Media Matters for America nor Local 500 responded to requests for
presented itself as a supporter of organized labor. It has argued
that "economists point to declining union participation as one
cause of the growing economic rift in America" and claimed it
fact that "unions increase productivity [and] do not reduce
So Media Matters, that champion of unions, suddenly becomes Scab City when a union comes knocking at its doors.
Evidently, based on its own philosophy as noted in the above excerpt, Media Matters prefers lower productivity. Go figger.
You've heard of NAMBY (Not In My Back Yard) hypocrisy? This, seems to be a case of NFMBS (Not For My Blog Staff).
Just imagine what Media Matters would say if the organization pulling the rug out from SEIU was Fox News (and don't stop laughing on my account).
leaders and Jewish groups condemned a leaflet handed out in the
eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk in which Jews were told to
"register" with the pro-Russian militants who have taken
over a government office in an attempt to make Ukraine part of
Russia, according to Ukrainian and Israeli media.
emerging from a synagogue say they were handed leaflets that ordered
the city's Jews to provide a list of property they own and pay a
registration fee "or else have their citizenship revoked, face
deportation and see their assets confiscated," reported Ynet
News, Israel's largest news website, and Ukraine's Donbass news
Is this true? Is the Ukraine regressing back to 1930s Germany?
I don't know one way or the other.
Let's remember that Russia - Vladimir Putin's Russia - has taken Crimea from The Ukraine, massed its troops on the Ukrainian border, and has its thugs within the country attacking Ukrainian police stations, military facilities, etc.
Would it surprise me if this is a strategy by the KGB operative turned President, Putin, to create a "reason" for invading? Not at all. I trust Putin as far as I can throw him. And I have no doubt that he would have no problem using Jews as the basis to do so.
For these reasons, I will wait to see how this plays out before coming to any conclusions....and suggest that you do too.
calling on Jews in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk to register
themselves with pro-Russian separatists may not be the work of the
so-called Donetsk People’s Republic, Jewish groups have
Pro-Russian militias, allegedly with Russian backing,
are currently occupying government buildings in several eastern
Ukrainian cities. Ukrainian attempts to dislodge the secessionists
have thus far been unsuccessful, with rebels disarming Ukrainian
troops sent to stop them as well as capturing a number of armored
Ukrainian Jews have indicated that they are unsure
of the flyer's provenance, telling The Jerusalem Post that it is
impossible to determine its connection to the separatists.
Speaking to the Post
by phone from Kiev, Eduard Dolinsky of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee
said that the flyers appeared to be a provocation, but it was
impossible to say who was responsible.
Rabbi Pinchas Vyshetsky, a resident of Donetsk,
also called the flyers a provocation and theorized that it could be
the work of "anti-Semites looking to hitch a ride on the current
Chief Rabbi Yaakov Dov Bleich has blamed
the Russians for a series of anti-Semitic attacks in Kiev over the
past several months, linking them to Russian President Vladimir
Putin's comments on protecting Russian speakers, Jews and ethnic
minorities as the rationale for his annexation of the Ukrainian
region of Crimea.
The flyers in Donetsk may be a Ukrainian
effort to do the same to Russia, Dr. Efraim Zuroff of the Simon
Wiesenthal Center said.
Let's wait and see who, if anyone, takes "credit" for this sick, nazi-like tactic...and who, if anyone, exploits it for their own ends.
Today's quote comes to us from the re-doubtable* Jay Carney, President Obama's Press Secretary, during a discusson, yesterday, at George Washington University:
remember we had some discussion during 2012 about well, is it
appropriate for the president, the sitting president and candidate,
to give interviews with Jon Stewart and others. And the answer was
yes, again because the young voters we were trying to reach are more
likely to watch The Daily Show than some other news shows. But
also, I think if you look back at 2012 and the series of interviews
the sitting president of the United States gave, probably the
toughest interview he had was with Jon Stewart. Probably the most
substantive, challenging interview Barack Obama had in the election
year was with the anchor of The Daily Show."
In that one statement, Carney - not meaning to, I assure you - indicted mainstream media as directly as any Obama critic could.
The toughest interview Barack Obama got was from one of his supporters, who does a comedy show? What does that tell you about the treatment he was afforded by mainstream media?
I award Quote Of The Day honors to Jay Carney for making the egregious mistake of telling the truth by exposing how valuable President Obama's Accomplice Media was to his re-election campaign. The fact that Carney certainly did not mean for it to come out that way? Think of it as an extra bonus.
*I have the hyphen in there because the actual word, "redoubtable", means formidable/impressive/worthy of respect - which does not fit here.
I created re-doubtable to mean something that you would do well do doubt, then doubt again. And, based on five years of experience, that would include just about everything that comes out of this administration.
There will be no blogging from now through tomorrow.
My beautiful mother - who was as sweet and gentle a woman as God ever put on this earth, a dedicated mother (she had to be with the three children she had - especially me) and an amazingly gifted musician, has passed away.
Last Friday, in a speech at Al Sharpton's National Action Network conference, President Obama proudly announced that the Justice Department had taken on more than 100 voting rights cases since 2009. The problem with that claim is that, since 2009, the Justice Department has taken on only 39 voting rights cases-and as former Voting Section lawyer Christian Adams points out, only 13 were related to protecting minority voting rights. And, with respect to some of the cases in which the department has been involved, it lost spectacularly-such as its false claim that South Carolina's voter ID law was discriminatory.
