One of the best lines in the enjoyable movie "Miss Congeniality" is when Michael Caine hears Sandra Bullock blow what had been a beautiful little speech. He shakes his head and says "One brief shining moment. And then that mouth..."
This leads me straight to karen finney, the sometimes-host on MSNBC. She looks very attractive. She has a sweet voice. And then that mouth.
finney, you see, is a hard left ideologue (not what you'd call unusual on MSNBC). And her speciality is pumping out one insult-attack after another against pretty much every Republican, every conservative and every supporter of Republicans and/or conservatives that she can think of. (Hmmm, that's not what you'd call unusual on MSNBC either. No wonder they use her so much).
But when she started with the Koch brothers, she started with the wrong boys.
finney, not content with blaming Limbaugh, Gingrich, Santorum and Romney for the shooting of Trayvon Martin, decided to add in Charles and David Koch for bad measure. Here is what she said about them:
“Who was the Typhoid Mary for this horrible outbreak? It’s the usual suspects the Koch brothers…the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point who funded and ghost write these laws”
Got that? Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. A registered Democrat. And every Republican you ever heard of is to blame.
Could this be more idiotic? More malevolent? What, exactly, do the Koch brothers have to do with this incident besides nothing?
Well, the Kochs did not much appreciate finney's moronic attack. So they answered it with a letter to MSNBC. Here is that letter in its entirety - the bold print is mine:
Marian Porges Senior Producer News Standards and Practices NBC News
Dear Ms. Porges:
I want to bring to your attention once again an MSNBC host that has falsely and maliciously disparaged Koch. On March 23, while guest hosting the Martin Bashir program, Karen Finney accused Koch of a connection with the tragic circumstances surrounding the Trayvon Martin matter. ”Who was the Typhoid Mary for this horrible outbreak,” Finney asked. She then stated, ”It’s the usual suspects the Koch brothers . . . the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point who funded and ghost write these laws.”
Because we saw this dishonest story line developing and were concerned other extremists would pick it up, we put out a public statement the day before Ms. Finney’s rant explaining that this story line was totally false and irresponsible. First, Koch has had no involvement in this legislation. We have had no discussions with anyone at ALEC, the legislative policy group at issue, about the matter either. In fact, the only lobbying on firearms issues we have ever undertaken in Florida was in opposition to the National Rifle Association’s support for a bill that mandated employers must allow employees to bring firearms onto company property.
“It is a great shame that some are using this tragedy to further their political ends. Indeed, Paul Krugman describes advancing his political goals as the “silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing.” That is as callous as it is cruel, and it is also incorrect. Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law was the basis for the American Legislative Exchange Council’s model legislation, not the other way around. Moreover, it is unclear whether that law could apply to this case at all. “Stand Your Ground” or the “Castle Doctrine” is designed to protect people who defend themselves from imminent death and great bodily harm. It does not allow you to pursue another person. It does not allow you to seek confrontation. It does not allow you to attack someone who does not pose an imminent threat. What it does is allow you to defend yourself and your family from immediate and real danger.”
We were never notified that Ms. Finney intended to make an allegation of that kind and thus were given no opportunity for input or reaction. It seems elementary that when one of your hosts falsely accuses us of somehow abetting a person’s death, we would first be given the chance to respond to such an outrageous and offensive lie.
In recent months we have brought to your attention several instances where guests on MSNBC have made false and disparaging assertions about us and/or have been permitted to obscure their affiliation as paid political operatives. We came to agreement that the network would be more diligent about living up to its standards on disclosure and would also afford us the opportunity to know prior to broadcast and react to those sorts of assertions. You wrote, “I hope you understand that this incident(s) is not a reflection of normal procedure at MSNBC.”
You should also be aware that on March 26, Ms. Finney signed and sent a letter on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee soliciting political contributions. Yet, she is presented to viewers as a “political analyst” and not as a paid fundraising operative for the Democratic party, as would be accurate.
If you could look into this matter and provide us some explanation, I would appreciate it. I would especially like to know why it has proven so difficult for MSNBC to extend us the most basic journalism standard of a right to reply to allegations about us that are made on the air — an assurance that you have made to us on several occasions when similar incidents have occurred.
Sincerely, Melissa Cohlmia Director, Corporate Communication Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC
Wow. Game, set, match. And then some.
Oh, would you like to see MSNBC's reply from Marian Porges? Ok, here it is:
Thank you for your email. As I have in the past, I will look into your concerns and I will get back to you once I have had a chance to do so.
That's it? That's the entire response? We'll look into it and get back to you?
Anyone who thinks that MSNBC is a news network needs to think harder. A lot harder. It is a far left, ideologically driven propaganda arm of the moveon.org wing of the Democrat Party. Just like its parent company, NBC.
No wonder karen finney --- and al sharpton, and Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell and Chris Hays and Martin Bashir and Dylan Ratigan, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc are so welcome there.
For over a month now, we have been treated to the saga of sandra fluke - the orchestrated journey of - as reported by a breathless media - a "23 year old struggling law school student" who, in reality, turned out to be a 30 year old professional left wing activist with access to $59,000 a year for her Georgetown U law studies, and a boyfriend - Adam "Cutey Pants" Mutterperl (that's his description, not mine) - from a fabulously rich left-wing family who takes her on jaunts around the world.
During that time, I have been shown maybe a dozen mailings from the Democrat Party using the fluke fraud as a basis for claiming that Republicans are waging a "war against women". Regular readers know that I have put several of them up in this blog.
But I am here to tell you that, this conjured-up claim notwithstanding, there really is a political war on women. It is a war on conservative women and it is being waged by Democrats - even as their Accomplice Media run interference and barely report on it.
You certainly know about the tidal wave of vitriol that has been tossed at Sarah Palin. And Michele Bachmann. And Michelle Malkin. and so many other women who dare to think differently than the entrenched left. That is old, but still ongoing, news.
Well, here is one which has emerged since the sandra fluke fraud, that you may not be as aware of.
Rebecca Kleefisch is the Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin. Like Governor Scott Walker, she is being subjected to a recall vote.
While Democratic femme-a-gogues continue their plaintive wailing about a “war on women,” Kleefisch has battled vile misogyny from liberal detractors. When lefty Wisconsin radio host John “Sly” Sylvester accused Kleefisch of performing “fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee” and sneered that she had “pulled a train” (a crude phrase for gang sex), feminists remained silent. A former television anchor, small businesswoman and mother of two, Kleefisch’s quiet work on economic development has reaped untold dividends for the state. But if conservatives who preach the gospel of fiscal conservatism do not act, the profligate progressives’ vendetta against Wisconsin may result in the first-ever recall of a lieutenant governor in American history.
FYI, Rebecca Kleefisch is a 36 year old mother of two small children - children who, mercifully, may be too young to understand what this scum of the earth said about her.
Tell me: Is this a tad worse than, say, Rush Limbaugh calling a self-described sex addict (which is what you have to be to need over $1,000 worth of contraception a year when oral contraceptives cost $9 a month and condoms are less than a buck a piece) a "slut" and a "prostitute"?
Well, this sylvester person said it. He also made a similarly disgusting comment about Ms. Kleefisch's appearance, based on the fact that she is a colon cancer survivor.
And that's not all. There is another report that when Ms. Kleefisch's husband walked within earshot of one of the groups supporting her recall, a "young woman' screamed at him that "you're wife's a fucking whore". Again, this is no problem - not if it comes from the left and is aimed at a conservative woman.
So how are the so-called "women's groups" reacting to this example of open season on one of their own? Not a peep out of them.
Anyone who thinks this bunch cares about women needs to seriously rethink: they care about leftward Democrat women: the rest can go to hell.
And has john "sly" sylvester apologized for over-the-top language, as Limbaugh did about what he called fluke? Nope, why should he? Being a vile left wing hater means never having to say you're sorry.
Meanwhile, in all the Democrat mailings that have been issued over the past month, not one word in any of them to distance the party from this disgusting filth. Nothing from Patty Murray. Nothing from Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Nothing from Nancy Pelosi.
Evidently it is perfectly ok for the Democrats of Wisconsin to ride the sick attacks on Rebecca Kleefisch, and maybe win an election off of them.
After all , who will say boo about it? Certainly not our Accomplice Media.
You want to see a war on women? This is a war on women. A real one.
As you almost certainly know, yesterday Current TV summarily fired keith olbermann.
In the interest of presenting both sides, I am posting both the statement issued by Current TV, and keith olbermann's response to it.
First, Current TV's statement:
To the Viewers of Current:
We created Current to give voice to those Americans who refuse to rely on corporate-controlled media and are seeking an authentic progressive outlet. We are more committed to those goals today than ever before.
Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.
We are moving ahead by honoring Current’s values. Current has a fundamental obligation to deliver news programming with a progressive perspective that our viewers can count on being available daily — especially now, during the presidential election campaign. Current exists because our audience desires the kind of perspective, insight and commentary that is not easily found elsewhere in this time of big media consolidation.
As we move toward this summer’s political conventions and the general election in the fall, Current is making significant new additions to our broadcasts. We have just debuted six hours of new programming each weekday with Bill Press (“Full Court Press, at /) and Stephanie Miller (“Talking Liberally,” at /).
We’re very excited to announce that beginning tonight, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer will host “Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer,” at 8 pm ET/5 pm PT. Eliot is a veteran public servant and an astute observer of the issues of the day. He has important opinions and insights and he relishes the kind of constructive discourse that our viewers will appreciate this election year. We are confident that our viewers will be able to count on Governor Spitzer to deliver critical information on a daily basis.
All of these additions to Current’s lineup are aimed at achieving one simple goal — the goal that has always been central to Current’s mission: To tell stories no one else will tell, to speak truth to power, and to influence the conversation of democracy on behalf of those whose voice is too seldom heard. We, and everyone at Current, want to thank our viewers for their continued steadfast support.
Al Gore & Joel Hyatt Current’s Founders
Next, keith olbermann's response:
My full statement:
I’d like to apologize to my viewers and my staff for the failure of Current TV.
Editorially, Countdown had never been better. But for more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally, while I’ve been not publicizing my complaints, and keeping the show alive for the sake of its loyal viewers and even more loyal staff. Nevertheless, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract.
It goes almost without saying that the claims against me implied in Current’s statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently. To understand Mr. Hyatt’s “values of respect, openness, collegiality and loyalty,” I encourage you to read of a previous occasion Mr. Hyatt found himself in court for having unjustly fired an employee. That employee’s name was Clarence B. Cain. http://nyti.ms/HueZsa
In due course, the truth of the ethics of Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt will come out. For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it.
There they both are, without comment. Make of them what you will.
The good news is that, today, we finally have an article from the Associated Press about the extremely (and I do mean extremely) misleading, prejudicial pictures which have relentlessly been shown of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.
The bad news is that the Associated Press has published this article three weeks after the Trayvon Martin shooting became a national story, thus long since the impressions these pictures left an indelible mark on the public.
Here is the beginning of the AP story:
When he was shot, Trayvon Martin was not the baby-faced boy in the photo that has been on front pages across the country. And George Zimmerman wasn't the beefy-looking figure in the widely published mugshot.
Both photos are a few years old and no longer entirely accurate. Yet they may have helped shape initial public perceptions of the deadly shooting.
"When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," said Kenny Irby, who teaches visual journalism at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla.
The most widely seen picture of Martin, released by his family, was evidently taken a few years ago and shows a smiling, round-cheeked youngster in a red T-shirt. But at his death, Martin was 17 years old, around 6 feet tall and, according to his family's attorney, about 140 pounds.
Does that opinion look familiar to you? Well, if you read this blog it certainly must, because I have been talking about it in maybe a dozen blogs over the past weeks' time.
So how come the AP didn't notice it, or talk about it, until now?
But wait. This gets worse.
Further on in the article it is mentioned that the Zimmerman picture is 7 years old, and is a mug shot taken after he was arrested on charges that were subsequently dropped.
Does Zimmerman have a negative look in the picture? You're damn right he does: how would you look if you were just arrested for something that turned out to be nothing worth pursuing by the police? The article then notes that there is a more recent picture of Mr. Zimmerman, smiling and in nice clothing, which would have left a much different impression.
The AP also mentions that there is a later picture of Trayvon Martin "with gold teeth" (unmentioned is a second picture of Martin with an insolent look and upraised middle finger).
But what's the difference, since the AP claims it cannot verify the picture and doesn't bother to show it, as it doesn't bother to show the newer picture of George Zimmerman, in this article.
FYI: both pictures were taken from Trayvon Martin's own twitter page, but the AP somehow cannot figure out how to substantiate them. Isn't that remarkable?
Even more remarkable is that this - at least ostensibly - is an article which is supposed to bring us up to speed on what Martin and Zimmerman really looked like that day. Yet the only pictures it shows are the ones that it is telling us are years out of date, and not at all descriptive of the two men.
Is it just me, or does this article seem a lot less FYI than it does CYA?
What a waste of time. And what a joke. .
It is time to be journalists again. SHOW THE NEWER PICTURES
If you ever want to see a really interesting, insightful movie, you might want to get hold of "Left Luggage". It is a terrific story, offbeat and highly moving, with an excellent cast, including Isabella Rossellini, Maximilian Schell and Jeroen Krabbé (who also directed it).
But if you want to see a really explosive TV show, I have a great proposal for any executive director with nerves of absolute steel.
My working title is "Left Baggage", and the co-stars would be Rosie O'Donnell, recently terminated by the anemic OWN cable network, and keith olbermann, just today terminated by the even more anemic Current TV.
Ms. O'Donnell was dumped because she was impossible to work with and her show was getting lousy ratings. We still don't know for sure what the reason for olbermann's termination was, but it is clear that he also was impossible to work with and his show was getting lousy ratings as well.
So given that they are both hard-leftists, and given that they both come with about a ton of baggage, as shown by their prodigious (and obviously growing) list of failed shows and disastrous working relationships, what better title for the two of them together than "Left Baggage"?
It could be billed as a lighthearted romp......which, now that I think of it, is what Mel Brooks used in The Producers, to describe "Springtime For Hitler".
Can you imagine these two together? Nitro and Glycerin. I know I'd be watching....for the same reason that a lot of people go to NASCAR events: i.e. you never know when you're going to see massive wreckage.
If any producer is interested, I'll happily work with him/her as creative director. I'm sure Rosie and keith will read my blog and welcome me with open arms......
Earlier today I wrote about the despicable "reporting on the Today Show which, in my view was an incitement to violence against George Zimmerman and his family.
I didn't know the half of it.
I didn't know at that time that NBC News had intentionally edited the audio of Mr. Zimmerman's dialogue with the 911 dispatcher, in an effort to make it seem that he was profiling Trayvon Martin by race.
Here is the audio transcript of what NBC News provided to its viewers:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks Black.
As you can see, the transcript indicates Mr. Zimmerman directly tied the "he's up to no good" characterization with Trayvon Martin's skin color. That dirty racist bastard.
Except that is not what happened at all. That is only what appears to have happened, based on NBC's selective editing of the tape.
Here is the actual transcript, unedited:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs, or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: Ok. And this guy, is he White, Black or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks Black.
Wait a minute! George Zimmerman did not say he thought Trayvon Martin was up to no good because he looked Black. He said he was up to no good because of the way he was walking around and looking about. Zimmerman only mentioned Trayvon Martin's color after the dispatcher specifically asked what it was. And,even then, he wasn't sure of Martin's skin color.
In other words, by removing the dispatcher's question, NBC completely changed the context of what happened. NBC specifically edited the tape to make it seem as though Zimmerman made a racial judgment, which he did not do.
Want to hear the audio yourself? Here, from newsbusters.org, via Fox News - certainly not NBC - is the segment in which the doctored, then complete, audios are played. The doctored version is at about 2:48 and the full version is at about 3:21.
This is more than despicable. It is out and out fraud. And, so far as I can tell, it has one purpose only: to escalate racial tensions in order to make George Zimmerman and his family that much more of a target for violence, maybe even death, at the hands of someone who believes the fraudulent impression NBC created.
If there were any justice, the NBC people responsible for this impossibly disgraceful incitement would be perp-walked into a police station and charged with a hate crime.
But don't expect it from this administration. Not when it is headed by Barack "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon Martin" Obama. Birds of a feather, fly together.
Let me end by pointing out that, if anything should happen to the Zimmerman family, congratulations will be in order for both NBC and the President. Mission Accomplished.
Could this possibly be why companies outsource? Why jobs, by the millions, flee the USA? What do you think.
Now, it is true that President Obama has proposed a drop in the corporate tax rate, all the way down to 28%. And that would be good, right?
Well, no it would not be: not the way Mr. Obama is offering it. There are strings attached to the lower corporate tax rate which make it clear he is doing nothing but playing politics.
Specifically, the proposed 28% rate is offset by adding in something like $350 billion dollars in new taxes: i. e. it is a cynical political game in which you pay less here, but you pay more there, apropos of nothing but window dressing to fool the voters.
In other words, it is just like President Obama's proposals to increase oil drilling - which required years of study and evaluation that made the actual start-date for drilling nonexistent. That is the game Mr. Obama plays - and that is the game his Accompice Media have looked the other way and not called him on, at least so far.
Barack Obama has spent his lifetime acting as though corporate America is the enemy Why would anyone believe he is going to change that now?
Mitt Romney has more than double the delegate count (565) of Rick Santorum, (256) and four times the count of Newt Gingrich (141). According to the polls, he is comfortably ahead in the upcoming Wisconsin primary. He is prohibitively ahead in Maryland, New York and California, and is now virtually tied with Rick Santorum in Santorum's home state of Pennsylvania.
-Conservative icon Paul Ryan apparently is about to endorse Romney.
-Conservative icon Marco Rubio has already done the same.
-So has conservative Senator Jim DeMint.
-So has has former President George H.W. Bush (who, at almost 88 years of age, still looks pretty good).
To Mr. Santorum and Mr. Gingrich: when do you stop hurting your party and drop out, so that Mitt Romney can spend his time and money on the general election campaign - even if you wish that, politically, he was more of this and less of that?
No candidate is going to be perfect. And, admittedly, Mitt Romney has significant flaws - one of which (to you, anyway) is that he is not as conservative as you would like.
But facts are facts, and have to be faced. This battle is over. The chances that either of you can win the Republican nomination have gone from extreme long-shot to infinitesimal. That is why even some of the most conservative members of your party are moving to Mr. Romney.
It is time to join them, and coalesce around your nominee, for the common purpose of working to defeat Barack Obama.
-Speaks out about the shooting death of a White teenager by a Black-skinned Hispanic neighborhood watch commander - before the facts are all in and can be evaluated - by sympathetically saying "If I had a son, he would look like the White teenager";
-has never spoken out about the 8,000 or so young White men who are killed by other young White men every year: neither about the total number of killings nor any individual killing;
-has never spoken out about the fact that there are almost 3 times as many Whites who kill Blacks (8.8%) as there are Blacks who kill Whites (3.2%) each year;
-and has not spoken out about a White hate group putting a $10,000 bounty on the head of the Black-skinned Hispanic shooter, "dead or alive": not a word of criticism, not a word of condemnation, no order that the Department of Justice arrest the leaders of the hate group; nothing at all?
Would you have a name to describe such a President? Maybe a six letter name, starting with "r" and ending with "t"?
Now: What would you call a Black President who...
-Speaks out about the shooting death of a Black teenager by a White-skinned Hispanic neighborhood watch commander - before the facts are all in and can be evaluated - by sympathetically saying "If I had a son it would look like the Black teenager";
-has never spoken out about the 8,000 or so young Black men who are killed by other young Black men every year: neither about the total number of killings nor any individual killing;
-has never spoken out about the fact that there are almost 3 times as many Blacks who kill Whites (8.8%) as there are Whites who kill Blacks (3.2%) each year;
-and has not spoken out about a Black hate group putting a $10,000 bounty on the head of the White-skinned Hispanic shooter, "dead or alive". not a word of criticism, not a word of condemnation, no order that the Department of Justice arrest the leaders of the hate group; nothing at all?
Would you have a name to describe such a President? Maybe a six letter name, starting with "r" and ending with "t"?
I am singling out The Today Show in this blog; not because Today is the only one but because it is the one I have most familiarity with.
The Today Show, in my view, is intentionally acting to incite violence against George Zimmerman and his family.
I just watched its latest report on the Trayvon Martin shooting. And when the words "shot an unarmed teenager" were voiced, this is the picture Today put up:
That's right. The "red shirt" picture of a much younger child with a sweet, innocent face. How could anyone but a cold-blooded murdering racist shoot an unarmed child who looked like that?
Except that is not the way Trayvon Martin looked. Here, from his own twitter pages, is how he actually did look:
That is what George Zimmerman saw. Not an angel-in-waiting, but a fully grown, 6' - 6' 3" tall man, one who liked to wear a "grille" (gold removable teeth), just like the gangsta thugs do, and one who had no problem putting up his middle finger to whomever happened to come upon his twitter page -- not to mention continually being suspended from school (3 suspensions in the last 6 months) and using the racially offensive twitter name "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA", which - like the grille and the insolent middle-finger pose - is the gangsta thug thing to do.
Today has access to these pictures every bit as much as I, and dailycaller.com, wagist.com and the countless other web sites which have shown them do. But Today intentionally does not show them. They show nothing but the most innocuous, unthreatening pictures of Martin they can get their hands on.
There is no reason I can think of other than to intentionally, misrepresent Trayvon Martin as a sweet, unthreatening little child, for the purpose of concomitantly presenting George Zimmerman in as negative a way as possible. That, to me, is intentionally inciting viewers against George Zimmerman.
Also during this morning's report, the Today show noted that spike lee had tweeted what he thought was the address where George Zimmerman lived. It turned out that lee put up the wrong address, causing the elderly couple living there - who had no connection at all with the Trayvon Martin case - to flee for their lives.
For what purpose would spike lee have put up that address, other than to incite some of his 240,000 or so followers to go there and do something about it?
Today noted that lee had "apologized" to the elderly couple, as if that were the end of the story. But it reported nothing at all about the likely consequences of lee's putting up the address: consequences both lee and The Today show certainly are capable of understanding. Evidently, a decision was made not to talk about them.
Similarly, Today mentioned that roseanne barr - the hate-filled lunatic who, a few years ago, thought it was funny to dress up as hitler and bake "burnt Jew cookies", tweeted what, evidently was the correct address of George Zimmerman's parents. Again, for what reason would this have been done other than to give crazies, bent on avenging Trayon Martin, an opportunity to do so?
Today's reaction to what barr did? It noted that she had received criticism from some of her twitter followers. Not a word about the danger she intentionally was putting Zimmerman's parents in. As with spike lee, it apparently was decided to "spike" that part of the story.
And I am still waiting for the features, the panel discussions, the "a disturbing look into the world of" commentaries, etc. about the new black panther party, which has offered a $10,000 bounty for George Zimmerman, dead or alive. (I am also waiting for the Department of Justice, under the pathetic racist eric holder, to say or do a thing about it).
This is the same Today show, let's remember, that provided us with something like two weeks of daily attack-stories on Rush Limbaugh, because he dared to call sandra fluke a "slut" and "prostitute", based on her own self-described need for over $1,000 worth of contraception a year. That was worth pursuing every which way.
But spike lee and roseanne barr, who intentionally publicized where the Zimmermans live, so one or more crazy vigilantes who wanted to take the law into their own hands would know where to find them? No story at all. Just a passing mention that it annoyed some twitter fans.
And the new black panther party putting out a bounty on Zimmerman's head? No story there either.
I can't prove it, of course. But the strong sense I get is that Today and its staff are populated by left wing ideologues who think that, by perverting news this way, they are somehow "proving" their liberality.
"Look al sharpton, look, spike lee, look louis farrakhan, look Jesse Jackson, we're good boys and girls, we aren't racists, so you don't have to say anything bad about us. We'll do whatever makes you happy. Is it ok? Did we do enough? We're with you all the way, honest".
These are the kind of fools that the sharptons, lees, farrakhans, Jacksons, et al must laugh their butts off about in private. I picture them toasting each other and saying things like "This is great. We own these ridiculous suckup saps, lock stock and barrel. They belong to us".
And, if so, they're right. Because Today is owned by them, lock stock and barrel.
Tell me this: if someone torches the Zimmerman home, maybe kills one or more family members, maybe all of them....will the Today show and its many likeminded fellow media venues feel any responsibility for it? Or will they just report it as a "tragic" consequence of the Trayvon Martin shooting, and put up the "red shirt" picture of Martin again?
I think I know the answer. I think you do too.
They are pathetic. But far worse, they are aiding and abetting their similarly hard-left pals in creating an incitement to violence.
Well, I've watched the video footage of George Zimmerman being taken from the police car. I've noted that the police appear to be looking at the back of his head - which suggests there was some kind of physical problem there that they caught sight of. I have also noted the condition of the clothing he was wearing (assuming that this is the same clothing he had on when he shot Trayvon Martin).
I have to say that I don't see any evidence of Zimmerman being bloodied, or - again keeping in mind that the video is not good quality - of his face looking like someone was beating on it.
If/when a hospital reports that he was treated for the injuries he claims, including a bloody nose, I might be inclined to feel differently. But, as of now, I am highly skeptical that he suffered the injuries he claims. I think they would be visible, but they are not.
This is some case. We have a teenager originally portrayed as a little sweetie-pie innocent, who turns out to be a gangsta thug wannabe, complete with a "grille", tattoos, and a racially offensive twitter handle. And we have a shooter who, unless there is a lot more than we have seen, appears to have grossly exaggerated whatever happened during his confrontation with the teenager.
What a mess.
Will we ever know what really happened? I doubt it.
So how is that Rush Limbaugh boycott thingie working out?
It seems like just weeks ago that the gleeful left, spearheaded by the supposedly nonpolitical tax exempt mediamatters.org, were triumphantly talking about the devastation they had visited on Rush Limbaugh, what with advertisers leaving by the dozens and all.
Fair enough, since it was weeks ago.
But maybe not so much anymore.
Here is a transcript of part of today's show, during which Mr. Limbaugh makes reference to the boycott. See what you think of it:
RUSH: I have been, over the course of the past month... And this is inside baseball stuff, but you people have been so terrific during this past month. Normally this is a question I wouldn't answer, but I'm going to answer it 'cause I'm being peppered constantly. "What have your ratings been since that whole Fluke thing happened?" And normally I don't talk about them in specifics because in the ethics of the broadcast business you don't do it. You don't do anything that would artificially affect them and there are penalties if you get too specific about methodology and so forth.
But I'll just answer the question this way. In the past month...the simple answer is that on the range of all 600 radio stations, our ratings are up anywhere from 10% to 60%, depending on the station.
And that's as detailed as I'm going to get. What I mean by that is we could be up 33% on one station, 12% on another, and 60% is the top that we're up on another. We're up 50% in a number of places. The advertisers who hung in here are going gangbusters, yes. I mean, that's the simple truth. The only ones who got hurt are the ones who left. And that's its own tragedy because they left under false, trumped up, unreal pretenses. I don't want to relive that. I just wanted to answer the question without getting too specific, because everybody's asking about it.
Is it true? Have Limbaugh's ratings jumped through the roof since the start of this trumped-up phony outrage, which was brought about by the orchestrated comments of a 30 year old career left wing activist who was presented - with complete dishonesty - as just a struggling 23 year old law student?
I haven't seen the ratings themselves. But I'm sure if Limbaugh is lying, we will see proof at one or another of the left wing Limbaugh-hating sites in no time flat. If we don't, I will assume his data are accurate.
I have never been a big Rush Limbaugh fan. As I've said numbers of times in here, I don't agree with him on some issues, and find his demeanor pompous, arrogant and irritating. But the sandra fluke set-up was a hot steamy load, and I'm glad he is blowing it, and her, away.
Let me end by saying that if mediamatters.org is a tax-exempt, the DNC should get a tax exemption too. When do they ever take different positions on political matters?
Hmmm, now that I think of it, with eric holder running the Department of Justice, the DNC might as well apply. After all, who is going to put up a fight about it?
Well, the arguments have been made and the Supreme Court of the United States is now going to deliberate over the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act, more commonly known as ObamaCare.
How did things go for the administration?
Well, here are a few excerpts from yesterday's Investors Business Daily editorial which seem to encapsulate the general consensus very well. The bold print is mine:
Court Likely To Overturn ObamaCare After Hearings
After three days of listening to the government make its case for ObamaCare, one thing is clear: The individual mandate has no constitutional basis or justification, and the entire law should be struck down.
We almost felt sorry for Donald Verrilli, the solicitor general who had to defend the constitutionally indefensible. Over three days of intense interrogation by nine Supreme Court justices, Verrilli failed to muster a single coherent, reasonable argument in support of the ObamaCare law's constitutionality.
Instead, his shambling, unfocused talking points left the government case in disarray — underscoring what a poorly conceived, badly designed law this was in the first place, and why it must be overturned.
In Verrilli's defense, we don't think even Clarence Darrow could have defended a law that runs so afoul of the Constitution's clear limits on government power.
By Wednesday, the government's case was in tatters. A Los Angeles Times headline said bluntly: "Justices Poised To Strike Down Entire Healthcare Law."
Indeed, the justices spent 91 minutes Wednesday considering what to do if the 2,700-page law was struck down in its entirety. Based on comments, at least five justices now appear to support doing that.
And they should. Contrary to White House assertions, our Constitution strictly limits government power over us. It's the great genius of our system.
Overturning ObamaCare would be a big step toward reclaiming sovereignty over our own lives and restoring the rule of law in America.
Let's remember: nobody knows for sure whether the SCOTUS will strike down ObamaCare, order that it be modified in some way(s) or leave it as is, until the Justices actually vote. Neither Investors Business Daily nor anyone else has a working crystal ball which can look into the future.
But if IBD is reading the proceedings correctly -- keeping in mind that its analysis is very much in sync with most commentators on both the right and the left -- ObamaCare may be in for some very tough sledding.
And despite the pre-emptive damage control comments made by James Carville on behalf of his party, the end of ObamaCare would not be good for Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats, it would be disastrous.
The grieving parents of two British teenagers who were killed while on holiday in Sarasota, Florida in April, 2011, received justice this week; their murderer, Sean Tyson, was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder and awaits sentencing. But the pleas from the friends and families of the murdered teens for public acknowledgement of the tragedy from the President of the United States have gone unanswered. Before the Obama presidency, it would have been considered ludicrous for the White House to weigh into every politically relevant criminal act – but the president has invited this criticism by elevating several local controversies to national scandals for political gain.
James Cooper, 25, and James Kouzaris, 24, were killed in April of last year by the remorseless Sean Tyson. Led into an ally and shot several times for not having enough cash for Tyson’s liking. This week, Tyson was convicted. Justice, in this case, was done.
But the family and friends of the murdered teens have been reaching out to President Obama for weeks for him to weigh into the case. They have been met with silence and are now lashing out at the White House.
Two friends of the teens, Paul Davies and Joe Hallett, spoke for the grieving families outside the Florida court house where Tyson was convicted. “We would like to publicly express our dissatisfaction at the lack of any public or private message of support or condolence from any American governing body or indeed, President Obama himself,” Davies told the press. “Mr. Kouzaris has written to President Obama on three separate occasions and is yet to even receive the courtesy of a reply.”
“It would perhaps appear that Mr. Obama sees no political value in facilitating such a request or that the lives of two British tourists are not worthy of ten minutes of his time,” Davies concluded.
Wondering what the murder and his victims look like? Here's your answer:
So tell me: Have you heard any howls of indignation from al sharpton? Jessie Jackson? louis farrakhan? The crew over at MSNBC?
No, you haven't? How come?
But what about you, Mr. President? Are you as willing to say that sean tyson looks like he could be your son, as you were when it was Trayvon Martin? Do White lives mean less to you than Black lives?
This, folks, is what happens when people engage in the kind of despicable, racially selective behavior we have seen over the past weeks for Trayvon Martin. What goes around, comes around.
But don't expect our wonderful "neutral" media to be all over it, the way they have been all over the Trayvon Martin story.
The colors are reversed. Therefore, so is their interest level.
How can these racists - that's right, racists - face themselves in the mirror?
Trayvon Martin is the greatest thing that has happened in years......if you happen to be a racial arsonist, that is.
Racial arsonists are the ones who jump all over crimes - whether real or imagined - committed by Whites against Blacks, so that they can attack the USA as a hopelessly racist country in which no Black person is safe. I can name them as well as you can: al sharpton, louis farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, etc....the list is plentiful.
But do they actually care about Black people being murdered, or do they only care about specific incidents that they can exploit for their own purposes?
Black boys do face a much higher chance than non-blacks that they will be shot when they are “out in the world.” Black males between the ages of 14 and 24 were seven times more likely to die of homicide in 2007 than white and Hispanic males of the same age group combined. But the danger they face comes overwhelmingly from other black males, whose homicide offending rate in the 14 to 24 age category was nearly ten times higher than that of young white and Hispanic males combined. (The federal government’s crime data puts Hispanics and whites in a single category of “white,” thus overstating the non-Hispanic white offending and victimization rates). Most homicides are intraracial, but the chance of a black being killed by a white or Hispanic is much lower than the chance that a white or Hispanic will be killed by a black. Seventeen percent of what the FBI calls “white” homicide victims in 2009 were killed by blacks, compared to 8 percent of black homicide victims who were killed by “whites.” There were two and a half times as many white and Hispanic victims of black killers in 2009 as there were black victims of white and Hispanic killers, even though the black population is one-sixth that of whites and Hispanics combined. If Hispanics were removed from the category of “white” killers of blacks, the percentage of blacks killed by Anglo whites would plummet, since a significant percentage of what the FBI calls “white”-on-black killings represent gang warfare between Hispanic and black gangs. (Needless to say, there is no reason to think that racism plays a more frequent role in white-on-black killings than in black-on-white killings.)
