Matt Welch Talks SuperPAC/Rev. Wright Politics on MSNBC, Chuck Schumer's Disgusting Ex-PATRIOT Act on Fox Business News


On Friday, May 18, I appeared on a couple of cable news shows to discuss the pressing news of the day. For MSNBC, that was whether a reportedly proposed (then withdrawn) SuperPAC political ad criticizing President Barack Obama's past associations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright represented a new low for politics and whether the controversy was either bad or terrible for presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney:

For Fox Business News, it was the Facebook IPO, about which I slipped in some commentary regarding the political and government response co-founder Eduardo Saverin's renunciation of his U.S. citizenship:

NEXT: Sheldon Richman on Whether There Is a Libertarian Case for Organized Labor

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Man, Gary Stix is such an ass.

      Walking as Search: Google Glasses May Not Be a Good Idea
      It would be nice if state governments went one step further and banned texting while walking. The law might require that anyone entering an emoticon into a smartphone would be required to stand (very still) within a foot of the sidewalk's edge or cough up a $50 fine.

      1. For fucks sake! All this man does it write about things that he thinks should be regulated or banned!

        Should Car Ads Be Banned?

        1. Objective Science is not to be questioned. Shut up, bitch.

          1. Since when is "social science" objective?

            Oh, when it confirms Mr. Stix's prejudices.


            1. HM, you did catch my sarcasm, right?

        2. It is interesting how these people are so convinced commercial advertising controls our mind. Yet, public service ads are nearly always failures. The incongruity never seems to bother these people.

          1. Good one. Corporate ads turn us all into mindless zombies, following blindly at their beckon-call, but for some unknown reason this doesn't work for governments, so we have to pass laws and throw people in jail when they don't do what we want.

          2. commercial ads are mind control but the programming in between has no impact on anything whatsoever.

          3. The "commercial advertising controls people's minds" idea that has propagated amongst left-of-center statists, is, I believe, another attempt to explain why most people don't act as left-of-center statists want them to. You'll also hear them say things like "in our consumer culture, people buy things they don't really want/need" for the same reason.

      2. Stix is obviously a Democrat.

    2. ...To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. ... Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?...

      1. that paragraph encapsulates the conceit of the left. In its view, the dictator of its selection would never be malevolent or in any way negative. At root, leftist philosophy is about force, not much different from the so-cons really except for degree. The left wants to control everything you do; so-cons are mostly interested in who sleeps with whom.

      2. continued...

        Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations? Yes, as long as he was, say, an articulate, Ivy League educated person of diverse heritage.

        1. some might say this Ivy League person ensures the presence of a malevolent dictator.

    3. "A planet-livable CO2 level of 560 ppm"

      What a load of shit. The planet has been 'livable' at CO2 concentrations much higher. Seriously, the Kochs et al need to covertly establish new science magazines. It's vital to our culture war.

    4. This sucks

      Scientific American use to be a good magazine.

  1. "political ad criticizing President Barack Obama's past associations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright represented a new low for politics "

    Don't see why it would be a new low. There have been plenty of attacks on politicians just because they were in the same room, or received a donation or were endorsed by a controversial person.

    Obama was very connected with Wright. Far more then others who have been attacked for connections with other controversial people.

    On the other hand I think there is plenty of things Obama has done in the last four years and probably will do in the next four years to criticize him. Unfortunate Romney does not seem much different except in some places where he might a little better but even worse in others places.

    I think we need a "none of the above" category in the election.

    1. we need a "none of the above" category

      Right on. And when NOTA wins, the office is *vacant*, with all the lovely repercussions.

    2. Republicans have good red meat criticisms to throw at the economy and the debt.

      An attack using Wright implies that republicans don't want to talk about Debt and the economy.

      Of course i think Romney/Obama are terrible on debt and the economy and would much rather hear about Wright and birthers and shit....much more fun to talk about.

      I think we need a "none of the above" category in the election.

      Gary Johnson.

  2. It has gotten almost no attention at all from the so-called mainstream media, but Jeremiah Wright has just admitted to an interviewer that a close friend of Obama named Eric Whitaker offered him an incredible $150,000 bribe back in '08 to keep his big stupid mouth shut throughout the election season!

    To his credit, Wright turned down the bribe, and said that he doesn't know whether or not Obama knew about and/or authorized the bribe to be made, although Obama himself personally went to Wright later and asked him to keep quiet as well.

    It is so infuriating to me that little tidbits like this can't be openly discussed in the "polite circles" of the Beltway. You can tell from their reactions that his media supplicants are absolutely terrified at any prospect of this president finally being vetted.

