Lew Rockwell suggested, in a joking manner, on his blog that someone should makeup a cartoon of McCain with some prostitutes in Hanoi. Someone did and it’s devestating.

>If conservatives allow such a media to determine the weapons they may use and to limit the terrain upon which they are to be permitted to fight, they will lose this election.<

I thought it was lost already?
Who then might the conservative candidate be? There’s only Insane John McCain left and he’s certainly no conservative.

The cartoon is good and I took it at face value. Too much truth in it to be understood in any ironic way.

Really, Obama is now the better, or less bad, choice. He may surprise us all. Probably in more ways than we can imagine.

Seems a bit over the top, its like they are insulting conservatives making them out to be some kinda national enquirer nuts.

“An insult to American muslims”.  American muslims may feel less insulted by this cartoon than by the episode of Obama’s flunkies asking head-scarfed muslim ladies to move out of camera-shot at one of his rallies. 

The cartoon touches a nerve precisely because, as you say, it contains an element of truth: about the Obamas, as well as the more feverish fears at large in the nation. It should be said that humour is a great antidote to fear.

It would be a sad day for democracy were political commentary to be purged of its more satirical elements by the peecee brigade. Not even a monarch - George III - could stop Cruikshank’s wicked cartoons of his family.

I had to reserve a copy of this issue of the New Yorker at my local Barnes and Noble because they were flying off the shelves.  I have heard no regular people in my life comment about this one way or the other.  I have heard the media talking heads expounding upon it endlessly, but only for a day or two.  This confirms for me my belief that there are too many media outlets for “news”.  As for Mr. Buchanan’s assertion that the New Yorker editors come away looking weak, quite the contrary.  They are the only ones who are making sensible sounding noises in public about this.

Correction:  it should be head-scarved.  Ack !

Obama is a lying thin-skinned racist collectivist whose pro-abortion ideas place him to the left of NARAL so I am sure his will be a peachy presidency.

As NRO has pointed out, Barack has spent more than 50% of the last ten years running for office with a record thinner than the distance between Bush 2.0 and certifiable insanity.

The left is loathe to use humor against those they worship (forget about their ignorance of Dulia, Hyper Dulia, and Latria) Making fun of liberal politicians is political blasphemy. There are reasons why the late night comics don’t dis Barack. Politically, he is for them what Jesus is to Christians. He really is seen as a saviour.

(The real joke is “conservatives” thinking Obama ought be voted for)

I don’t think it is about race so much as it is about raw political power. The left has no trouble making fun of Clarance Thomas or Condi Rice.

Remember. Before he will use any jokes about gays, Jay Leno has a panel of perverts approve them first. Politics trump EVERYTHING for liberals. It is through politics that liberals seek salvation.

I don’t think Jay Leno contacts Bill Donahue before making fun of the Pope.

Really, Obama is now the better, or less bad, choice. He may surprise us all. Probably in more ways than we can imagine

Yes. I am sure he will surprise many. I mean, who would have forseen Obama advocating a civilian army the same size as the military? (Wonner what the antiwar libs think about that plan?)

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/another_inconvenient_truth_dow_1.html

lew rockwell made the suggestion that the cover isn’t sarcastic.  It’s a true reflection of the way the israel lobby in the beltway and on wall street feel abuot him.  read commentary blog sometime, they hate obama not the way they hate jimmy carter, but hate that he is a possible threat to their position in washington.

I’ll meet your Dutch Muslim Cartoon with an Obama Flag Burnin Crypto Terrorist one and raise ya with a cartoon showing the media babblers and scribblers launching like Lemmings off the edge of the world in a Macy’s Day parade of yammering hot air balloons.

When satire and humor are considered dangerous, one can rest assured that the bipartisan leadership is comprised of a rather spectacular blending of larceny and righteousness. There is real art and craft here, a kind of venal professionalism...a Knighthood of Mountebankery that is a monument to the silly cant of Values Voting.

After all, the public will only be pooched if its done politely.