(NY Times columnist Charles) Blow’s fear that his children will be blown away by a white is particularly ludicrous in New York City. Blacks commit 80 percent of all shootings in the city — as reported by the victims of and witnesses to those shootings — though they are but 23 percent of the population; whites commit 1.4 percent of all shootings, though they are 35 percent of the population. Add Hispanic shootings to the black tally, and you account for 98 percent of all of the city’s gun violence. In New York, as in big cities across the country, the face of violence is overwhelmingly black and Hispanic.
As you can see, in order to focus on Trayvon Martin's killing - which, let's remember, may well have been in self-defense - the racial arsonists have to ignore the fact that Black males are vastly more responsible for Black shooting deaths than any other group. And that is what they do.
Where are the marches against Black on Black homicides? Where are the marches against Black on White homicides, which are far more prevalent than White on Black?
Nowhere, that's where. Because, in the world of a racial arsonist, the death of a Black person is meaningless if it is at the hands of another Black. It doesn't count. No inferences can be made of it. It has no value.
The only dead Black person this bunch considers worth giving a damn about is a Black person who has been killed by a White. That is what supersedes all other realities and is the one and only issue worth protesting about.
Let me say this as plainly as I know how: THESE PEOPLE DO NOT CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE BEING MURDERED. To them, Black murder victims are incidental. Meaningless. The only Black murders racial arsonists care about are the ones they can exploit for publicity and personal gain.
They are not the healers, they are the haters. They are the ghouls who need dead Blacks, especially teenagers like Trayvon Martin, for their own purposes. To them, Trayvon Martin is nothing more than an opportunity.
They make me sick. And they should make every decent person, especially Black people - the victims of this intraracial scourge - just as sick.
The Daily caller (www.dailycaller.com) has done some more investigating of Trayvon Martin's twitter accounts -- investigating, it should be noted, which has not been done by the so-called mainstream media.
And it has found a second twitter account of his, under the name "T33ZY TAUGHT M3", that he used for about a month in late 2011 and then shut down in favor of his "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA" account.
Would you like to see the picture this innocent young man put up on twitter to represent himself to the world? Well, here it is:
Are you enjoying that middle finger? And those tattoos on his arm?
This is the Trayvon Martin that George Zimmerman saw. NOT the little baby-face in the "red shirt" picture that media relentlessly put up to represent him.
Every time they show the red shirt picture, they lie. Which doesn't seem to bother them a bit, does it?
Why is the Obama administration hiding one of the key players in Operation Fast and Furious? Why has the State Department sent him to Iraq? Why has the White House refused to allow him to come back and testify about this huge, murderous scandal?
And why, with, seemingly, 500 trillion or so words written and voiced about the Trayvon Martin case, are most major news venues still burying this huge scandal to keep their readers/viewers ignorant of it - to the benefit of Barack Obama and his administration?
WASHINGTON – Two top Republican lawmakers investigating the Fast and Furious controversy are demanding the White House make a former aide available for testimony to see whether the scandal reached the upper echelons of the administration, according to a letter obtained by Fox News.
The lawmakers are giving White House staffers the deadline of April 4 to respond, with Republican aides privately saying the back-and-forth could provoke a showdown over executive privilege if the administration tries to shield O'Reilly from talking to investigators.
"To date, the White House has not complied with multiple congressional requests to interview O'Reilly," the lawmakers wrote to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler. "Our staffers have had extensive discussions with lawyers in your office, who have represented that the White House does not perceive any need for us to interview O'Reilly and consequently will not make arrangements for him to speak to us."
Issa and Grassley are interested in O'Reilly because of previously revealed emails between he and William Newell, the ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix Field Division.
Republicans have raised questions about why an agent in charge of a field division of the Justice Department was having direct contact with someone inside the White House about an ongoing criminal investigation.
Administration officials have suggested O'Reilly and Newell were old friends catching up and there was nothing improper about their contact.
Yep. Just old friends catching up. That certainly ends any suspicion, doesn't it?
Thousands of automatic weapons were intentionally sold to Mexican drug cartels. Hundreds of people are dead because of those weapons, including two US agents that we know of so far: border agent Brian Terry and customs agent Jaime Zapata.
The pathetic, disgraceful toady, and Obama sock-puppet of an Attorney General, eric holder, has been caught lying about when he knew of this operation.
Almost one quarter of the entire congress of the United States is either demanding that holder resign over Operation Fast and Furious, has signed a no-confidence resolution against him or both.
And, still, most of our wonderful "neutral" media continue to bury this story as if it were nothing.
Illustratively, of the major networks, only CBS has done a number of reports on this scandal. But - incredibly - neither NBC nor ABC has done even one. That's right, if you count on NBC or ABC for your news, you don't even know that Operation Fast and Furious exists.
Hundreds of dead people? Drug cartels armed to the teeth? Who cares. Obama 2012! Obama 2012!
How can they call themselves journalists? How can they even look at themselves in the mirror?
Earlier this morning I watched Matt Lauer interview Craig Sonner, the lawyer for George Zimmerman. Zimmerman, as you of course know, shot Trayvon Martin to death on February 26th, but has not yet been charged with a crime.
Before the interview, Lauer teased us with just-obtained police video footage showing Zimmerman in custody after the shooting, while stating, several different times, that it raised questions about whether Zimmerman really was bloodied by Martin, had a broken nose and had grass stains on his back.
The effect of these repeated insinuations was that, by the time Sonner was actually interviewed, viewers were primed to be skeptical of anything he had to say. What a lovely way to start a supposedly neutral interview.
The interview itself consisted of Lauer asking one hostile question after another about the video and Zimmerman's claims regarding the events leading up to Martin's shooting. Sonner, for his part, pointed out that the video was extremely poor quality and may not have been clearl enough to show the injuries. It also came out that the video was taken four hours after the shooting, so Zimmerman may have been treated and cleaned up by then.
Personally, I have no problem at all with the questions Matt Lauer raised. Every one was entirely fair. Every one should have been asked. That is what a hard-nosed investigative interviewer should do.
My problem? The hard-nosed investigative interveiewing begins and ends right there. I have yet to hear any such questionning by Lauer, or Curry, or anyone else on Today, of the people connected to Trayvon Martin: e.g. try and find any such skepticism or hostile, hard-hitting questions asked of Benjamin Crump, the Martin family lawyer. I dare you.
Has Matt Lauer or anyone else on the Today Show asked, for example, if Trayvon Martin was wearing his "grille" - i.e. the gold teeth (presumably removable) that he owned and wore on his twitter picture, which make him look like a gangsta thug?
Have any of them asked what that grille, along with his twitter name of NO_LIMIT_NIGGA and the ugly, profane twitter posts he had been putting up, might have suggested about his state of mind, or whether that state of mind might have manifested itself in how he was walking through the neighborhood when Zimmerman saw him?
Have any of them asked why the Martin family told us, on air, that the sweet, angelic picture of Trayvon Martin in the red shirt was recently taken, when we now know that it was not - that, in reality, Martin had a much older face and was at least 6 feet tall (most reports put him at 6' 3")?
Not only are the answers "no", "no" and "no", but - incredibly - the Today show again put up the "red shirt" picture while Lauer interviewed Craig Sonner.
The effect? "Look everybody, look at this harmless, inoffensive little fluffball that big bad George Zimmerman mercilessly gunned down in cold blood."
Here is a picture of Trayvon Martin in the red shirt -- and, next to it, the picture he used on his twitter page - i.e. what he actually looked like when George Zimmerman saw him. See if you can detect any difference between the two:
And - again - remember that Trayvon Martin wasn't some munchkin-sized little tween, the way he looks in the "red shirt" picture. Martin was an athletic, football-playing 6 foot-plus young adult.
What I look for in news reportage is fairness. Neutrality. I have no problem with either side being asked the hard questions, and being nailed if/when they duck those questions.
What I deeply resent is a supposed news story in which one side is attacked at will, while the other side is given a free pass. And the Today show is doing exactly that in the Trayvon Martin case.
UPDATE: Regarding that video footage which, allegedly, does not show any injuries to George Zimmerman: here is a still picture which dailycaller.com extracted from the video, both in raw and enhanced form. Look at the back of Zimmerman's head. You will see a very noticable vertical line there:
Is it just a contour of Zimmerman's head, or is it a cut that was cleaned up in the hours between when the shooting took place and when the video was taken? Personally, I can't tell. But it certainly puts the possibility of a visual injury into play, doesn't it?
As always, I urge you to wait for all the facts to come out. And, as always, I resent news venues which don't wait for the facts, but make the decisions they are rooting for, and "report" accordingly
I know we aren't even out of March. But I am awarding this year's Delusion of Grandeur award right now, because I cannot conceive of how the following statement can be topped.
First the statement:
“Well, it’s a little late now for me to enter the race.But if there’s a brokered convention, who knows. When they had the debate the other night, I was mentioned more often than Iran. I had more attention than the Ayatollah or unemployment. I ran for president in 1996. The other day, I got more publicity than I got in my entire campaign. So when you ask me a wide open question … well, I never say never.”
Now, who is the person saying this? Who thinks that he is more on the minds of Republicans than Iran, or unemployment? Who is this amazingly significant, 100% relevant Republican luminary?
The answer: Arlen Specter.
That's right, Arlen Specter. The 82 year old Republican turncoat who left his party and supported Barack Obama for the presidency in 2008, then ran Democrat for re-election to his senate seat and lost to Republican Pat Toomey.
You have to wonder if Specter has gone completely daft. If so, he has my sympathy.
But, on the assumption that he said this while still in control of his faculties, I award Arlen Specter this year's Delusion of Grandeur award.
You think you know what PC is? You think you've seen it all?
Wait until you read this list of 50 words and topics the New York City Department of Education wants banned from its citywide testing, because they might make someone uncomfortable or hurt their wiwoo sensibiwities.
As you go through the list, you will quickly "know" that this is some kind of a joke, and there must be a punch line at the end of the list. But, believe me, this is no joke. It - incredibly - is real.
So hold onto your hat; here goes. The proposed list of banned words includes:
Abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological)
Alcohol (beer and liquor), tobacco, or drugs
Birthday celebrations (and birthdays)
Cancer (and other diseases)
Catastrophes/disasters (tsunamis and hurricanes)
Children dealing with serious issues
Cigarettes (and other smoking paraphernalia)
Computers in the home (acceptable in a school or library setting)
Death and disease
Expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes
Gambling involving money
Homes with swimming pools
In-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge
Loss of employment
Occult topics (i.e. fortune-telling)
Religious holidays and festivals (including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan)
Television and video games (excessive use)
Traumatic material (including material that may be particularly upsetting such as animal shelters)
Vermin (rats and roaches)
War and bloodshed
Weapons (guns, knives, etc.)
Witchcraft, sorcery, etc.
Can you believe your eyes? Can you believe that a department of education could seriously consider these words and topics unacceptable in schools?
Let's start with the fact that banning them is censorship of free speech. We, of course, could end right there.
But let's not. Let's reflect on some of the individual entries:
-Dinosaurs are a problem to these geniuses because some people do not believe in evolution. Using that "logic" bathtubs and soap should be eliminated too, because some people do not engage in proper hygiene;
-Halloween is out because it suggests paganism. The fact that you and your kids associate it with nothing other than trick or treating? Irrelevant'n'immaterial;
-Birthday has to go because Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate birthdays. The fact that a) everyone else does, b) Jehovah's Witnesses comprise a tiny minority of the school population and c) they, so far as I know, have not demanded the word be expunged from board of education tests? Who cares?
-My all-time favorite is banning the word "sex". This is a school system that will provide students with condoms, and will counsel underage girls on how to get an abortion without notifying their parents. But using the word "sex" on a test? Heaven forfend.
Simply stated, this is so far beyond the pale that it would need remedial help to rise to the level of insane. But NYC School Superintendent Dennis Walcott, and his intrepid fellow looney-tunes, think it makes sense. You can read all about it in this incredulous CBS News report (among many other sources).
Tell me: Does Mayor Bloomberg still think Commissioner Walcott is up to the job? Or is the question invalid because I used a banned word to ask it?
Accordiung to an Associated Press report, all students who intend to take SAT or ACT tests will now have to produce a valid Photo ID before being allowed to do so?
The reason? Massive fraud was discovered - not by the testing bureaus, but by law enforcement. It seems that some students in Long Island, New York, were paying as much as $3,500 to have someone else take the tests for them.
Until now, an ID was required, but the criteria for what constituted an acceptable ID were so loose that fraud occurred anyway. It is felt that a photo ID will minimize the occurrence of such fraud.
How many phony tests have been taken for how many years? How many students got SAT and ACT test results which got them into colleges over less deserving students? Nobody knows - certainly not the testing bureaus. How could they possibly know the extent of the fraud if they could not check a meaningful ID?
You might want to remember this, for use the next time someone questions why it is necessary to have valid Voter ID's.
We all know that on February 26 Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. We all know that Martin was Black and Zimmerman is White. We all have seen the marches and the protests. We have all heard the racially charged, often flat-out hateful threats and accusations. We all know about the $10,000 bounty placed by a hate group, the "new black panther party", on George Zimmerman's head, "dead or alive".
Now: Have you ever heard of Allen Goin? The odds are excellent that you have not, so let me tell you about him, via the following excerpt from a story at KMBC, Kansas City, Missouri's ABC affiliate:
A 13-year-old Kansas City boy is back home after two teenagers poured gasoline on him and lit him on fire.
It happened Tuesday at the teen's home on Quincy Avenue, just down the street from Kansas City's EastHigh School. The boy lives less than two blocks away from the school and was walking home when the attack happened.
Melissa Coon said her son turned from the school's stadium onto Quincy Avenue and noticed two teenagers following him. She said the teens followed her son home and attacked him outside his front door.
"And they rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," she said. "(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy'."
The two attackers ran away, and the eighth grader put the fire out with the shirt off his back. He managed to call 911 on his own, then his father. He was taken by ambulance to Children's MercyHospital and spent several hours in the hospital's burn unit.
"You could smell the burned skin," said Coon. "You could smell the burned hair. It was just horrible." Her son lost some of his eyelashes, eyebrows, and some of the hair around his face was singed. Coon said she knows her son is lucky -- but also can't believe someone would do that to her child.
Coon said the incident will have a lingering affect on her family.
"My five year old came in and asked me, 'Mom, am I going to get set on fire today?'" she said. "I was in tears."
The Trayvon Martin shooting may have been a hate crime - though that remains very much in doubt.
But this hate crime is not in doubt at all. Not when the 13 year old was told "This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, White boy" before being set on fire.
Keep in mind, also, that this happened on February 28th - within 2 days of the Trayvon Martin shooting.
So where were the marches? Where were the protests? Where were the demands for racial justice? Did any White Presidential candidate say "If I had a son he would have looked like Allen Goin"?
The sad fact is that, in this country, all too many people - both in and out of the media - have a selective view of racism: when it is White on Black, racism is the first thing they see, and when it is Black on White (which, statistically, is far more prevalent) racism is the last thing they see.
There is no acceptable reason for this to be the case.
Allen Goin was attacked specifically because he was White. Who says so? His Black attackers, that's who. Why is that any less of a hate crime than a Black person being attacked for no reason other than his/her color? And why are our media so averse to calling it the hate crime that it is?
When do we learn that the ugly stain of racism cannot be fought by attacking some of it while looking the other way, thus abetting, the rest of it?
Here is the latest in the ongoing series of comments that define left wing "civility". This one is from that lovely, neutral Newsweek-owned web site, thedailybeast.com, and was written by Kent Sepkowitz, a New York-based physician, specializing in infectious diseases, who apparently has no problem demonstrating how completely he himself is infected with left wing hatred.
Let me show you just a small part of what Sepkowitz had to say about Dick Cheney receiving a heart transplant:
How did this happen? No, not the Florida recount, but how could someone so old and frail be a candidate for that most precious commodity, the human organ? Did Dick do a dick thing and leapfrog a bunch of other worthies, people who aren’t viewed by some as war criminals and evildoers but rather are decent folk decades younger, likelier to contribute to society and to provide a better return on investment for our taxpayer health-care dollars?
Got it? Sepkowitz hates Cheney for political reasons, so he makes a clumsy, unfunny "dick" joke, suggests that Cheney pulled rank to get the heart ahead of others (he waited 20 months), tosses in the "war criminals" and evildoers" insult for no special reason (some people do, and some people don't, Mr. Sepkowitz) with an implied accusation of indecency for good measure, and suggests that Cheney is too old and frail to be saved by a new heart; i.e. it isn't a good investment (isn't that the definition of what a "death panel" might say?).
You can read the rest of Sepkowitz's hate-screed by clicking here. And when you do, please note that I post only a tiny fraction of the left wing civility I come across in our media. I let most of it go because there is so much, from so many different sources, that it would overwhelm this blog and make it too one-dimensional.
Then please also remember which side whines loudest about the incivility of others.
How Mr. Crump knows, as he claims to, that it is the police leaking information and how he knows, as he claims to, that the teenager did not initiate the physical confrontation? Well, this is the family's lawyer and his job is to advocate for the family. Let's leave it at that.
But I would like to address the complaint that nothing but negative information is now coming out about Trayvon Martin.
For two weeks, until just the last couple of days, everything we heard about Trayvon Martin was positive in nature. He was a nice boy, he was never in trouble, he was just going to the store to get skittles and some ice tea (has anyone verified he had those items in his possession and nothing else?) These descriptions were supplemented by pictures of young Trayvon which make him look like he would be first in line for a front row seat in heaven - pictures the family initially claimed were "recent", thus suggesting that, at 17, he looked very young for his age.
I agree that the information which has come out since is almost entirely negative. We now know that;
-Instead of never being in trouble, it turns out that Trayvon Martin was continually in trouble (three school suspensions in the past 6 months), he probably was smoking weed (they found an envelope with traces of marijuana in his book bag), and he might have been involved in a burglary (he had women's jewelry in his possession, and a flathead screwdriver which police consider a burglary tool);
-We now know that Trayvon Martin looked nothing at all like those pictures, which clearly were taken years ago. Instead of being a baby-faced little boy with a sweet, innocent smile, he was at least 6 feet tall (most reports put him at 6' 3") and had a "grille" (gold teeth, presumably removable) which gang members often wear to look cool and tough (has anyone checked to find out if he was a gang member?);
-His twitter nickname was the thuggish, race-based "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA". And his tweets were disgusting and profane.
My comment to Mr. Crump, therefore, is that this is not a matter of nothing but negative information leaking out about Trayvon Martin, so much as it is a matter of the negative information which always was there finally seeing the light of day - after being withheld for weeks, while various Black activists, including some of the absolute scum of the earth, were able to exploit the death of this young man for all he was worth -- without a word of protest about it from you.
Oh, one other thing. No discussion of Trayvon Martin would be complete without a special dishonorable mention to spike lee, the filmmaker and career racist, who was nice enough to tweet what he thought was George Zimmerman's address to his 240,000 or so followers. It turns out that lee tweeted the wrong address. The residents at that address are an elderly couple who have no connection at all to George Zimmerman - but who now fear for their lives, because who knows what lunatic, bent on "avenging" Trayvon Martin, will use the information lee disseminated and show up there to do who knows what?
Nice going, spike. I suggest you coordinate with the new Black panther party, which has put a $10,000 bounty on George Zimmerman's head. You both seem to be trying to get the same result, but at least they spelled Zimmerman's name correctly.
are investigating Ecotality Inc., yet another troubled green-tech company that has received taxpayer funds and public support from the White House.
The firm has received roughly $126 million from the the Department of Energy to install roughly 14,000 electric car chargers, has donated thousands of dollars to Democratic politicians, and was showcased by President Barack Obama in his 2010 State of the Union speech.
But the company has installed less than 7,000 of the chargers, its subsidiary is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for insider trading, and it has only created 144 jobs, according to the federal Recovery.gov website.
Under the SEC investigation the company’s president was sent a subpoena in December 2011, according to a recent report by CBS News.
“It is the same story, different day, with the administration’s green-energy agenda,” said a source. “They’re rewarding friends at the expense of taxpayers.”
What I would like to know is, how many "Green' companies, backed by Democrat contributors all, have to fail before our wonderful "neutral" media start reporting this as the huge scandal it is? Did they think it was ok to report a little on Solyndra and then just drop the matter for the others? How about Evergreen? SunPower? Spectrawatt? Beacon Power? Abound Solar?
Every one of them a money pit in which the taxpayer got soaked. Every one of them backed by Democrats who contributed heavily to the Obama campaign.
What, exactly, has to happen before the networks, and/or the morning shows, and/or the New York Times and other major dailies, decide to become journalists again and report this as a pattern of cronyism and corruption - which it very obviously is?
What, exactly has to happen before they demand answers from President Obama?
What, exactly has to happen before they demand the resignation, in disgrace, of the arrogant left wing academic, Steven Chu, who handed out the money to these disasters and seems to think he performed some kind of great service to the country in doing so (he self-evaluated his performance as an A-)?
Regarding the administration: It is behavior like this that makes me count the seconds until the 2012 election.
Regarding our media: How can they possibly wonder why people call them biased?
This is a quick open note to karen finney, the far left racialist who occasionally hosts shows on MSNBC (where else?):
Dear Ms. finney;
In the past few days, you have blamed, among other people, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh and , in effect, Jeb Bush (who was responsible for the "stand your ground" law) for the shooting of Trayvon Martin. It seems that you consider Republicans, in general, responsible for his death.
It turns out, however, that George Zimmerman, the man who pulled the trigger, is a self-identified Hispanic, and a registered Democrat:
Given your predilection for guilt by party affiliation, I wlll now wait for your statement blaming the death of Trayvon Martin on Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Democrats in general....oh, and La Raza too. I'm sure your statement will be issued any second now.
Oral arguments were made today before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) regarding the constitutionality, or unconstitutionality, of The Affordable Healthcare Act, also known as "ObamaCare".
To read the initial reports, it did not fare well.
Here is a series of links, which were compiled by drudgereport.com. Read them and see for yourself:
Not only have media - at least until today, insisted on showing us an obviously years-old picture of Trayvon Martin, which cast him in the most positive light, instead of the more recent, far more revealing picture - as can be seen below.......
.....but even that relatively inoffensive picture we have seen of Martin with a hoodie on, apparently was heavily doctored to show him in a less offensive/threatening way.
Here is a comparison of what apparently was the original picture, with the doctored version we have been seeing for the past week:
This story - and the unravelling coverup of who and what Trayvon Martin really was - gets sicker by the minute.
I held off on this for almost two days. But now, as more and more media venues, presumably each with their own fact-checking procedures in place, are finding the same facts about Trayvon Martin, the teenager shot and killed by George Zimmerman, I have no problem coming to the obvious conclusion.
Trayvon Martin was a thug. Not a sweet little innocent child, but a thug.
Remember that information about Martin being suspended from school for 10 days? Well that, as it turns out, was nothing new for this thug. He has been suspended at least three times in the past 6 months.
In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.” Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with “W.T.F” — an acronym for “what the f---.” The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.
Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family’s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called “irrelevant” and an attempt to demonize a victim.
Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.
Trayvon was asked if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend.
“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” he responded, according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.
Three suspensions since October. A search of his book bag uncovered women's jewelry he could not explain, and a screwdriver that police describe as a burglary tool. Not to mention the plastic bag that at one time contained marijuana.
Don't you love the part where Martin's lawyer calls this "irrelevant"? Yep, sure. Why would the fact that Martin was carrying around a burglary tool and some woman's jewelry he couldn't (wouldn't?) explain having be at all relevant to whether he might have been doing something George Zimmerman deemed suspicious?
Then, of course, there is that sweet, unthreatening, schoolboy-quality twitter name he used: "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA". And the tweet from his older brother, suggesting that he had assaulted a school bus driver.
In this connection, dailycaller.com has gotten hold of some of the last tweets Martin sent before his death If you think his screen name is disgusting, wait until you click here and read his tweets. You'll be sick to your stomach.
Now let's add in the witnesses who have corroborated that it was Zimmerman, not Martin, being punched out and screaming for help, and what do you have?
You have a young thug, that's what. A thug who has quickly become an opportunity for the racial hucksters and pimps. Like, for example, al sharpton.
sharpton, ever on the lookout to push a racial envelope, apparently has dismissed this tidal wave of ugly information about Trayvon Martin by saying it is irrelevant, "because (Zimmerman) didn't interview him before he shot him".
It would, of course, be pointless to mention to sharpton that neither did Trayvon Martin interview Zimmerman before punching him out (as witnesses have corroborated, according to the police and news accounts).
And when we found out that Zimmerman had a couple of minor brushes with the law years ago, did we hear sharpton calling that irrelevant? Nope. That was just fine to take into account.
A race pimp is a race pimp, and sharpton is one of the worst - along with jessie jackson, who, lamentably, came out of the woodwork to latch onto Trayvon Martin as a racial opportunity as well.
As far as the "New Black Panther Party", which has literally put a bounty on George Zimmerman's head? If we had a Department of Justice that was being run by someone who gave a damn about racism - other than real or perceived anti-Black racism, that is - the members of this group making that offer would already be arrested and under questionning. But, let's remember, this is the same eric holder-led DOJ that gave the same "New Black Panther Party" a free pass on voter intimidation in 2008. So you can forget it.
If anything happens to George Zimmerman at the hands of one of these hate-filled lunatics, the blood will be on eric holder's hands -- as if he would even care.
Much of the conventional wisdom - such as it is - from Republican purists is that Massachusetts' "RomneyCare", put forth by then-Governor, now-Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, makes him a liability on the health care issue.
I have never felt this way, and have pointed out in previous blogs that he can use the differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare - and they are significant - to present himself as a Republican capable of reforming and improving our health care without nationalizing and Euopeanizing it.
Fair or not, Democrats have the edge on health care because of the GOP’s ingrained image. Santorum, Gingrich or a mythical brokered convention GOP nominee can win points, indeed big applause, by promising to repeal “Obamacare.”
But elements of the plan are popular — including coverage of pre-existing conditions or allowing parents’ plans to cover children through age 26. The GOP ticket will have to prove its approach will keep the “good” but do away with the “bad” while voters are bombarded with negative “Don’t trust them” ads from the skilled Obama team.
Think of the advantage that this situation gives Romney: Even if the health care law is ruled constitutional, legitimate political questions remain because it is not fully operative for two more years. Only “Romneycare” is a public-private-sector plan in full operation, praised by his opponents — like Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a top Obama ally. By embracing a role for government in addressing health care, Romney has neutralized traditional winning Democratic arguments.
Look, ObamaCare is currently a major negative for President Obama. To realize just how much of a negative it is, look beyond the poll data, most of which show that a majority of people want it either changed or repealed outright, and think about what the data would look like if you removed his hardline base of support: i.e. the people who voted for Obama in 2008 and definitely intend to do so again in 2012. Would the numbers be a lot worse? You bet your bippy they would.
This means that Mitt Romney has the potential to turn what currently is a major negative for Mr. Obama among "swingometric" voters, into a major positive for himself.
Given that health care is one of the two signature pieces of legislation during the Obama Presidency (the other is the so-called "stimulus package"; a major loser in its own right), that would really be something. Maybe it would be enough to win the election. Maybe it would be enough to win by plenty -- and bring other Republicans in close congressional races along for the ride.
Is Mitt Romney a perfect candidate? Nope, not even close.
Is he a pure Republican? Nope, not even close.
But is Mitt Romney a Republican - not just in name only, but a true Republican, but one with more moderate views than the hardline base - who can attract votes from the center in a way his opponents cannot, and give the White House back to the Republican Party? Maybe far more importantly, is Mitt Romney a Republican who can take the White House away from Barack Obama and his people?
Yes he is. And the RomneyCare issue may be a big part of how he can do it.
This is for anyone who still believes that obviously years-old picture of a sweet little boy is what Trayvon Martin looked like the day he died.
I saw this picture two days ago, but did not put it on the blog, because I was not sure of the source. Now I have seen it from numerous sources, and am convinced it is real.
I'll have more to say about this, and more pictures of Trayvon Martin, later today. Meanwhile, I'll leave you to marvel about how, just like the Duke Lacrosse fraud, and just like Sandra Fluke as a "23 year old law school student" rather than a 30 year old career left wing activist, our media have, again, completely misinformed us: this time, by presenting the thuggish-looking young man you see above, wearing a gold "grille" where his teeth should be, as a sweet, angelic-faced innocent looking little baby.
Remember Trayvon Martin, that angelic-faced little boy with the sweet smile? The one you'd swear was barely into his teen years? The one who was little, frail, innocent and pure as the driven snow?
Well there's a bit more news coming out about him.
First off, he was not some frail little wisp of a child. He was six feet three inches tall.
Secondly, the day he was killed he had just started a ten day suspension from school. It is not 100% clear regarding why, but I would think that a suspension of that length must have indicated he did something pretty serious. And, according to one site which claims to have captured tweets between him and his older brother, it is possible that Trayvon Martin may have been suspended either for a marijuana-related offense on school property, or for assaulting a bus driver. The school, so far, is not saying.
Then, based on information from another site, there is his twitter name which, if the information is accurate, was "no_limit_nigga" - and that, though just 17, he already had at least two tattoos up and down his arm and a "grille" (gold teeth, possibly removable, that he wore in a twitter picture).
Does that square with the choirboy image we have been fed for the past two weeks?
Other than the fact that Trayvon Martin was 6 feet three inches tall (and obviously athletic since he played football), I still am not 100% certain of this other new information. I cannot vouch for the veracity of the sites it is on, and therefore will continue to research it.
But, dammit, can we agree that his innocence is at least in doubt?
Here is the latest Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee email - this one from hard left Democrat operative -- and, often, MSNBC show host (what a surprise!) karen finney.
As usual, the text of the email is in rust, with my comments in blue:
I know it feels like every election, people are talking about how high the stakes are. However -- after more than 20 years working as a Democratic strategist, I can honestly say this time the stakes are higher than ever.So far so good.Too bad you didn’t stop right here. You've seen the Republican agenda at work -- trying to take away basic health care for women, Medicare as we know it away from our seniors and even food aid away from our kids! And that's just the beginning of the changes they want to make to the safety net. Hooboy.That’s quite a set of charges.Except a) opposing free birth control is not taking basic health care away from women, b) trying to save Medicare, which in its present status is unsustainable, is not taking anything away, it is trying to save it and c) I have no idea what food you think is being taken away from children.I’d love an explanation – provided it makes more sense than the first two “points”, which is to say any sense at all. We've already gotten a glimpse of the carpet bombing of ugly tricks -- disgusting ads, whisper campaigns and mailers full of lies -- yet to come from Karl Rove and Company. Carpet bombing?Isn’t that exactly the kind of “incivility’ you and your fellow Democrats railed about after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting?I guess the rules don’t apply to you.As for disgusting ads and lies, we don’t need Republicans for that, we can just read this email.They have and are prepared to spend tons of cash -- whatever it takes -- to take down President Obama and flip the four Senate seats they need to take control.
We tried it their way -- with disastrous consequences. We've got to keep fighting their "you're on your own" mentality and restore American values of fundamental fairness. In other words, vote for us and we’ll give you things “for free” – unless you’re a taxpayer that is, in which case you're paying for them.The DSCC’s end-of-quarter FEC deadline is only 6 days away. They’re still $690,000 short. This is the absolute minimum we need to go toe-to-toe with the right-wing SuperPACs.
Click here to give an immediate $5 or $10 to the DSCC. They have only 6 days left to raise the $690,000 needed to go toe-to-toe with Karl Rove!Ooohh, Karl Rove again. That's the second time so far. It wouldn’t be a DSCC email without multiple mentions of your favorite bogeyman. Because they know they can't win on their failed ideas, the GOP is trying to use dirty tactics -- like making it harder for people to vote in numerous states across the country. They've targeted older people, younger people and people of color -- directly attacking our democracy and the right of every American to have their say in the election. We are not going to let them get away with it.Translation: Republicans want people to present voter ID’s to demonstrate they are who they say they are: all people, regardless of age or color.Funny, Karen, you didn’t mention that virtually every poll shows a majority of people support Voter ID legislation – including a majority of Democrats.Gee, I wonder why.Oh, one other thing:If Republicans have targeted older voters, and they’ve targeted younger voters, who do you think is left? Just curious. One of the most important things you can do is to support the DSCC. We know it’s going to take a massive voter outreach plan to counter them, and that’s just one part of what the DSCC does. When Republicans attack and smear us in ads, the DSCC is right there to push back with the truth. When Republicans lie about our Democratic candidates, the DSCC knows about it and fights back. When we work together, Karl Rove is no match for the Democratic grassroots.Ahhh, Karl Rove mention #3. Way to go. Will you please join me in supporting the DSCC with a gift of $5 or $10? There are only 6 days left until their crucial end-of-quarter FEC deadline, and they’re still $690,000 short.