    1. How is that different than John Edwards' buddy paying off Reille Hunter?

      1. The major difference is that in the Wright case the bribe was never accepted. Nevertheless, bribery is bribery. If Wright is speaking the truth, and it's hard for me to believe he would just completely make something like that up, then a close friend of Obama likely committed a criminal act in order to aid the cause of his election.

        One would reasonably think that Wright's admission would be a fairly explosive news story. And it would be, if the media wasn't almost completely full of Obama-worshipping scum.

        1. It is certainly attempted bribery. Had Wright taken the money, it would be exactly the same.

          1. It is certainly attempted bribery

            Wright is not an official so it is not Bribery

            "Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty."

        2. Wright is only useful to teh MSM when his presence can be used to advance a racism narrative.

      2. He was protecting the sanctity of motherhood?

        1. Don't laugh. The NOW gangsters and Jezehellions hate both him and her for such a uterine apostasy and his PATRIARCHY betrayal.

      3. Edwards used campaign money and isn't charged with bribery* so it's completely the same except for the fact that it isn't the same at all.

        *And as Wright isn't a government official or legally charged with making Obama look good or giving testimony under oath I don't see how he could be bribed in this case. He could be paid off, but as long as the money did not come from a forbidden source I don't see the crime.

      4. Oh, and John is an awful government lawyer if he doesn't know what bribery is.

  3. In other news, the Lockerbie Bomber is dead. This is one of those guys who makes me wish there was a hell so that he could spend the rest of eternity in it.

    1. you dig around a bit and the trail of bodies behind Obama is creeping toward Clintonian standards.

    2. Breitbart the man is already forgotten. Nobody really wants to spend any time thinking about all the unpleasant things that surround his death, or just how far down the road to a Banana Republic our country has gone.

  4. Get your conceal and carry permit.

    It was the middle of the lunch rush Saturday, and Mike Winston was working in the kitchen of his Tinley Park restaurant, the Ashford House, when a waitress screamed a fight had broken out in the dining room.

    Police call the melee at the restaurant a targeted assault by a mob that Winston said wielded metal batons and hammers. Ten diners were hurt in the attack, and three of those were hospitalized.

    Tinley Park police had five suspected assailants in custody, and Winston said 18 young men, all wearing hooded jackets and obscuring their faces with scarves and other coverings, stormed into the restaurant.

    "They came running in the door single file," said Winston, who owns Ashford House, 7959 W. 159th St., and the adjacent Winston's Market.

    Winston, and police, said the men knew who their targets were, and that the attack wasn't a random act of violence. Winston said the mob "targeted" a group of 20 diners, all of whom were from out of state.

    1. This is amazing. We are seeing organized leftist mob terror starting in this country.

      1. They represent The People, whether The People like it or not.

        1. I hope the "people" respond with some lead coming the other way. What scum.

        2. Who were the targeted people that makes this specifically political?

          1. They didn't seem to rob anyone. They were wearing masks. This strikes me as anarchist losers. What else could it be?

            1. Organized crime. Left wing violence. Sox fans vs. Cubs fans. Need more info.

              1. Organized crime exists to make money. This made no money. Cub and Sox fans fight at ball games. This was not a ball game.

                Open for other suggestions.

                1. Could be anyone. You could be right. I'm not asserting you're wrong. You just need more to make an assertion of your own.

                  1. The fact that it happened during the summit is just too much of a coincidence.

                    1. They're in a restaurant. There are knives, glasses, chairs, pepper grinders, cloth napkins, scorching hot food and coffee, and so on, not to mention the weapons being carried by the assholes. No one has to be a victim.

                    2. Good point sage. And yes, I would like to think had I been in that Restaurant at least one or two of those assholes would have gone to the hospital with a steak knife wound.

                    3. and an attack in restaurant implies a few things: the intended targets would be together, in a confined space, in a setting where natural defenses tend to be lowered, and where the ensuing chaos would make escape easier.

                      A mob hit would be one or two guys with guns, not hammers.

                    4. That's like these flash mobs that are going in and robbing 7-11s and the like. Those people should be keeping the crowd control size pepper spray bottles behind the counter. Then just hose the whole group down. They need to feel pain in order to change their behavior.

                    5. Something. Flash mobbing needs to become a contact sport.

                    6. Now you're talking. How about a shotgun with rubber bullets or bean bag rounds?


                      Shit's expensive, but so having a store that's been ransacked by a gaggle of losers.

                    7. I think you're being premature John. This sounds like gang violence.

                    8. gangs with no guns? In Chicago?

