HotAir covered Steven Crowder’s Halloween hilarity.  Ed wrote,

“Happy Halloween, everyone — and just remember, the scariest things aren’t found under your bed or in your basement.  They’re found on Capitol Hill and inside the Beltway.”

We couldn’t agree more!  Happy Halloween.  Check it out:

Who is Valerie Jarrett? It’s a question gaining increasing interest in the conservative blogosphere. And even some members of the mainstream media are starting to take a second look at this woman who has earned the sobriquet “Obama’s eminence gris.”

Indeed, in the Obama household, Valerie Jarrett is considered nothing less than a member of the family. Asked about his unique relationship with the shadowy Ms. Jarrett, Obama told the London Independent’s Robert Draper, “Well, Valerie is one of my oldest friends. Over time, I think our relationship evolved to the point where she’s like a sibling to me… I trust her completely.”

Added Michelle to the Chicago Tribune’s Jodi Kantor, “She’s always one of the people he and I talk to when we’re about to make a move.”

So, who is this pseudo sister, this Obama alter-ego, this sounding board with sign-off stature who has become the power behind the Obama throne?

Simply put: Valerie Jarrett is a radical leftist with a rapacious appetite for power and wealth. In Richard Daley’s Chicago, she was the turn-to person for flexing muscles, padding pockets, and covering tracks. In Barack Obama’s Washington, she is the single advisor most responsible for both for originating and orchestrating his most brazen attempts to impose what many see as a socialist regime upon the American people.

Policy decisions and key appointments, brickbats and bouquets, the mendicants and the mercenary – they all come through Valerie Jarrett’s office.

As the New York Times recently wrote: “Jarrett is also the president’s closest friend in the White House, and it is not lost on her colleagues that when senior staff meetings in the Oval Office break up, she often stays behind with the boss.”

Carter Clews is the Executive Editor of ALG News.

Hello, America!  I am extremely excited to be writing to you this evening, as I officially begin my journey as editor-in-chief of UrbanConservative.com.  My name is Billy Hallowell and I am honored to introduce myself to you all.  

I have been a contributor to this site for the past two years.  I am a journalist and commentator who has been working in media for nearly 11 years (I’m 26, so I started fairly young).  In 2003, I founded Pathufind Media and I am currently the host of RENEWtv, a web show devoted to renewing American conservatism.  And now, I’m officially a member of the Urban Conservative family!

But enough about me.  You can surely read more on my Web site, but I’m guessing you’re most interested in what will be happening here on UrbanConservative.com!  Tomorrow, we will become a daily publication.  Many of you have been actively reading UC for years.  This new change will afford you even more access to valuable news and information!

You’ll notice we’ve launched a plethora of new topics.  While these subjects are of great importance to American politics, please be patient as we build our content around them (i.e. there may be a lag before all topics have streaming content).  But, we will be branching into new and uncharted news categories, as you can see.

Also, in November, my show — RENEWtv - will officially join forces with Urban Conservative.  

These are just some of the changes in store as we move forward!  Please be patient as we transition, add new blogs to the CONLIST and forge our path moving forward.  I thank you for your support and readership and I look forward to serving you!

- Billy Hallowell, Editor-in-Chief

Check out the new video released by the NRCS.  Forget “Paranormal Activity.”  It’s all about the “Taxivity!”  Hilarious spoof on the Obama-Reid-Pelosi insanity — and just in time for Halloween!

While the President of the United States is equivocating over troop support in Afghanistan and reducing defense spending at home, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is demanding greater efficiency from Russia’s arms production facilities, which, he says, already produces “efficient and extremely reliable” weapons.

Medvedev chaired a meeting of his nations “military-industrial commission” and expressed his “dissatisfaction” with the type of projects pursued and the length of time from weapons research to production, according to a report from Itar Tass on its Internet Russian language section.

Moscow’s concern about the quality and timeliness of weapons production is directed at both re-arming Russia’s military and satisfying its weapons customers around the world.