With the stakes this high, we can’t afford to wait for the full Karl Rove effect. Wow, that’s four mentions of Karl Rove.You have truly outdone yourself.Let’s hit this FEC goal, defend President Obama and our Democratic Senate, and stop the Republican assault on our American values.Wait….you forgot to tell us how you feel about Karl Rove…. Karen Finney
According to a story at freebeacon.com, Colorado is now offering a $6,000 incentive for people to buy the Chevrolet Volt - on top of the $7,500 in federal incentives already being offered.
That puts the giveway at $13,500, which is almost one-third the entire cost of the car, before dealer discounts, to get someone - anyone - to bite the bullet and buy this hopelessly failed vehicle.
Hey, why not give another $27,500 rebate for...hell, I don't know, think up a reason....and make the cost of the car $0. Then Chevy sales might have a hope of approaching the 2012 sales goal. Of course you would probably also have to give an energy rebate, both electric and gas, as well........
Just one question: If this were a Republican-inspired vehicle, do you think our wonderful, "neutral" media would be looking the other way as dilligently as they are on behalf of the Volt? Or do you think they would be calling it the unmitigated disaster that it actually is?
On Friday I wrote about MSNBC on-air "personality" karen finney, who blamed the death of Trayvon Martin on - so help me - Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Rush Limbaugh.
Just in case that wasn't unhinged enough for you, here is another part of her screed, also from Friday - in this instance, talking about Florida's "stand your ground" law:
"How do we go from one state to 30? Who was the Typhoid Mary for this horrible outbreak? Try not to be surprised. It’s the usual suspects: the Koch brothers, the NRA, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and Clinton vets, remember the Scaife family? Oh, yeah. These are the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point who funded and ghost write these laws and others that have become a core of the conservative agenda that is being implemented across our country. It’s the same group that also wrote the voter I.D. laws which threaten to disenfranchise some 5 million american voters, many of them African-American."
Wellllll, there you go. Did finney miss even one Republican and/or conservative bogeyman? I'm surprised she didn't include Wendell Willkie and Harold Stassen too. How did they ever manage to elude her, er, analytical capabilities?
That notwithstanding, I must say I am highly impressed with what karen finney has to say. But I do have just a few minor carps; all very inconsequential, of course:
-Supporting the second amendment does not stymie gun regulation. In fact, there are countless gun regulations, both federal and state, throughout the country, very much including the state of Florida. If karen finney does not like the second amendment, or the people who support it, I suggest she demand a constitutional convention to change it.
-Not one of the people mentioned by finney has anything whatsoever to do with the Trayvon Martin incident.
-The true racial tragedy of race-involved gun death in this country is not that one Black teenager was shot in Florida last month. It is that a highly disproportionate percentage of gun deaths are Black-on-Black, a majority of interracial gun deaths are Black on White, not the other way around, and that a great many take place with illegally owned guns which, by definition, no gun regulation would have any affect on. This seems to be of no concern whatsoever to finney;
-Nor does she seem to be concerned that the "stand your ground" law has nothing to do with Trayvon Martin's shooting: we have that from no less an authority than Jeb Bush - who, as Governor, proposed, promoted, and signed "stand your ground" into law.
-And, finally, voter ID laws, apart from having nothing to with the Trayvon Martin incident, do not disenfranchise legal voters, Black or non Black.
Other than that? finney made some great points.
How proud MSNBC must be of her. And of al sharpton, that fabled man of racial tolerance and civility, who has spent the past two weeks inciting people to demand George Zimmerman's head on a silver platter without knowing squat about all the facts of the case (any more than finney does).
Congratulations to Rick Santorum.In less than 24 hours he has gone from the thrill of victory (his primary win in Louisiana) to the agony of talking like a mindless jerk.
Here is what he had to say to Bob Schieffer this morning, on Face The Nation:
“Well, you know, obviously, I’m not privy to what’s going on in someone’s mind.Obviously, in my opinion, someone … has a very sick mind who would pursue someone like this. This is clearly a heinous act. You know, there are a lot of people who have a lot of distorted views of reality. It’s a tragic, tragic case. And my heart goes out to the parents, too. I can’t imagine what they’re suffering, losing their son in such a horrific way. All I would say is that, whatever the motive is, it was a malicious one, and a very, very tragic one….
“…All I can say is that, again, there are a lot of people who have very perverted views of reality and obviously have, as we see, people who do horrible things for seemingly senseless reasons.
I will ask Mr. Santorum what I asked Barack Obama, and would ask anyone who made a similar statement:Do you know what happened?
And if the answer is that you don’t – which it inherently has to be since a) all the facts are not in and b) at least some of the most recently uncovered witness accounts make it clear that there are two sides to this story, what in God’s name are you opening that big yap of yours about?
It’s bad enough we have virtual lynch mobs demanding the head of George Zimmerman on a silver platter.It’s bad enough we have “new Black panther party” thugs putting a bounty on Mr. Zimmerman’s head.It’s bad enough we have the President of the United States lowering himself and his office with the most cynical kind of racial pandering.
Do we really need a supposedly conservative Republican presidential candidate talking right through his hat about the Trayvon Martin incident – even as new information comes to light and new witnesses come forward who indicated that there very much are two sides to this story.
I would strongly advice Rick Santorum to close that loose-cannon pie hole of his before he damages whatever credibility he has as a presidential candidate.But it is too late.He’s already done the damage.
How many times must this man demonstrate he is unready to run for the Presidency before even his most conservative and evangelical supporters get the message?
There should be a morality clause in determining the organ transplant waiting list. This rotten fucker should have been dead last.
No problem, that heart will quit soon as it realizes the awful wretched creature it's enabling to exist.
oh i guess they found one small enough and black enough, and i believe to achieve the necessary smallness and blackness they had to summon satan to find them a heart(less)
What can I say? Certainly nothing good. With all the death and suffering this twisted, evil SOB is responsible for.....he deserves so much less. I suggested they let him use Liz's...but I guess that got complicated. Best thing I can say is, "there certainly more deserving people waiting than this war criminal". Maybe he can be tried now, along with the rest of his criminal administration, and the monkey who slept in the President's office for eight years?
on the one hand, it's a waste of a valuable commodity that could have been given to someone more deserving, but on the other hand, maybe it will keep him ticking until 2017, when our next president and congress, or those that come still later, will, finally, hold him accountable, along with his equally evil cohorts in crime. eventually, the folks in washington are going to have to start listening to the voices, as those of occupy wall street, those who have united in protest of the unarrested florida murderer, etc., become ever louder and more effective.
Not very charitable. Of me. For wishing DC would just die, Or DC. For hoping that a thousand-thousand dead insignificants would enrich him.As they did, Fuck Jesus. Christ in this case should condemn Cheney to a thousand lifetimes of faulty hearts
So he got the heart he always wanted, swell! I wonder who the donor was? Somebody better check and see if some poor gitmo detainee committed "suicide" recently. This motherfucker's never gonna die;he has too much money, too many connections. The real tragedy is there is someone out there (someone whose life is way more valuable that Dick Cheney's) on a waiting list, praying for a donor while their life slips away from them. That is a tragedy.
And, yes, the left ongoingly lectures us about maintaining "civility.
You have to laugh....even if through gritted teeth.
Last week, the Gannett Wisconsin Media Investigative Team broke a story that appeared in The Post-Crescent, exposing 29 circuit court judges who signed petitions to recall Gov. Scott Walker. It was a story we were proud to bring to you. It was watchdog journalism in its finest sense, a role we take seriously.
Today, in the interest of full transparency, we are informing you that 25 Gannett Wisconsin Media journalists, including nine at The P-C, also signed the Walker recall petitions. It was wrong, and those who signed were in breach of Gannett's Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms.
The principle at stake is our core belief that journalists must make every effort to avoid behavior that could raise doubts about their journalistic neutrality. Political activity is foremost.
It is of little consolation to us that none of the news employees who signed petitions is involved with directing or reporting political news coverage. (None of the employees serves on the investigative team, nor are any of the Appleton employees reporters or assigning news editors.) The fact that any of our 223 Wisconsin news employees signed the petition is disheartening. It has caused us to examine deeply how this happened, how we will address it and how we will prevent future breaches.
All Gannett journalists are trained on and expected to follow the company's principles of ethical conduct. The 32 principles include these six that are directly relevant to the recall petition issue:
» We will remain free of outside interests, investments or business relationships that may compromise the credibility of our news report.
» We will maintain an impartial, arm's length relationship with anyone seeking to influence the news.
» We will avoid potential conflicts of interest and eliminate inappropriate influence on content.
» We will take responsibility for our decisions and consider the possible consequences of our actions.
» We will be conscientious in observing these principles.
» We will always try to do the right thing.
A Gannett journalist cannot uphold these principles and at the same time post a candidate's sign in the yard, or sign a candidate's nomination papers, or join a campaign rally, or sign a petition advocating a recall election.
Going forward, as we have for more than 100 years, we will continue to try to do the right thing for you and for the communities we serve.
Dozens of judges. And dozens of "journalists" - from Gannett alone.
How many additional judges have signed recall petitions? How many other "journalists", whether from Gannett or other news venues, have done so? No one knows.
But what we do know is that this is what Governor Walker is up against.
Think of it as another example of why Mr. Walker is so deserving of our admiration for the raw courage it took to stick to his guns after being elected.
And think of it as a demonstration of the disgraceful, unethical nature of the people who are against him.
I certainly am no prognosticator. But if I were betting, I would bet on Scott Walker beating this ugly-and-getting uglier recall debacle.
And if he does? Fantastic! As someone rooting hard for him to win, and win big, I can't wait for it to happen.
Yesterday, Dick Cheney, former Vice President (and Sec. of Defense, and Chief of Staff, and congressperson, let's not forget) received a new heart.
Cheney, 71 years old, was on the transplant list for almost 2 years before getting one. I write that as a heads-up for anyone who thinks he pulled rank or moved to the head of the line. Obviously, he did not.
I hope you join me in wishing Mr. Cheney an excellent outcome for this surgery, an excellent recovery, and many more years of productive, much more physically able, life.
The only surprise in the Louisiana Primary - a mild one - is that Rick Santorum won by more than the polls suggested he would. The final tally shows Santorum at 49%, with Mitt Romney a very distant second at 27%. Newt Gingrich was a poor 3rd at 16% and ron paul was last with 6%.
Exit polls showed Santorum doing especially well with very conservative voters and evangelical Christians - both of which abound in the state.
What does this mean? It means that Santorum is the choice of the right wing of a generally rightward party. Newt Gingrich is not. Mitt Romney would lose the state - and the overall south - if he were running in the general election against someone to his right (which Barack Obama, to say the least, is not). And ron paul remains in the race as comic relief status (though Gingrich is gaining ground on him).
It also means that Santorum, who shows no sign at all that he can win the general election, is going to stay in for the long haul. Too bad for Romney and too bad for the Republican Party.
Well, lots of things. But one of the most important is that the people here, with full access to as many sources of news as they care to expose themselves to, generally act on the facts as they know them.
By contrast, the people of Afghanistan, with rampant illiteracy, ignorance and virtually no diversity of news sources, rely on rumor, often filtered through fundamentalist Islamic philosophy.
Which leads us to the Trayvon Martin case.
The full complement of facts are not in. We do not know for certain what happened. We do not know how much information the police have, or how much is yet to be obtained. We have not heard the information from witnesses who saw part or all of the incident (though we do have accounts from the Orlando Sentinel - and from what you will see further on - that put George Zimmerman's culpability into serious question).
But, in that absence of knowledge there have been:
-Numerous marches against Mr. Zimmerman.
-Numerous features on cable news with left wing looney-tunes blaming the country as a whole for racism, and, more specificaly, blaming any Republican whose name they can pronounce, etc.
-We have had explicit threats from the Black supremacist, racist, anti-semitic scumbag louis farrakhan calling for "retaliation".
-We have had the Black panther sickos - the ones eric holder didn't bother to accept a default judgment from over their voter intimidation in the last presidential election, putting out posters demanding George Zimmerman "dead or alive" and offering a $10,000 bounty on his head.
-And we have marches planned throughout the country this weekend demanding "justice for Trayvon" as if all the facts were in and everything was known, and everyone has definitively concluded he was a victim and George Zimmeran were a murderer.
That, folks, is just how it happens in Afghanistan. Crazed, furious vigilantes screaming for someone's head. Based on......what? Facts? They don't need no steenkin' facts. They already have the "facts" they want. Freshly created in their own minds.
Forget the witnesses who, according to the Sentinel, backed up Zimmerman's claims. Forget the father's claims that he comes from a multi-racial family, that there are Black neighbors standing strongly by him - neighbors who certainly would know if he were a racist, and Black children he has mentored.
And, apparently, we should also forget this description from a witness who does not at this point want his name used (would you, in this crazed atmosphere?), excerpted from the Fox News Tampa Bay web site:
Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to.
And from that moment to the shooting, details are few.
But one man's testimony could be key for the police.
"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.
His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.
"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.
Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.
Maybe, just maybe, it is time for some of the people in this country to act as if they come from this country. To wait for facts before they scream for blood.
Minnesota Republican Rep. Chip Cravaack became the latest U.S. House member to declare his lack of confidence in Attorney General Eric Holder over Operation Fast and Furious in the wake of a newly resurfaced video in which Holder says anti-gun advocates should “brainwash” the American people to oppose gun ownership.
Cravaack told The Daily Caller on Monday that he has signed onto House Resolution 490, the official resolution of “no confidence” in Holder because of Fast and Furious. Cravaack becomes the 122nd U.S. House member to sign the resolution, call for Holder’s resignation or firing over the scandal or both.
Democratic Reps. Nick Rahall of West Virginia and Gene Green of Texas told The Washington Times’ Kerry Picket that they want the inspector general to release her report before the election to ensure that any officials from President Barack Obama’s administration who are responsible for Fast and Furious are held accountable.
According to Picket, Rahall’s confidence in Holder’s ability to continue doing his job depends on what comes out in that inspector general’s report.
Democratic Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin also expressed some concerns in an interview with Picket. “We want to see these reports,” Kind said. “These investigations proceed expeditiously, because if there are things that need to be fixed, we need to be working on that right now other than delaying it any further.”
Let me start by thanking Matthew Boyle, as I have in the past, for his yeoman work on this scandal. Mr. Boye's updates, and his count of congresspeople (not to mention Governors - there are at least two so far) who either demand that the pathetic toady and Obama sock-puppet, Attorney General eric holder resign, have signed a no confidence resolution against him, or both -which now totals at least 122 - is invaluable to demonstrating just how disgraceful this scandal is.
But every bit as disgraceful, maybe even more so, are the media venues - such as NBC and ABC and (so far as I know) the New York Times, none of which have so much as done one story on Operation Fast and Furious.
It has been well over a year's time since we found out that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), under the supervision of Attorney General holder and President Obama, sold thousands of assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels without bothering to trace where they went after the point of sale.
We know that border agent Brian Terry was killed by those weapons. We know that customs agent Jaime Zapata almost certainly was killed by those weapons. We know that literally hundreds of Mexican nationals were killed by those weapons. Yet not one story.
It seems almost impossible to believe that major news venues would bury a scandal of this magnitude. That they would do so for over a year, through all the house and senate hearings about it, through the Attorney General's testimony in which he clearly lied about when he know of Operation Fast and Furious, and through almost one quarter of the entire United States congress expressing no-confidence in holder and/or demanding his outright resignation. But that is exactly what has happened.
This goes miles beyond simple political bias. Light years beyond it. What we are seeing is journalistic malfeasance of the first order.
NBC, ABC, the Times, and every other venue which has declined to report this story, are doing, voluntarily, on behalf of the Obama administration, what "newspapers" in totalitarian countries are forced to do involuntarily: they are intentionally withholding major news, to protect the head of state and his people from being held to account for it.
They disgrace themselves. And their profession. They are not journalists, they are Democrat acolytes pretending to be journalists.
Worst of all, they intentionally keep the people ignorant, for their own political motives.
How can they look themselves in the mirror?
And how can President Obama and Attorney General eric holder look themselves in the mirror?
President Obama has clumsily, unconvincingly (unless you are an Obamabot who will believe anything he says) made the "case" that the Solyndra debacle - $535 million of taxpayer dollars down the tubes - was just some kind of anomaly. You win some, you lose some. That's life in the big city. Etc. etc. etc.
I do not know of any President in this country's history who has ever displayed less concern about spending taxpayer money for one fiasco after another, without a care in the world about going further into debt, than Barack Obama. I assume it is because Mr. Obama's entire post-college life has consisted of spending other people's money which he did not have to come up with, so it is second-nature to him; standard operating procedure.
But when it comes to the Green Scandal - specifically the implied claim that Solyndra is a one-time aberration - President Obama is lying (another thing he does as casually as spend money we don't have).
The Department of Energy has placed nearly one-third of its clean-energy loan portfolio on an internal "watch list" for possible violations of terms or other concerns, according to a copy of the list obtained by The Wall Street Journal, highlighting how such concerns have spread beyond the now-bankrupt Solyndra LLC.
The redacted copy, released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Journal, showed that as of Feb. 29 there were 10 projects on the watch list out of 32 loans and loan guarantees made to electric-vehicle and renewable-energy companies.
The reality - which the Wall Street Journal and precious few other media venues continue to talk about, while the rest of Obama's Accomplice Media go on to more important things, like making a federal case out of someone's etch-a-sketch comments - is that President Obama's "Green" initiative is, in reality, a scandal. It is a scandal in which Mr. Obama, and his hopelessly academic, real-world-challenged Energy Secretary Steven Chu, are handing billions of dollars to companies with no solid business foundation and little or no hope of success, in the dreamy, ethereal hope that they will magically become so successful that the need for fossil fuels will go bye-bye in next to no time.
In short, they are pissing away our money on BS. BS that is enriching the pockets of Obama money people. Is that a scandal to you? I know it is to me.
And by ignoring the succession of "Green" companies which have gone under, taking our taxpayer-funded loan guarantees with them (the loan guarantees which protect those big-time Obama contributors who usually are behind the failed companies), these propagandists-posing-as-journalists are aiding and abetting this scandal.
They have no professionalism. Or integrity. Or shame. And their lord and savior in the Oval office is perfectly happy to use those attributes of theirs, to continue telling lies about Solyndra and other "Green" fiascos..
The latest polling data I have seen, by Public Policy Polling - a Democrat polling venue which, nonetheless, has been relatively accurate through the primary season (no guarantee they are now) - puts Santorum in the lead with 42%. Romney is second at 28%, Gingrich at 18% and paul at 8%.
But a lot has happened since this polling took place (Wednesday and Thursday) - most notably, the remarkably ill advised Santorum comment that if Romney is the nominee, the difference between him and Obama is so minimal that you might as well vote for Obama.
Whether that will seriously affect the primary, and how it will do so? I suppose we'll find out.
But regardless of who wins today, it should be kept in mind that, though the Louisiana primary means something to the delegate count, it means nothing to the general election. There is little doubt that the Republican, whomever he is, will win Louisiana this year.
That, however, doesn't mean that the primary results can't yield real news:
-It would be real news if Gingrich did a great deal better than the 18% level he currently is sitting with, at the expense of Santorum. Then Gingrich, whose campaign is barely on life support, could claim with a bit more credibility, that he is the better conservative choice than Santorum. He still would have virtually no chance of winning the nomination, still should be out of this race, but I suppose it would give him some kind of bragging rights to Callista;
- And it would be real news if Mitt Romney exceeded expectations at the expense of Santorum and/or Gingrich. That would indicate conservatives, increasingly, are coalescing around the Romney candidacy - and give the other two another good reason (add it to the very large already-existing stack) for bowing out and starting to work on his behalf for the party's sake.
I'll have more to say about this after the results are in.
ORLANDO - An attorney representing George Zimmerman is speaking out, saying his client is not a racist, and that he acted in self-defense the night Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.
"He did suffer a broken nose, and he has an injury to the back of his head which should have required stitches. I think he was delayed in getting to the doctor and having stitches put in. But he did sustain injuries to his head," Sonner said.
Sonner said portrayals of his client as a racist are not accurate. As an example, he cited Zimmerman's participation in fundraisers for an African-American church in the Orlando area.
Still as sure? I would hope not.
Now: are any of our wonderful "neutral" media - besides the few I have cited in the last couple of days, that is - checking to see if Zimmerman's father is telling the truth; i.e. that Black friends/neighbors who know his son are very supportive, and do not in any way find him racist?
Will any of those media be checking to see if he, in fact, participated in fundraisers for an African-American church? Or if he, in fact, mentored Black children as his father also asserts?
Or are they not investigating? And if they are not, why? Because, if these descriptions of George Zimmerman are true, it irreparably damages the narrative they have have perpetuated over the past week? Because it makes them look like a bunch of prejudicial jerks who allowed themselves to be used by Black activists and propagandists with an agenda that has nothing to do with Trayvon Martin?.
This is what happens when media behave like Alice In Wonderland's Queen of Hearts and decide "First the verdict, then the trial".
If it turns out that the information ultmately shows Zimmerman to be something very different than the monster they have aided and abetted the creation of by their one-sided reports, thus makes them look like a bunch of unprofessional jerks?
GOOD. They brought it on themselves, they earned it, and they deserve it.
There's an old police saying: "Don't blow, until you know". Maybe, just maybe, these so-called "journalists" might learn from it.
Here is some of the latest news about the huge, billion dollar plus, jon corzine scandal: the one that media couldn't give a damn about because jon corzine, though a former senator and governor, is a former Democrat senator and governor.
Jon S. Corzine , MF Global Holding Ltd.’s chief executive officer, gave “direct instructions” to transfer $200 million from a customer fund account to meet an overdraft in one of the brokerage’s JPMorgan Chase & Co. accounts in London, according to an e-mail sent by a firm executive. Bloomberg's Julie Hyman reports on Bloomberg Television's "Street Smart." (Source: Bloomberg)
O’Brien’s internal e-mail was sent as the New York-based broker found intraday credit lines limited by JPMorgan, the firm’s clearing bank as well as one of its custodian banks for segregated customer funds, according to the memo, which was prepared for a March 28 House Financial Services subcommittee hearing on the firm’s collapse. O’Brien is scheduled to testify at the hearing after being subpoenaed this week.
“Over the course of that week, MF Global (MFGLQ)’s financial position deteriorated, but the firm represented to its regulators and self-regulatory organizations that its customers’ segregated funds were safe,” said the memo, written by Financial Services Committee staff and sent to lawmakers.
In other words, there is strong evidence that corzine, even as he was claiming MF Global's customer's funds were safe, was desperately tranfering those funds to cover his blunders, which ultimately took down the company, lost the employees their jobs, and sent 1.2 billion dollars into the abyss -- to which corzine's explanation is "Gee, I don't know where that money is".
The reason I post this information is not just that it is a major story about major corruption that has caused major pain. it is because there is so little coverage of corzine and the MF Global scandal that it actually is a breath of fresh air to see anyone reporting on it.
So thank you Mr. Mattingly and Ms. Brush for doing....essentially what the rest of media should be doing (how pathetic is it that media have been so misfeasant that thanks are in order when reporters simply report?).
And shame on you, most of the rest of media, for taking that broom and pushing a scandal like this right under the carpet.
Did you do it for Jack Abramoff too? No? How come?
Suppose President Bush, commenting on an incident in which a Black man may have killed a White boy, said:
"My main message is to the parents of that boy: If I had a son, he'd look like him. "I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we're going to get to the bottom of what happened."
How fast would media be screaming that Mr. Bush was talking flat-out racism, and that it DID NOT MATTER whether the boy would have looked like his son, any boy being killed is a tragedy and a horror. Not just a White boy. And how dare he put one boy's skin color over another. What did this country ever do to deserve having such an overtly racist President? He better apologize immediately -- not that it will mean anything, since a comment like that proves he's a racist anyway. This man is disgusting.
Well, President Bush never said anything like that. But President Obama did say this today, about the Travyon Martin incident:
"My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin: If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Obama said. "I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we're going to get to the bottom of what happened."
How fast do you think media are going to be screa......oh, wait. This is President Obama, not President Bush.
Ms. Finney first cited comments Gingrich, Santorum and Limbaugh had made that could be tied to race (not Trayvon Martin, but race) - all without benefit of context or obvious intent of course, because Ms. Finney doesn't worry much about context or obvious intent. She then noted that Romney "didn't say anything" (presumably he is expected to condemn the other three by taking their comments out of context as well, so he is therefore at fault by not making comments) and concluded that "In the case of Trayvon, those festering stereotypes had lethal consequences". I'll just bet Ms. Finney figures they all called George Zimmerman that morning and implored him to kill! Kill! Kill!
Then we have the equally tireless far left hater, Ed Schultz, saying that "Jeb Bush helped pave the way for this senseless tragedy and remains silent. What a political tragedy". Mr. Bush, of course, has not been Governor for over 5 years, and no one, Schultz included, has ever accused him of blame for a possible racial killing because of the "stand your ground" legislation he supported and signed into law until now. (FURTHER UPDATE: Governor Bush himself has stated that the "stand your ground" law does not apply to this case).
Well, there is the duel. And I would like to declare a winner. It is Karen Finney. Because she blamed four Republicans and Schultz only blamed one.
I can't wait to hear who Sharpton and Matthews and Maddow and O'Donnell blame. I wonder if there will be anyone left.
Oh, yeah, one other thing. We still don't know what happened, or whether George Zimmerman was the one being attacked, or the one screaming for help, or for that matter even what Zimmerman's party affiliation, if any, is: i.e. could it be that he is a Democrat, just like those nice, circumspect folks at MSNBC?
Is it just me, or does is the MSNBC lineup come across less as insightful political analysts, and more like villagers with pitchforks?
Thank you to the Orlando Sentinel And WPTV Channel 5 (the NBC local affiliate) for being nearly alone among what, pathetically, passes as our mainstream media, to bother providing George Zimmerman's side of the Trayvon Martin incident.
The Sentinel account is here, and the WPTV account is here. Please read then, so you know both sides of the story. It will put you universes ahead of the disgraceful blob of propaganda-first, facts-later media - very much including WPTV's parent company, NBC - which seem to think they know all the answers when they don't know diddly squat about anything.
Before you do, however, let me show you there are two sides to consider, by posting this short excerpt from the Sentinel story:
Zimmerman told police he acted in self-defense. Police found blood on his face and the back of his head as well as grass on the back of his shirt.
That jibes with what Cheryl Brown's teenage son witnessed while walking his dog that night. Thirteen-year-old Austin stepped out his front door and heard people fighting, he told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday.
"I heard screaming and crying for help," he said. "I heard, 'Help me.' "
It was dark, and the boy did not see how the fight started, in fact, he only saw one person, a man in a red shirt — Zimmerman — who was on the ground.
But none of this matters to our so-called "media, does it? Not when there is a juicy racial angle to latch onto.
For additional insight into how they - and the Professional Oppressed crowd, ever vigilant for a reason to march, protest and demand - are handling this as yet indeterminate event, here is a list of other links provided by drudgereport.com:
Lovely. al sharpton, the master of incitement to violence, preaching "non-violence" (sort of) to the already-excited crowd. karen finney turning it into a political attack apropos of nothing. louis farrakhan talking "retaliation" (To whom? For what? No one knows).
Why is this happening? I lay the blame entirely at the feet of our "media".
It is media who, by never calling the sharptons and finneys and farrakhans on their lunatic-fringe rants, have enabled them to act the as race-baiting opportunists they are now. It is media who have poured the accelerants on this situation with their unrelenting promotion of Trayvon Martin as an innocent victim and George Zimmerman as a cold-blooded racist killer -- before any of the facts are determined.
If all the rhetoric - again, in the absence of knowledge - leads to violence, maybe killings, over the Trayvon Martin incident? How proud these media giants should be. Because they will have been its architects.
The biggest joke of all is media portraying al sharpton as some kind of peacemaker because, after inciting the crowd, he tossed out a couple of "don't be violent" softballs:
-They let sharpton off the hook when his incendiary comments made the Crown Heights riots even worse. Eventually those riots resulted in the killing of Yankel Rosenbaum, a Jewish scholar doing nothing but minding his own business.
-They let sharpton off the hook for the torching of Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem, after he incited an already near-riotous crowd by attacking store owner, Freddy Harari, and racially turbocharging the situation by calling him a "White interloper". Freddy's wound up being firebombed with 8 people dead -- all of them minority.
And if his "I'll pour fire on the situation, make your anger even more intense, but don't be violent, wink wink" routine generates the kind of violence that aroused, angry mobs so often engage in, they will let him off the hook again.
After all, sharpton is a combination of Black, reliably left wing, and a source of good sound bites. So he is a protected species. As for the violence and deaths? Hey, that's great. we'll use it as our lead on the nightly news.
What a lovely memorial to a dead 17 year old child.
Let me finish by posting the following letter, which George Zimmerman's father, Robert, sent to the Orlando Sentinel.
Please read it - especially if you are still convinced that this is an open and shut case of George Zimmerman murdering Trayvon Martin based on his race, and then tell me if you're still as sure:
“The tragic events of February 26 are very sad for all concerned. The Martin family, our family, and the entire community have been forever changed.
The portrayal of George Zimmerman in the media, as well as the series of events that led to the tragic shooting are false and extremely misleading. Unfortunately, some individuals and organizations have used this tragedy to further their own causes and agendas.
George is a Spanish speaking minority with many black family members and friends. He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever. One black neighbor recently interviewed said she knew everything in the media was untrue and that she would trust George with her life. Another black neighbor said that George was the only one, black or white, who came and welcomed her to the community, offering any assistance he could provide. Recently, I met two black children George invited to a social event. I asked where they met George. They responded that he was their mentor. They said George visited them routinely, took them places, helped them, and taught them things and that they really loved George. The media portrayal of George as a racist could not be further from the truth.
The events of February 26 reported in the media are also totally inaccurate. Out of respect for the on-going investigation, I will not discuss specifics. However, the media reports of the events are imaginary at best. At no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin. When the true details of the event become public, and I hope that will be soon, everyone should be outraged by the treatment of George Zimmerman in the media.
Our entire family is deeply sorry for the loss of Trayvon. We pray for the Martin family daily. We also pray that the community will grieve together and not be divided by more unwarranted hate.
The Zimmerman family will have no further contact with the media prior to the resolution of the investigation. It would be greatly appreciated if the media would respect our privacy.”
Justice comes after the facts are known. Not before. End of story.
mohammed merah, the sub-human al-qaeda supporter who killed four unarmed, innocent human beings for daring to be Jewish - three of them pre-teen children - in Toulouse, France, is dead. His victims are, of course, dead and have been buried. The children he injured are, to my knowledge, recovering.
But that doesn't mean it is over.
The people of France, and the rest of Europe, are again forced to live in fear of terrorism and murder. Jews, in particular, are again forced to live in fear of their lives.
And Muslims who do not subscribe to the hate, violence, murder of fundamentalist Islam are again forced to defend themselves against something that they neither did nor wanted to have happen.
It is true that significant segments of the Muslim populations of these countries are either sympathetic or outright supportive of attacking and killing Jews. They must be fought at all costs and defeated in every way.
It also true that the segments not supportive of such acts have been virtually silent when they occur. These Muslims are victims in their own right - partly because the reason for their silence, presumably, is that they are at least as fearful of the fundamentalist lunatics as Jews are, and partly, in the words of Mehdi Nedder, a Muslim man who, like merah did, lives in Toulouse:
"This person doesn't represent me.What worries me is what society will say tomorrow in the bakery shops, at the butcher's or at the post office."
He's got a point.
Mr. Nedder is in the same boat as the Black kid, never in trouble with the law, who goes to a convenience store to buy milk and eggs for his mother and gets an obvious, glaring once-over by the store owner, to make sure he doesn't steal something.
You want to call it racism? Fine. You want to call it guilt by association? Fine. But you better add in guilt by probability, because that's what it is more than anything else. If the owner has found, by experience, that Black kids commit most of the thievery in his store, he is going to be especially wary of Black kids.
If the innocent Black kid has a beef about this, who is it with? The store owner, or the Black kids whose actions have caused the store owner to associate young Blacks with theft?
So it is with Mehdi Nedder. If he is worried - and he should be - who has given him cause to worry? Non-Muslims who cast a wary, fearful, disapproving eye at him because of his Islamic faith, or Muslim lunatics who commit murderous acts that generate the wariness, fear and disapproval?
It is time - long past time - for Muslims of good will to stand up and speak out against fundamentalist murderers and the "clerics" who facilitate their acts. To clearly separate themselves from, thus liberate themselves from, these subhuman mind-numbed ghouls who have stolen their religion, and who have become the criterion so many people now judge all of Islam by.
The alternative is to continue sitting by in silence. Which is the same thing as aiding and abetting them. Which is the same thing as joining them.
Rick Santorum has a talent for making statements that demonstrate, with crystal clarity, he is not presidential material. At this point I expect them from him, no less than I expect jackassian comments from Joe Biden and dim bulb comments from Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
But this one is the final frontier. Yesterday, in Texas, Santorum actually said this (the bold print is mine):
“You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”
In other words, Rick Santorum is telling Republicans that if their choice is a Republican President (Mitt Romney) who, in his view, would only be "a little different" than Barack Obama, they might as well re-elect Obama.
