This is truly disgusting. He started out as a patriotic hero, but in his more recent incarnation, Captain America has apparently become a moonbat.
Enemies of the State.
You’ll note that one of the signs says, “Teabag the libs before they teabag you”, as if a tea party protester would ever use the liberal media’s insulting and scatological term.
In preparation for the infiltration, Marvel Comics depicts the two super heroes out of costume and observing from a rooftop a street filled with what can only be described as a Tea Party protest. The scene shows crowds of people in city streets carrying signs that say, “stop the socialists,” “tea bag libs before they tea bag you,” and “no to new taxes.” Naturally, the people in these crowds are depicted as being filled with nothing but white folks.
The black character asks the out of costume Captain, “What the hell is this?” And follows that with, “looks like some kind of anti-tax protest.” The Falcon character then snidely tells his partner the Captain, “So I guess this whole ‘hate the government’ vibe around here isn’t limited to the Watchdogs.”
The two then discuss their plan to infiltrate the subversive group that Marvel comics seems to be linking to the Tea Party movement. This discussion culminates in The Falcon wondering how a black man would do such a thing. “I don’t exactly see a black man from Harlem fitting in with a bunch of angry white folks,” he tells the incognito Captain America.
Now just take a look at how the tea partiers are depicted in the comic book pictured, above.
Compare and contrast to some real tea partiers.
To pretend that the average Americans who make up the tea party movement are menacing looking as a group is just plain dishonest.
If you want to see scary, freaky looking mobs, you really have to hearken back to the anti-war protests of the Bush years:
Anti-war protest photos courtesy of Zombietime, who did the work the media never did to expose the ugly underbelly of the movement.
The Tea Party movement is not crazy, hateful, or stupid. Their rallies are disarmingly cheerful affairs, which most certainly do include women and minorities. The movement is still in the process of coalescing, and seeks inspiration and representation, rather than leadership. They know their country is rocketing down the wrong path, and while the current President has a heavy hand on the throttle, the course was set long before he entered politics.
If you seek madness, look for it in the President’s delusional State of the Union speech, or the people who indulge his belief that another three or four trillion piled onto a $14 trillion national debt will get us at least halfway to utopia. If you want to taste hatred, sample the venom directed at Sarah Palin, the only person currently capable of building a bridge between the energy of the Tea Party, and the established resources of the GOP. If you would like stupidity illustrated, witness the spectacle of the Democrats passing off their oily mass of backroom deals and political payoffs as a rational plan for improving health care.
The lack of a comprehensive solution doesn’t make criticism invalid. The point is that comprehensive solutions are inherently inadequate, compared to the creative power of free markets and private industry. Tea Party stalwarts are entirely rational in refusing to submit themselves as raw materials for the next big adventure in central planning. After several lifetimes of watching an increasingly huge federal government fail at almost everything it tries, while displaying increasingly less enthusiasm for the Constitutional duty of national defense that it actually excels at, the middle class demands the freedom and respect to get busy solving its own problems. They’re understandably tired of watching every story in the evening news twisted into another reason the government needs more money, every market fluctuation offered as proof the private sector has too much freedom, and every change in the weather presented as a omen their standard of living is a mortal wound to the Earth.
This is to expand upon the information I added to the “related” portion of my last post. There is a mini scandal brewing regarding now how the pantybomber case was handled, (which was a major scandal, IMO). Now, the Obama administration is attempting to excuse its actions by dragging Republican Congressmen into the equation, claiming that they knew that Abdulmutallab was being mirandized, and acquiesced at the time. Counter terrorism chief Brennen made the statements on Meet The Press, and all of the Republicans involved, (Reps. Boehner and Hoekstra, and Sens. Kit Bond and Mitch McConnell) are denying it.
Byron York of the Washington Examiner, this morning, reports:
A spokesman for McConnell says, “During a brief call from the White House, Sen. McConnell was given a heads up that Abdulmutallab was in custody, but little else. He wasn’t told of the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab.”
A spokesman for Boehner says, “On an unclassified/non-secure call to Boehner’s cell phone that was very short, John Brennan informed Boehner that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was in custody. The call imparted no other substantive information and Brennan did not inform Boehner that the administration had read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights.” And Bond released a statement saying that Brennan “never told me any of plans to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber — if he had I would told him the administration was making a mistake.”