In fact, the ever-criticized Bush administration had a much better enforcement record with much higher case numbers than the Obama administration, as was outlined in a report released by the Justice Department's Inspector General in March 2013.
Al Sharpton's National Action Network conference in New York City, where Bertha Lewis, the former CEO of ACORN, an organization convicted of numerous voter registration frauds, participated in a panel discussion earlier in the week, was the perfect arena for the President's inaccurate claims.
Consider also that Al Sharpton keynoted a voting rights rally in Ohio this March where convicted voting fraudster and former Ohio poll worker Melowese Richardson was brought onto the stage and given a hero's welcome. Sharpton embraced Richardson, despite her 2013 sentencing in state court for six counts of voter fraud...
...it is worth noting that Melowese Richardson was never charged by the Justice Department-even though she admitted, on camera, to having voted for President Obama multiple times in 2012, which is a felony under federal law.
If the DOJ is going to ignore cases in which voter fraud is being openly admitted, their prosecution statistics will continue to lose any semblance of credibility.
In my opinion, the sole voting-rights interest of Barack Obama and his disgraceful toady of an Attorney General, eric holder, is to make sure that Democrats get as many votes as they can by just about any means they can get them. And this article brings it home with crystal clarity.
Now: grow old waiting for most mainstream media to report these findings - which were as easily available to them as they were to Mr. von Spakovsky and Mr. McGinley.
Nope, not important enough. Put it in the etc. file, along with lois lerner's incriminating emails and the changing of census data so we can't check ObamaCare enrollment nu.....
....oh, what's that you say? Someone asked Chris Christie a question about the closure of George Washington Bridge lanes? HOLD THE PRESSES. This is real news!!
The phone just rang. I picked it up and got a heavily-accented, probably Pakistani or Indian, voice said "Hello Kenneth (the immediate tip-off that this is a BS call - no one I know ever calls me Kenneth), how are you today"?
I asked "What can I do for you?", and the voice, for some reason re-starting his script, said "Hello Kenneth", to which I broke in and again asked "What can I do for you?"
The voice said "I am Charles Smith from United States Health Initiatives...." at which point I summarily hung up.
Charles Smith. Ok, sure.
The only reason "Charles" lasted that long was that I wanted to hear the name of the company being touted, so I could pass it along in case you get a similar BS call.
al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for, among many other things, 9/11, had a major meeting in Yemen recently, during which it pledged to hit the USA.
The meeting was videotaped. Very professional quality. Clearly, there was no concern at all that there would be repercussions from the United States or anyone else.
Click here to read Barbara Starr's unsettling article about the meeting at cnn.com, and see the video tape:
At this point you may be wondering how it is possible for al-qaeda to have had such a meeting, since President Obama assured us during the 2012 campaign that he had virtually decimated the group.
Well, if President Obama had told the truth about al-qaeda - or, for that matter, anything else - you would have a point. But since he did not - al-qaeda and its offshoots were then, as they are now, fully operational - the meeting should not surprise you at all.
What will President Obama say if al-qaeda makes good on its threat and "successfully" hits us? And who will believe it?
If the data don't support your propaganda, don't report the data.
That looks like something out of the USSR, or Venezuelan, or Cuban playbook, doesn't it? Well, how about the Obama administration's Ministry of Obfuscation?
No, no such Ministry actually exists (I think). but you'd never know it by what you are about to read in the first three paragraphs of Robert Pear's article from yesterday's New York Times:
- The Census
Bureau, the authoritative source of health
insurance data for more than three decades, is changing its
annual survey so thoroughly that it will be difficult to measure the
effects of President
care law in the next report, due this fall, census officials
changes are intended to improve the accuracy of the survey, being
conducted this month in interviews with tens of thousands of
households around the country. But the new questions are so different
that the findings will not be comparable, the officials said.
internal Census Bureau document said that the new questionnaire
included a "total revision to health insurance questions" and, in
a test last year, produced lower estimates of the uninsured. Thus,
officials said, it will be difficult to say how much of any change is
attributable to the Affordable Care Act and how much to the use of a
new survey instrument.
How wonderfully convenient....if you don't want people to know how ObamaCare is really doing, that is. See, all you have to do is get the Census Bureau to make major changes in its survey, so that this year's data will not be comparable to any other year's.
Now the Obama administration can say anything it wants about how ObamaCare is doing, and the Census Bureau will provide no way to check. We'll just have to rely on the administration's sterling record of honesty - as exemplified by the "if you like your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan, period", "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and "the average family will save $2,500 a year" promises.
If you can't see through this, you don't want to.
On the other hand, if you don't want to, there's no hope that you will ever recognize what an unworkable monstrosity ObamaCare is anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter.
Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site,
third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser,
or using web beacons to collect information.
At "Hopelessly Partisan" we discuss all issues, big and small. Such as:
-Will President Obama end the pretense that he cares about the constitution, and simply declare himself King?
-Could Secretary of State Kerry possibly be less effective?
-How many people really signed up for ObamaCare?
-Now that lois lerner has been cited for contempt will mainstream media finally start covering the IRS scandal?
-When will Russia invade The Ukraine?
Right down to:
-Is Joy Behar's first name proof that her parents were funnier comedians than she is?
-Does anyone but the lowest-information crowd believe al sharpton's account of why he was a rat for the FBI?
-Is there a girl 5 - 10 years of age who cannot belt out a complete rendition of "Let It Go"?
In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.
So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of "The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics", and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.
And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!