Is he out of his mind?
Has Mr. Santorum noticed, to cite one of numerous examples, that the President is appoints supreme court justices? Does he think Mr. Romney would be appointing justices who are just "a little different", than Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan?
Has Mr. Santorum noticed, to cite another example, that the President proposes and approves spending? Does he think Mr. Romney's fiscal record at Bain Capital is almost identical to Mr. Obama's 5 1/2 trillion dollars of deficits?
Does he even know what he is saying anymore?
Santorum's comment is not just staggeringly ridiculous. It doesn't just make him sound like a puerile jerk. It also is hugely damaging to the Republican Party: something Santorum seems less concerned about every day.
I can only wonder what assorted Republican congresspeople think of this latest Santupidism. If it were me, I would bury my face in my hands, shake it back and forth, and say "Why doesn't this hopeless jerk just go away?" I assume there is strong agreement with Newt Gingrich's reaction, “Rick Santorum is dead wrong. Any GOP nominee will be better than Obama".
More and more, day after day, Rick Santorum sounds like a not-ready-for-prime-time zealot, increasingly bitter that his party is not running to join his crusade, who feels a compulsive need to heat up the rhetorical ante in an effort to make them realize the rightness of his message, so he can lead them to the promised land.
It is time for some of the Republican elders - especially from the conservative wing he Santorum thinks he is representing (Coburn, Inhofe, DeMint, etc.) to tell him that this is enough. He is not a boon to the party, he is a malignant tumor.
Most times in today’s Europe, the guys beating, burning and killing Jews will be Muslims. Once in a while, it will be somebody else killing the schoolkids. But is it so hard to acknowledge that rapid, transformative, mass Muslim immigration might not be the most obvious aid to social tranquility? That it might possibly pose challenges that would otherwise not have existed — for uncovered women in Oslo, for gays in Amsterdam, for Jews everywhere? Is it so difficult to wonder if, for these and other groups living in a long-shot social experiment devised by their rulers, the price of putting an Islamic crescent in the diversity quilt might be too high? What’s left of Jewish life in Europe is being extinguished remorselessly, one vandalized cemetery, one subway attack at a time. How many Jewish children will be at that school in Toulouse a decade hence? A society that becomes more Muslim eventually becomes less everything else. What is happening on the Continent is tragic, in part because it was entirely unnecessary.
In case anyone out there still thinks the "Occupy" movement has any credibility - or class, or decency - there is this, from (surprisingly) NBC News NY:
Police say an Occupy Wall Street protester dumped a tub of human waste down a public stairwell and inside a bank vestibule, and got caught on video.
Police said Occupy Wall Street protesters were captured on surveillance video dragging a large receptacle of human urine and feces to an open-air plaza at the corner of Nassau and Cedar streets last Wednesday evening, just before
They then poured the waste down a set of stairs there, police said.
About 20 minutes later, one of the protesters entered a Chase ATM vestibule on Water Street and poured human waste inside there, police said.
A witness gave police the license plate number of the van used to transport the waste, and police were able to match the plate to its registered owner, a Philadelphia man.
He was arrested on Wall Street Saturday on charges of unlawful possession of noxious matter and aggravated unlicensed operation of motor vehicle.
Police also recovered a stun gun from inside his vehicle.
So, do you think Mr. Obama, and Ms. Pelosi, and some of the other Democrats who were so eager to piggy-back onto the "Occupy" movement a few months ago would like to express a bit of panderer's remorse? Or are they going to lie to your face and say they never ran with this crowd (i.e. the video was photoshopped by sinister Republican elves in a secret compartment of Karl Rove's basement)?
As for the Occupy crowd and their human waste (a description not only of what was used in this disgusting vandalism, but of a large percentage of the crowd itself), here's a hint for you: albeit very belatedly, Mayor Bloomberg and most of the other formerly accommodating schmendricks (that's a tamer version of schmucks) who put up with your excrement last year, appear to finally learn their lesson. So don't expect another extended campout this time; that's down the crapper.
Poor kids. No Zuccotti Park. That means it's back to their dorm rooms, or apartments, or mommy and daddy's basement.
After a 30+ hour standoff, lots of gunfire and several more injured people, police raided his apartment. He was hiding in the bathroom, where he exchanged fire with police before jumping out of the bathroom window, firing his guns until he hit the ground, and winding up dead, either from the fall, the return fire, or both. Who cares?
I'm ashamed to be of the same species as this sack of infected pus.
Have you been following the Trayvon Martin case? The answer almost has to be yes, because media have relentlessly covered it.
And relentlessly presenting exactly one side of the story: Trayvon Martin as a victim and George Zimmerman as a murderer. Which is making me irate.
-The Today Show, for example, has done three days of he's guilty-let's-hang-him coverage, featuring numbers of interviews with Trayvon Martin's parents, lawyer, etc. I have yet to see even one interview of anyone who would speak up for Zimmerman. Maybe I missed the part where they told us that they tried to get Zimmerman, his family or maybe a spokesperson or a lawyer to present his side and were refused, but I didn't hear it
-This morning, however, Today did show a few seconds of video footage in which Zimmerman's next door neighbor said he didn't think Zimmerman would shoot anyone - but only after conditioning us with news of his one brush with the law, 7 years ago, involving a domestic dispute with a girlfriend in which both parties were served with injunctions. Apparently the issue ended there with no charges ever being filed (I assume Today would have told us if there were more).
-It has been widely reported that Zimmerman has made either 46 or 50 (depending on who is reporting) calls to the police during his years as a neighborhood watch commander. Every time I hear this number cited, the tonality seems to be that it shows he is some kind of loose cannon who sees "criminals" everywhere he goes. I have yet to hear one of them do the math and note that, since he has been part of neighborhood watch for 8 years, this translates into just one call every two months. Maybe that is a lot for an ordinary citizen, but for someone specifically patrolling a neighborhood looking to see if anything is amiss? You tell me.
-Also there has been major media coverage of the large "justice for Trayvon" rally in New York's Union Square, which his parents attended and spoke at. No word on why they would go to the New York rally, or who paid their way to be there, or who was behind the scenes organizing it. No discussion of whether the motives for a New York rally about a Florida case suggest an agenda beyond justice for Trayvon Martin. And, again, no coverage, live or video, of anyone disputing a thing that was said there.
Let me be very clear. I am not saying that George Zimmerman is the innocent party. In fact, if I were betting on this, purely from instinct, I would be betting that Zimmerman accosted Martin, forced the physical confrontation and then, adrenaline pumping, "defended himself" by killing him.
But my gut feel on the subject is not fact. Nor is anyone else's. Until an investigation is completed or new, decisive evidence comes into play which make things much clearer, I am not drawing any conclusions. And it is despicable that media apparently feel no similar need to wait before they draw theirs.
Want some good reasons to wait before making any conclusions? Here are a few:
-We still do not know for sure who started the physical altercation between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. It is certainly true that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car no physical contact could have taken place. But the fact that he got out of the car does not prove he initiated anything physical.
-We still don't know why he got out of the car (even Matt Lauer, on Today, pointed out that he never did so in any of the other 46-50 calls to police, so why now? )
-And we still do not know if the screams for help came from Trayvon Martin or from George Zimmerman. Let's remember that Zimmerman said he was the one screaming and, according to the Orlando Sentinel account, police listening to the tape agreed, and other witnesses corroborated Zimmerman's version of what happened.
This, to me, seems like the easiest part of the case to crack. Use voice recognition technology to see if the screams for help match or do not match Zimmerman's voice. If they match, he is telling the truth, if they don't he isn't. But don't assume one way or the other until the procedure is done. What I'd like to know is how come it hasn't already been done - or, if it has, why have we not been told the results.
These are just some of the issues which have to be resolved before anyone should make conclusions about what really happened. So why are media treating it like a signed-sealed-delivered verdict has already been rendered?
It is a sad day in this country when I (and, I assume, many others) have to beg media to present two sides of the story, just like real journalists would. But that is what I am doing today.
UPDATE:Everything I have said here about Jeb Bush stands as written.Except, here is a part of his endorsement I did not read until now – as excerpted from an article at Fox news:
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush thinks the choice for GOP vice presidential nominee is clear – Marco Rubio.
In a comment that nearly went unnoticed amid Bush’s endorsement Wednesday of Mitt Romney for president, Bush told the Pittsburg Tribune-Review that the Florida senator is "dynamic, joyful, disciplined and principled."
And at least one other member of the Bush family – Jeb Bush Jr. – told Fox News Latino Thursday that he too backs Florida Senator Marco Rubio for vice president.
The elder Bush told the Pittsburgh newspaper: "He is the best orator of American politics today, a good family man.”
“He is not only a consistent conservative, but he has managed to find a way to communicate a conservative message full of hope and optimism.”
This, of course, does not mean Mitt Romney will not ask Jeb Bush to take the #2 spot.But it does indicate who Mr. Bush is directing Mr. Romney towards.
ROBERT DE NIRO: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "RACIAL" AND "RACIST"
Speaking at an Obama fundraiser on Monday, actor Robert De Niro made an overtly racial comment. Not racist, but racial.
His exact words:
"Callista Gingrich, Karen Santorum, Ann Romney. Now do you think our country is really ready for a White first lady?"
Was it tasteless and inappropriate? Yeah, it was. But that is where the problem ends. There was nothing racist about what Mr. De Niro said.
The intent, quite clearly, was to make a humorous play on the question: "is the country ready for a Black President?", which we used to ask in the pre-Obama era.
Yes, it was about race. But it certainly was not racist. It certainly did not denigrate any race. And in a reasonable political environment, it would have just been laughed (or groaned) off.
That, however, is not what happened. Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, attacked Mr. De Niro for his comment which, presumably, is what caused Michelle Obama's spokesperson to acknowledge its inappropriateness and De Niro to (somewhat) apologize for saying it.
Why did this happen? Why was a big deal made of it?
Maybe the Foster Friess incident sheds a little light on the subject.
As you may remember, Foster Freiss was the Santorum backer who made the tasteless, inappropriate joke about aspirin being a cheap contraceptive if held between a woman's knees. That should have been laughed (or groaned) off as well.
Yes, it was about women. But it certainly was not anti-woman. It certainly did not denigrate women. Heck, it's even physically accurate (try and impregnate a woman with an aspirin tablet between her knees; be sure to let me know how you make out).
But this did not stop Democrats from going ballistic over Mr. Friess's joke, and trying, apparently with some success, to turn it into part of their, frankly, idiotic narrative that the Republican Party is at war with women.
So little wonder that, given a similar opening (i.e. a bad joke that could easily be misinterpreted into something more), Republicans quickly attacked, with an eye toward exacting some payback for the Freiss fiasco. Think of Robert De Niro as the collateral damage.
Personally, I'm sorry that Mr. De Niro got caught in this nonsensical BS. I know where he was coming from and do not in any way think of his comment as racist - any more than I thought of Mr. Freiss's joke as being misogynistic.
But I hope he appreciates that it is his party of choice which has set the rules of the game.
DAVID AXELROD ON WHY DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT PASSED A BUDGET IN OVER 3 YEARS
Since the last post dealt with something that has about a 98% probability of being BS, let's go all the way and look at a 100% example.
Pleaseclick here, to watch a long video from powerlineblog.com of David Axelrod trying, and failing miserably, to explain away the fact that Democrats have not produced a budget in over three years - something they would be howling about every minute of every day if it were Republicans.
Did you watch it? Can you believe what a phony windbag Axelrod came across as?
I think my favorite part was when he tried to explain it away by saying "We’ve got deep divisions in the congress between the house and the senate".
That so? Am I remembering incorrectly, or were Democrats were in full control of both houses of congress for two of the three years? Am I remembering incorrectly, or was the senate, which votes on the budget, controlled by Democrats for all of those years?
Look, David Axelrod is an Obama fart-catcher; a man with no apparent scruples who will say whatever he has to in an effort to keep his lord and master, Barack Obama, in power. This I understand, and I am more than a little amused when he gets his socks blown off because of it, especially by a Fox News anchor.
But what truly galls me is the majority of our media, which, for over three years, have allowed Democrats to spend us into trillion dollar-plus deficits each year, without ever demanding that a budget be presented.
They never would run three days of interference for Republicans, let alone three years; three fiscally disastrous years. But for a Democrat, Obama-led administration? Okey-dokey. No problem at all.
API on Tuesday the 6th March evening received President Obama’s genuine birth certificate. API decided not to hurry in publishing it immediately because we wanted to be sure of the content value.
Now that the scrutiny has been done, the publishing of the Birth certificate that will clear the air once and for all is being done without prejudice. This may force the US president to apologise to the American people for having been kept in the dark on the issue for a long time now on demanding the publishing of the birth certificate by President Obama.
www.africanpress.me : Obama registration sir edward of lavender was the colonial registrar in Mombasa in 1961? Check it out and satisfy yourself by weighing the facts individually.
I will scan in here a letter from Coast Provincial Birth Registration Office in the next few hours or days, depending on how quick API is cleared to do so.
The purpose of scanning the official letter is to ensure that what we have received as you see here is fully collaborated officially.
The US President says he is born in Hawaii. Many documents being circulated worldwide says otherwise. Therefore, it is very important to be outright and get the real thing on the table without witch hunt or without trying to malign the president’s name, unless the truth is not what he personally has said.
A duly signed official letter and a very special document will be scanned here for all to see – this comes in a few hours or days, depending on how quick API gets the clearance to do so. The two documents will put the issue to rest and clear the air once and for all who wish to know the true facts of this case file that has bothered a section of the American people!
Please note that I am posting this blog solely because I feel you should see these "documents" and decide on their credibility for yourself.
Do I accept them as legitimate? No I do not. I need more than the API's word for it. Like about 100% more.
Is it possible that the "documents" are legitimate? Yes, it is possible, in the sense that just about anything is possible. But unless some very credible source comes forward to add legitimacy, my advice would be to disregard them as BS.
Mitt Romney decisively won yesterday's Illinois primary. The final tally shows Mr. Romney with 47% of the vote to 35% for Rick Santorum, 9% for ron paul, and Newt Gingrich dead last at 8%.
I'll say this: at least Santorum put up a fight.
By contrast, Newt Gingrich's campaign has degenerated into not campaigning in states where he knows he can't win, so he can pretend his low-and-decreasing support is for some reason other than Republicans preferring other candidates.
Yes, Gingrich won South Carolina along with his home state of Georgia. Yes, he might - might - win Louisiana. But these are states any Republican candidate is going to win. So, as a strictly practical matter, they are meaningless to the election - unless Gingrich thinks he can become President by getting a majority of electoral votes in the deep south, without having to run in the rest of the country, that is.
As for Santorum? He lost. Decisively. And I don't know about you, but listening to him (and, for that matter Gingrich) whine, again, about how much he was outspent not only is boring, it is increasingly grating.
A note to Mr. Santorum: For god sake, get over it. This is how the game is played. This is how much money the Romney camp had, this is how they spent it, and this was the result. If you don't like it, get out of politics. The last thing your party needs is to hear you whining and crying, as if it is news that some candidates are outspent by their opponents.
The humor value of the night was when one of the networks had Gingrich on, pontificating about how Illinois proved Santorum is not the conservatives' choice for president -- as the results flashed on the screen showing him in fourth place, with one-quarter of Santorum's total and below even what is left of ron paul's comic relief campaign. It made me wonder if Gingrich has lost touch with the real world.
The bottom line is that Gingrich and Santorum have to face the fact that their campaigns are, for all intents and purposes, over. Romney is going to win Wisconsin by plenty. He's going to win New York. He's going to win California. Where does that leave either of them?
What are they waiting for - other than some miraculous second-ballot stampede to their candidacy in Tampa, which is about as likely as a herd of unicorns tromping through Zuccotti Park.
Gingrich and Santorum must come to grips with the fact that by hanging on and prolonging the inevitable they are giving succor to Barack Obama's re-election campaign. The time and money it costs Romney to keep fighting them is time and money that cannot be retrieved.
In short, they are hurting their party.
What they should be doing is closing shop, accepting what is in front of their faces, and coalescing as best they can around their presumptive nominee.
Is there any doubt that Gingrich and Santorum are going to support Romney as the candidate? Of course not. Neither is going to run on a third party and neither is about to jump on the Obama bandwagon.
As you probably know, on Monday a gunman rode his motorcycle to a Jewish school in Toulouse, France, opened fire, then sped away. So far, there are four dead, three of them children, others injured and an entire community terrorized.
I did not write about this incident until now, because I did not know who killed these people in cold blood or why it was done.
About 300 police officers surrounded an apartment in the south of France on Wednesday, trying to coax a man whom authorities called a self-styled al Qaeda jihadist to surrender after a series of shootings that left seven people dead.
Soon after special operations police mounted their raid in Toulouse at , shots rang out from inside, wounding two officers, police said.
A prosecution official in Paris named the suspect as Mohammed Merah, 23. He was born in Toulouse, said Elisabeth Allanic, a magistrate at the Prosecutors Office.
He had been under surveillance by French intelligence for years, the interior minister said.
He had "already committed certain infractions, some with violence," Gueant said.
Gueant said the suspect had a car containing more weapons near his apartment.
The suspect is accused of killing seven people in the last 10 days: a rabbi and three children at a Jewish school on Monday, and three soldiers of north African origin who had recently returned from Afghanistan in two earlier incidents.
The suspect's lawyer, Christian Etelin, said Merah went to Afghanistan two years ago.
"He claims to be a jihadist and says he belongs to al Qaeda," Gueant told reporters at the scene. "He wanted to avenge the Palestinian children and take revenge on the French army because of its foreign interventions."
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad strongly rejected using his people as a justification for the French killings, calling them a "cowardly terrorist attack."
"It is time for those criminals to stop exploiting the name of Palestine through their terrorist actions," Fayyad said in a statement.
Are you surprised? I doubt it.
This act was so despicable that even salam fayyad, whose fatah party has entered into a unity agreement with the terrorist murderers of hamas, felt he needed to condemn it --- in English.
Before you get too impressed by fayyad's condemnation, I suggest you wait to find out what he says about the massacre in Arabic (hint: don't expect the same comments). And then wait a couple of years to see if he and his fatah pals name a plaza, or sporting event, after mohammed merah. As they have done for other Arabs who "successfully" murdered innocent, unarmed, defenseless Jews, with a special taste for young children.
Elsewhere in the article we find that...
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he would meet with Muslim and Jewish leaders and asked the nation "to unite together to show that terrorism will not be able to fracture our national community.
"France must be stronger than ever in national unity. We owe this to the victims who were assassinated in cold blood," he said.
Yeah, right. Okay. Round up the usual suspects. Go through the motions. Pretend that this was some random, unusual act, a blip in the radar screen of otherwise serendipitous relations between French Jews and Muslims. Pretend it has nothing to do with the fact that large segments of the Muslim community have been targetting Jews for years and years - enough so that people (I know this from first-hand accounts) have left France in fear for their lives).
I'll have more to say about this later, as the standoff unfolds.
Since gas prices have more than doubled during the Obama administration, and appear to be heading even higher, you might think our Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, would be a bit contrite. A bit embarrassed. Maybe he would offer his resignation.
Well, forget it.
At the beginning of March, Mr. Chu self-evaluated his performance in doling out money to "green" companies, many of which either have gone under or are probably about to. Chu gave himself a grade of A-.
For the record, the General Accounting Office begs to differ: it gives Mr. Chu an 85% fail rate in loan guarantees.
Maybe where Steven Chu went school, 15% got you an A-. If so, I wish I had gone there too.
Well, today Secretary Chu got another chance to self-evaluate. And, as before, he did not cheat himself. When House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa asked how he would evaluate his performance on controlling the cost of gasoline at the pump, Chu said:
“The tools we have at our disposal are limited, but I would I say I would give myself a little higher in that since I became Secretary of Energy, I’ve been doing everything I can to get long-term solutions,”
"A little higher" would have to be an A or an A+.
In case you have just flown in from Mars and are unaware, gas prices are currently more than double what they were when Mr. Obama and Mr. Chu took office.
But let me give you what might be a bit of a surprise. I agree with Secretary Chu. I think he does deserve that A or A+.
No, I haven't been into the kickapoo joy juice and I don't do drugs.
My reasoning is very simple. Based on numerous statements Steven Chu has made over the years, his intention is, and always has been, to drive gas prices high enough so that more and more people will be forced to seek out other forms of energy. And, in that regard, he has succeeded spectacularly.
The fact that it is putting an economic hardship on millions of people, and that the "green" companies he has funded with our tax money are going under faster than a bunch of scared gophers, and that it will be decades before alternative energy sources will be sufficiently viable to replace fossil fuels? Hey, who cares? Certainly not Steven Chu.
Look at it this way: Mr. Chu is an academic. He comes from a family of academics. Except for his stint at Bell Labs - even there he spent his days holed up in a laboratory - Chu has never worked in the "real world". Maybe that is why the real-world consequences escape him.
But if we're talking about how someone who wants gas prices to jump through the roof would evaluate himself when they do jump through the roof? Why not an A? Why not an A+?
This, folks, is how success is measured in the era of Obama. How do you like it?
A bill designed to enact President Barack Obama's plan for a "Buffett rule" tax on the wealthy would rake in just $31 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress' official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press.
That figure would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period. It is also minuscule compared to the many hundreds of billions it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama's budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett rule tax.
But...but....wasn't this supposed to solve our deficit problem? Soak those rich bastards, use the money to give "stuff" to all those people who didn't earn it, and everyone is happy, right?
Er, wrong. The Buffoon Rule (as I call it) doesn't do that. Or anything close.
That 31 billion dollar "benefit" is less than one-half of one percent of the deficit. Not the entire budget, just the deficit. In other words, it has about the same impact as adding an extra cranberry to the Ocean Spray plant.
My one question, apart from when - if ever - media will decide to nail Barack Obama for his parade of lies: How many times do Obama supporters have to be bamboozled before they wake up?
If you want to read a truly chilling account of just how radicalized our universities have become, and just how twisted at least some Jewish students are - so much so that they have figured out a rationale for standing with people who want them dead to attack the one and only Jewish homeland on planet earth......
...please click here and read David Horowitz's account of his experience last week at UNC - Chapel Hill. It is far too long to post in blog form. But it is a must-read for anyone who wants a taste of the extent to which our insitutions of higher learning have been infiltrated and propagandized.
Since I'm not posting the article itself, I will instead post a few excerpts from the hamas charter - hamas being those nice folks that Josh, Jacob and Ari - all of whom are Jewish (at least ancestrally) and all of whom you will "meet" in the article - seem so comfortable with:
From the Introduction:This is the Charter of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas) which will reveal its face, unveil its identity, state its position, clarify its purpose, discuss its hopes, call for support to its cause and reinforcement, and for joining its ranks. For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails. Thus we shall perceive them approaching in the horizon, and this will be known before long: “Allah has decreed: Lo! I very shall conquer, I and my messenger, lo! Allah is strong, almighty.”
Beginning of Article 6:The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.
End of Article 7: the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).
From Article 13:[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement….. Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120 There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.
From Article 20:The Nazism of the Jews does not skip women and children, it scares everyone. They make war against people’s livelihood, plunder their moneys and threaten their honor. In their horrible actions they mistreat people like the most horrendous war criminals.
Please keep in mind that this is just a small sampling; there is far more in the hamas charter (which you can read by clicking here) that is just as sick, perverted, hate-filled and violent. But not a word of condemnation from Josh, Jacob, Ari or their likeminded Jewish pals.
Look, there is nothing wrong with Jews and Muslims being together. Not all Muslims accept the vomit you just read about killing all Jews (please note that the charter did notrestrict Jew-killing to Israelis) and rejecting a peaceful two-state settlement.
But have these three geniuses ever asked their "brothers" how they feel about killing all Jews? Have they ever asked any of them to renounce the killing of all Jews? Have they ever asked if their new-found brothers are ok with peaceful two-state coexistence or if they consider it "a waste of time, an exercise in futility"?
Those questions just might be worth asking - especially the first one - because people who want to kill Jews because they are Jews are no brothers of theirs, no matter how many rationales, apologia and mental contortions they go through.
Let me make this plain and simple. Any Jew who thinks that Muslims whosubscribe to the tenets of this charter are their brothers must be stupid. Amazingly stupid.
They are hopelessly propagandized, useful idiots for people who would kill them, while laughing at their last words: "But...but.... I thought we were brothers".
There are so many ways to show that Mariano Rivera is the greatest closer of all time that it is hard to pick just one. And frankly, this isn't one of them But it is so amazing that I want to post it anyway
I just read the other day that, in spring training, Mr. Rivera has not given up a run since 2008.
Let me say that again: in spring training, when pitchers are working to get in shape and often have bad outings because they are worried less about winning than they are about fine-tuning their mechanics, Mariano Rivera has not given up a run in four years.
In the last week or two, we have heard President Obama and his various underlings tell us that the administration is not against oil drilling, but that it has an "all of the above" policy which includes drilling along with other energy initiatives.
The other energy initiatives presumably include:
-The various "Green" companies which have gone under, one after the other, taking billions in "loan guarantees" (translation - taxpayer money) with them, and most of which had major Obama contributors as owners and/or major investors;
-"The Great American Algae Initiative" which President Obama spoke of one time that I know of, and then promptly buried. I don't know about you, but when I heard that algae thing, I fantasized Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden Interior Secretary Salazar and Energy Secretary Chu in scuba gear, with little baskets under their arms, collecting what they think is fuel-rich algae from reefs, the hulls of sunken ships, etc. -- with media crews waiting on deck to take pictures, conduct interviews and sing their praises on the news shows that night.
Can you even begin to imagine the ridicule George Bush would have been subjected to if he suggested the answer to our energy crisis was algae???
In any event, the political purpose of President Obama's "all of the above" claim is to assure hopeless sucke....er, informed voters that he is Barack-on-the-spot when it comes to oil drilling. A regular J. R Ewing. And how dare those dastardly Republicans to claim otherwise?
In answer, I will now show you a chart, straight from the House Natural Resources Committee, which shows where drilling took place under the previous administration and where it can take place now. Take a look and then tell me what you think of Mr. Obama's "all of the above" claim:
Offshore Areas Open for Drilling when President Obama Took Office
Offshore Areas Blocked for Drilling under President Obama’s Draft 2012-2017 Plan
The web site, which you can view by clicking here, also has a chronology of the decisions made by this administration, which detail, step by step, how we have been put into our current energy-anemic situation.
The bottom line? President Obama's claim that he has an "all of the above" approach is a flat-out lie. And people who believe it are either ignorant of the facts or so hopelessly in love with Mr. Obama that facts don't matter.
"Jackass Joe Strikes Again". I use that title a lot - because Vice President Biden gives me a lot of opportunities to do so. But this one stands by itself in a class, a league, a universe of its own.
Speaking last night at a fundraiser in New Jersey, Biden - so help me God - said this about the killing of osama bin laden:
"You can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan. Never knowing for certain. We never had more than a 48 percent probability that he was there."
Do yourself a favor. Wait a few moments to let that sink in. Let the majesty of Biden's impossibly idiotic comment permeate your being.
When I read this, the first thing I thought of was that classic comedy album Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner did many years ago, called "The 2,000 year old man". In it, Reiner asks Brooks what the single greatest advance was over his 2,000 years. Brooks says "Liquid Prell". Reiner, desperately trying not to break up laughing, asks Brooks if he really thinks Liquid Prell shampoo is a greater advance than, say, the heart and lung machine. And Brooks says something like "Yeah, a heart and lung machine is nice too. But if you have one on a shelf and it falls off, it will break, right? Liquid Prell is in a plastic tube and doesn't break".
When a Vice President says something so absurd that a master of absurdity like Mel Brooks sounds more logical by comparison......etc. etc. You can finish that sentence on your own.
But Biden did say it. So let's think about this:
-We'll start with the fact that this was a single raid on a single compound in a single place to nail someone who, by Biden's own reckoning, had a 48% chance of being there (where the 48% statistic came from, no one knows. Suffice it to say that this is Joe Biden).
This is the most audacious plan in 500 years? Did Mr. Biden ever hear of, say, the D-Day invasion? Or Sherman's march through Georgia? Does the name George S. Patton ring a bell? Or Jimmy Doolittle? And that's just from this country. In truth, there are literally 1,000's of military missions, domestic and foreign (how does Israel's raid on Entebbe stack up?) over the past 500 years that make the bin laden operation look like absolutely nothing by comparison;
-Then we have the fact that if Barack Obama had been President when the intelligence which led us to bin laden was being accumulated, it wouldn't have been accumulated. Why? Because Obama is on record as emphatically being against exactly the types of phone surveillance and interrogation techniques which yielded that intelligence. In other words, If it had been up to Mr. Obama, we would never have known he was there in the first place. If you want to give credit for finding bin laden to anyone, you give it to President Bush;
-Finally, what exactly was audacious about this plan? The President was contacted and told our military was outside of bin laden's compound, so should they or shouldn't they go in. President Obama said yes - as would any president....or senator, or representative, or governor, or state senator or local official or dog catcher or your friendly neighborhood dry cleaner. The only audacity I see here is Vice President Biden pretending Mr. Obama's decision was something other than a slam dunk.
Look, it is hardly a secret that I do not like Barack Obama as a President. I think he has been disastrous for this country. But clouds can have silver linings. And the silver lining of an Obama presidency is that, assuming he finishes out his term, Joe Biden does not ascend to the Oval Office.
Not for nothing do I call him Jackass Joe.
And not for nothing do I count the seconds until the 2012 election.
Bloated and unwanted is no way to go through life.
Last week I blogged that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released new data showing that ObamaCare, which hasn't even been implemented yet, is already 820 billion dollars over budget (that is NOT a typo), and will cover 2,000,000 fewer workers than originally expected (expected by whom? The Obama BS artists?).
In other words, the fraudulence of this money pit, the soaking Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer will be subjected to, is so clear that even a dyed-in-the-wool Obamanite can't avoid it.
As Health Care Law’s Trial Approaches, Two-Thirds Say Ditch Individual Mandate
Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety, signaling the depth of public disagreement with that element of the Affordable Care Act.
This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans oppose the law overall by 52-41 percent. And 67 percent believe the high court should either ditch the law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage.
The high court opens hearings on the law’s constitutionality a week from today.
The law has never earned majority support in ABC/Post polls – and this update, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds a strong sense its critics are dominating the debate. Seventy percent of Americans report hearing mainly negative things about the law lately; just 19 percent say the buzz has been positive. Even among its supporters, 53 percent are hearing more negatives than positives. Among opponents this soars to 88 percent.
Intensity of sentiment is more negative as well:Forty-one percent strongly oppose the law, while only a quarter strongly support it.
And this is just the latest of many polls, all of which reach the same conclusion.
Question: how many polls, from how many different media venues - most of them (like this one) Obama-supporting - does it take to get it through the Obama people's heads that we do not want this monstrosity?
Personally, I think Mr. Obama knows this full well and always has. But he does not care, and will do everything in his power - both legal and extralegal (it has not stopped him before) to put it in place.
Barack Obama's radical government-does-it-all agenda has to be stopped. And if the Supreme Court doesn't stop it, then the voters have to in November.
Here is the open letter Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol, wrote to President Obama and posted yesterday.
There won't be any commentary afterwards. Because it doesn't need any.
Dear President Obama,
You don’t know my telephone number, but I hope your staff is busy trying to find it. Ever since you called Sandra Fluke after Rush Limbaugh called her a slut, I figured I might be next. You explained to reporters you called her because you were thinking of your two daughters, Malia and Sasha. After all, you didn’t want them to think it was okay for men to treat them that way:
“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” you said. “I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”
And I totally agree your kids should be able to speak their minds and engage the culture. I look forward to seeing what good things Malia and Sasha end up doing with their lives.
But here’s why I’m a little surprised my phone hasn’t rung. Your $1,000,000 donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about my family. He’s made fun of my brother because of his Down’s Syndrome. He’s said I was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.” (In a classy move, he did this while his producers put up the cover of my book, which tells about the forgiveness and redemption I’ve found in God after my past – very public — mistakes.)
If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager. That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.
Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you. Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women. You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.
What if you did something radical and wildly unpopular with your base and took a stand against the denigration of all women… even if they’re just single moms? Even if they’re Republicans?
I’m not expecting your SuperPAC to return the money. You’re going to need every dime to hang on to your presidency. I’m not even really expecting a call. But would it be too much to expect a little consistency? After all, you’re President of all Americans, not just the liberals.
Media Matters for America is linked with Al-Jazeera, the anti-American and anti-Israeli cable news channel, The Daily Caller has learned.
Media Matters Action Network senior foreign policy fellow MJ Rosenberg’s column for the liberal organization regularly appears on Al-Jazeera’s website and, in 2010, Rosenberg represented Media Matters at a forum hosted by Al-Jazeera in Doha, Qatar where he praised the news outlet as “mainstream.”
Media Matters Action Network is part of the organization’s political arm.
According to two Daily Caller sources, the then-director general of Al-Jazeera, Wadah Khanfar, also visited Media Matters’ offices in Washington in 2010 and met with the organization’s two top leaders, David Brock and Eric Burns.