Aristotle’s pithy quip that “Wit is cultured insolence” is lost on the current generation of people who appear to be a bit reamed out by Bad Behavior at the Highest Levels. People do not seem to care for laughing at the life boats coming to the rescue of the Titanic when said life boats seem preoccupied with too many leaks of their own. The comic aspects are over-ruled by the quality of the emergency at hand and a dawning recognition that prospects for survival are dim at best.

As I predicted, Buchanan reserves the bulk of his criticism for Obama, not for McCain.  Expect more of this.  It is
safe to conclude that all things considered, he still prefers a McCain administration to an Obama one.  I am *not*
criticizing him for this.  I simply note that, to the minds of some paleos, he is going off the reservation, as he
did in 2004 when he endorsed Bush.  Should McCain take Romney as his VP candidate, expect a near-endorsement.

This is one issue on which Mr. Buchanan can speak with perfect moral authority.  I recall when he was running for president that Time Magazine ran Buchanan’s picture on their cover.  His pallor was green and it looked as if he was going to jump right off the cover to bite viewers on the neck.  Yet I recall objections being few and far between.

Consequently, Mr. Buchanan was nicer than he should’ve been by not pointing out this grievous double standard.

If you want to know who is really running things, just look at who it’s not safe to criticize.

The cover was not an accurate depiction.  Try mine:  Both swathed in black liberation flags, female holding concrete slab autographed by Damian Williams, US Constitution in fire, Farrakhan and J.Wright pictures on wall, both male and female standing on bodies of white Christian gun-bearing taxpayers and aborted fetuses, with a line of African politicians/tin-cuppers in a line going off-page. And yes, Virginia, there is a McCain-killed-a-lot-of-Abels,-and- wants-to-murder-even-more New Yorker cover. http://blorts.cutaia.net/2008/the-new-yorker-does-john-mccain/ ST

Add to my accurate cover Jena 6 boys’ choir backed by special guest singers Al Sharpton and Crystal Mangum.  ST

The reason this cartoon has received so much publicity is that it has a large element of truth in it.I view Obama as a dangerous radical and his wife as an obnoxious race hustler.The media is afraid to caricature this guy because he is black.Shame on the pc media---give him the same treatment you would apply to a white person.Let’s see more of his pandering,radical friends and “spiritual advisers”,big ears,and messianic aspirations.Can the liberals handle this even handed treatment. Who cares about these jerks.BHO core supporters are a bunch of white guilt ridden lapdogs and black block voters who only see racial loyalty.

Here’s the problem with Obama:

He was born in Hawaii, the least culturally American of all our states.  He moved from there to Indonesia to live with his Indonesian Muslim oilman stepfather.

One of Obama’s mother’s duties was to assist her husband with entertaining American oilmen.  She refused, and allegedly hissed, “They’re not my people”, and refused to have any dealings with them or any other Americans.

Then, after he was grown, via affirmative action, Obama was admitted to some of our very finest (i.e., un-American) universities.  Then he associated with the anti-American Saul Alinsky crowd, and attended the anti-American church of Jeremiah Wright.

So, besides Obama’s passport, it’s fair to ask:  What’s American about him?

Does anyone know what BHO’s and his sweet bride’s PSAT, SAT, and AP scores were?  ST

I don’t think that The New Yorker cover was quite as innocent as editor David Remnick claims. I believe that the cover was an attack on Obama and signifies the increasing unease that The Lobby feels about Obama. It is The Lobby after all that continues to push for Hilliary being made the vice presidential candiate. In this position she can push The Lobby’s positions in the new administration if Obama ever starts to waiver about Israel. 

People should remember that it was David Remnick who wrote probably one of the most scurrilous attacks on the Mearsheimer/Walt book on the power of the Israeli Lobby in the USA. The attack was so outragerous and over the top that it could only have been written with the encouragement and approval of Rmenick’s bosses, the rabidly pro Zionist Newhouse brothers, the owners of Advance Publications which owns The New Yorker.