Improvements in research, development, and final production, all at a reasonable price, are the prerequisites for the ultimate goal of re-arming of Russia’s army and naval forces, Medvedev declared.

The message is clear: while the United States is decreasing its defense spending, and displaying indecisiveness in the face of the enemy, Medvedev and the Kremlin elite are working hard to establish Russia again as a first rate global superpower capable of projecting power across the globe to protect its interests.

How the Russian elite defines Russia’s interests is demonstrated by Moscow’s billion dollar arms sales to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Several months ago Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin referred to “our good friend Chavez,” during negotiations concerning the sale to Venezuela of Russian arms, including advanced tanks and possibly submarines. Chavez has already purchased 100,000 AK 103 assault rifles, one of the best small arms in the world, as well as a license to produce more of these weapons in Venezuela - all far beyond any realistic need of the Venezuelan military.

Moscow is also comfortable with the neo-Marxist ideology advocated by Chavez. During his September 2009 visit to Russia, Chavez was granted the privilege of addressing at length the students at Moscow’s international university. As he spoke, Chavez praised Lenin and other Communist leaders while denouncing the United States.

The Moscow elite do not limit themselves to Chavez’s brand of “21st Century Socialism,” but they have also played a key role in the rapid modernization of the Chinese Communist armed forces. Russian military personnel are also once again openly operating in Cuba.

The reality is as clear as it is disturbing.

The “rearming” of Russia’s land, air, and naval forces will be in the service of some form of aggressive Marxist ideology.

A small number of indicators include: Chavez’s Communist rhetoric in the heart of the Russian capital, the Moscow elite’s support for various Communist regimes around the world, the Russian government’s rehabilitation of Communist dictator and mass murder Josef Stalin, the Russian armed forces continued use of the symbolism of the Soviet military, and the emergence of Soviet-like youth groups.

The stark reality is that there are many more instances pointing to a Russian neo-Communist revival.

It should be noted that today’s neo-Communist is also an ally with fundamentalist Islam.

Now is not the time for indecision or any manifestation of weakness. It is time for a cold, hard look at the world around us, and to demand that the U.S. political leadership take the necessary steps to defend the nation and our God-given freedom.

THE CENTRALIZED MEDIA DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT IS IN THIS BOOK: Lies, Terror, and the Rise of the Neo-Communist Empire: Origins and Direction, order from www.inatoday.com, also availble at your favorite online bookseller (locate by title).

The White House’s recent attacks on FOX News are a good indicator of just how far off message the Obama administration has strayed. It speaks volumes to the level of hypocrisy rampant in the administration that this president, who never misses a chance to get in front of a microphone or camera, has the nerve to complain about the tone of news coverage on FOX. Obama wants other media outlets to ignore FOX and has unleashed his henchmen to paint the entire network with a broad partisan brush.

Liberals, who are usually among the first to speak up for freedom of speech and the press, should be ashamed of Obama’s actions as well as their own. Where is the self-righteous indignation that liberals felt when they asserted that George Bush was playing favorites by inviting conservative pundits to the White House and shutting out liberal acolytes? Is this some sort of leftist payback in their clouded minds?

We either have freedom of the press or we do not. There is very little middle ground. President Obama’s team  likes to claim that FOX is a “research arm” of the Republican party. The real reason the White House is seeking to demonize FOX is because their big government, deficit exploding, economic non-stimulus agenda is failing. It is failing in the polls and it’s failing in reality.

Consider in the nine months Obama has been in office he has accomplished very little. A stimulus package was passed that has produced 33,000 jobs at a cost of almost $500,000 per job. Meanwhile, nearly 7 million jobs have been lost. Health care legislation is such a mess now that whatever finally comes out of Congress is going to look nothing like Obama promised during the campaign. Obama has gone on a world apology tour that won him the Peace Prize from a bunch of European leftists who loved the fact that he has told the world the United States is to blame for much of the world’s problems. Cap and trade is a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle that has the potential to make the healthcare fight look like a yo momma war of words between a bunch of third graders.