Representing Media Matters at the first Al-Jazeera “Unplugged” forum on social media at the Sheraton Hotel & Resort in Doha on May 22, 2010, Rosenberg explained that Khanfar invited him to the forum during a meeting in Washington earlier that year.
In his stunning speech at the forum, Rosenberg praised Al-Jazeera as a “mainstream network,” bashed Fox News, suggested that the U.S. government intentionally bombed an Al-Jazeera bureau and expressed unreserved joy that President Obama was treating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so poorly.
Are you surprised that mediamatters.org dredged the sludge at the bottom of the barrel deeply enough to come up with this self-hating Jew? I know I'm not.
Fifty years ago, the further left you were the more you supported Israel, with its kibbutzim and Socialist/Democratic government.
But today? The further left you are the more you hate Israel. Why? In my opinion because, in that time, Israel managed to successfully move from being thisclose to annhiliation to its current status as a strong, vibrant, successful country which - apart from oil, which is an accident of geography - leaves the entire Arab world so far behind that it can't even get close enough to eat Israel's dust.
Illustratively, as of January 2010, Israel - a country comprised of less than 7 million people - had registered a total of 16,805 patents. The entire Arab world (not individual countries, all of them combined; well over 300,000,000 people) had registered a grand total of 836.
And this is before we get to the vast differences in Medicine, and agriculture, and scientific achievements, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Simply stated, the left hates winners and loves losers -- even if the reason they are losing is due to self-destructiveness in their cultures and governments.
So it is a slam-dunk reality that mediamatters.org, a hard left (not "liberal", Jamie, but hard-left) organization, loaded with self-hating Jews and "Lost Tribe" people (the ridiculous saps whose left wing politics supersede their support of Israel) would have no problem going after the Jewish state hammer and tongs.
Hey, who needs a free-election democracy, technology, medicine, agriculture and science anyway?
Late last year, before the so-called "Occupy" movement became so skeevy that even our hopelessly compromised media were forced to notice, I wrote a great deal about the coverage it was receiving. I wrote that NBC-New York, in particular, had made itself into what amounted to a clearinghouse of information for the "Occupy" crowd, by providing a full schedule of events each day so protesters would know where to be and when to be there. Paid organizers could not have done a more effective job.
Eventually - long past the time it should have happened - this melange of serious protesters, who had become overwhelmed and overshadowed by anti-capitalist looney-leftists, vagrants and other assorted freeloaders, was tossed out of Zuccotti Park. Mercifully, we have heard little of them since then.
But on Friday, the "Occupy" people decided to regroup and celebrate the "movement's" 6 month anniversary (during which time it accomplished what? No one knows). And guess what? NBC-New York immediately went into full coverage mode again.
Are you shocked? I hope not.
NBC, in its breathless, gushing "news" coverage, estimated that about 1,000 people descended on Zuccotti Park Friday (if I were betting, I would put my money on a great many of them being nothing more than curious onlookers which NBC added in to boom up the estimate).
This morning, the number was down to "about two dozen" - which NBC still led with on every local news break from the Today Show. Clearly, it intends to keep "Occupy" on the front burner at all costs.
I'm glad that these ersatz "journalists", most of whom make six or even seven figure incomes and therefore are the folks "Occupy" people protest and condemn, are so comfortable with this movement. It is fun, in a black humor sort of a way, to watch them make fools of themselves by proving the Winston Churchill admonition that "an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last".
But I wonder if they understand just how pathetic they look to the rest of us.
Isn't it hard enough for a Republican to win a senate seat without acting like a total jerk and insulting every one of his party's major candidates to curry favor with Democrats - as if it is going to impress them?
“I see that both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum now have Secret Service with them on the campaign trail,” Brown said. “And in Santorum’s case, I think it’s the first time he’s actually ever used protection.”
Brown, of course, was referring to Santorum’s stance on birth control.
He didn’t stop there, taking shots at each of the other Republican presidential candidates.
“You all know that Newt Gingrich wants to build a colony on the moon. Forget the moon – I think he should build it whatever planet Ron Paul’s from,” said Brown.
In another instance, Brown quipped that he almost didn’t make it to the event because his famous truck has 230,000 miles on it. He used that as an opportunity to take a shot at former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the current frontrunner in the Republican presidential race.
“Governor Romney was nice enough to give me one of his Cadillacs, so we’re all set,” Brown said.
A note to Senator Brown. I get his joke about Santorum and protection. But maybe he is the one in need of it, because only a schmuck would make comments like that.
The surest way for Brown to give back the senate seat he won is to try to out-Democrat Democrats. And, based on this sorry performance, it is his campaign strategy.
Did Elizabeth Warren, his opponent, attack her fellow Democrats that way? You know she didn't. Because she is acting like a Democrat candidate, not a schmuck.
Elizabeth Warren, whatever else you can say about her, is a very smart woman. If Mr. Brown thinks this campaign is Martha Coakley: Round 2, he better be checking out new employment opportunities for the coming year.
Every now and again I write a blog of bits and pieces too short to stand by themselves. And, as the late, great Jimmy Cannon did in his columns many years ago, I call it "Nobody Asked Me, But....".
Well, today's the day. So here goes.
Nobody Asked Me, But.....
-I'm still laughing about multi-millionaire Vice President Joe Biden telling a bunch of DC insiders at a $10,000-a-couple fundraising dinner, that the GOP does not connect with the average person.
-Can the Obama administration and its acolytes seriously believe they will be able to convince voters to blame our astronomical gas prices on Republicans, not them? Lots of luck on that one;
-I have Sirius XM radio because my wife likes it (personally I wouldn't bother). She often puts on the "Siriusly Sinatra" channel which, while not exclusively Sinatra, has more of his music than anyone else's.
Sinatra was a great, great singer. But the channel puts on so many songs of his that were recorded before a live audience where he ruins the song by playing to the "wise guy" crowd, joking and changing the lyrics almost beyond recognition, that we find ourselves turning it off more and more. Too bad.
-Speaking again of Sirius XM, one of the hosts for its "On Broadway" channel, the accomplished Broadway pianist Seth Rudetsky, is so upbeat, so knowledgeable, so honest and so much fun to listen to, that we sometimes keep his show on even when he is not playing music, just to hear his stories.
-When was the last time President Obama appointed someone to a cabinet level position from outside of academia? Why is he so uncomfortable with anyone who has actually worked in the real world? If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, you can bet he will try to diffuse his "rich, successful, out-of-touch" image with a narrative about becoming rich and successful by actually accomplishing things. Other than getting elected to office, what has Barack Obama ever accomplished?
-We were in Wegman's yesterday, and I went to buy the "Smart Balance" butter substitute - which, for the record, is the best of the bunch as far as we're concerned. I noticed that the formerly one pound size (two 8 ounce tubs) has just been reduced to 15 ounces (two 7 1/2 ouncers). That, by itself, would be annoying enough. But I noticed that the "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter' tubs dropped to 15 ounces as well. The same reduction at the same time. If there is anyone left who still thinks companies don't collude to price-fix their products, I would love an explanation of how this happened.
-Given that I thought "The Descendants" was a not a particularly good movie - certainly not an "American Masterpiece" as one critic gushed - I was very happy that it did not win any of the major academy awards. On the other hand, while Meryl Streep is an amazing actress and was a dead ringer for Margaret Thatcher, I'm still terribly disappointed that Viola Davis did not win for best actress. She was every bit as good in The Help as Streep was in Iron Lady, maybe even better;
-If Andy Pettitte can still pitch (and who's to say he can't) then his signing a one year contract with the Yankees at the age of almost 40 (June 15th), a year after he had retired, is a lucky break for the team. If Pettitte can't pitch, however, he is not only going to get in the way, he is going to displace another pitcher who is still active. I hope this makes some sense, but I admit to a great deal of skepticism.
-Some time ago I wrote about the two Sunoco stations on Route 9 North in New Jersey, one in Old Bridge and the other in Sayreville, which charged a huge premium for customers using a credit card rather than cash - which customers could not see until they actually drove up to the pump. About a month ago, the Sayreville location suddenly abandoned this scam and now charges, I think, just 8 cents more for credit. But the Old Bridge location is still suckering customers with the same scam. As of yesterday, its regular gas was priced at $3.55 cash - and $3.91 credit. I again note that there is no indication of this on the big sign out front, you only find out when you're at the pump. I keep rooting for them to be stopped from doing this, and fined plenty (maybe that's why the Sayreville Sunoco stopped), but it hasn't happened yet.
-We were in Fort Lauderdale Florida for a week (we got back on Wednesday night). The weather was not perfect, but very, very good. And, other than the first, mostly rainy, day (during which we took care of the non-outdoor stuff we had planned) we were able to get lots of sun.
Restaurant-wise, we hit four really good ones:
...Johnny V on Las Olas Boulevard. We've been there before, but this time Johnny V himself came out and talked to us. He talked to the folks at several other tables as well, but seemed to take a liking to we four, because he came back several times to chat some more - and then told the waiter to give us two desserts on the house. One was excellent, and the other was transcendentally delicious. Johnny is a very good guy. born and raised in Kirkland, Missouri outside of Saint Louis, whose 21 year old son now cooks with him in the kitchen. We'll be back, of course...
...Tramonti in Delray Beach, which has terrific Italian food and is good enough so that people line up to wait for tables. I didn't know it until afterwards, but Tramonti has the same ownership as Angelo's, a very popular old-timer in New York's Little Italy. They're doing a great job in Florida and, as those lines show, I'm far from the only one who thinks so...
...YOLO on Las Olas Boulevard. YOLO stands for "You Only Live Once". And, if you do, be sure to get the calamari and mussels at this restaurant. The calamari was, hands down, the best I have ever had (and I have had lots of calamari). The mussels were as plump and fresh as you will ever find. And my main course, grilled chicken salad for only $14, was terrific as well.
...Finally, on the even less expensive side, there is Joe's Diner in the Publix shopping center on A1A (S. 17th St.) about a quarter mile east of Route 1. Yes, it is basic diner food, and the name of the place isn't about to win any awards for originality. But everything there is fresh and delicious - especially the turkey burger and the greek salad.
-Just curious: If the death toll in Syria - currently thousands upon thousands of civilians and rising every day - is not enough to get the UN to do something, why in the world would Benjamin Netanyahu or any other Israeli leader believe for a minute that the UN, or for that matter the Obama White House, would lift a hand to help the Jewish state?
-We were at our son and daughter in law's house yesterday, and saw our absolutely beautiful, not-quite-2 1/2 year old granddaughter get her first haircut. She was great; a real trooper. No fidgeting, no whining, no nothing. Not only did she wind up looking even better than before - no small accomplishment - but that lollipop "prize" at the end made her even happier than she usually is - also no small accomplishment. And her 5 year old brother, a veteran of many haircuts, who got one too, is every bit as great as she is. I don't know how we could love either of them more.
If you want to be disgusted to your core, you have come to the right place.
First, here is an excerpt from the ABC News story, of "artist" cee lo green's "performance" at an Obama fundraiser in Atlanta Georgia days ago. The bold print is mine:
Singer Cee Lo Green just finished performing his hit song at President Obama’s campaign fundraiser at the Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta, Ga., and he started with the uncensored version.
The Grammy-winner and Atlanta native flicked off the audience before asking, “Can I curse in here?” But he didn’t wait for the answer, belting out “f*** you!” Cee Lo ultimately switched to the censored “Forget You” lyrics.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to comment on the song earlier today when pressed by reporters aboard Air Force One. Carney did admit that the president is “a fan” of Cee Lo’s music and might have his songs on his iPod.
Now, I would like you to see the actual "song" we are talking about. But please understand that, if you read on, you will be treated to a pile of filth, profanity, misogyny, and racist vomit.
Ok, you have been warned. Here it is:
(Chorus) I See You Driving 'round Town With The Girl I Love And I'm Like, Fuck You! Oo, Oo, Ooo I Guess The Change In My Pocket Wasn't Enough I'm Like, Fuck You! And Fuck Her Too! I Said, If I Was Richer, I'd Still Be With Ya Ha, Now Ain't That Some Shit? (ain't That Some Shit?) And Although There's Pain In My Chest I Still Wish You The Best With A... Fuck You! Oo, Oo, Ooo
Yeah I'm Sorry, I Can't Afford A Ferrari, But That Don't Mean I Can't Get You There. I Guess He's An Xbox And I'm More Atari, But The Way You Play Your Game Ain't Fair.
I Picture The Fool That Falls In Love With You (oh Shit She's A Gold Digger) Well (just Thought You Should Know Nigga) Ooooooh I've Got Some News For You Yeah Go Run And Tell Your Little Boyfriend
Now I Know, That I Had To Borrow, Beg And Steal And Lie And Cheat. Trying To Keep Ya, Trying To Please Ya. 'Cause Being In Love With You Ass Ain't Cheap.
I Picture The Fool That Falls In Love With You (oh Shit She's A Gold Digger) Well (just Thought You Should Know Nigga) Ooooooh I've Got Some News For You I Really Hate Yo Ass Right Now (chorus)
Now Baby, Baby, Baby, Why D'you Wanna Wanna Hurt Me So Bad?
(so Bad, So Bad, So Bad) I Tried To Tell My Mamma But She Told Me "this Is One For Your Dad" (your Dad, Your Dad, Your Dad) Uh! Whhhy? Uh! Whhhy? Uh! Whhhy Lady? Oh! I Love You Oh! I Still Love You. Oooh
According to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Barack Obama is a fan of this "performer"?
Isn't that lovely. Aren't you basking in the warmth of what a high-end, cultured President we have in the oval office right now?
Hey, maybe next time cee lo (lowest is more like it) can induce him to get on stage and sing along at the next fundraiser.
And what about the reaction of our wonderful "neutral" media reaction (non-reaction, that is) to this bottom-dweller's misogynistic portrayal of women, and his use of the word "nigger" (oh, excuse me..."nigga") at a Presidential fundraiser? Don't bother looking for it because, evidently, media have no reaction at all.
Have you seen even one news report condemning it? Or discussing the unbelievable impropriety of such language - not to mention giving the audience his middle finger - at that fund-raiser? Or any comparison between the "slut" and "prostitute" comments by Rush Limbaugh they just spent weeks attacking, and cee-lo's language, which is 100 times worse and was used at a presidential fundraiser?
Do you think these propagandists-posing-as-journalists would have looked the other way if the President were George Bush?
Anyone still wondering why I call them the Accomplice Media?
Several hundred "Occupy Wall Street" protesters showed up at Manhattan's Zuccotti Park yesterday, to celebrate the 6 month anniversary of the start of this movement ("movement" being a very charitable word to use, since in New York, and many other cities, it quickly deteriorated into a mix of true believers with a lot of lawless radicals, professional vagrants and assorted freeloaders).
The "Occupy" people assembled, and were allowed to do whatever it is that they do, until they started pitching tents in an effort to recreate the mess they gave us late last year. At that point the police moved in to remove the tents, a large number of the protesters staged an impromptu (or maybe predetermined) sit-down, and there were many arrests.
Ok, that is what happened. Now here are excerpts of how three different news sources reported it it (with links to the full articles, of course):
"This is our spring offensive," said Michael Premo, 30, of New York, who identified himself as a spokesman for the movement. "People think the Occupy movement has gone away. It's important for people to see we're back."
Inspired by the pro-democracy Arab Spring, the Wall Street protesters targeted U.S. financial policies they blamed for the yawning income gap between rich and poor in the country, between what they called the 1 percent and the 99 percent. The demonstrators set up camp in ZuccottiPark on September 17 and sparked a wave of protests across the United States.
"This is our spring offensive," said Michael Premo, 30, of New York, who identified himself as a spokesman for the movement. "People think the Occupy movement has gone away. It's important for people to see we're back."
Inspired by the pro-democracy Arab Spring, the Wall Street protesters targeted U.S. financial policies they blamed for the yawning income gap between rich and poor in the country, between what they called the 1 percent and the 99 percent. The demonstrators set up camp in Zuccotti Park on September 17 and sparked a wave of protests across the United States.
For hours, the demonstrators had been chanting and holding impromptu meetings in the park to celebrate the anniversary of the movement that has brought attention to economic inequality…
Stacy Hessler held up a cardboard sign that read, "Spring is coming," a reference, she said, both to the Arab Spring and to the warm weather that is returning to New York City. She said she believes the nicer weather will bring the crowds back to Occupy protests, where numbers have dwindled in recent months since the group's encampment was ousted from ZuccottiPark by authorities in November.
But now, "more and more people are coming out," said the 39-year-old, who left her home in Florida in October to join the Manhattan protesters and stayed through much of the winter. "The next couple of months, things are going to start to grow, like the flowers."
Enjoy the write-ups? Good. But please allow me to call your attention to several points:
-You may have noticed that the Reuters and MSNBC accounts are identical. Interesting, since MSNBC does not credit Reuters per se, it only references "MSNBC news sources".
-You may also have noticed that the Reuters/MSNBC accounts assure you Occupy Wall Street was "inspired by the pro-democracy Arab spring". That so? Does anyone besides our hopelessly benighted media think the "Arab Spring" has resulted in democracy? Does anyone think the idealistic protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square feel they have a seat at any table in Egypt? In reality, the "Arab Spring" is resulting in Egypt, and Libya becoming fundamentalist Islamic states. But you'd never know it from these articles, would you?
-The Associated Press doesn't wax quite as poetic over the "Arab Spring". But it does cast it in a wonderful, positive light. None of that shari'a stuff to rain on Stacy Hessler's parade, as she spends month after month away from her home (does anyone in his/her right mind believe Ms. Hessler was living in a conventional "home" and just decided one day to come north and camp out in Zuccotti Park, then wherever "Occupy" people went after it was closed, for 6 months? Talk about not being missed.....).
-And, finally, can you find anything in these excerpts that is in any way critical of the "Occupy" movement? If the answer is "no", then don't cheat yourself -- read all three articles in their entirety to see if anything is there. Think of it as the adult version of trying to find a needle in a haystack. (Hint: You won't).
If you had any doubt about how pro-"Occupy" our media have remained, and how pro-"Occupy" they will be once the weather turns good and the radicals/vagrants/freeloaders again use it as cover for propagandizing and getting free handouts, this should put your mind at rest.
They are much an Accomplice Media now as they were last year.
The Republican National Committee has put out a short video, titled "Obama's war on women", in which it attempts to demonstrate that, if anyone is mistreating women it is President Obama and the men around him. - along with showing their disregard for bill maher calling women the vilest names there are.
You can view the RNC video by clicking here. Watch it and see if you agree
And while doing so, ask yourself: have you seen this video on our wonderful "neutral" media?
I didn't think so.
When they don't want you to know, they don't want you to know.
I urge you to use the link I've provided and read every word - if for no other reason, its humor value. But let me show you a few key excerpts below, so you can get your jollies immediately. Mr. Appelbaum's knee-slappers are in rust, my comments are in blue.:
Price of Gas Matters to Voters, but Doesn’t Seem to Sway Votes
Stacy Hawks is angry that the rising price of gasoline is squeezing the profits of her father’s produce company and draining the wallets of friends who drive trucks. She is angry that the government has not acted to reverse the trend.
But Ms. Hawks, 26, a North Carolina resident who describes herself as very conservative, said she does not expect the price of gas to influence her vote in November. Of course she doesn’t.If she’s very conservative she wasn’t going to be voting for Obama in the first place.This is your proof that gas prices won’t sway votes?Oh brother.
There may be no number stamped more frequently on the American landscape than the price of gas. And as the average price has climbed toward $4 a gallon nationwide, it has generated abundant chatter about the threat to the economic recovery, and to incumbent politicians. a) what makes you think everyone agrees we are in recovery and b) what makes you think incumbent politicians, generally, are threatened, as if people blame Republicans as much as Democrats?Whoops, your bias (and obtuseness) is showing.
Republicans have seized on the issue to attack President Obama’s management of the economy. The president has responded with speeches defending his energy policies, including increased domestic oil production. "Increased domestic oil production" which has resulted from a combination of drilling on private land, and drilling which was approved before Obama took office that he would have prevented if he were President at the time. Just as he has prevented this kind of drilling since taking office.But do go on.
But there is surprisingly little evidence that gas prices deserve an outsize reputation for economic and political influence. Gas prices aren’t significantly affecting the economy?The political landscape?You must be on drugs.Ask your friends, relatives and neighbors how much $4+ gas prices influence them, see what they say – unless, of course, you live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, in which case don't bother; you’re probably right.
Studies suggest that most voters agree with Ms. Hawks: they are angry about gas prices, but other factors, like the economy and the personal qualities of candidates, ultimately determine their votes. There we go again.The economy is one of the “other factors” – i.e. it isn’t related to the price of gas?Holy excrement.This is a riot.
Gas prices influence voters indirectly, because rising prices can slow the pace of growth. But the influence is modest, because spending on oil and its derivatives makes up only a small part of the nation’s economic activity. Gas purchases account for less than 4 percent of household spending. Prices would need to increase by at least 28 percent to lift that share by a single percentage point. So far this year, they have jumped by 15 percent. Congratulations. You get an A+ for mathematics. But since the higher cost of gas affects just about every part of the economy, you get an F- for logic and common sense.
Rising gas prices also make Americans less confident in the nation’s economic prospects and less approving of political leaders, according to public opinion surveys. But these, too, are small effects. One study by a political scientist estimated that the impact of changes in unemployment was 27 times greater than the impact of equivalent changes in gas prices. Wait a minute.You‘re seriously saying that if Barack Obama’s approval rating falls 1% due to high unemployment, it is the equivalent of a 27% drop due to higher gas prices? What if his approval rating on unemployment falls 4% or more?Does he go into negative territory on gas?
The only gas I see here is this article.And there is a genuine surplus.
This is about as far as I have the stomach to go. If your stomach is stronger than mine, you have the link. Go there, read on, and have a ball.
You'll find that the Times remains on its continuum from great newspaper to near great, to ok, to falling, to falling through a trap door, to whatever and wherever it is now.
Well, at least it still has a good crossword puzzle. And the paper size is ideal for birdcages.....
Here is another of the seemingly countless examples of hate commentary on talk radio that our wonderful "neutral" media - the same media which have relentlessly bashed Rush Limbaugh over the past two weeks for calling Sandra Fluke "slut" and "prostitute" - completely ignore.
Read this transcript from the Stephanie Miller show (which I pulled from Tim Graham's blog at newsbusters.org) and see if you think it just might be a bit worse than what Limbaugh said:
MILLER: Yeah I think the President got off a good one the other day didn’t he when he was talking he said ‘if some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail they must have been founding members of the flat earth society. They wouldn’t have believed the world was round’ Ah just in relation to the whole energy debate, correct?
REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Exactly, they would have been talking about the alleged round earth theory.
JIM WARD (Miller's co-host): I think they should test the alleged laws of gravity by jumping out of a plane without a parachute.
What a lovely sentiment. Stephanie Miller's co-host tells their audience that Republicans who don't agree with President Obama should commit suicide. And neither Miller nor Rep. Schiff have any problem at all with it.
But what about our media? What about the tidal wave of condemnation by our fiercely neutral, completely professional......oh, wait. There isn't any.
Which, of course, is why the Stephanie Millers, and Ed Schultz's, and mike malloys, and mike papantonios, etc. etc. etc. etc. continue to say things dramatically worse than anything Rush Limbaugh ever says about Sandra Fluke or anyone else. They know that there is absolutely nothing to worry about....as long as they stay faithfully left-wing.
There are many reasons I call these devoid-of-integrity propagandists the Accomplice Media. This is just another one of them. And I guarantee there will be more. Many more.
How do they have the nerve to call themselves journalists? How can they even face themselves in the mirror?
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS'S "YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP" MOMENT
Thank you Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for taking time out from working to implement the ObamaCare monstrosity, to give us an entry for this year’s “You can’t make this stuff up” competition. (Actually, I offer a thank you to Kathleen Sebelius for just about anything she does instead of working to implement ObamaCare).
As reported by cnsnews.com:
Immediately after showing middle-school students a new video from the Cartoon Network that admonishes children not to call people names like "stupid," "fat," and "jerk," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the students they could do a lot of good by telling some students they were "jerks."
It "can make a huge amount of difference," she said.
Sebelius' remarks came in response to a question from CNN’s Don Lemon, who served as moderator of a panel discussion following a screening of “Stop Bullying: Speak Up.”
Yes, folks, Ms. Sebelius is a valued member of the Obama administration’s cabinet.How proud we all should be.
Don’t you just pray that she brings an identical level of logic and common sense to her Health and Human Services duties as well?
Let me start with two possible descriptions of a terrible event:
1) Trayvon Martin was a 17 year old Black boy who went to the store to get some candy, was set upon for no reason by a "neighborhood watch" volunteer, and was shot to death for the "crime" of walking down the street minding his own business while being Black.
2) Trayvon Martin was a 17 year old Black boy who walked down the street acting suspiciously, was approached by a "neighborhood watch" volunteer, initiated a physical confrontation which caused the volunteer at one point to beg for his life, and was shot to death by the volunteer in self-defense.
Which do you believe?
Here, excerpted from today's New York Times, is columnist Charles Blow's take on the incident:
This is a nightmare scenario for any parent, and the events leading to Trayvon’s death offer little comfort — and pose many questions.
Trayvon had left the house he and his father were visiting to walk to the local 7-Eleven. On his way back, he caught the attention of George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain, who was in a sport-utility vehicle. Zimmerman called the police because the boy looked “real suspicious,” according to a 911 call released late Friday. The operator told Zimmerman that officers were being dispatched and not to pursue the boy.
Zimmerman apparently pursued him anyway, at some point getting out of his car and confronting the boy. Trayvon had a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. Zimmerman had a 9 millimeter handgun.
The two allegedly engaged in a physical altercation. There was yelling, and then a gunshot.
When police arrived, Trayvon was face down in the grass with a fatal bullet wound to the chest. Zimmerman was standing with blood on his face and the back of his head and grass stains on his back, according to The Orlando Sentinel.
Trayvon’s lifeless body was taken away, tagged and held. Zimmerman was taken into custody, questioned and released. Zimmerman said he was the one yelling for help. He said that he acted in self-defense. The police say that they have found no evidence to dispute Zimmerman’s claim.
One other point: Trayvon is black. Zimmerman is not.
Trayvon was buried on March 3. Zimmerman is still free and has not been arrested or charged with a crime.
Yet the questions remain: Why did Zimmerman find Trayvon suspicious? Why did he pursue the boy when the 911 operator instructed him not to? Why did he get out of the car, and why did he take his gun when he did? How is it self-defense when you are the one in pursuit? Who initiated the altercation? Who cried for help? Did Trayvon’s body show evidence of a struggle? What moved Zimmerman to use lethal force?
That is a very powerful description and a scenario that, as Mr. Blow says, is a nightmare scenario for any parent.
This morning's Today show had a report about Trayvon Martin which followed roughly the same path as Mr. Blow's. I only caught part of it, but I did see two pictures of this young man, both of which showed him as an angelic looking tween or young teen, neatly dressed in what appeared to be the kind of clothing a child might wear on a school trip or a family visit.
These are the facts I was aware of when I walked into my office to blog about Trayvon Martin under the title "REAL RACISM (CONT.)".
But, as you can see, that is not the title I eventually used. Here is why:
When I got to the computer I searched for other stories about what happened and found the Orlando Sentinel's account. This excerpt gave me pause (the bold print is mine):
"You hear a shot, a clear shot, then you hear a 17-year-old boy begging for his life," said Natalie Jackson, another family attorney. "Then you hear a second shot."
But police on Friday told the Orlando Sentinel that they believe it was Zimmerman's screams for help that could be heard on the recording.
In the call placed by Zimmerman to alert authorities that there was a suspicious person in the neighorhood, he says the person "looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something."
Moments later, Zimmerman says, "These assholes, they always get away."
In one of the 911 calls, placed moments later, a man reports that "they're wrestling right in the back of my porch. There's a black guy down. It looks like he's been shot and he's dead."
Investigator Chris Serino of Sanford police said Friday the agency has worked closely with prosecutors, and have not arrested Zimmerman because prosecutors have consistently told them they do not have enough evidence to win a manslaughter conviction.
That's because Zimmerman says he was defending himself, something he's allowed to do under Florida law.
The best account of what happened came from Zimmerman, Serino said. Other witnesses who saw or heard parts of what happened corroborate his version of events, the investigator said.
Zimmerman told police he got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot, and the 17-year-old came toward him. The two got into a fight, and Zimmerman wound up on the ground, he told police. Trayvon hit him in the face, and Zimmerman yelled for help.
Reading the full article, it is easy to conclude that George Zimmerman was looking for trouble. The dispatcher made it clear that police were on the way and he should not get out of his car. But he got out of his car anyway and approached young Mr. Martin while in possession of a loaded gun.
If there were any evidence that Trayvon Martin was in the process of committing a crime of some kind, this might be understandable. But nowhere in any report I have read is any such claim made.
At the very least, that makes Zimmerman a hotheaded jerk who had no business on a neighborhood watch or any other position of authority, however minimal. At worst, it makes Zimmerman a hotheaded racist jerk who looked for, and invented, an excuse to kill a Black teenager.
That said, however, the fact that Zimmerman got out of the car and approached Martin, in and of itself, does not prove he started the fight. And the article states that witnesses have corroborated Zimmerman's explanation of what happened.
On Thursday, Zimmerman's father delivered a letter to the Orlando Sentinel saying Zimmerman is Hispanic and grew up in a multiracial family, the statement says.
"He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever...," the letter says. "The media portrayal of George as a racist could not be further from the truth."
Another piece to this puzzle involves the pictures of Trayvon Martin that were shown on the Today Show (one of which is also in the CBS News report). When I saw them, I assumed he was maybe in the 12 to 14-15 year old range. But I now know he was 17. It is possible that those pictures were current and he just has a very young looking face. Or it may be that the pictures are from years ago - and do not show the way he looks now.
This is important, because a sweet, angelic face on a nicely dressed child - whether Black, White or anything else - is a lot less likely to generate negative attention then the way some 17 year olds look and dress.
Putting all this together, I frankly don't know what to conclude, or how anyone who wasn't there could come to a definitive conclusion at all.
Is George Zimmerman a rogue racist, whok when given little bit of authority, used it to kill one of "them". I wish I could say no, but I can't. The possibility certainly exists. As does the possibility that he was a victim rather than a perpetrator.
Regardless of the investigation's outcome, no one can bring back Trayvon Martin. All we can hope is that the Orlando police and/or the FBI get the facts, analyze them honestly, and come to the correct conclusions.
Just when you thought that "snooki" epitomizes how low-life some Jersey girls can be.......
Suppose you teetered into a 7- Eleven convenience store at three in the morning to get yourself a hot sausage, and they didn't have one waiting there for you? What would you do? Maybe wait for one to cok or order something else?
Well, not in Jersey, baby. In my adopted state you make sure to put yourself in the running for the 2012 Darwin Award.
BRIDGETON — A woman who was angry that 7-Eleven did not have any fully-heated sausages for her started attacking an employee and ultimately had to be pepper-sprayed, police said Friday.
Brittany C. Glanville, 25, of West Lincoln Street, was arrested Friday and charged with disorderly conduct.
Chief Mark Ott said an officer responded to the 7-Eleven on West Broad Street when someone set off a panic alarm at
The officer said that as he pulled up he saw Glanville wing an item at the head of the clerk on duty. With quick reflexes the clerk was able to snatch the item out of the air and avoid being hit.
The officer said that as he began to enter the store Glanville was attempting to climb over the counter and go after the clerk, so he immediately arrested her.
He put her in the back of his patrol car where she repeatedly tried kicking out the windows until finally he pepper-sprayed her into submission.
The clerk and other store employees said that Glanville became enraged when there were no sausages ready for her to eat in the store’s hot dog cooker.
The officer said she appeared to be intoxicated because of her strange behavior, slurred speech, bloodshot and watery eyes and the distinct odor of alcohol on her breath.
Not to be crass, but when I hear that a young woman desires a hot sausage at 3:05AM, my thoughts don't include the kind you buy at a convenience store.
There is no truth to the rumor that, when she was pepper-sprayed, she said "save some for my side of cole slaw".
You have to admire the remarkable police work though. Isn't it amazing how the officer determined Ms. Glanville appeared to be intoxicated, based only on her strange behavior, slurred speech, bloodshot and watery eyes and a distinct odor of alcohol on her breath? Thank god there was a professional there to go beyond the obvious and ferret that out.
I'm not sure, but I think the prosecutor on this case, Oscar Mayer, says she's probably going to get a stretch in Johnsonville.
Are those enough bad jokes for you? If not, you'll have to provide the rest. I'm going out to the local 7-Ele...er, never mind.
Rosie O’Donnell’s TV history is repeating itself — and, as in the past, it’s getting ugly.
O’Donnell’s talk show, “The Rosie Show,” is imploding just five months after launching on Oprah Winfrey’s little-watched OWN cable network.
Not only is “The Rosie Show” a ratings disaster — it averaged just 150,000 viewers last week — but O’Donnell is selling her $2.5 million mansion in Chicago, where the show tapes, and reportedly wants to move the production to New York. That would leave producer Harpo with empty, expensive, unused studio space it might not want to surrender so easily.
