Meet the KFC "double down." Although no mention of it is made on KFC.com and we have never seen an ad for it ourselves, we are being lead to believe that it is real by Foodgeekery.com. They have crappy cell phone camera footage of a commercial (from Omaha, apparently) for the mysterious beast, as well as photographic evidence of it in the wild.

The sandwich consists of two fried chicken fillets wrapped around bacon, cheese and Colonel's sauce. It apparently tastes like you think it would. An early-adopter explains:

That's it? That is the sandwich? That's not worth five dollars. Oh… oh my God. That is the best thing ever. I don't know what "Colonel's Sauce" is, but it is like a party in my mouth. This is completely worth the five dollars. Unfortunately I'm going to end up weighing 700 lbs after this, but it is simply amazing.

Have you eaten it?

A History of Violence

The long, sordid tale of anti-black brutality on the American left

Damon W. Root | August 20, 2009

I have a friend who is an odd sort of Democrat.  He's a bigoted, homophobic, Capitolist  Democrat.  And what does he hate as much as blacks and gay?  Why "Christers" of course.  Must have been tough on you to pull the lever for the Donk "Christer" who currently resides in Ohio's Gov Mansion.  And now appears that prexy Donk vote was pretty tough too, heh George, Ol buddy.  A BLACK Christer!!!!!

from Cassandra:

Woe be unto you, Blasphemers and Idolotors! Filthy deniers of the public option: know that The Obamessiah shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew. And He shall pursue thee until thou perishishest...umm...eth...err...perishethest!

Verily do I call heaven and earth to witness against thee! The caterpillar shall munch upon thy many gardens and vineyards, devour thy fig and olive trees, masticate upon thy 401K accounts and preferred provider plans. For Lo! The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish rich and the tyranny of the evil monger. Blessed is He, who in the name of social justice and income equality, guards the Stupid from the lies of the Iniquitous, for He is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.

And I shall strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger. And thou shalt know My name when I do lay My Vengeance upon thee:

In a conference call with liberal and progressive religious leaders Wednesday afternoon, President Obama railed against those who were “bearing false witness” in the debate over health care reform.

“I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness, but I want everyone to know what health insurance reform is all about,” the president said.

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor,” is, of course, one of the Ten Commandments. (It’s the 9th Commandment in all religions except for the Catholic and Lutheran traditions, in which it’s the 8th.)”

Whoa. For a moment I thought we were watching The Shrub try to force religion on us again.

My bad.

The Blogfather chimces in: BUT AT LEAST HE’S NOT A “CHRISTIANIST:” Obama would like you to see government as religion. “Bearing false witness? Breaking the 9th Commandment? So his opponents are sinners. I’m trying to imagine the separation-of-church-and-state freakout if George Bush had taken this approach to arguing for one of his policies.”

From David Harsanyi: 

What would Jesus Obama do? “For with thee is the fountain of life: and in thy light we shall see the public option.”

UPDATE: A reader emails: “Most commenters are focusing on Obama’s words about being his brothers’s keeper and his sister’s keeper, but the most egregious statement he made was that , ‘we are partners with God…’. Really? As a long time student of the Bible, I can’t recall God ever saying he needed a partner or wanted one.”

Yes, like his promise to create a Heaven here on Earth, this is kind of blasphemous, if you take it seriously. Or maybe he’s just a big Belinda Carlisle fan.

ANOTHER UPDATE: “As Jesus often said, ‘Let’s get the government to do something about it!’”

but the least part of the week I was hearig a LOT of BS on the subject, and think this post goes a short way to crrecting a few "misrememberings."  From NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias
 Title: Media Didn't Care About Protest Signs Threatening Bush

In recent weeks, the media have focused a lot of attention on anti-Obama signs showing up at town hall meetings and Tea Parties from coast to coast.

Without a doubt, some of them cross the line of decency.

However, the press's outrage is quite different than what happened when protesters carried offensive signs threatening former President George W. Bush.

To refresh the memory of the conveniently amnesiac news media, Zombietime dug up a number of posters from demonstrations past which didn't garner the press's ire like those harped on in recent weeks (readers are warned to proceed with caution, h/t Walt Gilbert):

A protester with a sign saying “Kill Bush” and advocating that the White House be bombed, at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime.)

“Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush” says this sign from a November 20, 2003 protest.
(Source: Innovative Minds.)

“Bush is the disease, Death is the cure,” says this protester at an anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: People’s Cube.)

“I’m here to kill Bush (shoot me)” reads this protest sign (location unknown).
(Source: I found this image several years ago in an online report about an anti-war protest, but I unfortunately failed to note down where or when the protest happened, and the Web site that originally hosted the report is now defunct.)

Remember the guy in our first picture? Here he is again, with another explicit death threat against the president, this time calling for “Death to…Bush” at the October 27, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime.)

Bush being beheaded by a guillotine, at an Obama campaign rally, Denver, October 26, 2008.
(Source: Looking at the Left.)