Guantanamo is not going to close in one year as Obama promised. The war in Afghanistan is a debacle with a wishy washy president who will not commit the resources needed to win it. I almost forgot…unemployment is nearly 10%, a full 2% higher than the administration said it would go if we passed the stimulus and now they are saying the rest of the money is not likely to have much effect.

With a record like that, Obama needs a “win.” He needs an opponent that can be demonized, marginalized, isolated and destroyed…all right out of the Rules for Radicals playbook. Enter FOX news. They are an easy target because a large part of Obama’s base hates Fox and everything associated with it. The question becomes what does a “win” look like for Obama?

Fox news is easily the number one cable news network out there. In a recent ratings report, it had the top 11 shows on cable news and 13 of the top 14. It is absolutely killing CNN, MSNBC and HLN in virtually every time slot and demographic. Ratings have spiked even higher since the White House has decided to take on Fox. Their profits have to be going through the roof.

 Obama must realize that FOX is enormously popular. The president’s need for attention and adulation is only dwarfed by the size of his ego. The idea that a major segment of America watches Fox and thus rejects Obama and his policies has to be absolutely irritating the hell out of the president. He is the one who is supposed to be in the limelight. This is Obama’s moment in the sun, his chance to make history and here comes this upstart network trying to steal his thunder so he picks a fight with them.

For Obama to win this fight, FOX has to be thoroughly discredited. The network has to be seen as pure propaganda and thus eventually lose some of its appeal to the right of center people watching it. It must fall behind MSNBC, CNN and HLN in the ratings for Obama to declare an end to the era of Fox. None of this is likely to happen anytime soon.

 The more likely course of events is that Obama and his cronies will continue to attack FOX. FOX will continue to see its ratings climb and will gain even more influence in the discussion of politics in America. The president will continue to look like a cry baby. The public will continue to see through Obama’s attacks as an attempt to divert attention from the real issues facing America. The 2010 elections will see a shift in power in the House and Senate as the GOP makes major inroads in both bodies. With any luck, Obama will have overplayed his hand and underestimated the influence and power of the forces against him and lose his re-election bid in 2012.

Picking fights with members of the media is usually suicide for politicians. Ask Gary Hart. Ask Richard Nixon. You could even ask John McCain. We have a long history of freedom of the press and if you are in office that means you are going to have to accept the fact that many members of the media are not going to fawn all over you. Obama had better learn this lesson fast but it seems unlikely that he will. His honeymoon with the press is over and not just with FOX either. We can only hope he keeps repeating his same mistakes and becomes yet another failed one term president.

There is the very real danger that a Communist tyranny could be coming to America. The key elements already are beginning to come into place: an attempt to concentrate power in the hands of the central government, the ongoing attack on the private sector, and the use of intimidation against all important media opposition. This same process occurred in Venezuela in 1999 after the election of Hugo Chavez. Today, Chavez is a virtual Marxist dictator.

While the United States certainly is not in the same position as Venezuela when Chavez was elected, all freedom loving Americans should be very wary of how mid-term elections in 2010 will be conducted, or if some “emergency” delays or prevents the midterm vote. Communists and “internationalists” — a new name for the same ideology — are elitists. They view themselves as the bearers of truth and righteousness, and, as a result, are intolerant of any opposition from Fox News to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Vital to the enduring success of any elected Communist government is the certainty that the opposition will never again gain power.  The Marxist ruler of Ecuador (and Chavez clone), Rafael Correa, has recently stated his Communist government would never relinquish power. Chavez himself has made similar statements, as has another Chavez clone, Evo Morales of Bolivia.

Chavez, who initiated the latest Communist drive in Latin America, is much admired among many in the Obama administration, especially by Bill Ayers who helped launch Obama’s political career. There is the very real danger that Chavez’s admirers may attempt to carry over not only the ideology but also the authoritarian lessons from Venezuela to the United States.