“She’s doing a show in Chicago,” O’Donnell’s rep told The Chicago Tribune when asked about the sale of Rosie’s house.
Adding fuel to the fire are reports in the Chicago media that “The Rosie Show” is plagued by a lack of focus, a cranky, erratic, disinterested host and a backstage power struggle between Team Rosie and Winfrey loyalists who worked on the now-defunct “Oprah” and are at odds with O’Donnell.
Yikes. Could that be worse? If so, how?
You know those trick candles they sometimes put on birthday cakes; the ones that the kid keeps blowing out but they stay lit anyway? Rosie O'Donnell \'s career has started to parallel those candles. Her show blows up, someone else hires her, and the next one blows up too.
This is pretty sad given that, when she was simply performing as a talk show host without the political and sexual orientation agendas, she was terrific. People loved her, ratings were great, everything was, well, rosey. But as an angry left wing ideologue who makes sure her far left politics and gay lifestyle are on the front rather than the back burner? Who wants to watch that?
To understand the problem more fully, look at how Ellen DeGeneres, another gay woman TV personality, has made out.
Ms. DeGeneres had a similar experience. She had a hit show, then decided to make her lifestyle the key element of the show, which caused the ratings to plummet because it no longer was entertainment, it was commentary. Viewers wanted Ellen DeGeneres's shining, enjoyable personality, not an indoctrination session. So she stowed the "I am a lesbian" motif and took on an afternoon show in which she went back to what she did best. Now -with everyone knowing she is a lesbian just as before - she is one of the hottest commodities on TV.
Rosie O'Donnell has never learned this lesson. And that is why her career has gone down the tubes.
As with Ellen, when it comes to entertainment, no one cares if Rosie is left wing or gay. When she is conducting insightful interviews, singing the old songs with the audience, and generally being a highly entertaining personality, her politics and her sex life are irrelevant.
But when she thrusts both in our face, she is not entertaining at all.
Do women really want Ellen DeGeneres, or do they want Rosie O'Donnell's version of Ed Schultz with different plumbing? I think we both know the answer.
UPDATE: So help me, I did not know about this when I wrote the above blog, but apparently the Rosie O'Donnell show was cancelled today and will continue only until the end of March. Despite my obvious disagreements with her politics, I take no pleasure whatsoever in Ms. O'Donnell's failed show and hope she finds a way to go back to what made her successful in the past.
FURTHER NOTE: I just found out that this blog was posted on Ellen DeGeneres's web site (www.talktoellen.blogspot.com). This prompted me to take a second look at what I had posted. Aside from a couple of typos (I used to be much better at checking my writing) I saw one thing at the very end that I wish I had said differently.
My idea in comparing Rosie O'Donnell to Ed Schultz was that both of them are dour and ideological: Ms. O'Donnell in recent years, Mr. Schultz as long as I have been aware of him. I did not mean to imply that, like O'Donnell, Schultz is gay.
So I checked....and it turns out that Schultz has a wife (Maureen) and a son (David).
Given that gay rights is one an area in which Ed Schultz and I (and, obviously, Ellen DeGeneres) are in agreement, I sort of hope that if he had seen the blog he would have shrugged my clumsy writing off. But, regardless, I thought I would set the record straight.
In the past, I have blogged that the only time I've ever heard the word "niggardly" in conversation, was as a not-too-clever surrogate word for "nigger" - and, as such, it was both racially offensive and weaselly.
But there is a first for everything. And I think I have found one person, one time, using the word without intending it as a racial slur.
Yesterday, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) was a guest on MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan show. Brown, who is on the Veteran's Affairs Committee, said this:
“There are people...in this Congress who will always send a blank check when it comes to spending money on defense or war, but are a little more niggardly, if you will, on spending money on the actual veterans when they come home."
For those who are unaware, "niggardly" is of Scandinavian origin. It means cheap/miserly/stingy, and - when used correctly - has no etymological tie of any kind to racial issues. Since Senator Brown a) used the word entirely in correct context, and b) is a left wing liberal who champions civil rights, it is very clear that no offense was intended.
I am sure some people will claim that, if Brown were Republican, the left would accuse him of using a racist code word. In my opinion, they will be right.
I also am sure some people will claim that Brown himself is doing so. In my opinion, they will be wrong.
Like Weebles, Mitt Romney continues to wobble, but he does not fall down.
Romney "lost" the Alabama and Mississippi primaries to Rick Santorum (I put "lost" in parentheses because, as the least conservative alternative, he had little chance of winning either of those deep south primaries, and surprised me by coming as close as he did). But now, if the poll data are correct, he appears to be pulling away in Illinois - as shown by the following table compiled by realclearpolitics.com:
Among upcoming major states with recent polling data to look at, Romney is ahead by double digits in New York, California and Wisconsin while Santorum is winning only his home state of Pennsylvania.
Yes, it is mathematically possible for Santorum or Gingrich to overtake Romney - remote, but mathematically possible. And, yes, if a major player suddenly jumped in at the end that could change things. But as things now stand, it is very hard to see how Mr. Romney does not win this nomination.
Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips is a small chain of fast food restaurants, whose signature dish you already know. At one time (maybe even now), the punch line of its advertising jingle was "Arthur Treacher's fish & Chips, the meal you cannot make at home".
I always found that line pretty silly, because I never understood why you couldn't make fish and chips at home. Maybe that's why the chain is down to only a fraction of the locations it once had.
But here's a political jingle Republicans might use this year that I understand perfectly: "Higher oil prices and everything that goes with it. The issue Democrats cannot blame on Republicans". Though, God knows, they certainly are trying.
The cost of living in the U.S. rose in February by the most in 10 months, reflecting a jump in gasoline that failed to spread to other goods and services.
The consumer-price index climbed 0.4 percent, matching the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, after increasing 0.2 percent the prior month, the Labor Department reported today in Washington. The so-called core measure, which excludes more volatile food and energy costs, climbed 0.1 percent, less than projected.
The biggest jump in gasoline in more than a year accounted for about 80 percent of the increase in prices last month, leaving households with less money to spend on other goods and services. Federal Reserve policy makers say the advance in fuel costs will be temporary, and most see little risk inflation will flare out of control as unemployment exceeds 8 percent.
Fascinating, isn't it, to see how Mr. Kowalski tries so hard to ameliorate this news and its impact on people's lives. Hey, the core measure went up, but it could have gone up even more, and "Federal Reserve policy makers" (Which ones? Who?) say this will be just temporary. Try telling that to anyone who drives up to the gas pump for a fill, or utilizes goods and services that now tack on a "fuel surcharge".
How important an issue is our oil/gas situation to the 2012 elections? Barring some major event (e.g. a terrorist attack, a huge earthquake) this most basic of pocketbook issues is almost certain to predominate above all the rest. Therefore, the real crux of the 2012 campaign is whether one party is primarily to blame for - thus can be blamed for - the spike in oil prices and all that goes with it.
Well, let's look at some key facts. On the one hand:
-Republicans demanded that we drill in ANWR. President Obama and his fellow Democrats prevented it.
-Republicans demanded that we drill at new, potentially oil-rich, offshore locations. President Obama and his fellow Democrats prevented it.
-Republicans demanded that we maximize exploration of the hugely rich shale oil deposits in Wyoming and surrounding areas. President Obama and his fellow Democrats prevented it.
And on the other hand:
-President Obama, along with his fellow Democrats, enthusiastically endorsed Brazil's commitment to drilling offshore for oil - the drilling being done by a company the huge Obama/Democrat sugar daddy, george soros, has a major stake in . Mr. Obama then told Brazilian officials he looked forward to the United States purchasing oil from Brazil.
-And President Obama, along with his fellow Democrats, enthusiastically endorsed billions of dollars in taxpayer money being used to prop up "green" companies - usually owned or heavily invested in by major Obama contributors - which went under, thus losing the taxpayers' money.
Now: which party do you suppose is more likely to be blamed for our oil/gas problem?
So let's all sit back and enjoy the political theater which has been created to divert us from this issue of issues (the manufactured Rush Limbaugh/sandra fluke flap is an excellent example. But rest assured, there will be others) .
Then we will see which issue predominates on election day: Limbaugh/fluke or the pocketbook-busting oil/gas situation.
BILL MAHER EXPLAINS WHY HE CAN CALL WOMEN OFFENSIVE NAMES
Is there some excuse, some rationale, that Rush Limbaugh should be attacked and condemned - complete with calls for advertiser boycotts - because he called sandra fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" based on her self-described sex life, but bill maher should be given a free pass for calling Sarah Palin a "dumb twat" and a "cunt" (along with a tidal wave of similarly ugly descriptions for Ms. Palin and other conservative women) because he disagrees with her politics?
Well, bill maher thinks so. And here is his explanation, as stated to ABC News's Jake Tapper. See what you make of it:
"I'm a comedian – not just a guy who says he is, like Rush, but someone who – well, you saw me do stand-up last year in D.C. There’s a big difference between just saying you’re a comedian and going out and getting thousands of people to laugh hard for 90 minutes....
"I let the audience be the guide. The bit I did about Palin using the word c—, one of the biggest laughs in my act, I did it all over the country, not one person ever registered disapproval, and believe me, audiences are not afraid to let you know. Because it was a routine where that word came in at just the right moment....
[Limbaugh] went after a civilian about very specific behavior, that was a lie, speaking for a party that has systematically gone after women’s rights all year, on the public airwaves. I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, who's called people "terrorist" and “unAmerican.”
Ok, let's analyze these comments:
-bill maher says that he is a comedian, and people who saw him do stand-up in D.C. laughed hard for 90 minutes. Therefore it is ok for him to call women he does not like dumb twats and cunts.
-he says that using the word "cunt" gets one of the biggest laughs in his act. And that he has never used that word anywhere in the country with even one person registering disapproval.. Why? Because the word was well-placed. Which means that none of the people who would pay to see bill maher, be they women or men, has any problem with him tossing out that word. Are you buying this? And if so, what does it tell you about the population segment which bill maher appeals to?
-he says that sandra fluke is a "civilian" and therefore is off-limits (I didn't know maher was in the military). That what Limbaugh said about her was a lie (Limbaugh's comment was based on what fluke herself implied about her sex life). That Limbaugh has gone after women's rights all year (no explanation of what that means other than the fluke incident - in which Limbaugh did not speak against fluke or any other woman having access to or using birth control, only against insurance companies being forced to foot the bill for it, which would then be passed along to all of their customers). He finishes by saying that he just used a "rude" word (it was far more than "rude" and there was far more than one word) about someone who has called people "terrorist" and "unamerican" (try to find a politician on either side of the aisle who hasn't. The names may be different but the terminology is exactly the same).
Are you buying any of this?
But the big news here is not that bill maher is a bottom-dwelling pig of a "man" who makes tons of money by being disgusting and misogynistic. He has been both for years, and neither HBO nor our wonderful "neutral media" have had any problem with it at all. Problems with offensive material are reserved for when that material is used by, not against, conservatives.
The big news is that bill maher handed a $1,000,000 donation to Barack Obama's PAC (did Limbaugh do that for any Republican candidate?) and it has not been returned, nor has any Democrat - including Democrat women - said even one negative word about it. Why? Because the money goes to Barack Obama, that's why. So no matter how ugly maher's sick filth gets, it i$ ju$t fabulou$.
Let me put this in terms the maher apologists will understand: i.e. disgusting, offensive ones.
When I was younger kids used to tell the following joke - which, I warn you, is overtly racist in nature:
A guy calls up the NAACP and gets an official on the phone. He says "I want to talk to the head nigger". The official says "How dare you use language like that. It is an insult, and you are an affront to decency". The guy on the phone says "Yeah, yeah, yeah, but I still want to talk to the head nigger". The official says "You are a disgusting racist, not worth the waste in a toilet bowl. You make me sick to my stomach". The guy says "Just put the head nigger on. I want to make a $25,000 contribution". And the official says "Hold on, I'll find the Black bastard and get him on the phone right away."
That racist enough for you? Insulting enough? Offensive enough?
Now tell me: How close is that joke to the reality that Barack Obama - who heads a political party which purports to stand up for the dignity of womanhood - accepted, and is keeping, a $1,000,000 contribution from a "man" who has no problem at all calling women "dumb twats" and "cunts"?
Here, hot off the computers at the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) is Executive Director Guy Cecil's latest snow job.
His text is in rust, mine is in blue. Please read it and decide for yourself who is making more sense:
(NAME) -- Today we’re seeing another stunning GOP attack on women’s rights. Republican senators are threatening to block the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which investigates and prosecutes violent crimes against women. These attacks never seem to end, and it’s jaw-dropping.The reason for Republicans blocking VAWA (which they voted for when it first was introduced in 1994) is that Democrats have put in additional language that will make it a back door way of accepting same-sex marriages as "families" and for illegal aliens to stay in the country. Without debating the merits of these additions, It is pretty obvious that they were added primarily because Republicans would vote against them, and then could be condemned as anti-woman. As a political strategy my hat (if I ever wore one) is off to Democrats. It is a beauty.
Yesterday, Mitt Romney vowed that if elected he would eliminate Planned Parenthood. A lie.Romney said he would eliminate federal funding of Planned Parenthood, not Planned Parenthood itself.Do you ever tell the truth about anything?Every day, Republicans open a new front in their war on women. Sure.Republicans, are at war with women – including the tens of millions of women Republicans who presumably, therefore, are at war with themselves.Fighting back is the only option, and that’s just what our emergency Protect Women’s Rights Fund is designed for. Try being honest, and renaming it the Protect Democrat Re-election Prospects By Lying Fund. We still need $65,000 by Friday to support President Obama, boost our nearly dozen women Senate candidates, and kick every Republican we can out of office.Finally a true statement.How’d that get in here?
Some polls show Mitt Romney ahead of President Obama, and the GOP only needs four seats to take the majority, end the Violence Against Women Act and shut down Planned Parenthood. Forever. Back to the lying.What else is new? Please give $5 or more to our Protect Women’s Rights Fund. We can’t let Republicans win this appalling war on women.You and other Democrats keep using the term “War on Women”.I congratulate you on this simple but slick little slogan. I wonder how many sheeple you can fool with it.
As regular readers know, I have written blogs in the past about the fact that the United States has dramatically more oil than the "2%" or ""2% to 3%" of the world's oil that Barack Obama and many of his Democrat cohorts claim we have. I have pointed out that they are lying every time they say this.
But they are continuing to say it anyway, so I will continue to remind whomever I can that they are liars.
Here is an excerpt from the Investors Business Daily editorial on this lie, along with an accompanying chart which brings the point home vividly:
The U.S. has 22.3 billion barrels of proved reserves, a little less than 2% of the entire world's proved reserves, according to the Energy Information Administration. But as the EIA explains, proved reserves "are a small subset of recoverable resources," because they only count oil that companies are currently drilling for in existing fields.
When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the U.S., according to various government reports. Among them:
At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to EIA.
Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska's North Slope, says the U.S. Geological Survey.
Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS.
As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management.
Then, there's the massive Green River Formation in Wyoming, which according to the USGS contains a stunning 1.4 trillion barrels of oil shale — a type of oil released from sedimentary rock after it's heated.
A separate Rand Corp. study found that about 800 billion barrels of oil shale in Wyoming and neighboring states is "technically recoverable," which means it could be extracted using existing technology. That's more than triple the known reserves in Saudi Arabia.
I have no doubt that, during this presidential campaign year, you will run into people who parrot the "2% of the world's oil reserves" lie. My suggestion is to make a copy of the above chart and show it to them.
I do not guarantee it will make them realize how badly they have been lied to. And I certainly do not guarantee that, even if it did, they would admit as much to you. But at least you will have the feeling of exhilaration that comes with knowing the facts, even if others do not.
When I blog about other people's work, I usually put up an excerpt or two so you can see, first-hand, what I am talking about.'
But today's piece by Jeffrey Goldberg, National Correspondent for The Atlantic and Huffington Post contributor, is so ridiculous that I choose not to do so. You can click here to read it on your own.
In a commentary chock full of stereotypes, assumptions and false comparisons, Goldberg suggests that Barack Obama is the most Jewish President we have ever had.
His basis for this remarkable characterization of a man who is Muslim in the Islamic faith (which assigns religion by paternity, not maternity as Jews do) and eventually joined a Black liberation theology church, as being some kind of near-Jew?
-Mr. Obama has been around lots of Jews;
-He knows an anecdotal fact about Passover haggadahs*
If there is a way to be more ridiculous, I would appreciate someone letting me in on it. Until then, I will consider Mr. Goldberg the title-holder.
CBO says the entitlement's health insurance subsidies will cost $1.13 trillion between 2012 and 2021, not $1.04 trillion, the prior estimate. This 8.6% jump is the result of revised assumptions, the so-called technical factors in CBO's budget model. The bill's total cost now stands at $1.445 trillion, according to another recent CBO estimate.
Remember that all of these are fictitious numbers that reflect Congressional gaming of CBO conventions to make it seem as if ObamaCare "saves" money. But now, even under these conventions, CBO is conceding that it significantly underestimated the bill's cost. If the propeller heads decide to add a few more trillion dollars in new spending, they might get somewhat closer to the bill's true cost.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated a $100 billion overage in the cost of ObamaCare? That is awful. Our media must certainly have railed about how badly we were misled by Barack Obama and his promises that ObamaCare would save money, right?
Well, not when this upward revision by the CBO was issued. The date of the article I just excerpted was March 11th ---- 2011. A year ago.
Want to know where the CBO estimate of ObamaCare is now? Then read this excerpt from Brian Koenig's piece for yahoo.com (the bold print is mine). You won't believe your eyes.
's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare's projected net worth is far off from its original estimate -- in fact, about $820 billion off.
When the final CBO report was released before the law's passage, critics surmised that the actual 10-year cost would far exceed the advertised projections. In other words, the numbers were seemingly obscured through a political ploy devised to jam the legislation through Congress.
"Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation," assertedPhilip Klein of the Washington Examiner, "the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014." This accounting maneuver allowed analysts to cloak the true cost of ObamaCare, Klein alleged, making the law appear less expensive under the CBO's budget window.
If that doesn't tickle your fancy, maybe this will: "President Obama's healthcare reform law coverage provisions will cost less but cover fewer people than first thought," the Hill reported, considering data from the CBO's Tuesday report. Revised estimates of ObamaCare's coverage provisions indicate that 2 million fewer people will acquire coverage by 2016.
How can this be? What is happening?
That's easy. We are now starting to see the true cost of ObamaCare. We are seeing that it is wildly above what Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats have fraudulently claimed.
And since this is the second year the CBO has revised its estimate upward - with this year's revision about 8 times as large as last year's - why would we not assume that the increases are going to continue, and be even more painful, if this monstrosity of a money pit is allowed to continue?
Plus, let's not forget, the overage - nearing one trillion dollars and counting - is for a program that the CBO also estimates will cover 2 million fewer people than originally projected. Health care-wise, it is like hitting for the negative daily double of all time.
And what is this impossibly huge amount of money going to pay for? A program the country is chafing at the bit to have?
No. Emphatically no. Decisively no.
Virtually every poll shows that a plurality - in some, an outright majority - wants ObamaCare repealed. Not "fixed" or "improved", but repealed altogether.
The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.
One other thing: If this were a program of President Bush's, and the CBO showed a cost overrun of almost one trillion dollars before implementation even started, how much news coverage do you think it would generate? How many first-page articles? How many lead or near-lead story positionings on the national news shows and morning shows?
Well, this news has been out for a day now. How extensively have you seen/read/heard it covered?
Here's a hint. I just checked today's New York Times, and it is not there. Nor is it at the Times' web site.
Put another way, how many people who consider themselves better informed because they read the New York Times, are completely ignorant of this story?
Remember when Barack Obama was railing at the injustice of big-time money people gaining special access to the White House?
Funny how that attitude changed once he became the occupant of the White House.
According to Jack Gillum's article for the Associated Press, President Obama's state dinner for British Prime Minister David Cameron was attended by nearly three dozen of his biggest donors - most of whom have exactly nothing to do with diplomacy or foreign affairs. They were just there for the pomp, circumstance and prestige of.....ok, they were just there as a payoff for their $$$$$.
A key excerpt:
...it is not uncommon for presidents to reward major supporters with access to dignitary dinners: President George W. Bush invited dozens of his "pioneer" supporters to state dinners, and President Bill Clinton did the same. But Obama previously has criticized Washington's pay-for-access privileges, and even donors themselves complained early in his presidency that they were kept at arm's length.
The AP's review also found some of those same donors...have written big checks to Priorities USA Action, a "super" political action committee run by former White House aides. Both donors contributed more than $10,000 to the group, which has struggled to raise the kind of big cash that Republican-leaning super PACs have banked on.
Got that? According to the AP's Mr. Gillum, Democrat fatcats complained they weren't getting enough perks for their money, so Barack Obama caved in.
That would be bad enough by itself. But given the imperiousness of this presidency, coupled with how he doles out taxpayer money to big donors - especially donors who buy major stakes in "green" companies which then go bankrupt - I personally don't believe Mr. Obama had any intention of keeping the moneybag set away in the first place.
Now that this information is out there, however, and since virtually every news venue subscribes to the AP and therefore know all about it, let's see how completely this story is reported by those venues.
Let's all reserve judgment for a day or two. But I wouldn't expect many of those venues to report it Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media has a lot riding on the sheeple thinking that Barack Obama gets his money $5 and $10 at a time.
FROM THAT WONDERFUL FELLOW WHO GAVE BARACK OBAMA $1,000,000
Here is the latest delightfully funny comment from bill maher, who gave Barack Obama's PAC $1,000,000 which has not been returned, and which democrats like Shiela Jackson Lee and Jan Schackowsky will not condemn:
"Man, if #NewtGingrich was any more of an asshole #RickSantorum wld have to pray for the strength not to fuck him"
Are you still waiting for our wonderful "neutral' media - which have mercilessly attacked Rush Limbaugh for weeks - to demand that bill maher be held to account for his lowest-of-low vile filth? Or, at the very least, that Barack Obama return the $1,000,000 from this arrogant left wing bottom-dweller, maybe with an apology that he didn't do so sooner?
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.
Here are a few excerpts. See if they are as fascinating to you as they are to me:
There has been no measure of his listenership since the Fluke flap. But nonpartisan radio expert Michael Harrison told The Daily Caller that Limbaugh’s numbers likely are going no where but up — despite the anti-Limbaugh push.
Harrison is founder and publisher of Talkers magazine, the industry’s leading trade journal.
According to Harrison, even if all the publicity is negative, it is a “good bet that Rush is enjoying pretty high ratings” last week and going into this week.
“The irony is that he probably right now has the biggest audience he’s had in years, and the double irony of all this is sponsors that are fleeing, they’re missing out on the best advertising buy in radio,” Harrison told TheDC in an interview, explaining that Limbaugh incites passion on all fronts.
Limbaugh’s fans, said Harrison, will galvanize around him, not abandon him. Many of his detractors are listening because they feel vindicated, he explained, and still others are tuning in to hear what the fuss is about.
“[T]he whole thing is so full of irony, and so full of misinformation that it’s almost laughable,” he said. (RELATED: More on Rush Limbaugh)
According to Harrison, the “no-buy” list is just an advertising strategy — not a boycott of any specific program.
“It has nothing to do with fleeing, boycotting [or] censoring,” he said. “It’s just that certain advertisers have certain shows on a list that they don’t want to be on because they don’t want to be on controversial programming, and this has gone on for years.”
Translation: this ridiculously overblown flap has resulted in Rush Limbaugh gaining, rather than losing, listenership. The number of advertisers who have left Limbaugh's show is a good deal lower than we have been led to believe. And the ones who have stayed with Limbaugh are getting a great bargain for their advertising dollar.
Meanwhile, we are still waiting for sandra fluke to be on any show with even one person there to challenge a thing she says or any a charge she makes.
Mainstream media continue to attack Limbaugh non-stop, while fluke is given a free pass to present her side of the story at will without any challenge of any kind.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.
Oh, one other thing: After weeks of Democrats trying to parlay this incident into a narrative that Republicans are "at war with women", the latest polls show Democrats doing no better among women since the Limbaugh comments were made. One poll even shows women slightly less disposed to vote democrat than before.
Nice try, guys. But apparently, as a political issue, your gas about Republicans does not measure up to the price of gas at the pump.
The plodding Republican presidential nomination fight is grinding forward toward Puerto Rico — and a two-man race, with Rick Santorum ascendant and Mitt Romney vanquished in the Deep South
Yes, Rick Santorum won the Alabama and Mississippi primaries last night, and Mitt Romney lost them (while winning Hawaii's caucuses). But there is a bit more to the story:
-Alabama and Mississippi are two of the most conservative, and religious Christian, states in the country. So of course Santorum would do well there. He was the most overtly religious candidate, and he ran against a Mormon and a known philanderer married to his third wife, . This doesn't make Rick Santorum ascendant, it puts him exactly where he should be.
-Yet, despite Mr. Santorum's huge advantage in those states, he did not run away with either primary. He won Alabama with 35% of the vote to 29% for Romney and Gingrich. He won Mississippi with 33% of the vote, to 31% for Gingrich and 30% for Romney. To me, the news is not that Rick Santorum won, but that the far more moderate - some Republicans would even say liberal - Mitt Romney got as high a vote total as he did and came so close;
-Finally, Alabama and Mississippi are two of the safest states in the country for Republicans. I doubt you can find many Democrats, even among hardliners, with any expectation of winning either state in the general election, regardless of which Republican is the eventual candidate. So, from an electoral perspective, Santorum's wins are meaningless.
This is not to denigrate Rick Santorum's accomplishment. Wins are wins. And when you win at all, I suppose you are "ascendant". But the Santorum "ascendancy" is more of a technicality than anything meaningful.
As far as Mitt Romney being "vanquished" because he finished close in two of the states he would be expected to do least well in? Yeah, sure. I'll bet he's writing his concession speech even as you read this (here's a hand-towel to wipe off the sarcasm which just dripped from your monitor).
Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has about had it as a viable presidential candidate. He still is making sounds that he will continue, but Gingrich, who is anything but stupid, must know the game is up.
Let me end with a little speculation: I wonder if Mitt Romney is considering an offer to make Gingrich his Vice Presidential candidate.
Politically, it would make a lot of sense. Conservatives would be much more comfortable with the Romney candidacy, and Romney would have a running mate who is very smart, as politically savvy as they come, and exceedingly adept at exposing Barack Obama's Accomplice Media for the partisan propagandists they are. Name me one Democrat who looks forward to debating Newt Gingrich. I dare you.
My guess is that, if Gingrich is convinced he can't win (as he should be) and Romney makes such an offer, he just might accept it.
This is for anyone gullible enough to believe that there is little or no voter fraud in the United States. (But not for anyone from the Brennan Institute for Social Justice because, in my opinion, they know full-well about voter fraud but pretend otherwise.)
James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released a new video exposing just how easy it is to commit voter fraud in Vermont.
The video, a sequel to O'Keefe's "Primary of the Living Dead" in New Hampshire, shows a Veritas agent entering various voting places around the state of Vermont, giving a different name each time. Each time, he is given a ballot without showing an ID, to his disbelief.
In the video, the agent repeatedly requests (but does not take) a Republican primary ballot. As he explained to Breitbart.com: "We wanted to remind viewers this is not a partisan issue. This is a situation wherein anyone -- Republican or Democrat -- can exploit the system."
The new video follows in the wake of a highly-politicized media attack on Mr. O’Keefe after his exposure of voter fraud in New Hampshire. Those videos resulted in calls from the left for O’Keefe’s arrest. However, the videos soon resulted in the New Hampshire State Senate passing a new bill requiring voter ID.
You have to laugh when the Brennan Institute, and assorted Democrats, claim no one uncovers voter fraud. Of course it is not uncovered. If there is no check for a valid ID, there is no way to uncover it.
That doesn't mean voter fraud does not exist. It means the opportunity to find it has been eliminated.
So thank you, James O'Keefe, for again showing the "no vote fraud" crowd up for the phonies they are.
I hope everyone who honestly cares about how easily voter fraud is accomplished pays 100% attention.
Vice President Joe Biden addressed an intimate crowd of Democratic donors Monday night at a private fund-raiser hosted by Senator John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, in their Georgetown home.
In introducing Biden, Kerry quoted the vice president summing up the complexities of President Obama’s first term: “Osama bin Laden is dead. General Motors is alive.”
Vice President Joe BidenDuring his remarks, Biden bemoaned the partisan state of Congress, accused the Republican presidential candidates of not understanding the middle class, and touted the president’s foreign policy and domestic record.
The event’s host committee includes former Massachusetts Senator Paul Kirk, a longtime chief of staff for the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy who temporarily filled his seat upon his death, and Ken Feinberg, a Brockton-born attorney and former Kennedy staffer.
Other high profile guests include: Elizabeth Bagley, former ambassador to Portugal and attorney specializing in trade and international law; Matthew Barzun, former ambassador to Sweden who Obama has tapped to be his 2012 campaign finance chairman; Steven Green, former ambassador to Singapore; Bob Barnett, a Washington attorney who’s worked on eight national presidential campaigns helping candidates prepare for debates; Tom McMillen, former Maryland congressman; and Jack Manning, co-founder of Boston Capital.
These folks are supposed to be clucking their tongues at how Republicans are out of touch with the middle class???? Yep, just ask the Vice President.
Why do we not have a budget for well over 1,000 days? Which party is to blame?
Well, common sense and a basic understanding of how government works would tell you Democrats are to blame - because they control the senate and the White House.
But then there is CNN. According to Noel Sheppard's blog at newsbusters.org, CNN commentator Erin Burnett engaged in the following commentary with pictures of Republicans - no Democrats, just Republicans on the screen:
ERIN BURNETT, HOST: Today's Congress, the least productive and least popular in recent history. What will it take to turn it around? Well you know what there's an idea out there, what about if they don't get anything done, they don't get paid. Well see this would really be a problem, I think, because it's been more than 1,000 days since the last joint budget resolution, so if you said you don't get paid until you get a budget, that's a heck of a lot of days with no pay.
All right, this is one of the potential reforms though that's going to be receiving a Senate hearing this Wednesday that might really turn the tide in terms of Congress getting things done and being liked perhaps a little bit while they're doing it.
John Avlon is going to be at that hearing and he has a preview for us tonight. All right John, so more than 1,000 days since the last joint budget resolution, no budget, no pay. Maybe they'll get one done.
JOHN AVLON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Maybe they would. So here's the idea. Basically it's basic. You don't pass a budget on time; you don't get paid on time. And so that's the idea of applying the kind of incentive that it might take the focus the mind of Congress to start doing their job, so that's one of the proposals that's going to be forwarded at this -- the Senate hearing on Wednesday that's going to start trying to take on some congressional forums to maybe change this dysfunctional culture that we've seen in Congress.
BURNETT: And the average salary on Capitol Hill, $174,000 --
AVLON: That's right –
BURNETT: -- right, so it's not -- this is a lot of money.
AVLON: Absolutely and you know you need to change the incentive structure. The incentive system in Congress is all screwed up. This is one way to get it right.
BURNETT: All right, so I would love -- that's a really great idea, a really great idea, OK.
is no longer interested in telling the public the truth in any way, shape, or form.
You know what else is really great idea? Cable news anchors and their contributors knowing what they're talking about.
Since Barack Obama's first budget was passed in April 2009, the Senate, which has been controlled by Democrats since January 2007, has not offered one single budget.
By contrast, after taking over the House in January 2011, the GOP proposed and passed a budget on April 15. It was defeated by Senate Democrats on May 26.
As such, the entire cause of the absence of a budget resolution since April 2009 is Democrat obstruction.
Dead on right. Erin Burnett and CNN should be ashamed of themselves.
But just as Tom Hanks said "There's no crying in baseball", our Accomplice Media, by its actions, says "There's no shame in twisting facts and logic to benefit Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats". And CNN appears to be in full agreement.
Gas prices continue to rise, and President Obama’s approval ratings, which had moved upward for a short period, continue to plummet.
Two new polls, both conducted for media venues very supportive of Mr. Obama – The ABC/Washington Post poll and now the CBS/New York Times poll, show this trend.
What strategies should Mr. Obama, and Republicans, use to deal with the energy crisis? Here is the way I see it:
Mr. Obama – assuming he intends to continue with his usual M.O. of lying to our faces about energy (and pretty much everything else) - should tell voters:
-Oil production is up during his presidency (without mentioning that this is due to exploration already in place when he took office, which he was against and would have prevented);
-He should assure voters that we cannot meet our oil needs no matter what we do because we have only 2 – 3% of the world’s reserves (without telling them that oil reserves are measured only where we are currently drilling/exploring, thus do not include ANWR, shale deposits, new offshore locations, etc.);
-He should again pledge to make us energy-efficient through green technology (without mentioning the succession of “green” energy companies that have gone under during his presidency, that they have cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and that big-time Democrat contributors have been the beneficiary of the lion’s share of those lost taxpayer dollars).
Republicans have a somewhat easier story to tell.
