We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society. So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms -- whether by those who openly question Israel's right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse them.

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you. (Applause.)

I keep hearing again and again that people who meet him in person are blown away by his intelligence, his command of facts and details, his near-photographic memory, his insight, his kindness, and even his charm.

And yet somehow, that charm fails to shine through on TV.

I am not sure why that is, but when coupled with the left's hate, there is now a hate-Bush phenomenon that no cohort is immune from: not independents, not conservatives, not loyal Republicans.

But I would argue that whatever one's ideological and policy differences with W may be, having it become a visceral bitterness or hatred is tragic, wrong, and diminishing to one's own existence.

I agree that the conservative movement has, in some ways, suffered during his presidency. But I also believe we have allowed some of that to be engineered by the media, Hollywood, and even academia. Their hatred has actually rubbed off on us. Hating Bush has become a requirement for sitting at the cool kids' table. Or, in some cases, it's just a matter of osmosis. Our legitimate grievances + their climate of hatred has caused many of us to move from grievance to hatred ourselves.

Not me, my fellow conservatives. Not me.

I am mostly an emotionally reserved person, but I gotta tell you, when I think of what he (and Cheney) have been through, it actually chokes me up a bit, out of sheer sympathy. If I ever have the honor of meeting them, the first words out of my mouth won't be an expression of my disappointment (even though I feel some). In fact, I think I'd probably just say...

I love you guys. 

In House GOP strips war funds from bill, the Washington Times describes the maneuvers the GOP had to take to block the gamesmanship the Democrats are employing with the war funds:

The Democrat-led House yesterday passed a war-funding bill that failed to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The unusual outcome occurred when Republicans used a parliamentary maneuver to sabotage Democrats' plans to tie the proposed $162.5 billion for the wars to a veto-provoking 18-month pullout timetable, domestic programs and a tax increase.

 

Meanwhile, in the Senate...

SENATE TRIES TO SNEAK IMMIGRATION REFORMS THROUGH

It looks like the Democrats and amnesty-loving Republicans slipped the AG Jobs bill into the Senate emergency supplemental appropriations bill during committee markup today. This bill relates to giving amnesty to illegal aliens who work as migrant workers. 

Early intelligence reports that it probably has provisions similar to the last AG Jobs bill that was considered – including amnesty provisions. It was supposedly a Feinstein/ Craig amendment and was accepted with a vote of 17 – 12.

This is going to get worse before it gets better.

We have a base now in Ecuador.

The lease is running out.

Ecuador is run by a leftist and Chavez ally. So, needless to say, that lease won't be renewed.

However, we do have a strong center-right ally in Colombia, so we're going to build a base there.

Unfortunately, Hugo Chavez says he won't permit it:

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday warned Colombia not to allow a U.S. military base on its border with Venezuela, saying he would consider such an act an "aggression."

Chavez said he would not permit Colombia's U.S.-backed government to establish an American military base in La Guajira, a region spanning northeastern Colombia and northwestern Venezuela.

The Venezuelan leader said if Colombia allows the base, his government will revive a decades-old territorial conflict and stake a claim to the entire region.

I am not one who wishes to see war, but for the love of crumbcake, Chavez, bring it on. Colombia and the U.S. will rout you.

Oh woe, what will all your leftist buddies in South America do without their Hombrecito Stalin and his oil money?

What will the people of Venezuela do when their press becomes free again, and when their economy isn't run as a one-trick-pony?

What will the Cindy Sheehans of America do without a leftist dictator to fawn over?

Oh, who knows, maybe it won't all come to that. Maybe Obama and a Democrat congress can preemptively surrender.

Hotair has more.

Last night, Michelle Malkin made a useful post on the subject of Jim Inhofe's lonely and righteous battle against the absurd push to list the polar bear as "threatened" under the ESA:

Sen. James Inhofe weighs in on polar bear mania

Hugh Hewitt has also been covering this travesty.

Lots of people have weighed in with cogent analysis of this dangerous decision and its ramifications. I'll just add a point of my own—the logic of which seem, to me, to be inescapable:

In the middle of the last millennium, we had what was called the Medieval Warming Period. It got warm.....WAY warmer than it is now. Greenland (not exactly a garden spot today) got its name during this period. There were grapes growing in Labrador. And yet the polar bear survived this period, and lives unto this day.

Do i need to say any more, or is the point fairly obvious?

The World Trade Center window-washer looking up in goofy terror as one of the hijacked planes careens towards the towers...

A dumb yet venal President Bush talking on the phone, taking out insurance on a Middle East oil facility while he plays with a toy plane—smashing it into two World Trade Center towers models he's built out of Lego...

Tracy Ullman using the phrase "Let's Roll" (the phrase uttered by American hero Todd Beamer on 9/11) in a comedic sketch lampooning the storming of the cockpit on Flight 93...

These ostensibly comedic films and sketches shown in this report from CNN don't just make light of 9/11. They give oxygen to the foulest of conspiracy theories. They calumniate. They mock our heroes.

At the end of the report, it is wondered aloud that perhaps we really are ready to take a comedic look at these events.

But this isn't a comedic look at these events of 9/11. It's a left-wing, America-hating, Bush Derangement Syndrome, post-patriotic, internationalist look at the events of 9/11. It just happens to employ comedy in this particular case to disguise its point and propaganda purpose.

Seven years on, I'm ready for a comedic take on some of the events of 9/11, maybe. But it would have to be a comedic take that mocks our enemies and reinforces our view of ourselves as a good and great nation...which we are.

That kind of patriotic entertainment went away after WWII, replaced by increasing amounts of leftism and self-loathing from the entertainment elite.

Western Civilization cannot endure this suicidal impulse forever.

Proving that I can and do indeed have the utmost respect for anyone who heads over to visit with our troops, even if they aren't affiliated with Penn State (though that's a nice bonus), can't say enough great things about NCAA football coaches Richt, Tubervile, Weis and others who have joined up with Armed Forces Entertainment. Not that I'll cheer for Notre Dame, mind you, but still a huge "Hell, yeah!" to coach Weis.

"(It's) just a small token of appreciation for me to be one of a group of college football coaches to go over there and try to mix and mingle with a whole bunch of our troops that have a lot more important job than any of us have," Weis said. "I feel both honored and privileged to have been asked, and I'm looking forward to going."  

Brief additional Penn State side-note in regards to the war in the Middle East, though, as my Nittany pride knows no bounds, and when a Naval destroyer gets named after a fellow alum who lost his life in Afghanistan, it's a given I will honor his name and service. With continued thoughts and prayers to his family, rest in peace, Lt. Michael Murphy. I'll be sure to smack the next Democrat who degrades the mental capacities of our servicemen and women.