Forget about Buchanan. He should have lost all credibility when he supported Bush Jr. in 2004. This support was truly cynical and reflected Buchanan’s desire to still be seen as a Republican in order to insure his right wing pundit position on TV.

On one of the morning radio programs here in LA, KROQ to be exact, one of the morning crew cracked a “joke” that during the Reform Party convention in Long Beach the sale of table cloths went through the roof.  This was implying that anyone who would support Pat was a Ku Kluxy.  This type of boring, predictable and degrading cheap shot is common place against conservatives. 

Shepard Fairey, an “artist” and Obama supporter, is really big on the doing “political art” similar to the New Yorker cover above.  Do a Google image search on him and you will see the AK-47s, the Malcom X portraits, Che Guevara, etc. The people who are into this type of political iconography are typically Obama supporters, so the association is definitely plausible.

Native-born white Christians don’t have any group rights but every other group does.  In other words, conservatives can be portrayed as Klansmen, Nazis and have their positions distorted beyond all recognition, but it will be protected as “political expression\”.  But if someone tries to portray a black, Hispanic, woman, gay, Jew or Muslim in a similar fashion might end up in jail for “hate speech”.  The Wall Street Journal touched on this issue on last week’s Weekend Edition (July 12-13), when a vulgar Dutch cartoonist got jailed for posting unflattering cartoons related to Islam on his website.

El lay writer:

The stupidest part of the “bedsheet” joke is that Buchanan’s running mate was a black woman.

“Native-born white Christians don’t have any group rights but every other group does.  In other words, conservatives can be portrayed as Klansmen, Nazis and have their positions distorted beyond all recognition, but it will be protected as “political expression\”.  But if someone tries to portray a black, Hispanic, woman, gay, Jew or Muslim in a similar fashion might end up in jail for “hate speech”.  The Wall Street Journal touched on this issue on last week’s Weekend Edition (July 12-13), when a vulgar Dutch cartoonist got jailed for posting unflattering cartoons related to Islam on his website.”

This is only because so many whites tolerate second-class citizenship status in their own countries.  It’s high time we stopped tolerating it.

Beyond posting on the Internet, a good second step is to quit listening to “conservatives” who are little more than pathological liberals in drag.

Whites are their own worst enemies right now.

A couple of points that I haven’t seen anyone here make. Obama is bent out of shape not because he is a crypto-muslim, but because the average joe has no understanding of satire, therefore will believe the cartoon as truth.

Second thing is that Obama is no candidate of the left, and is no progressive. He just another establishment hack and will govern according to what his corporate masters demand. Plain and simple.

McCain on the other hand, is just plain old crazy. He’s like an arsonist running around with a can of gas and a lighter, hardly being able to contain himself at the thought of starting more wars.

Really people, there’s nothing in either of the corporate controlled parties for average folks like me and you.

Also, I’d like to say that we really need to leave this whole left/right divide behind as it’s engineered by the powerbrokers to keep the people divided and to prevent the citizenry from rising up in response to their repeated crimes. Don’t buy into it!

PJB deserves anything he gets (short of theft or violence).  After the Stockton massacre, all of the usual traitors were at the gunowners’ throats(Feulner, Bennett, Metzenbaum, J Jackson,et al).  PJB pulls the cheap melodramatic stunt of walking onto a talk show, casting down an UZI(replica?) on the table, and demanding to know “Who needs to own this?”, or words to that effect. Thanks, PJB, UZIs are now banned in my state.  Always remember that he is a politician and by definition a despot in waiting.  Given those encomiums, I will read borrowed copies of his books on 20th century history because they are excellent and groundbreaking.  ST

To say it was satire was the fall-back argument. It wasn’t satire, it’s the agendum. They would rather take a chance on McCain getting elected; he’s the safe bet for the neocons.
The NY is also desperate to survive and needs attention.
Two birds with one stone.

Mr. Burch—consider who “they” are.  “They” are the New Yorker editors.  “They” are liberal
Democrats.  “They” were engaging in satire.