In a conversation Sunday afternoon, Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, angrily denied Brennan’s statement. The possibility of Mirandizing Abdulmutallab “never came up” in a call that Hoekstra describes as a “quick update.” Hoekstra recalls Brennan calling between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Christmas, which would have been before Abdulmutallab was informed of his rights. “I think I talked to Brennan before they did it,” Hoekstra says. “He could have told me that, and asked me what I felt about it — but he didn’t.”
Hoekstra says if Brennan had brought up the subject of Miranda rights, then he, Hoekstra, would have discussed the issue with legal counsel from the Intelligence Committee. “If Brennan had called and said, ‘Congressman, we’re contemplating a legal strategy here,'” Hoekstra says, “the first thing I would have done is call up…my legal counsel and some other people and said, ‘Hey, is this a sound strategy or not?’ It never came up.”
All the lawmakers describe Brennan’s call as being very short; one recalls it as less than a minute. And all describe it as a heads-up, and not a briefing or an exchange of views. Brennan, however, told another story.
You can read Brennen’s statement at The Examiner. What he seemed to be saying is that the Republicans should have known that Abdulmutallab had been given the Miranda warning, since they had been told that he was in FBI custody, and they didn’t object.
In those short conversations, were they were expected to surmise that we would give an enemy combatant the protections of our Constitution before we had adequately interrogated him?
The Obama administration appears to be in CYA mode.
As I point out in Courting Disaster, just a few months earlier, the Obama administration announced that its new FBI-led “High-Value Interrogation Group” (HIG) would not necessarily Mirandize suspects it was questioning.
In its story on the announcement, the Washington Post reported:
Interrogators will not necessarily read detainees their rights before questioning, instead making that decision on a case-by-case basis, officials said. . . . “It’s not going to, certainly, be automatic in any regard that they are going to be Mirandized,” one official said, referring to the practice of reading defendants their rights. “Nor will it be automatic that they are not Mirandized.”
In other words, Republicans were assured by the Obama administration that the decision on reading Miranda rights to captured terrorists would be made a on “case-by-case” basis.
So if Brennan is wondering why the Republicans he spoke with did not just assume Abdumutallab would be automatically Mirandized, it is because the Obama administration told them so.
“He never brought this stuff up,” Hoekstra says, adding that the FBI was the natural choice to hold Abdulmutallab until a detainment and interrogation strategy could be settled. “No, I wouldn’t expect the military to be at Detroit Airport waiting to arrest somebody,” Hoekstra adds, but he thought the administration would carefully investigate alternatives and consult with national security principals before moving forward with Miranda rights and other criminal procedures.
***
The guy has completely blown his credibility with Congress,” Hoekstra says of Brennan, who “for all intents and purposes is calling us liars.”“With the advice that he’s given this administration, he has dug this administration into a hole on terrorism. I can understand why he’s fighting back, because they’ve made a series of missteps,” he continued, mentioning unpopular plans to close Guantanamo Bay prison and try 9/11 conspirators in downtown New York, as well as gaffes made by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in hours after the Christmas Day attacks.
“They’re in trouble, and they know it. So they use the most effective strategy we know of: ‘let’s blame Republicans and call them partisan.’”
After Obama’s Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs simpered that critics of the administration’s handling of the Christmas panty-bomber case owe the Obama administration an apology, my Senator didn’t hold back. No apologies were forthcoming, and no quarter. He says the administration owes the American people an apology:
John Brennan claims that GOP leadership in Congress had been briefed by the Obama administration about the arrest of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and the decision to handle his case through the criminal justice system.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and Senator Bond both deny it.
Bond says:
Sen. Bond responds, saying Brennan “never told” him of the plan to Mirandize Abdulmutallab. Bond’s entire statement:
[“]Brennan never told me any of plans to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber — if he had I would have told him the administration was making a mistake. The truth is that the administration did not even consult our intelligence chiefs, as DNI Blair testified, so it’s absurd to try to blame Congressional leaders for this dangerous decision that gave terrorists a five week head start to cover their tracks.[“]
Ed Morrissey adds:
If the White House didn’t consult Mueller or Blair, why would they have picked up the phone and called Bond and Hoekstra? Brennan’s claim that a call giving the two the outline of the attack somehow amounts to acquiescence of the point of Mirandizing a terrorist before fully interrogating him is ludicrous, and obviously self-serving. It’s almost as bad as Janet Napolitano’s “the system worked” spin on the Sunday after Christmas.
Nice Deb 