-They should take the parentheses off of everything President Obama should say, so that voters know the whole story;
-And they should warn voters that, in an effort to get re-elected, President Obama will almost certainly promise to allow more aggressive exploitation of our enormous domestic energy resources. But that - based on his actual performance since taking office – those promises will extend only to election day and he will not make good on them.
I concede that President Obama's Accomplice Media will, in all likelihood, continue in its usual vein of trying to find ways to make Mr. Obama look better than he is on the energy front. But, as I have mentioned in previous blogs, it is very hard to spin this issue when voters personally experience the increased price of gasoline, heating oil, etc. and the increased price of non-energy goods that are affected by those energy prices.
Simply stated, if Republicans convince voters to think "President Obama" when they see the words "energy surcharge", 2012 will be a very, very good year for them.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WAR AGAINST PREVENTING VOTER FRAUD
Why would the Department of Justice, under the disgraceful toady and Obama sock puppet eric holder, work so hard to prevent states from insuring that only legal voters can cast ballots? (And do you really need me to explain the reason?)
According to Bill Mears' article for cnn.com:
A controversial new Texas law requiring voters to present personal identification before going to the polls has been blocked by the Obama administration.
In a letter Monday to state officials, the Justice Department said the legislation could have a discriminatory effect on Hispanics and other minorities.
Texas is among eight states to require official photo identification in an effort to stop what officials say is voter fraud. Opponents of the laws say they disenfranchise poor, minority and disabled voters.
Let's start with a question for Mr. Mears: What, exactly, is "controversial" about expecting voters to show they are who they say they are before casting their ballots? That is ludicrous. If you want controversial, we can talk about letting people vote without any proof that they are who they say they are.
Now, let's try another question: in what way does requiring voters to prove their identity prevent "Hispanics and other minorities" from voting? How does it prevent even one legal Hispanic or Black voter from doing so? (It certainly is not the cost - since Texas will provide the voter ID for free.)
It is true that a voter ID requirement might prevent ILLEGAL voters from voting - whether Hispanic, Black or White or anything else. But what is wrong with that? I hope it prevents every illegal voter of every race and ethnicity from doing so.
Don't you? Doesn't the DOJ?
Here's one other question: is this not the same Department of Justice which vacated a judgment against the Black panthers who intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling location during the 2008 Presidential election, even though the perpetrators did not contest the charges?
Let's see: Black panthers intimidate voters, don't even bother challenging the charges against them, and the eric holder-led DOJ vacates the judgment against them. But states that pass laws requiring voters to show an ID before they cast their ballots? The same eric holder-led DOJ challenges and fights them tooth and nail.
You know, a cynical fellow - like me - just might conclude that the holder-led Department of Justice is just fine with voter fraud -- if the additional votes are from groups most likely to vote Democrat.
It is being reported that Michelle Obama will be on the David Letterman show next Monday.
This is the same David Letterman who said, on air, that Sarah Palin reminds him of a "slutty flight attendant". And when Ms. Palin attended a Yankee game in June of 2009 with her 14 year old daughter, who "joked" that:
"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game; during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez”
But, in the world of Democrats and their Accomplice Media, that apparently does not disqualify the first lady of the United States from appearing on the show.
Maybe if enough bloggers (I'm certainly not counting on mainstream media) remind voters of Letterman's tasteless verbal vomit, Ms. Obama will rethink her decision and not appear. But if that happens, do not forget that Letterman's vile comments about Ms. Palin and underage daughter were just fine with her -- the problem was only that it became a political liability for her husband's re-election campaign.
But let's be sympathetic to Ms. Obama's predicament: she can't be expected to risk four more years of ridiculously frequent, insanely expensive vacations on the taxpayer's dime, can she?
Disapproval of President Obama’s handling of the economy is heading higher — alongside gasoline prices — as a record number of Americans now give the president “strongly” negative reviews on the 2012 presidential campaign’s most important issue, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Increasingly pessimistic views of Obama’s performance on the economy — and on the federal budget deficit — come despite a steadily brightening employment picture and other signs of economic improvement, and they highlight the political sensitivity of rising gas prices.
The potential political consequences are clear, with the rising public disapproval reversing some of the gains the president had made in hypothetical general-election matchups against possible Republican rivals for the White House. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) now both run about evenly with Obama. The findings come just five weeks after Obama appeared to be getting a boost from the improving economy.
Numbers were made to be fudged. President Obama, the people around him, and his Accomplice Media, can (and almost certainly will) produce article after article demonstrating that we are in some kind of recovery. They will point to job increases without mentioning how many people have either left the work force or taken lesser jobs than they are qualified for, and create an illusion of how great things are.
But every time a voter drives up to the gas pump, or flies an airplane, buys merchandise, etc. and is told the prices are higher due to a "fuel surcharge", that voter knows better.
And trying to blame any of this on Republicans, after three years of Obama & Co. thwarting every Republican attempt to increase our fuel supply? Not even his Accomplice Media will be able to help Mr. Obama on that.
The 1970's police show, "Baretta", had a theme song with the line "keep your eye on the sparrow". Fuel prices are Barack Obama's sparrow. If they remain high, it will be his wings that are clipped on election day.
The 78-year-old minister urged the 600 or so students to depend on themselves for jobs and learn more about black history. He also pushed a controversial book that alleges Jews dominated the slave trade.
"(He said) that Jews control the government and that you need to be their friends in order to be successful, that Jews control the media. To me, that was just so hateful and horrible," said Noah Ickowitz, a UC Berkelely ASUC Senator.
"This is not hate, this is actual facts," Farrakhan said.
"I believe the (Black Student Union) had every right to bring Farrakhan, but we are hurt by Farrakhan's words," Ickowitz said to students outside the auditorium.
The minister condemned the opposition and even discouraged dialogue between Jews and blacks.
"I personally don't care if I ever get along if I've got to hide the truth to win a friend," Farrakhan said to crowd.
UC President Mark Yudof decried Farrakhan as "provocative" and "divisive" following his speech at UC Berkeley.
"Louis Farrakhan is a provocative, divisive figure with a long history of racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic speech," Yudof said. "It was distressing in the extreme that a student organization invited him to speak on the UC Berkeley campus."
"But, as I have said before, we cannot, as a society or as a university community, be provoked by hurtful speech to retreat from the cherished value of free speech," Yudof said.
But members of UC Berkeley's Black Student Union said the overall message was inspiring.
"What I got out of it was how we as black students can take our education and utilize it to build the black community back up," said Stephan Montouth. "We're looking at the minister's statements in terms of how to empower the black community not all of the other controversial things that he may have said in the past."
I believe in free speech. I believe that the Black Student Union had every right to bring louis farrakhan in and secure an honorarium for him to speak.
But here is what I question:
-I question why, of all the people that the Black Student Union could have brought in, it would have picked a hate-filled scumbag like this.
-I question the values of the members of a group that would want to hear someone like this speak.
Regarding how "inspiring" farrakhan's speech was, I pity any student who thinks he/she can pick and choose which parts that a hater like this spews. Would that student be ok with the Black Student Union inviting a KKK member with a strong background in economics to make a speech on how to get into the financial sector? I think not.
Nope, I think Berkeley's Black Student Union invited the anti-Semitic, anti-White scumbag, louis farrakhan, for one reason: that, as an organization, it likes and values what he has to say.
Shame on them. Valuing anti-Semitic and racist filth is no way to go through life.
Oh, one other thing. A quick note to MSNBC: al sharpton has been a major friend of and advocate for louis farrakhan for decades. Aren't you just busting your buttons over giving him his own TV show?
Here is Sunday's quote of the day, intended as an explanation of why it is perfectly ok for President Obama to accept a $1,000,000 contribution from bill maher:
“The bottom line is that Rush Limbaugh’s comments were just nasty and directed at a particular young woman who had a particular point of view and was expressing herself. “Bill Maher’s a comedian, it’s much different. Rush Limbaugh has tremendous weight in the Republican Party, no one will rebut him.
“Bill Maher‘s a comedian who’s on at 11 o‘clock at night but has very little influence on what’s happening here”
In other words, it doesn't matter that bill maher is a political commentator, whose shows always include panels of other political commentators and politicians as well. Since he is also a comedian (assuming you find him funny), none of that matters. He is allowed to use the most vile language imaginable to personally insult wome....er, conservative Republican women. No problem at all."
In case you are wondering what kind "intellect" would make such an idiotic, partisan comment, the answer is that it came from the mouth of Charles Schumer the Democrat (of course) senior senator from New York.
Mr. Schumer, so far as I know, had no similar apologia for Rick Santorum benefactor Foster Friess, who made a joke that birth control could be accomplished without any cost, by a woman holding an aspirin tablet between her knees.
See, Foster Friess is not a comedian. So when he makes a tasteless but non-profane joke about contraception (which, ironically, is also true), the money that he gives Rick Santorum is tainted. But bill maher is a comedian. So when he - or Louis C.K., who was booked to speak at a news correspondents' dinner until it was shamed into cancelling him - call Sarah Palin a spate of the vilest names women can be called, it's not insulting at all, we're supposed to laugh.
So thank you Senator Schumer. I'm sure women all over New York are thrilled with your explanation of why it is perfectly ok, and very funny, when they are called twats and cunts. I'm sure they don't feel insulted at all if they know that only Republican women are allowed to be called those things - that as long as they are Democrats it shouldn't insult them at all. That they should be much less insulted than being told that they avoid pregnancy by holding an aspirin tablet between their knees.
How proud New York must feel to be represented by such a brilliant man.
OUR MEDIA: SO BIASED THAT PRAVDA LOOKS DOWN ON THEM
How bad is media bias in the United States? So bad that Pravda is looking down its nose at us.
That's right.Pravda. The Russian newspaper which, when I was growing up, was the world criterion for propaganda posing as journalism.
And what journalistic malfeasance is so egregious that Pravda is nailing US media for it?Read this excerpt from its article and see for yourself:
A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America. This event occurred in Arizona on March 1st and was an earth shattering revelation.
A long awaited press conference was given by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a five time elected Sheriff, which should have made national and international headlines. Arpaio's credentials include serving in the United States Army from 1950 to 1953, service as a federal narcotics agent serving in countries all over the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and served as the head of the Arizona DEA. Without doubt, this is a serious Law Enforcement Officer, not one to be taken in by tin-foil-hat wearing loons.
Yet, in the five days since his revelations there has been little in the way of serious reporting on the findings he presented in his presser. With 6 short videos, the Sheriff and his team presented a devastating case, one the tame US press is apparently unable to report.
Look, you may believe that the birth certificate Barack Obama suddenly came up with is real, and you may believe it is fake.But one thing is sure:If a high profile lawman like Joe Arpaio conducts a months-long investigation which concludes it is fake, that is news.News that must be reported, discussed, and either found to be worth pursuing or shown not to be.
That, however, has not happened.Media, instead, have buried this report as if it never was made.
What does this tell you about our media?That they are so completely and unconditionally in the tank for Barack Obama that they operate as a propaganda arm of his presidency rather than as professional journalists?If so, then it tells you that they have become what Pravda was.So obviously that even Pravda sees it.
And, yes, these are the same media which squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.
Rick Santorum has done it again. He has again proved that if he is given a more or less free shot at a state - i.e. the other candidates do little or no compaigning there - he can clean house.
Mr. Santorum won something like 56% of the Kansas vote, with the other candidates all distantly behind, and will probably take all 40 of the state's delegates to the Republican convention.
If he can also win in the upcoming Alabama and Mississippi primaries, it might - might - convince Newt Gingrich to leave the race. And if that happened, he would no longer be splitting the conservative vote and would certainly do better one-on-one against Mitt Romney.
The problem, however, is that Romney is doing better as well. His vote totals are rising, conservatives (admittedly not a ton of them) are jumping on board, and, if the polls are correct, he is doing quite well in Alabama and Mississippi too.
If Romney wins both of those states (I doubt it will happen, but it isn't that far-fetched a possibility), both Santorum and Gingrich should walk away.
I consider Rick Santorum a "fool's gold" candidate: one who can do well in Republican primaries, because that is where the vote is overpopulated by hardline conservatives and evangelicals. But in a general election he would be highly unlikely to draw in enough people from outside of this segment to win -- and, in losing, he would take down plenty of congressional Republicans with him.
The fact that Mitt Romney is performing so well in the Alabama and Mississippi polls, however, shows that he is at least acceptable to hardline conservatives and evangelicals (certainly versus Barack Obama) - and his more moderate, sometimes liberal, background can bring him enough of the center to win.
Republicans have to decide what they want. Purity, or four more years of Obama. That shouldn't be a tough decision.
The Obama administration has told Palestinian leaders to expect little help with their statehood bid during the U.S. presidential campaign, the Palestinian foreign minister said Friday.
However, the Americans also held out the promise of vigorous U.S. mediation in the Mideast conflict if President Barack Obama is re-elected, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki said in an interview.
The idea of "vigorous U.S. mediation in the Mideast conflict", in and of itself, is not a problem at all to me - or to most Jews, including most Israeli Jews. In poll after poll, Israelis support a two state solution.
But the problem is that Palestinian Arabs, despite what their leaders occasionally say in English (not Arabic), do not want such a solution. They want Israel. Every square inch of it. Their schoolchildren are taught that the state of Israel does not exist - not in any form - and they are taught that the greatest glory they can bestow on themselves and for their families is to die killing Jews.
Plazas, sporting events, etc. are literally named after "shahids" (martyrs who have died in terrorist attacks). Not doctors. Not philanthropists. Certainly not peacemakers. Palestinian Arabs who have killed Jews.
At this point, you might ask what this has to do with President Obama's peacemaking efforts. If he is promoting a solution in which Jewish and Palestinian Arab states live side by side in peace, what is wrong with that?
The answer is nothing at all - if that is what he is promoting. But it is impossible to forget that President Obama demanded that Israel negotiate such a "peace" deal from the 1967 borders - the borders that existed before Israel fought and won two wars it neither started nor wanted. Borders that include one point where Israel is only 9 miles wide.
And he is demanding that Israel agree to these borders with no accompanying demands of any kind from Palestinian Arabs, other than their "promise" to be peaceful - which, based on decades of daily experience, Israel would have to be out of its collective mind to believe.
That is not "vigorous U.S. mediation". That is a demand that Israel agree to a suicide pact.
So the reality is that, in this election year of 2012, President Obama's idea is to put the demand that Israel agree to a suicide pact on the back burner, so that he can win another term in the White House. And then - in a second term when he no longer has to worry about Jewish support - he can "vigorously" move it to the front burner for the rest of his presidency.
Sad to say, there are many Israel-supporting Jews - almost certainly a majority - who will fall for this charade and figure out some kind of rationale, however contorted and ridiculous, to vote for Barack Obama again anyway. This sorry segment is owned by Barack Obama and the Democrat party. Lock, stock and barrel.
I call them "The Lost Tribe". The ones who say "I know there's a lot wrong with Obama and I would have voted for the Republican against him, if only......." and always come up with an end to that sentence which brings them back to their umbilical tie to a party that increasingly has abandoned them...except at election time.
In case you think that bill maher has any problem at all with continuing to spew exactly the same profane filth as before, here is his answer to people who compare his "dumb twat" and "cunt" references to Sarah Palin unfavorably to Rush Limbaugh using the terms "slut" and "prostitute" to describe the fraudulent "23 year old student" sandra fluke (I am no longer capitalizing her name):
"I got crap from both the Left and the Right this week because, okay, let me address the Left first because I found this more disheartening. They were very mad at me because I tweeted that people like Rush Limbaugh, who I absolutely disagree with. I've never said a good word about him. I did a whole monologue about what an asshole he was only a week ago. But I said I don't like it that people are made to disappear when they say something you, or people try to make them disappear, when they say something you don't like. That's America. Sometimes you're made to feel uncomfortable, okay?
"I mean, can we put this in perspective: no one died. A guy made a bad joke. A bad joke because A, it was a disgusting sentiment that he was evoking, and also because it wasn't even a joke. He's a stupid fat fuck who’s not funny and it annoys me that, it annoys me that people who cannot keep two disparate thoughts in their own mind lump me in together with him."
That, folks, is arrogance. It is the arrogance of someone who knows that, because of his far left politics, most media will be perfectly happy to either rationalize his ugly filth, or just look the other way and ignore it altogether.
Is that a double standard? Are you kidding? You might as well ask if the Pacific Ocean is damp.
Just in case there is anyone left in America who is not grateful that jimmy carter was a one-term-and-out President, we have this, excerpted from the Washington Secrets blog at washingtonexaminer.com:
In the face of warnings by the Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to tear up the Arab nation’s peace treaty with Israel if U.S. aid is cut, former President Jimmy Carter, the chief negotiator of the 1978 deal, says he trusts the Islamists to do the right thing no matter what. The reason: because they told him so.
In an interview with the nationally-syndicated radio show America’s Morning News, he also raised concerns about Israel’s threat to attack Iran over nuclear weapons. Asked about the direction of the Israeli government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, Carter said, “He is much more eager to go to war than President Obama.” Carter praised Obama for trying to pull Netanyahu back.
Translation: Trust the fundamentalist, terrorist Muslim brotherhood because....they said they would do the right thing and what else do you need? But as for Israel? Can you believe those sick bastards are considering an attack on a country which has said, in so many words, it will wipe them off the face of the map, and is developing the nuclear weapons to do it?
If that doesn't tell you why we should be happy that carter did not have a second term, I don't know how to explain it.
As regular readers know, I much prefer Mitt Romney to Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee. But that does not mean I don't have enormous respect for a great deal of what Mr. Gingrich says - especially when he cuts through the hypocrisy and general BS to show up our wonderful "neutral" media for what it really is.
Here is a case in point: Gingrich's reaction to the new ABC show "GCB" - which is based on the book "Good Christian Bitches", but, after a major firestorm that the network's publicity mill certainly knew would be coming, claims it changed to mean "Good Christian Belles".
"Here's to show you the biases of the elite media, look at the new show that's on that has the word 'Christian' in it and I want you to take the exact name, drop out Christian and put in Muslim, and ask yourself, is there any network that would have dared to run a show like that and you know the answer is not a one because anti-Christian bigotry is just fine in the entertainment industry but they have to be very protective of Islam."
Mr. Gingrich is, of course, 100% correct. And, if it had any class or taste, ABC would be 100% ashamed of this obvious Christian-bashing garbage.
But ABC is not. Because ABC does not have to be. No problem at all, it's just Christians. Who gives a damn what they think?
So while I will be much happier with a Romney candidacy, I still very much appreciate what Newt Gingrich brings to the table. And I hope he has plenty more where that came from.
If you can stand one more blog about Sandra Fluke...
John Hinderaker has written a terrific blog today at powerlineblog.com, in which he suggests that the Fluke setup - and is it ever a setup - may now be backfiring on Democrats. His evidence is the hurried, embarrassing removal of a "comedian" who calls himself "Louis C.K." from the Annual Radio and Television Congressional Correspondents' Dinner. Why? Because he has used such vile and disgusting language against Sarah Palin (and who knows how many other women) that he actually makes bill maher look good by comparison.
:Please use the link I've provided to see how Mr. Hinderaker makes his case. I'm sure you'll be impressed. But meanwhile, here - heavily censored - are just a very few of the things this "comedian" has said about Sarah Palin:
“her f*** retard making c***” and “the baby that just came out of her f**** disgusting c***.”
"just “stick your t** in its mouth and shut up.”
”…her f***** retard making c****”.
“I want to rub my father’s c*** all over Sarah Palin’s fat t***”
You may, at this point, be wondering how in the world this kind of lowest-end vile filth could possibly have gone virtually unreported by the same media that have spent the past two weeks obsessing over Rush Limbaugh's use of the terms "slut" and "prostitute" to describe Sandra Fluke.
Just keep reminding yourself that Sarah Palin is a conservative woman, and Sandra Fluke is a 30 year old career left wing activist (who was happy to be mischaracterized as a 23 year old law school student and never corrected anyone who described her that way).
That should explain things perfectly.
Could our media possibly be more biased? Have a more blatant double standard?
As we reported last night, "The Factor" believes that the Sandra Fluke contraception controversy was manufactured to divert attention away from the Obama administration's disastrous decision to force Catholic non-profit organizations to provide insurance coverage for birth control and the morning after pill. That might very well be unconstitutional.
Anyway, we're having trouble tracking down just who is sending Sandra around to the media. It's very strange. So far, the 30-year-old activist has appeared on eight national news programs where she was not challenged at all. Last week, we called Sandra on her cell phone and invited her on "The Factor." She didn't call back, very unusual. There was no other public contact for the woman, just her cell phone.
A man named Mike has booked her on a few programs, but we can't even get his last name. And Mike doesn't provide call-back numbers to those with whom he speaks. So Mike, who are you? And why the subterfuge?
Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor... a-ha.
So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let's run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group "Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice." On February 9th, a group called "The Feminist Majority Foundation" arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama's contraception mandate.
So it comes back to the White House at least indirectly? That, of course, means it just might come back to the White House dead-on directly.
Now take into account that Barack Obama is a Chicago machine politician, who, if he knows nothing else, knows down and dirty politics. Add in a shamefully complicit media, ready to look the other way on his account at a moment's notice, and what do you wind up with?
I may not be able to prove it, but you'll pardon me if I assume that, Obama-wise, Ms. Fluke is no fluke at all.
There is a terrific scene (in the movie "A Bronx Tale") which takes place in neighborhood boss Sonny LoSpecchio's bar.A bunch of "Satan's Messengers" biker thugs come in and make it pretty clear they are going to cause a lot of trouble.Then, when Sonny (played by Mr. Palminteri) exercises an atypical level of tolerance in trying to diffuse the situation, they answer by insulting him in a humiliating way.Here is what happens next:
Sonny: That wasn't very nice. Now youse gotta leave.
Satan's Messengers: I'll tell you when the fuck we leave alright. Get the fuck away from me.
Satan's Messengers: [the bikers laugh at Sonny as he walks to the door] Go watch the bikes eh!
[Sonny locks the front door. All the bikers look and curse at him]
Sonny: Now youse can't leave.
Calogero 'C' Anello: [narrating] "I will never forget the look on their faces. All eight of them. Their faces dropped. All their courage and strength was drained right from their bodies. They had reputation for breaking up bars, but they knew that instant, they'd made a fatal mistake. This time they walked into the wrong bar."
My advice to Rush Limbaugh is to act like Sonny might have, and graciously invite the sponsors back.But to make it clear that they have a time limit - a short one - to rethink their decision.And, after that, as Sonny might say, "youse can't come back".
The imbroglio over Rush Limbaugh, his unfortunate remarks about a student activist, and his advertisers took a bizarre turn when one advertiser who publicly denounced Limbaugh last week and pulled its ads, begged to be taken back.
The advertiser in question is Sleep Train, a mattress company. According to the Los Angeles Times, Limbaugh has turned down its request to be reinstated as a voiced advertiser, which involved the host himself endorsing the company. The reason was that Sleep Train's action had angered Limbaugh's many millions of listeners so the show could not in good conscience accept the company back.
Sleep Train, it should be noted, was an advertiser of 25 years' duration.
This should tell you two things:
1) It may not have been such a terrific idea for Sleep Train to panic, then jump off the advertising roster for Rush Limbaugh's show, and
2) If Limbaugh can shrug and tell Sleep Train "now youse can't come back" the claims by all those gleeful Limbaugh-hating venues that he has been badly hurt by loss of advertisers are probably a hot steamy load of BS. If your losses are bad enough, you find a rationale to take them back if/when they come begging. And Limbaugh didn't.
Will there be other situations like this in the future - presumably the very near future - as former advertisers find out how much of a backlash their blowing off of the Rush Limbaugh show and its tens of millions of listeners has caused? We'll find out soon enough.
No one knows for sure, of course. But if more of them approach Mr. Limbaugh, in a different way than Sleep Train did so that it will increase the chance he might relent and lett them back, it won't surprise me a bit.
In a letter dated March 8, Allred, writing on behalf of the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund, requested that Palm Beach County State Attorney Michael McAuliffe probe whether the conservative radio personality had violated Section 836.04 of the Florida Statutes by calling Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke the two derogatory words.
The statute stipulates that anyone who “speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity” is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. Allred explained that the statute recently came to her attention as having never been repealed, and that it could very well apply to Limbaugh’s remarks as his show is broadcast from West Palm Beach.
It is now entirely up to the prosecutor to exercise his discretion on whether there will be a prosecution. McAuliffe did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Allred, whose most recent high-profile clients have included Sharon Bialek, who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment, and porn star Ginger Lee, who exchanged explicit emails with former Rep. Anthony Weiner, said Friday that she has not yet been in touch with Fluke.
“I don’t reach out to women, they reach rout to me,” she said. “If she did reach out to me, obviously I would respond.”
The funny (well, maybe not so funny) part is that, in Palm Beach, which is dominated by the Democrat left which hates Rush Limbaugh's guts, someone might actually try to do this. Of course it would take a publicity hound as obvious and as over the top, as Gloria Allred....so, it being Palm Beach and all, there probably is no shortage of geniuses ready to step up to the plate.
Just one question: Do the cable and satellite systems in Palm Beach still broadcast HBO? The cable channel with bill maher's "Real Time"? Just asking, Gloria.....
If you are into facts about just how ludicrous Democrat media apologists have become, www.newsbusters.org is the site of the day for you. Right now it features:
- Matt Hadro's blog about how Wolf Blitzer ran a full two minute piece from the new Obama-worshipping "documentary" put out by David Guggenheim, who also worked on that hard-hitting two-sided "documentary "An Inconventient Truth";
-Clay Waters' blog about how the Obama administration is promoting prayer vigils outside the supreme court to pressure justices to rule ObamaCare constitutional (separation of church and state, you see, is to be invoked for Republicans, not Democrats);
-Mark Finkelstein's blog, which discusses al sharpton's stunningly ignorant contention that, in the entire state of Alabama, "it's against the law to organize unions here"
Is that enough for you? Well, believe it or not, there's plenty more. There are blogs about bill maher and matt lauer that I could have put up as well - not to mention Ken Shepperd's blog about how the Obama administration has awarded a $10,000,000 prize to Philips for creating a $50 light bulb that, in the words of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, is "affordable for American families" (maybe his family).
Let me end with a fun game for the whole family. It's very simple: tune into the network news tonight, and see how many of these stories find their way on air.
But do me a favor: If you find anyone running an under/over pool on the number that will be on, put me down for the under. I'll bet everything I own.
Want to know how left wing house Democrat women really feel about misogyny? Then watch the following video, in which Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) and Rep. Janet Schakowsky (D-IL) react - or, more exactly, refuse to react - when reminded of what bill maher called Sarah Palin (a "dumb twat" and a "cunt") among many other vile insults, and then asked whether the $1,000,000 maher just contributed to President Obama's PAC should be returned.
As you can see, the answer from Lee and Schakowskyis......no answer.
From which I conclude that neither of them give a damn about misogyny...as long as is is directed against a woman who is conservative. Which means they don't give a damn about women at all, if the alternative is to play partisan politics.
They should - but won't - be ashamed of themselves. And media should - but won't - be calling them on it.
I used to write a lot about keith olbermann - when he was on MSNBC and anyone actually watched his show. I rarely mention him now, because he is on Current TV and just about nobody does. But his "apology" to S.E. Cupp and Michelle Malkin on yesterday's show gets him a mention this morning.
On Wednesday night’s Countdown, host Keith Olbermann took on comparisons of his own cruel remarks about some conservative women with Rush Limbaugh‘s sustained attack on Sandra Fluke, which has prompted an unprecedented advertiser exodus from the conservative radio giant. While Olbermann argued that his offenses were vastly different in character (and not misogynist), he did apologize to conservative pundits S.E. Cupp and Michelle Malkin, and announced the (re)suspension of his “Worst Persons” segment.
Olbermann began by…attacking a woman, saying that one of the “desperate false equivalencies” to the Limbaugh controversy has been leveled at him by “one of the house tamed liberals at Fox News, a supposed Democratic strategist who hasn’t been able to get a job as a Democrat since 2004.” (Powers actually did work on a Democratic campaign in 2005, and has been working as a writer and commentator since)
He’s referring to Kirsten Powers, who wrote a piece for The Daily Beast excoriating the media for applying a double-standard to liberals where sexism and misogyny are concerned.
Olbermann went on to explain two of the remarks that he has been criticized for. In April of last year, Olbermann tweeted, about S.E. Cupp, that “On so many levels she’s a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does,”
In October of 2009, Olbermann referred to influential conservative blogger Michelle Malkin as a “big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it,” which he explains is a reference from HBO’s East Bound And Down, and is not misogynistic because he’s also said it about men.
Is Olbermann being sincere, or is this simply a shaming tactic to score points against Limbaugh? Although he can be slow to do so, he has shown the capacity to make similar apologies in the past, under similar circumstances. In the wake of Ed Schultz’s suspension for calling Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut,” Olbermann apologized for remarks he had made about Ann Coulter.
The first thing to say here is that Tommy Christopher is obviously very sympathetic to olbermann, and seems to hate conservative women about as much as olbermann does. One look at his ridiculous "sustained attack" comment (in reality, Limbaugh made a couple of comments during one broadcast which he apologized for), along with several other equally absurd comments in the above excerpts - should tell you as much. And if you read his entire piece (which I urge you to do, it isn't that long) you will find a lot more. Given that, as noted earlier, Christopher writes for a left-wing site, this shouldn't be much of a surprise.
Regarding olbermann: do you consider what he said to be apologetic? Let's think about this.
First, please note that his "apologies" are for things said almost a year ago and about three years ago. If you were Ms. Cupp or Ms. Malkin could you possibly consider them sincere? Or would you consider them a load of BS that olbermann was shamed into saying after the fact?
Next, let's consider why so long a period could have gone by before olbermann said anything. The reason, of course, is that, unlike how the media came down on Rush Limbaugh, those same media were 100% fine with olbermann's comments - fine enough to not mention them or attack olbermann for saying them at the time. The media bias in this country is stunningly obvious.
Finally, what about the "apologies" themselves? They were not made to Ms. Cupp and Ms. Malkin, they were made as part of a commentary - one which included another attack on another woman; this one not even a conservative, but a Democrat operative (with Democrat credentials dramatically more extensive than the hopelessly compromised Tommy Christopher seems aware of) who dared to speak out against the hypocrisy. In other words, the "apologies" didn't exist at all.
Bottom line: keith olberman is still a hate-filled joke, our wonderful "neutral" media are still as biased as ever, and it is still open season on conservative women.
Every sports fan has seen it over and over again. A top team loses to an easy opponent because it is worried more about an upcoming tougher game than the one it is playing.
Are Mitt Romney and his campaign staff doing the same? Read this short blog by Paul Bedard (too short to excerpt) of washingtonexaminer.com and decide for yourself:
Expecting to wrap up the GOP nomination at the end of April, some in the Romney presidential campaign are turning to their “Prosecution of Obama” project, eager to assail the president’s handling of jobs and the economy before he has a chance to convince the public that his polices are working.
A campaign associate told Secrets that the project will illustrate with ads and speeches “how Barack Obama’s policies have hurt the middle class, given more and more people concerns about their jobs and prices, and put downward pressure on households.” Added the insider, “what Obama has done so far hasn’t worked and, when needed, he didn’t lead.”
The campaign will offer Romney’s alternative story-line: that he is a business and political leader who has a plan to fix the economy and bring back jobs.
Some campaign officials are already looking at how to package that message in ads and speeches, but insiders say it shouldn’t be hard. “We can find the unemployed air conditioning worker who’s having trouble finding a job in this economy,” said one.
The national campaign against Obama comes as Mitt Romney and his team are looking to wrap up the nomination at the end of April when Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut hold elections. “By the time we get to the end of April, the handwriting will be on the wall,” said pollster Whit Ayres.
Well, you can't say there isn't an air of confidence here. Not boastful confidence, but confidence that the Romney nomination is a near inevitability.
And, in fairness, there is good reason for it. Yesterday Karl Rove, on Fox, showed a hand-written chart analyzing what each candidate needed to win, based on how many delegates they already had amassed and how many more were necesssary to come to a majority. If my memory serves me correctly, Romney, so far, has won about 56% of the delegates and needs to get just 47% of the ones remaining to secure the Republican nomination - i.e. he can continue even at a substantially less successful pace and still win.
By contrast, Rick Santorum has won only about 24% of the delegates and needs to gain new ones at about a 63% pace - 2 to 3 times as successful has he has been so far. And Newt Gingrich's situation is even worse; I think he may need about 73% of the remaining delegates to win.
Nevertheless, there is always that possibility - especially with several southern states coming up - that Santorum or Gingrich, can pick it up and surge.
So while the Romney camp's idea of putting together a "prosecution" of Barack Obama to show voters what a failure he has been is terrific, it just might be an even better idea to first make sure that Mr. Romney will be the one presenting it on behalf of his party.
CAIRO, Egypt, March 7 (CDN) — A priest in Egypt was sentenced this week to six months in jail for a minor construction violation at his church building, while no one in a mob that burned the same structure down has been arrested.
The Rev. Makarious Bolous of the Mar Gerges Church in Aswan was sentenced on Sunday (March 4), but neither the imams who called for the attack nor the Muslim villagers who destroyed the church building last September have been charged with any crime.
Bolous said the ruling, coupled with the absence of prosecution against those who burned down the church building, is clear evidence of persecution and a legal double standard between Christians and Muslims.