One has to wonder why Pat Buchanan upbraides conservatives for allowing the media to determine the weapons they may use while he himself calls Obama an African-American. Isn’t his mother white? Isn’t it racism to neglect this white half of his genetic makeup? Isn’t Obama himslef a racist if he disregards this half of his heritage? I’ve never seen or heard him say anything positive about the white half of blood in him. Not that it matters that much but if we are to have a serious discussion should we stick to the facts?

I revved the hate-o-meter provided to me by Morris Dees. It didn’t surprise me that it reached a max 100 score when someone said the name ‘Obama’ in my presence. Oddly, it also reached 100 when someone said ‘McCain’.

lester: “lew rockwell made the suggestion that the cover isn’t sarcastic.  It’s a true reflection of the way the israel lobby in the beltway and on wall street feel abuot him.”

Buchanan: “For 48 hours, editors Rick Hertzberg and David Remnick fended off attacks, assuring media interrogators the cartoon’s purpose was not to satirize the Obamas but to satirize the caricature of Michelle and Barack in the mind of the paranoid right.”
-----
Remnick and Hertzberg are both Jewish, and probably Zionists. This was a hit job all the way, and their cover story was to disguise it as satire.

Group identity blacks and people of color are starting to wage war with identity Jews for predomination of left-liberalism, and liberal Jews like Remnick and Hertzberg don’t like it. The Neocons saw this coming years ago, and started scooting right, using their left-liberal tactics (accusing critics and opponents upon whose turf upon they were interloping like Pat Buchanan of racism/anti-semitism).

America is being reduced to tribal warfare, and now white identity nationalists are understandably springing up in imitation of/as an answer to Jewish nationalists (Zionists), black nationalists and other identity-politics groups. I blame this reductio ad absurdum primarily on leftists who wanted to make political hay by pitting racial groups against each other and on Jewish Zionists who refused to assimilate, and have been wildly successful in their particularism in America, using their tribal network for political and economic leverage and to huge advantage over assimilated Americans not interested in identity politics. They showed all these other identity groups the way, but now don’t like the competition.

The only way this country is ever going to be held together is through a return to a strong CHRISTIAN identity which subordinates all these regressive tribal factions to an inferior social status, where they must be kept for the sake of preservation of the American peace and civilization. It’s time to start doing to Jewish-identity and black-identity groups what has been done to white-identity groups since the Civil War in order to even things back out and regain the equilibrium. It’s either that, or eventual civil war.

Mr Tobias:
It’s not about political affiliation, it’s about continuing the ‘Never-ending war’, using whatever stooge happens to be in office. In this election, the better stooge clearly happens to be McCain. Normally, it’s not as clear-cut.

chris moore- I ‘m not sure about your prescriptions for american renewal, but I think we can agree that the cover wasn not an unambiguous “satire” as it’s been explained away as

The magazine’s claims of satire do seem remarkably hollow and weak. A kind of roundabout trickle down explanation that fails to resolve the issue.

Maybe the cover more accurately reflect what a certain faction of the liberal voter bloc really thinks but is unwilling to say.

They are ‘projecting’. Their outward espousal of affirmative action speak, and their disgust with Bush, prevents them from expressing what may be their deeper concerns with Obama.

I think the liberal inclined TV satire “30 Rock” also touched on this point, there are plenty of “liberals” who will talk Obama but vote McCain. Maybe the New Yorker has consiously or not tapped into what may be a large faction this time round.

There is an excellent discussion on the cartoon at belief-net. See here.

Here are some key points…

“I have two main concerns about the nature of the outcry against this cartoon. The first is that democracy doesn’t abide the untouchable...”