An effigy of Bush being killed, at the April 10, 2004 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime.)

Bush being burned in effigy, at a November 3, 2004 post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime.)

Bush being lynched by an American flag at a rally in New York on September 19, 2006.
(Source: Fred Askew Photography.)

a roundup of recent reminders:

body {font-family:Verdana,Sans-serif; font-size:10pt; margin:0; padding:0; background:#fff; color:#000} td,form {font-family:Verdana,Sans-serif; font-size:10pt;} A {color:#66c; text-decoration: none;} A.black {color:#000; text-decoration: none;} A:hover, A:active {text-decoration: underline;}

BYRON YORK: For the Left, War Without Bush is Not War At All. “Remember the anti-war movement? Not too long ago, the Democratic party’s most loyal voters passionately opposed the war in Iraq. Democratic presidential candidates argued over who would withdraw American troops the quickest. Netroots activists regularly denounced President George W. Bush, and sometimes the U.S. military (”General Betray Us”). Cindy Sheehan, the woman whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, became a heroine when she led protests at Bush’s Texas ranch. That was then. Now, even though the United States still has roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq, and is quickly escalating the war in Afghanistan — 68,000 troops there by the end of this year, and possibly more in 2010 — anti-war voices on the Left have fallen silent. . . . For many liberal activists, opposing the war was really about opposing George W. Bush. When Bush disappeared, so did their anti-war passion.” So much for all that fierce moral urgency. I guess what was really urgent was regaining political power.

 From Noel Shepard:

When George W. Bush was President, ABC and Charles Gibson, like most media members, couldn't get enough of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan.

Now that Barack Obama is in the White House, the host of "World News Tonight" is no longer interested in Sheehan, even telling WLS radio in Chicago, "Enough already."

I guess she served her purpose as reported by the Washington Examiner's Byron York Thursday:

In an appearance August 18 on WLS radio in Chicago, ABC News anchor Charles Gibson was asked about anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan's plans to travel to Martha's Vineyard next week, where she will protest the Iraq and Afghanistan wars while President Obama is vacationing there. Gibson, whose newscast and network featured Sheehan when she led anti-war protests outside President Bush's Texas ranch in 2005, answered, "Enough already."

Here's the partial transcript (audio available here):

It's such a sad story. Martha Raddatz [of ABC News] wrote a terrific book about one battle that took place in Iraq, and it was the battle in which Cindy's son was killed. And you look at somebody like that and you think here's somebody who's just trying to find some meaning in her son's death. And you have to be sympathetic to her. Anybody who has given a son to this country has made an enormous sacrifice, and you have to be sympathetic. But enough already.

Yeah, enough already, Cindy. Thanks for helping us get Obama in the White House. Now shut up.

And from the Blogfather:

body {font-family:Verdana,Sans-serif; font-size:10pt; margin:0; padding:0; background:#fff; color:#000} td,form {font-family:Verdana,Sans-serif; font-size:10pt;} A {color:#66c; text-decoration: none;} A.black {color:#000; text-decoration: none;} A:hover, A:active {text-decoration: underline;}

OUCH: ABC’s Charles Gibson to Cindy Sheehan: Thanks for your sacrifice. Now get lost. Hey, when the useful idiots aren’t useful anymore, they’re just, well, you know . . . .

 

first from John Stossel:

Obama brought up the post office last week, in attempt to show how a public health plan would not eliminate private ones.

"If you think about it, UPS and FedEX are doing just fine... it's the post office that's always having problems. There's nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private market place as long as... it's not set up where the government is basically being subsidized by the taxpayers." (Video here.)

But the post office IS government subsidized, to the tune of billions a year. Does Obama not know that? 

Does Obama believe that when the new “health care co-ops” go broke, or just try to save money by not buying someone a new hip, that Congress won’t rush in with your tax money to bail the co-ops out? 

His mistake is telling. If he didn't notice that the Post Office, despite providing worse service than UPS and FedEX, is bailed out by Congress, will he notice when a government-run health care plan is feeding off billions of your tax dollars?

Or would he care? Before the election he supported a single payer system.  Subsidized co-ops would be an easy back-door way to achieve the same thing.

But at least he's willing to criticize the post office. On that note, economist Justin Ross points out on his blog how, for 44 cents, you could mail a letter via USPS - or buy a kiwi fruit that had to be grown and watered in New Zealand, picked, carefully packaged, and shipped across the world to a store near you.

Obama brought up the post office last week, in attempt to show how a public health plan would not eliminate private ones.

"If you think about it, UPS and FedEX are doing just fine... it's the post office that's always having problems. There's nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private market place as long as... it's not set up where the government is basically being subsidized by the taxpayers." (Video here.)

But the post office IS government subsidized, to the tune of billions a year. Does Obama not know that? 