                      It is becoming increasingly clear, or should be, that there is going to be a very unpleasant outcome to one of these outbreaks of loser-led violence. There is going to be something like an armed store-owner, armed patron, or martial-arts trained target who does not cooperate with his assailants.

                    9. Maybe they're one of the street gangs. Entry level. Still 'level grinding'.

                      How is your scenario unpleasant? Certainly isn't for a bloodthirsty mongoloid such as myself.

    2. This is from the comments. Considering the source, take it with a huge grain of salt.

      "On Saturday, May 19th a group of 30 anti-fascists descended upon Ashford House restaurant in the Chicago suburb of Tinley Park where the 5th annual White Nationalist Economic Summit and Illinois White Nationalist Meet-and-Greet was taking place. The White Nationalists were targeted inside the restaurant and physically attacked, causing several injuries and completely shutting down their meeting. The anti-fascist group was privy to anonymous inside information. This fascist event had been in secret planning for six months. The attendees have attempted to cover up the true intent of the event with mainstream media reports initially reporting the white nationalist conference as a wedding party and then as an Irish heritage meeting. The event was advertised on, an established white nationalist fascist internet forum."

    3. "18 young men"

      It's depressing that we can probably guess what that means.

      1. Oh, anti-fascism activists. Well, that's different.

        1. Heh heh, white nationalist meet n' greet.

          1. "Before we read the minutes, let's order our meals.

            "OK, that's 14 white bread and mayonnaise sandwiches, 6 bratwursts, 7sauerkrauts, and who's the race traitor who ordered lox and bagels?"

  5. Re-post

    Way OT. HELP!

    In the heady days of the White Indian I switched from Firefox to Chrome + Reasonable. Since, I've noticed the spell checker algorithms in Chrome positively suck ass. For example, in attempting to type "really", I typed "reely" and when I right click on the red squiggly, "really" doesn't even come up as a suggestion.

    Any Chrome users experience the same? Any fixes, add-ons or extensions you'd recommend?

    1. I've also had it flag real words - though no examples come to mind immediately.

    2. Use the spell-checker between your ears. :-p

      1. That one has NEVER worked correctly.


    Interesting article on the bank runs in Greece.

  7. Saw Dark Shadows last night.

    First, it is not as someone as said on here Jack Sparrow playing Barbabus Collins. Depp is too good of an actor for that. He does a great job.

    The problem with the movie is the Burton doesn't give it enough credit. There are parts were it really is the dark, quirky soap opera the original one. There are large stretches of the movie where it really does work. The problem is that Burton then screws it up by trying to make it a comedy. It is like he was afraid of the audience laughing at him so he laughs at himself before they have a chance. And that is a shame. He had a great cast, some decent writers, and a chance to make a movie worthy of the original show. But he blew it. He blew it by not giving the audience or his material enough credit.

    1. I may well be guilty of the Jack Sparrow = Barnabas Collins narrative but trailers and previews all pointed in the direction of a campy sendup. The original was camp, at least not intentionally. By today's standards re: effects and such, it may seem that way but it was a drama.

      Burton tried to make DS into something it is not. Then again, I heard someone doing a remake of the Bob Seger classic "Turn the page" the other day, more proof that there is no originality in entertainment anymore, just remakes be they of songs, programs, or plots.

      1. The original was really creative and interesting. It was over the top. But all soap operas are that way. It is okay to be over the top if you are interesting.

        Burton tried to make it into The Adams Family in Maine. And that wasn't what it was. It was better than that. And the movie was good. I am glad I saw it. But it could have been so much better.

        1. then the movie's own marketing did it no favors. I saw The Avengers instead; no expectations beyond some wild effects, cheesy lines, and that the good guys would ultimately prevail.

          1. The show and the movie in parts was like a Vampire Diaries only without the pretension and being completely full of shit.

            1. a couple of decades ago, one of the networks did a remake of DS in serial form. Ben Cross was Barnabas and it was pretty good actually, certainly in keeping with the theme of the original show.

              It did not try to find cheap humor in the 200-years-gone vampire being tossed into future society. This movie could well have done the same thing and been much better.

          2. The Avengers is really good! I'm going to see it again.

  8. I was wondering when Romney's past association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright was going to catch up with him on the campaign trail.
    It took four years, but finally, some justice. How dare his people speak with people who did a mock up ad displaying Wright. If only he'd listened to St. John McCain.

    Sorry Matt, Romney is a Multiplier Man. The economy as an issue is already a lost cause in this election unless Gary Johnson does better than expected.