The latest in a series of attacks on private property and freedom of speech is being mounted against the Internet. The Obama administration’s push for “network neutrality” is a thinly veiled attempt by the federal government to push out private investment and gain complete control of the last unregulated source of information. Leading the push to destroy the Internet as we know it is Susan Crawford, the so-called Internet Czar, who is an admirer of Mao Zedong.

The Internet Freedom Coalition is leading the fight against this threat.  The presence of Communists or Communist sympathizers in the Obama administration is by now well known. There is, however, little public outcry. Imagine if instead of Communist, the term Nazi was applied, or, instead of Mao, the name Adolf Hitler was used.

The left has adroitly dulled our reaction to the word Communist and what it means to human life. It is a lesson we must learn from others very quickly, or we ourselves will learn about the terror, imprisonment, and death which are essential ingredients of the Communist system.

An estimated one hundred million people died from the time of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.  And they are still dying. In prisons in Cuba, at the hands of pro-government gangs in Venezuela, in ambushes and bombings unleashed by Marxist guerrillas across Latin America (including Mexico) as well as in the Philippines and India.

Death is essential to Communist rule. Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Bolshevik revolution, knew it and he initiated a reign of terror. In the first few months following the Communist seizure of power in Russia, Lenin killed more political enemies that did the Czars in the previous 100 years.

Lenin established a secret police to protect his revolution, the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, best known by its Russian abbreviation, Cheka. Lenin put in charge of this newly founded organization Felix Dzerzhinsky, a committed Communist revolutionary who called for “hard men without pity” to fill the ranks of the Cheka.

Every Communist revolution since 1917 has brought forth other “men [and women] without pity.” From China to Cuba, and now to Venezuela and other nations in Latin America and beyond, the pitiless are again on the march, but this time some of the Communist revolutionaries are in American government.

In a sense this has happened before. During the Roosevelt administration, Soviet agents held high positions in the government. Alger Hiss was a key adviser to Roosevelt and the first General Secretary of the United Nations at its founding in 1945. So was Harry Dexter White who guided the founding of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, as was Lauchlin Currie was a key figure in misdirecting our policy in China before Mao’s defeat of Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek.

While Hiss, White, Currie, and others were Soviet agents, they did not directly attack the freedoms of U.S. citizens as is being done today.  Americans at all levels of society must realize what being a Communist really means, both now and historically.

Ignorance of the history of Communism is dangerous to those who hope to keep their God-given freedom, while it is shameful to neglect the memory of the millions who died because of this evil ideology.

There are efforts to change this situation. Dr. Lee Edwards, chairman of The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation has told International News Analysis Today that his group is working with U.S. school teachers to provide a deeper understanding of the damage done to humanity by Communist tyranny. Edwards stated that teachers are open to his organization’s efforts.

There is hope, but we as a people must be alert, informed, and act reasonably upon the facts as they are discovered - no matter where they lead.  It is time to challenge the lies, READ: Lies, Terror, and the Rise of the Neo-Communist Empire: Origins and Direction, order from www.inatoday.com or go to your favorite online book seller (locate by title).

Janeane Garofalo is insane. The sad part? Some Americans actually believe her insidiously heinous, garbage-laden verbal diarrhea.  Americans who oppose ObamaCare aren’t racist; they’re simply worried about the nation’s fiscal stability.  Click, above, to watch Garofalo unleash her inner nut.

Somewhat fresh off the trail from despicable attempts to distort the events and facts surrounding Columbine, 9/11 and the American health care system, filmmaker Michael Moore is back to perpetuate new mis-truths and to face off with a new “villain” – capitalism. In case of shear irony, in his new film entitled, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” Moore sets out to unravel the very system that gives him notoriety, fame and, no doubt, opulence.

Fortunately for Moore, we live in a free society. Despite the fact that his films are comprised of antics and obnoxious absurdities that only small-minded Americans would believe in their totality, he has every right to continue his idiocy. It is the coverage of Moore and his half-witted films that cause one to question the media’s promotional motives.