Does Obama believe that when the new “health care co-ops” go broke, or just try to save money by not buying someone a new hip, that Congress won’t rush in with your tax money to bail the co-ops out? 

His mistake is telling. If he didn't notice that the Post Office, despite providing worse service than UPS and FedEX, is bailed out by Congress, will he notice when a government-run health care plan is feeding off billions of your tax dollars?

Or would he care? Before the election he supported a single payer system.  Subsidized co-ops would be an easy back-door way to achieve the same thing.

But at least he's willing to criticize the post office. On that note, economist Justin Ross points out on his blog how, for 44 cents, you could mail a letter via USPS - or buy a kiwi fruit that had to be grown and watered in New Zealand, picked, carefully packaged, and shipped across the world to a store near you.

In light of Prof. Gates allegations stemming from his arrest, do feminists and domestic violence experts agree that if the man of the house shouts at the cops that everything is cool so get out, the cops should simply leave?

I'm not sayin'.

I'm just sayin'.

The newspaper of record has REALLY outdone itself this week.  Back on the 17th in the Economics section we get a tribute to those Teutonic Knights:

body {font-family:Verdana,Sans-serif; font-size:10pt; margin:0; padding:0; background:#fff; color:#000} td,form {font-family:Verdana,Sans-serif; font-size:10pt;} A {color:#66c; text-decoration: none;} A.black {color:#000; text-decoration: none;} A:hover, A:active {text-decoration: underline;}

And so it begins. The left's top newspaper of record defends Nazi Germany..... it's all coming together. Nazi stands for national socialism (sound familiar?) (hat tip Mike) More than any other country, Germany — Nazi Germany — then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin. The economic benefits of this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesn’t look kindly on collective bargaining. But Germany did escape the Great Depression faster than other countries. Corporate profits boomed, and unemployment sank (and not because of slave labor, which didn’t become widespread until later). Harold James, an economic historian, says that the young liberal economists studying under John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s began to debate whether Hitler had solved unemployment. No sane person enjoys mixing nuance and Nazis, but this bit of economic history has a particular importance this week. In the run-up to the G-20 meeting, European leaders have resisted calls for more government spending. Last week, the European Union president, Mirek Topolanek, echoed a line from AC/DC — whom he had just heard in concert — and described the Obama administration’s stimulus plan as “a road to hell.”

then on Wednesday in the Book Review section we get this:

New York Times book critic Dwight Garner on Wednesday enthused over a new biography of Friedrich Engels, cooing that Marxism is "back in vogue" and adding that the founding communist comes across as a "jovial man of outsize appetites" in Tristram Hunt’s new biography "Marx’s General."

Garner opened the review by insisting that decrying capitalism is now hip again: "Thanks to globalism’s discontents and the financial crisis that has spread across the planet, Karl Marx and his analysis of capitalism’s dark, wormy side are back in vogue."

Writing approvingly of Hunt’s argument that the man who co-wrote "The Communist Manifesto" in 1848 has "become a convenient scapegoat, too easily blamed for the state crimes of the Soviet Union and Communist Southeast Asia and China," Garner delighted in recounting the charming stories that the author reveals about Engels:

A few of this book’s piquant details: Engels was proud of his lobster salad and liked to fox hunt. He hosted regular Sunday parties for London’s left-wing intelligentsia and, as one regular put it, "no one left before 2 or 3 in the morning." On a personality quiz, three of Engels answers were: "Favorite virtue: jollity"; "Idea of happiness: Château Margaux 1848"; "Motto: take it easy."

Towards the end of the review, Garner did allow that Engels possessed a few negatives:

As artfully as Mr. Hunt flushes out Engels’s human side, he can’t — and to be fair, doesn’t try to — hide the brutal ideologue that also existed inside his cranium. Engels was an advocate, on at least one occasion, of ethnic cleansing; his writing about science helped lead to the abominations of Soviet-style scientific inquiry, which dismissed results that might be seen as bourgeois. He was a master tactician whose purging of rivals in political organizations foreshadowed later purges.

However, the Times critic quickly moved on to defending this gentle communist:

Ultimately, however, Mr. Hunt largely exonerates him. "In no intelligible sense can Engels or Marx bear culpability for the crimes of historical actors carried out generations later," he writes, "even if the policies were offered up in their honor." Engels was skeptical of top-down revolutions, Mr. Hunt notes, and later in life advocated a peaceful, democratic road to socialism. He connects Engels the man to Engels the thinker. "This great lover of the good life, passionate advocate of individuality, and enthusiastic believer in literature, culture, art and music as an open forum could never have acceded to the Soviet Communism of the 20th century, all the Stalinist claims of his paternity notwithstanding," he writes. Engels almost certainly was, in other words, the kind of man Stalin would have had shot.

Garner concluded the review by claiming Engels as a witty, fun drinking buddy. He enthused, "At the end of this vivid and thoughtful biography, you are quite persuaded that Friedrich Engels would have been a fine man to drink a Margaux with."