    1. If only he'd listened to St. John McCain.

      Now there was a man who knew how to keep the 'tut tuts', 'tisks, tisks', frowny faces and head shakes of the press to a bare minimum while making sure the substantial issues of the day were front and center.

    2. Real no kidding headline from either the Washington Post o It was something to effect of

      GOP looks to banish ghost of Jeremiah Wright.

      You are fucking kidding me.

      1. meanwhile, NYT does exhaustive piece on the link between Romney and Mormonism. Moral? Simple:
        --mormons are an icky cult that the MSM must explore every facet of in search of the nugget that shows how Romney will govern according to The Book of...
        --stories on Obama and his 20-year association with Wright are crass racism.

      2. In 2008, the media started dropping all pretence of objectivity. There was at least an effort at faking it before.

      3. Romney's great-grandfather was a polygamist!

        He had his dog ride on the car roof!

        He bullied some kid on high school!

        And now he's trying to dredge up silly stuff about Obama!

  9. Here is an interesting book review that dispels some myths about Iran, such as Mossadegh being any kind of decent ruler, Tudah being benign, or surety of the notion that American involvement lead to the Shah's rise.

    1. Don't bother with facts. You have to remember all evil in the world is the result of the evil America and foreigners never have their own motives.

      The whole "the US created the mullahs" myth is highly fucking annoying.

      1. Noninterventionism is a faith just like catastrophic AGW. That's why they sound so similar. All our fault, we're evil, leading to crisis forever just around the corner, REPENT.

        1. I don't believe in any of the, as John terms it, 'the US created the mullahs' bullshit. At all. In fact, I think it's fucking retarded beyond comprehension. And I'm a stern noninterventionist.

          You're conflating causes for noninterventionist convictions with noninterventionist convictions themselves.

          1. Fair point.

            1. I know the sort you're describing -- people with a tragically inappropriate (and very often unbelievably stupid) admiration for everything exotic, or even simply foreign, whose sole explanation for the world's ills is "HURRRRRRR AMERICA KKK RACIST IMPERIALISM HURRRR".

              Hey, it definitely isn't the cave-dwelling, primitive degenerate and his clan of long-robed fundamentalist fucks that are at fault here. After all, they're decapitating people and setting teenaged girls on fire because, um, um, eh, VIETNAM and AFGHANISTAN and, um, EMPIRE. Oh, and BUSH.

              Plenty of noninterventionists have infinitely better reasons for their position.

              1. John get in here now. One of the nonints is extolling the other nonints to start thinking critically and stop being insufferable twats. It's beautiful and I want you to see it.

                1. Or perhaps noninterventionists don't conform to your strawman.

              2. John get in here now. One of the nonints is extolling the other nonints to start thinking critically and stop being insufferable twats. It's beautiful and I want you to see it.

              3. John get in here now. One of the nonints is extolling the other nonints to start thinking critically and stop being insufferable twats. It's beautiful and I want you to see it.

                1. Is it just me, or are the squirrels screwing with people more frequently than usual? My connection's just fine, but it keeps skipping and spitting multiple posts randomly. Do the squirrels even have gambol licenses?

                  1. Do you use Chrome?

                2. The squirrels are excited too.

  10. Sweden is steadily more and more a free market country. It's not a matter of what party is in charge; it's a very steady change. If we can win there we can win anywhere.

    1. In honor of this, I will eat a Swesish meatball off a Swedish model's stomach.

      1. "'re wearing lederhosen..."

        1. "What is you, ignorant?"

  11. Someone clearly knows what time of day it is lol.

  12. you are going to alienate 40% of your consumer base by opening your mouth. That is why businessmen don't do it.

    Excellent point....and I am a bit surprised that the politico guy thought the idea was controversial.

  13. I often reflect on historical perspective and wonder what people one hundred years in the future will be able to make of "issues" like Rev. Wright. When some text in 2112 tries to explain how anybody in our time might view the mere discussion of this issue as racially motivated I wonder how it will be explained and how people will be able to get their heads around it.

  14. The Saverin issue is amazing. The US is the only developed country I know of that taxes its expatriates, and he would be saving a fraction of a fortune he couldn't possibly hope to spend on himself. So we get an act called the Ex-PATRIOT Act, which would put those who renounce citizenship into permanent exile, all so jackboots can extract their pound of flesh (and hopefully ex post facto!). Because the money expats pay without consuming any services isn't enough (and Facebook's flat IPO's tax implications mean nothing).

    I've had to do the bullshit of filing for taxes, declaring bank accounts with modest sums, etc., so kudos to Matt for calling it out.

  15. very nice publish, i definitely love this website, keep on it. chat

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.