Mainstream outlets can’t seem to get enough of Moore, as they offer him positive coverage galore and provide him with valuable air time to push his insidious projects. Meanwhile, conservative film projects receive little to no praise – or even attention, for that matter. 

A few weeks back, LA Times blogger Patrick Goldstein wrote a snarky post about conservative reaction to Moore’s film. Aside from dismissive commentary about why conservatives are overreacting, Goldstein offered up what he saw as proof that not all media outlets give Moore a free pass. He wrote,

…Variety has the first authoritative review up of Moore’s film — and it hardly reads like a liberal valentine, with just as many caveats as kudos. It calls “Capitalism” one of Moore’s best films but goes on to say: “There’s still plenty here to annoy right-wingers, as well as those who, however much they agree with Moore’s politics, just can’t stomach his oversimplification, on-the-nose sentimentality and goofball japery.”

If calling the film one of Moore’s best ever qualifies as “authoritative,” I suppose journalists asking then-candidate Barack Obama how his parents would feel about his accomplishments if they were still alive qualifies as “hard-hitting investigative journalism.” And don’t even get me started on the semantic inequality present in the penning of “right-wingers” versus “those who…agree with Moore’s politics.”

How about a fact check, Goldstein? Even one? You can’t tell me there isn’t someone refuting at least one of the “facts” present in Moore’s film. It’s not just “oversimplification” that liberals and conservatives, alike, should be concerned about. Moore manipulates events and happenings and creates an aura of understanding that has the foundational value of quicksand. And that brings me to aReuters piece (carried by none other than The New York Times) entitled, “Michael Moore’s “Capitalism” Economical With Facts.” According to the article,

…the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise. Although it’s less focused than “Sicko” or “Fahrenheit 9/11,” this competition entry is a typical Moore oeuvre: funny, often over the top and ofdubious documentation, but with strongly made points that leave viewers much to ponder and debate after they walk out of the theater.

In what other venue would a documentary, book or professional record earn the distinction of being of “dubious documentation,” while making strong points that will inspire debate and dialogue? Usually, if the basis is not founded on fact, the argument can – or should, rather – go no further.

The piece goes on to admit that Moore is not known for objectivity or “impeccable” research, and that he favors Obama as a symbol of hope in the film. Now, for the article’s a-bomb. According to Reuters,

Moore has assembled a collection of nearly unbelievable horror stories to illustrate why capitalism and democracy do not go hand in hand, like a privately owned juvenile correctional facility, which paid the local judge to jail teens for misdemeanors.

Wow.

And then there’s the Washington Post piece entitled, “For ‘Capitalism,’ Moore Sells Short Politicians of all Denominations.” The lead says it all: “Just when it looked as if conservatives might be cornering the market on angry populism, along comes Michael Moore.”

I suppose those liberals who threw bleach on delegates at the Republican National Convention were lovable Furby-like creatures – not angry populists. After all, the Republicans have apparently already dominated that market.

I could go on and on. While most American outlets covered the film’s synopsis, scope, theme, etc., many in the mainstream media failed to point out Moore’s glaring hypocrisy. How can a man who has makes millions off of his anti-American rhetoric have the audacity to make a film about the evils of capitalism? It took the gusto of a British journalist to really delve into the insanity. The Telegraph’s Will Heaven wrote the following:

Don’t be fooled by the scruffy cap and trampish demeanour. Moore is as well-to-do as the “stupid white men” which he has made millions of dollars from criticising…

Sadly for Michael Moore, many of the people that should be watching his films don’t get the joke either. He is supposed to be the champion of the oppressed, who spends his career holding the rich and famous to account. Now he’s one of them, and lapping up the lifestyle like a banker in boom time, it makes no sense.

Kudos to Heaven and The Telegraph for writing the most honest piece I’ve seen on Michael Moore’s deafening hypocrisy. While American media outlets seem encapsulated in wonder by Moore’s outlandish work, it seems the Europeans – who are typically quite receptive of his films – are onto his antics. Now, if we could only get the rest of America and the media on board the “reality express,” we’d be golden.