Disrupting the Narrative of the New Left, its allies in Academia, Hollywood and the Establishment Media, and examining with honesty the goals of cultural Marxism and the dangers of reactionary and abusive political correctness.
THE NARRATIVE AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”-George Orwell
On Friday, after spending a week bashing conservatives and Tea Partiers on liberal networks and pushing Republicans to be more moderate, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough did not defend those views when he appeared on Fox News's Fox & Friends.
Instead, the liberal Republican host said the belief that Republicans "need to get more moderate presidential candidates" simply "flies in the face of history."
"Moderate Republicans don't win elections," he conceded, while promoting his book that argues Republicans can win again by going away from Tea Party "amateurs."
Scarborough said that candidates had to be conservative and needed to be "moderate temperamentally." His words on the channel he referred to as the "mothership" for Republicans were markedly different from what he has been saying on left-of-center outlets. On NBC's Meet The Press and his MSNBC show, Scarborough called Tea Partiers "RINOs," parroting a Bill Maher talking point. On The View, Scarborough said he would vote for a Democrat for president.
Scarborough's waffling on the issue to various audiences in order to sell books is reminiscent of Mitt Romney, the "moderate" presidential nominee who lost to President Barack Obama in 2012, and is remarkably different from someone like President Ronald Reagan, who had the same message for all audiences, whether they were liberal, conservative, rural, or urban.
In which Joe Scarborough skewers Screamin' Howard Dean for his lapdog support of the Obama regime's push for military intervention in Syria, comparing him to one of the lead architects of the Iraq War.
Former DNC chairman Howard Dean supports President Obama’s call for a punitive military strike against Syria.
"Thus far I fully support the president, including his going to Congress," Dean said in an email to The Hill.
The comments from the standard-bearer of the anti-war left during the 2004 campaign could help Obama gain more support among Democrats for votes next week in the House and Senate on his request.
In the House in particular, Obama is likely to have to count on a strong Democratic vote.
Dean's support for punishing Bashar Assad's regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons is particularly noteworthy because the former Vermont governor was the most prominent Iraq war critic during the run-up to the 2003 invasion.
I love how Dean falls back on the "Let's not play the blame game..." routine as if the irony is completely lost on him that he repeatedly played "the blame game" when he was running for president back in 2003-2004. Here's what he had to say about the Bush Doctrine back the spring of 2003:
Even the largest, most sophisticated military in the history of the world cannot be expected to go to war against every evil dictator who may possess chemical weapons. This calls for an aggressive and effective diplomatic effort, conducted in full cooperation with a united international community, and preferably with the backing of the multilateral institutions we helped to build for just this purpose. This challenge requires treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that this Administration has sometimes treated cavalierly. In any case, war should be a last resort or an option to be used in the face of an imminent threat.
Of course, Dean is far from being the only liberal flip-flopper on the issue of military intervention. In the video he insists on talking about the merits of a Syrian intervention. What exactly are the merits of intervening in Syria? In the type of intervention demanded by Obama, not much.
Kerry and Obama insist that the intervention won't drive regime change, which means either that (a) they're telling the truth and we'll just kill some people and destroy some property so that nothing really changes on the ground, or (b) they're lying and want to drive Assad out of power, just as the Libyan intervention collapsed the Moammar Qaddafi regime. How did that work out for our interests, and the West's?
And then there's the little matter of somebody's new look... Portents of a primary challenge to Hillary in 2016?
I'm not a fan of Russell Brand but I have to admit it: I love how he intimidates the hell out of Mika and the others and literally takes over their pathetic little show. This video has already gotten more views than Morning Joe gets in a two-month period.
Actor and comedian Russell Brand paid a visit to the Morning Joe set, which co-host Mika Brzezinski admitted made her nervous. While the segment - intended to promote his comedy tour "Messiah Complex" - started out with compliments all around, Brand soon took over, showed them how they should be doing their jobs, and… ended by calling Brzezinski a "shaft grasper."