“My second concern is that amid all the declarations of disdain, we might miss a golden opportunity for self-reflection. I would suggest that Blitt’s art should not only be considered a mirror for the right but for the left and independent as well. Sure the fear-mongering of some conservatives must be seen for what it truly is, but so must the pious pretense of some liberals. Though some Republicans are doing all they can to enshrine the lies, smears, and half-truths scorned in Blitt’s depiction, we must not forget that it was Democrats who in the name of “political vetting” first sketched that picture across the canvas of American consciousness. Both sides are equally responsible for nursing the notion that any criticism levied at America by a person of color indubitably comes out of a place of anger and militancy; both wings have bolstered the quiet bigotry that there might be something wrong with a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist running for president; both parties have fostered the fiction that freedom of expression is in fact unpatriotic; both factions have at times perpetuated the prejudice that anyone dressed in a headscarf is an enemy. Blitt simply offers us the opportunity to reconsider these insidious fallacies in contrast to our democratic ideals.  There’s something about the way the picture at once forces the viewer to take a position, and then later, when words are ascribed to it and we come to know the intent of the author, challenges one on that position whatever it may be. That, to me, is good democratic stuff and well worth reconsidering.”

And the comments on that blog have a few choice items too…

“The irony here, though, is the Great Double-Standard. Folks are correct to observe that if this had been on a conservative paper, the general Left, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be be going crazy. People would be forced to resign (like a certain radio host of late) and a general uproar would have been had.”

“I would suggest that Blitt’s art should not only be considered a mirror for the right but for the left and independent as well.”

So it’s either a Freudian confession, or a Zionist false-flag attack masquerading as mockery of the Right. Given the source, I would bet on the latter, but the former probably has elements of truth as well. These ‘New Yorkers’ are truly nuts.

(from theconservativecrawfish)
UPSET SPECIAL: B. H. OBAMA WILL LOSE

Remember where you heard it first..its July 21, 2008 and BHO is being hailed by the lib-media and their fellow socialist pacifists like the coming of the “political Jesus”. The pandering, the fawning, the stilted covering, the backing and filling has broken biased records thought out of sight.
But, alas, the voters are not quite at ease as the pundit herd thinks. The same pundit herd that was so convinced Kerry was “in for 8 years”.
Terrorism, gas prices, higher taxes plus more lefty nuts on the SC have many millions worried. BHO soars to new levels of arrogance weekly. BHO takes flights of frightful foreign policy fancy (a la Jimmah C). The second highest corporate tax rate in the world and BHO wants to hit them again? The Bush tax cuts for half the wage earners taken back by BHO?
Time is not on BHO’s side and neither are the debates. These will reveal even more of this empty-suited rookie. McCain will fumble around but still score big points on major concerns like terror, taxes, the surge and energy. BHO has no real alternatives except the failed expensive old liberal non-solutions.
The polls were the same in June as versus Kerry. In July the polls indicated a tie. Democrats always peak early on because the simple fantasy non-solutions by their Monday morning QB seem (key word seem) just so do-able, so real, so possible….seem until the fog of emotion slowly lifts. The live debates will bypass the biased media and that will decay BHO support also. He will be challenged. He can’t kiss it off or walk of the stage. Pacifist secular socialism will have to be defended. Jimmah C scammed us all with it. Then he was crushed and his party was crushed again four years later. How can growing gov-ment, raising taxes on half of the voters and exploding the budget be easily defended? Many voters are not in the mood for more fluff and smiling deception. Class warfare, wealth envy, victim worship yada yada recycled again.
BHO is not a debate guy, he is a pontificator, an arrogant smiling radical lecturer who cannot stand up under serial questioning. BHO is a certified coward who will not go on Fox News but only goes to the fawning networks of like mind. What does this tell you? Listening to kooks with money to get a nomination is not the same as telling ALL voters you will do kooky things to their country, to their lives, to their futures. As BHO is revealed to be the radical socialist he is…many millions will get that “gut feeling” this guy is dangerous.
Horndog Klinton faced two weak inept mushy Repubs but still could not get 50% of the vote. What does that tell you?
I see the results as JM 48%-ish BHO 47%-ish and the rest 5%.
(Fall back position: Democrats in congress get creamed in 2010 with BHO hammering your pocketbook and trashing your values then MR shames BHO with a 45 state rout in 2012 due to a NG game plan as the implementation of strident secular socialism once again horrifies a country into sanity)