“The whole village is full of people who are building against their licenses,” Bolous said. “So the whole thing is, ‘Why did they only cite the church and pick on the extra bit of building?’”
On Sept. 30, 2011, shortly after afternoon prayers, approximately 3,000 villagers set fire to and then demolished the Mar Gerges building in the El Marenab village of Aswan. The mob also razed four homes near the church building and two businesses, all Christian-owned. Widespread looting was also reported.
“Imams in more than 20 mosques called for crowds to gather and destroy the church and demolish the houses of the Copts and loot their properties,” Michael Ramzy, a villager from El Marenab, told local media in September.
That same week, Muslim villagers began blockading the entrance to the church building and threatening Copts on the street – in effect making them hostages in their own homes.
Throughout the dispute, Muslim leaders in the village claimed that the renovations were illegal because the building wasn’t a church but a hospitality facility – even though the original structure on the site was used as a church building for roughly 100 years.
The governor of Aswan, Mostafa al-Sayyed, sided with the rioters and cast blame for the attacks on the Copts and local leaders of the Coptic Orthodox Church. He claimed he had never given permission to turn a guesthouse into a church, in effect blaming the Copts for bringing the attack on themselves. But documents produced by church officials and independently verified by a non-sectarian group, The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, showed that Al-Sayyed signed off on construction permits that authorized the renovation of an existing altar area inside the building.
On Oct. 9, thousands of people marched through the streets of Cairo to protest the governor’s statements, the government’s lack of action to stop attacks against Christians and its refusal to prosecute perpetrators of violence against Christians.
The protest turned into a blood-bath after counter-protestors opened fire on some of the demonstrators, and soldiers ran over others with riot-control vehicles. Of the 27 people killed, at least 23 were Christians. Witnesses claimed that the shooters and the military were seen working closely together on the evening of the protest.
Aren't you thrilled with how well freedom and democracy are coming along in the new Egypt - the one that President Obama helped along so significantly by bringing the weight of his power down on Hosni Mubarak and forcing him to resign?
Oh, what's that? You're not thilled at all? This is not what happens in a free democratic state, but what happens when there is a takeover by Muslim Terrorists with no tolerance for anyone or anything but shari'a law?
Then I suppose you don't think this shows Egypt to be a foreign policy triumph after all. I suppose you think it shows Egypt is well on its way to becoming a disaster - one that we will have to read about in obscure web sites likecompassdirect.org instead of mainstream media, because mainstream media are ignoring it.
If so, good. I'm always happy when people understand what is really going on.
I have written about Afghanistan many times. I have written that President Bush had it right when he sent in fewer than 10,000 troops to remove the taliban from power in Kabul, along with a few other of what charitably might be called "cities" in Afghanistan, and cleaned out the training camps al qaeda was enthusiatically permitted to run; where they trained the subhuman scumbags who gave us 9/11.
It was not President Bush who increased troop strength to near 100,000, it was President Obama. It was not President Bush who decided this was a fine place to nation-build, it was President Obama. It was not President Bush who presided over about 3/4 of all the combat casualties in Afghanistan in the first 7 years of this military action, it was President Obama in just 3 years.
KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghanistan's president on Tuesday endorsed a "code of conduct" issued by an influential council of clerics that activists say represents a giant step backward for women's rights in the country.
President Hamid Karzai's Tuesday remarks backing the Ulema Council's document, which allows husbands to beat wives under certain circumstances and encourages segregation of the sexes, is seen as part of his outreach to insurgents like the Taliban.
The "code of conduct" issued Friday by the Ulema Council as part of a longer statement on national political issues is cast as a set of guidelines that religious women should obey voluntarily, but activists are concerned it will herald a reversal of the trend in Afghanistan since 2001 to pass laws aimed at expanding women's rights.
Among the rules: Women should not travel without a male guardian and women should not mingle with strange men in places like schools, markets or offices. Beating one's wife is prohibited only if there is no "Shariah-compliant reason," it said, referring to the principles of Islamic law.
Asked about the code of conduct at a press conference in the capital, Karzai said it was in line with Islamic law and was written in consultation with Afghan women's groups. He did not name the groups that were consulted.
"The clerics' council of Afghanistan did not put any limitations on women," Karzai said, adding: "It is the Shariah law of all Muslims and all Afghans."
Congratulations, Mr. Obama. You've succeeded brilliantly. Your legacy for Afghanistan is to go.....backward.
Backward to the days of the taliban. Backward to where women are treated with less respect and dignity than barnyard animals. Backward on behalf of the men who demand it, and the women who are kept so completely ignorant and powerless that they don't know better - and would be afraid to speak up even if they did.
This is today's Afghanistan. Brought to you by Barack Obama and his foreign policy specialists.
Another "triumph" for this administration. Everyt bit as impressive as Egypt's new shari'a law/forget the peace treaty with Israel governance, and Libya's al-qaeda-inspired civil war.
From those wonderful "neutral" folks who have given you "Game Change" the umpteenth hit job on Sarah Palin; this one posing as a "based on actual events" story.
Read Paul Bond's piece for Hollywood Reporter and you will see that the writers, stars, etc. of this hit piece have - in traceable amounts, so maybe the actual total is higher - contributed over $200,000 to political parties and individuals. Every penny of it to Democrats.
That's right. 100%. Not even an accidental fiver to, say, Arlen Specter the day before he switched parties. A clean sweep.
Here's a taste of what Mr. Bond uncovered. Please pay special attention to the last line, which I have put in bold print:
•Ed Harris, who plays Sen. John McCain, has given $9500 to Democratic candidates, and since 1998, the actor has also donated $11,975 to liberal special-interest groups .
•Woody Harrelson, who stars as Steve Schmidt, chief strategist for McCain-Palin, has given $4,300 to Democratic candidates, and donated $3,500 to liberal causes .
•Jay Roach, Game Change's director/co-executive producer, gave $15,800 to the Democrats. And to Republicans and conservatives: Zero.
• Producer Tom Hanks has given away over a hundred grand to the Democratic party, and since 1994, Hanks has also donated $36,500 to liberal causes.
•Julianne Moore, who stars as Palin, donated $2,250 to the Democrats, and $7,500 to special-interest groups like the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic White House Victory Fund.
•Game Change co-executive producer and writer (adaptation) Danny Strong, gave $2500 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008.
An HBO spokesperson stands by the movie as a fair representation of the election
Ah, yes. HBO assures us that this movie, with that lineup of partisans, contributing that much money to one party and one party alone, is "a fair representation of the election".
Sure, and Babe Ruth was a fair representation of an average baseball player.
Please keep in mind that this is the same HBO which proudly airs "Real Time" with bill maher, who has called Sarah Palin so many vile names that my fingers would hurt if I tried to type them all out. I suppose they stand by maher's hate comments as a "fair representation" too.
Apart from the obvious lies about fairness, there is one good thing I can say about Game Change. At least it is a movie, not a (supposedly) neutral news report.
Where does that leave our media, those wonderful folks who claim they do provide neutral news reports? What's their excuse?
During the past year, politically aggressive front groups founded by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have been partnering with regional “Occupy” groups to pressure businesses and politicians, The Daily Caller has learned.
The organizations — including This Is Our DC; Good Jobs, Great Houston; Good Jobs, Better Baltimore; Detroit’s Good Jobs Now; Fight for Philly; One Pittsburgh; Good Jobs LA; and Minnesotans for a Fair Economy — employ “flash demonstrations” and other tactics to deluge their political targets with protesters, sometimes numbering in the hundreds.
TheDC first reported Monday on the secretive ties between these organizations and the SEIU. Their elaborate and sometimes lavish protests, some with expensive-looking production values, advance the giant labor union’s interests without exposing the SEIU directly to criticism from the public.
Since Monday, TheDC has identified another organization in this network: “Working Washington,”whose Seattle-based website mentions nothing about its SEIU ties. That site, however — like those of the other front groups — is hosted on a server that TheDC traced back to the SEIU.
In keeping with the SEIU’s pattern, Working Washington’s corporate registration filed with the state government in Olympia, Wash. lists Secky Fascione as its registered agent. On her LinkedIn profile, Fascione identifies herself as an “Organizing Coordinator at SEIU.”
Interesting, to say the least. You have "Occupy" remnants acting as stooges for the SEIU, and the SEIU looking like what is happening is unrelated to the union.
As for the public? The less they know about this the better "Occupy" and SEIU like it. Why do you supppose?
Let's all keep a close watch on these two, especially regarding what they are cooking up for the 2008 election. Because you can bet they are cooking up plenty.
CHRIS MATTHEWS ON REPUBLICAN CHILDREN: COMPARE IT TO RUSH LIMBAUGH
We all, of course, know that Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute". We all know that his comments were based on her self-described behavior. And we all know that he has since apologized for using those terms - an apology that was not accepted either by Fluke or by a large majority of our wonderful "neutral' media who could not wait to sink their collective teeth into Limbaugh's hide.
In the middle of the program's opening segment about Romney's victories on Super Tuesday, with pictures of a Romney event on the screen, Matthews asked guests Chuck Todd of NBC and Major Garrett of National Journal, "Who are these featureless, young people waving those placards? I mean, are they, are they androids? Who are these people that seem thrilled? Look at them. They all go up in unison. They all put their placards up at exactly the same way. They all are exactly in unison. Is this North Korea?"
Todd seemed mostly in agreement saying, "I think that’s actually a pretty good description what you said. These are the perfect kids. That’s what you get at a rally sometimes."
Matthews continued with this preposterous theme saying, "Major, he still looks like one of the figures at the Hall of the Presidents, one of those statues that are monitorized, you know, motorized. Stand up and wave. There he is with his wife. She looks normal. They turn around, they wave to a crowd of androids who all look the same. They all put their placards up at the same time. He turns around and smiles as if he’s connecting with them. And he clearly is not a human being connecting with other human beings. Look at this? Is this real?"
Tell me: which is worse? Rush Limbaugh characterizing a woman as a slut after she tells us she is having so much nonmarital sex that she needs over $1,000 a year for contraceptives, or Chris Matthews' direct, personal insult of children for nothing other than their "crime" of supporting a Republican presidential candidate?
Featureless? Androids? Like North Koreans?
Who is going to demand that Chris Matthews apologize to these children? Certainly not our wonderful "neutral" media.
If they gave a disgusting sack of manure like bill maher a free pass when he called Sarah Palin a "dumb twat" and a "cunt" - both of which should have enraged all women, why would they go after Chris Matthews for attacking children?
We see it again and again and again: if you are to the right, you better watch every word. If you are to the left, you cannot be a big enough pig for media to do anything but yawn while waiting for their next shot at the right.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.
THOMAS FRIEDMAN: FROM PULITZER PRIZE WINNER TO JOKE
Three time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman in today's New York Times column:
"The only question I have when it comes to President Obama and Israel is whether he is the most pro-Israel president in history or just one of the most."
No-time Pulitzer Prize winner Ken Berwitz in this blog:
"Has Thomas Friedman gone completely out of his mind, is he on significant mind-altering drugs, or are the self-hating Jews who own the Times paying him extra to write idiotica like this in an election year so that their Lord and Savior, Barack Obama, might get a few extra votes from misguided Israel supporters?"
A few questions for Thomas Friedman - questions I have asked before; as recently as this Monday:
-Is Mr,. Friedman aware that Barack Obama demanded Israel start negotiations with Palestinian Arabs, who are sworn to Israel's complete annihilation, by retreating to the indefensible pre-1967 borders: in other words, the wars of annihilation Palestinian Arabs started, and lost, in 1967 and 1973 would be "do-overs", and every Israeli who died or was wounded fighting for the country's existence was a schmuck.
-Is Mr,. Friedman aware that Barack Obama looked the other way when Iran's people were marching in the street against the current regime, which is on record as being committed to wiping Israel off the face of the map, because it was not our business to interfere. But he had a major excrement-hemmorhage over Israel's intention to build a few hundred residential housing units in a Jewish area of East Jerusalem.
-Is Mr,. Friedman aware that Barack Obama is bosom buddies with numerous Israel haters like rashid khalidi and domestic terrorist william ayers.
-Is Mr,. Friedman aware that Barack Obama directly and publicly insulted Prime Minister Netanyahu last year, when he first refused to have any photos taken with him for the press and then had Netanyahu sit around and cool his heels while Obama went off to have dinner with his family?
These are yes or no questions. If the answer is yes, than Mr. Friedman has ceased to be a viable columnist and may be non compos mentis. If the answer is no, than Mr. Friedman is as indifferent to the fate of Israel as Mr. Obama appears to be - despite his lame, hollow, clearly dishonest claims to the contrary.
Either way, that opening comment has to be among the most ridiculous I have ever seen in a newspaper - any newspaper, but especially a formerly great one like the New York Times.
-Romney is having a very good night, but not as good as he might have. Santorum is having a better night than I expected. Gingrich is having a bad night, but seems unable to comprehend how bad it is.
-For Mitt Romney, Virginia was a shoo-in since his only competition was the non-starter, ron paul. Massachusetts and Vermont were as much slam dunks for Romney as Georgia was for Gingrich. The big prize, Ohio, is very close. And, though I suspect Romney will win it, a) I doubt the win will be by much and b) he could still lose.
-Rick Santorum apparently has won Tennessee, and it looks like the win will be substantial. He also has won Oklahoma by plenty. That's enough to keep him in the race.
-Newt Gingrich, predictably, is winning Georgia big. But I just watched/heard him lecture "them" (don't you wonder who "they" and "them" are?) about how wrong they were to prematurely count him out of the running. And I'm thinking to myself that, aside from Georgia, he is doing poorly everywhere else. He is even running a relatively distant third in Tennessee. So what is he talking about?
I will have limited time to blog tomorrow, but I will try to discuss the final results if I get a chance.
As media continue to be shocked - shocked - by Rush Limbaugh noting that an unmarried woman who needs over $1,000 a year for contraceptives is having enough sex to be called a slut, Michelle Malkin - who, as a conservative woman has been called just about every name in the book, put together what she calls The progressive "primer of hate:" an illustrated primer, 2000-2010.
What Ms. Malkin has put together is far too long to try posting here (more due to pictures and video rather than text). So do yourself a favor and click on the above link. Then, as you look/listen/read through it, remember that anything you don't recall is what our wonderful "neutral' media did not tell you - thus it considered Rush Limbaugh's comments about the fraudulent Sandra Fluke (a 23 year old law student talking about ObamaCare who turned out to be a 30 year old career left wing activist who would not be covered under ObamaCare) much, much worse.
WHAT WOULD MEDIA HAVE SAID IF IT WERE PRESIDENT BUSH?
Excerpted from Joel Gehrke's article for washingtonexaminer.com:
Call it a coincidence, but between White House business and campaign events, President Obama has delivered speeches or campaign remarks that coincided with almost every major Republican presidential election this cycle -- often using the occasions to attack Mitt Romney.
Today -- Super Tuesday in the Republican primary -- Obama chose to hold his first news conference of 2012, an event that guarantees Republicans will not have the media spotlight to themselves for this news cycle. The president took a shot at Romney, almost immediately. "I'm not one of those people who think we should wait and let the housing market hit bottom," he said during his opening remarks, alluding to Romney's advice for how to get the housing market to rebound most quickly.
What would media have said if this were President Bush? Would they have called him childish? Sophomoric? Immature? How about rude and obvious?
But this is not President Bush. This is President Obama. So don't expect to hear anything like that - any more than you should expect to hear demands that President Obama demand that his super-PAC return the $1,000,000 that career misogynist bill maher gave it last week.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's a lot easier to win when the referee is rooting for your side.
It’s been a tough year for the Chevrolet Volt, General Motors’ once-celebrated plug-in hybrid. But perhaps it’s about to see its fortunes turn as a jury of Continental motoring journalists declare Volt and its Opel Ampera sibling the European Car of the year.
So I was thinking about how a stinker like the Chevrolet Volt could possibly be European Car of the year.....and then it hit me.
General Motors estimated that it would sell 60,000 Volts this year; 45,000 domestic and 15,000 international. However, in the first two months of this year it has sold only about 1,600 cars domestically (I have no idea how many foreign sales there have been - if any).
Do you realize what this means? If the Volt continues at this breakneck pace, it will sell, oh, about 9,600 cars domestically; a shortfall of 35,400.
And if the the Volt undersells its goal by 35,400, European cars will have a potential of selling up to 35,400 more cars in the USA - a nice hit by anybody's standards.
Ahhhhhhh, realization has dawned. NOW I know why the Chevrolet Volt is European Car of the year.
Heck, if GM brings back the Corvair, they can win this thing two years running.......
Donald Payne, the long-time (12 term) congressperson from Newark, New Jersey, and first Black congressperson from the state of New Jersey, has died of colon cancer.Mr. Payne was 77 years old
I would lie to say I was a fan of Mr. Payne’s.He had a National Journal composite liberal score in the mid-90’s, which is about as high as it is possible to be, and he was a major player in the Congressional Black Caucus, which I feel should be disbanded on the grounds that it is an overtly racist organization.
But he gets points – lots of them - for being a sincere, dedicated representative of his district whom its people certainly appreciated all these years.And, before entering politics, he was also a dedicated teacher/educator as well as President of the national YMCA. That is a truly productive life.
I’m sorry to see Donald Payne go – especially this way.May he rest in peace.
Here is the latest DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) email, from Executive Director Guy Cecil....in rust, with my comments in blue.
Please read it and decide who you think makes more sense:
After calling law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute,” Republican Grand Poobah Rush Limbaugh is feeling it where it hurts. The national outcry has forced at least nine major national advertisers to drop his show. You are responsible for that.No, you and your Democrat operatives are, along with an increasingly disgraceful Accomplice media.
In an effort to staunch the ad revenue bleeding, today Limbaugh “apologized” – by blaming you.
“In fighting [liberals] on this issue last week, I became like them. Against my own instincts… I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke.”
No, Guy, Rush Limbaugh did not blame anyone but himself, he said that he – not anyone else – acted against his own instincts by behaving the way you do.But it is interesting to see that you think every person on the DSCC mailing list is a liberal.Quite a big tent you have there.
Really, Rush? It’s our fault that you called a young woman hateful names and demanded that she post sex videos online for your enjoyment? How pathetic – and entirely typical. No, Limbaugh did not just call her a slut – the way one of your heroes, Ed Schultz did when he called Laura Ingraham a slut. Limbaugh said that, based on her claim that she needed $1,000+ per year for contraception, she must have been behaving like a slut, and that if she wants to be paid to have sex that makes her a prostitute.The comments may have gone too far, but they were based entirely on her self-description.
However, since you are so appalled by “hateful names”, what what do you have to say about Ed Schultz?Or Chris Matthews, who, over the past several years, has made a career out of using vicious insults far worse than Limbaugh's against women whose politics he disagrees with?Or bill maher, who calls women he disagrees with “twats” and “cunts”, then contributes $1,000,000 to Barack Obama’s super-PAC?Are you demanding that the money be returned, since maher says things dramatically worse than what Limbaugh said?I didn’t think so. Click here to add your name. Demand that Republican leaders denounce Limbaugh’s hateful rhetoric. It’s way past time for them to shut down their party’s spiritual and intellectual leader.Ahhh, now we have the true purpose of this email.Democrats do not like Rush Limbaugh’s opinions – so shut him down.One voice, all we want is one voice…. Limbaugh has nobody to blame but himself. It’s time that Republican leaders demand that he truly apologizes to Sandra Fluke – and America.
Guy Cecil Thank you, Guy, for that sincere suggestion. I'm sure Republicans will give it all the serious consideration it deserves.
With a tip of the hat to the late, very funny Jackie Vernon....hello fun-seekers.
Super Tuesday is here. Primary voters are already casting their ballots. And, of course, no one knows for sure how things will turn out.
But, based on polling data, we have at least a directional indication. In that connection:
The polls show that, in the key state of Ohio, Mitt Romney has come from way back and either is close to or leading Rick Santorum. Although several of the polls were conducted on Sunday, the day after Romney won Washington State by double digits, it is likely that a good many, may be most, poll respondents were unaware of that win when contacted - which means the potential bump in his fortunes that such a win could bring is probably not included in the data.
And then we have this, from Gallup:
As you can see, Romney is on the upswing, and Santorum is past his surge and quickly coming back down to earth.
Does this guarantee a good night for Romney? No it does not. But it does suggest that his prospects are very good.
Regarding the others:
-If Rick Santorum can either win Ohio be a close second, he probably sticks around. If he loses Ohio by more than, say, 5% or 6%? I suspect he will leave the race. I base this on my assessment that he is neither stupid nor politically naive -- both of which would be necessary to continue under those circumstances.
-As for Newt Gingrich, he almost certainly will win his home state of Georgia, probably by a lot, and has a strong chance to win Tennessee as well. Add in the funding by his fabulously wealthy fan, conservative Sheldon Adelson, and there is little doubt that he will stay in the race.
Now: will all or any of this actually happen? As Annie sang: "Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya tomorrow...." But in this case it may not always be a day away, for at least one candidate it may be the final tomorrow. We'll see.
I won't have a lot of time to blog tonight or tomorrow, but I'll try to discuss it with you.
I have no idea what actor/writer Chazz Palminteri's politics are.
But, as the left wing propaganda machine, aided and abetted by its Accomplice Media, continues to put so much pressure on Rush Limbaugh's advertisers than 8 or 9 of them (so far) have caved in and announced they are dropping the show, Mr. Palminteri, if inadvertently, has given him some great advice on what to do about it -- advice which actually was provided 19 years ago in "A Bronx Tale", his raw, brutal movie about mob control of an Italian neighborhood in the Bronx, and the tension between Italians and minorities.
There is a terrific scene which takes place in neighborhood boss Sonny LoSpecchio's bar. A bunch of "Satan's Messengers" biker thugs come in and make it pretty clear they are going to cause a lot of trouble. Then, when Sonny (played by Mr. Palminteri) exercises an atypical level of tolerance in trying to diffuse the situation, they answer by insulting him in a humiliating way. Here is what happens next:
Sonny: That wasn't very nice. Now youse gotta leave.
Satan's Messengers: I'll tell you when the fuck we leave alright. Get the fuck away from me.
Satan's Messengers: [the bikers laugh at Sonny as he walks to the door] Go watch the bikes eh! [Sonny locks the front door. All the bikers look and curse at him]
Sonny: Now youse can't leave.
Calogero 'C' Anello: [narrating] "I will never forget the look on their faces. All eight of them. Their faces dropped. All their courage and strength was drained right from their bodies. They had reputation for breaking up bars, but they knew that instant, they'd made a fatal mistake. This time they walked into the wrong bar."
My advice to Rush Limbaugh is to act like Sonny might have, and graciously invite the sponsors back. But to make it clear that they have a time limit - a short one - to rethink their decision. And, after that, as Sonny might say, "youse can't come back".
Rush Limbaugh is a radio titan, with tens of millions of people listening to his show every week. A large majority of them, I would think, are very much in sympathy with his characterization of Sandra Fluke - especially now that we know she is a phony-baloney plant who is not 23 years old (she is 30), is not just a law student (she is a career left wing activist) and has no business testifying at a hearing about ObamaCare (because, in HHS's own legal opinion, ObamaCare covers employees, not students).
Maybe I'm naive, but I assume that if advertising time opens up for an audience this large and this loyal, there will be other companies happy to take it - even if, due to left wing/Accomplice Media pressure, it may, for a short while, have to be discounted a bit to entice them in.
Look, I have no illusions about why companies advertise on Limbaugh's or anybody's show. It is for one reason and one reason only: to derive a financial benefit from doing so. That is why those companies paid the big bucks to advertise there in the first place. And I have no doubt that Limbaugh's audience - again, among the most loyal in media - will react negatively to companies which bow to left wing pressure and walk away.
I wonder how many cancellations it will take for them to figure out what a bad mistake they made.
Then there is the Martin Niemöller factor: if they come for Limbaugh and are successful, you can bet they will come for the others. People like Hannity, Levin, Savage, Medved, Prager, etc. had better stand behind Rush Limbaugh (as I expect they will) or they are next. These people do not believe in free speech. They believe in one voice: theirs.
Let me end by assuring you that Rush Limbaugh has not contacted me for advice. But if he did, this is the advice I - and Chazz Palminteri/Sonny LoSpecchio - would give him.
It will be more than a little interesting to see how this plays out.
These few paragraphs, from today's Reuters article, do an excellent job of encapsulating the positions taken by US President Barack Obama and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
Obama, Netanyahu give no sign of narrowing gap on Iran
Obama sought to assure Netanyahu that the
United States was keeping the military option open as a last resort and always "has Israel's back," but also urged Israeli patience to allow sanctions and diplomacy to work.
Netanyahu, speaking in historical terms about the nature of the Jewish state, focused on what he described as Israel's right to "have the ability to defend itself, by itself." Israel sees Iran's nuclear program as a threat to its existence.
"We do believe there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue," Obama said, even as he sought to convince Netanyahu of stiffened U.S. resolve against Iran.
Given his chance to speak, Netanyahu said his "supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate."
In cautioning against renewed international diplomatic engagement with Iran, Netanyahu has warned Western powers not to fall into a "trap" of letting Iran buy more time for nuclear advances.
Tell you what: after the last three years, if I were Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama told me he "has Israel's back', I would ask him why he thinks Israel would ever let him near its back.
Maybe Mr. Obama thinks Israel has forgotten that he demanded it start negotiations with Palestinian Arabs, who are sworn to Israel's complete annihilation, by retreating to the indefensible pre-1967 borders: in other words, the wars of annihilation Palestinian Arabs started, and lost, in 1967 and 1973 would be "do-overs", and every Israeli who died or was wounded fighting for the country's existence was a schmuck.
Or maybe Mr. Obama thinks Israel has forgotten that he looked the other way when Iran's people were marching in the street against the current regime, which is on record as being committed to wiping Israel off the face of the map, because it was not our business to interfere. But he had a major excrement-hemmorhage over Israel's intention to build a few hundred residential housing units in a Jewish area of East Jerusalem.
Or maybe Mr. Obama thinks Israel has forgotten what bosom buddies he is with numerous Israel haters like rashid khalidi and domestic terrorist william ayers.
Or maybe Mr. Obama thinks Israel has forgotten the terminal insult he inflicted on Prime Minister Netanyahu when first refused to have any photos taken with him for the press and then had Netanyahu sit around and cool his heels while Obama went off to have dinner with his family -- not inviting Netanyahu, who sat there until Obama was good and damn ready to come back.
But I doubt that Israel has forgotten any of this. And, therefore, I doubt that Israel has any trust at all that Barack Obama is serious about having its back. I suspect that a lot of Israelis, instead, are far more convinced Barack Obama wants to have Israel back in Palestinian Arabs' hands.
Benjamin Netanyahu certainly hasn't forgotten. Which is why he operates as though he can trust Barack Obama about as far as he can throw him.
Just another reason that no one ever accused Benjamin Netanyahu of being stupid......
Days ago, I put up a compendium of Chris Matthews' disgusting, vicious, personal invective. But, in the next few days, I think I'll do the same for some of the others on that sorry network, to bring home even more clearly a) how much worse what they said is than what Limbaugh said and b) how completely their garbage is always ignored by our wonderful "neutral" media.
That quote comes from my blog, yesterday, which hit bill maher for his voluminous list of sick, disgusting, profane attacks on various women (and men, for that matter). And I meant it when I wrote it.
But I don't have to any more - at least not as completely as I otherwise would have. Kirsten Powers, a Democrat consultant with absolutely impeccable credentials for her party, has beaten me to the punch.
She has written a blog for (gasp) Fox News, which has some of the quotes I have put up from Matthews and maher, along with others, from similarly troglodytic misygynists such as Ed Schultz, keith olbermann, Rolling Stone's matt taibbi, etc.
I urge you to click here and read Ms. Powers' words....all of them. But, for now, I will give you just the last part of her commentary, which falls squarely within the category of "truer words were never spoken".
Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women’s Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.
After all, if Limbaugh’s outburst is part of the “war on women,” then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?
It’s time for some equal-opportunity accountability. Without it, the fight against media misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the Democratic Party, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square.
Thank you, Ms. Powers, for showing that there are still Democrats who talk honestly about a serious subject, not dishonestly to use it as political fodder. What a terrible pity that so few of your Democrat friends can say the same.
If you get a few minutes, can you call Debbie Wasserman Schultz and read her what you wrote? Thanks.
"Jumping the shark" is a term used by TV executives to describe a hit show that has run out of good plot lines, so it finally uses one so absurd that it is clear the show is done for (its genesis is a "Happy Days" episode where The Fonz jumps over a shark while water skiing).
Sandra Fluke's start toward the downward side has, in my opinion, started already...barely a week after we ever heard of her.
Student called 'slut' by Limbaugh dismisses apology
The Georgetown University law student labeled a "slut" by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh says his apology changes nothing and that Americans have to decide whether to support companies that continue to advertise on his program.
"I don't think that a statement like this issued, saying that his choice of words was not the best, changes anything, and especially when that statement is issued when he's under significant pressure from his sponsors who have begun to pull their support," Sandra Fluke told ABC’s "The View” on Monday.
The 30-year-old Fluke said she hasn't heard from Limbaugh since he issued a written apology late Saturday. But she says his comments about her testimony before members of Congress have been so personal, she'd rather not have him call. Fluke recently testified to Democratic members of Congress in support of a requirement that health care companies, even those connected to religious organizations, provide coverage for contraception.
Remember just last week when we all "knew" - because our wonderful "neutral" media had told us - that Sandra Fluke was just a 23 year old law student? But now we know - for real - that she is, in fact, a 30 year old professional activist who is whining about being denied the cost of contraceptives, which she claims cost many multiples more than they actually do.
Further, that same wonderful "neutral' media somehow omitted the fact that the hearings she was denied the chance to testify at, which were about ObamaCare, had exactly nothing to do with students getting contraceptives, since ObamaCare does not cover college students at all, just employees.
So now, a week later, this consummate fraud, who was trotted out by Democrats for a consummately fraudulent purpose, is turning down an apology from someone whose "crime" was to call her exactly what most people would call an unmarried woman who engages in as much sex as she must to need $1,000+ in contraception per year: a slut.
In TV, that would be jumping the shark. But in this case it is jumping the Fluke -- which, evidently, is what more than her share of guys (maybe gals too) do with regularity.
Last week I wrote about a just-released war movie titled "Acts of Valor".
"Acts of Valor is quite an anomaly: unlike just about every other movie in recent years, it supports rather than craps on our troops. In the original blog, I noted that after, just three days of release, its gross box office receipts were already double the estimated production costs ($24,000,000 gross, $12,000,000 production costs), so it would almost certainly be a money-maker.
Well, it is now a week later, and "Acts of Valor" is up to $45,000,000 gross - highly profitable already, and still early in its first run. It has "winner" written all over it.
Now, let me show you how the critics have reviewed this movie.
To do that, let's go to www.metacritic.com, a terrific movie site which compiles critics' reviews of each movie, provides links to each full review, and rates the reviews on a numerical scale -- the more positive the review the higher the rating.
Numerically, "Acts of Valor" got an average rating of 42, which means the critics thought it was no more than passable, with major flaws. That is fair enough - critics are entitled to their opinions (heck, they're certainly paid enough for them). But the reasons for those low ratings are not always movie-related. Like these, for example:
Time, Richard Corliss. Rating: 30. Description: By our count, three of the core SEALs are maimed or dead by the end. A new baby is left without her loving father. The picture ends not with a parade but with a funeral. And that may be the toughest, most lasting image in this cockamamie, Pentagon-approved war adventure.
Rolling Stone, Peter Travers. Rating: 25. Description: I don't know what to make of Act of Valor. It's like reviewing a recruiting poster.
Slant Magazine, Andrew Schenker. Rating: 0. Description: A movie whose cinematic ineptitude is matched only by its ideological rottenness, Act of Valor features a cast of real-life active-duty Navy SEALS in order to grant the project's us-versus-them geopolitical worldview a sham moral authority
Get the "picture" (pun intended)? I kind of thought you would.
But that's OK. To these (and the other similarly disposed) critics, I say go ahead. Spew your venom. But never forget that the military you hate so much is far, far more beloved by the rest of us than you will ever be the best day of your lives. Why? Because they are (correctly) perceived as the people who protect us and our freedoms.
And what, by contrast, do you do? Watch movies and write your opinions of them?
If you read nothing else about Afghanistan, you should read Mark Steyn's latest commentary about it.
Mr. Steyn gives us as brutally honest an explanation of how the Obama administration turned a logical, effective strategy into an impossible mess of incalculable magnitude as you will find anywhere.
Here is just a tiny taste. But what a mistake you will make if you do not click here and read every word:
Say what you like about Afghans, but they’re admirably straightforward. The mobs outside the bases enflamed over the latest Western affront to their exquisitely refined cultural sensitivities couldn’t put it any plainer:
“Die, die, foreigners!”
And foreigners do die. USAF Lieutenant Colonel John Loftis, 44, and Army Major Robert Marchanti II, 48, lost their lives not on some mission out on the far horizon in wild tribal lands in the dead of night but in the offices of the Afghan Interior Ministry. In a “secure room” that required a numerical code to access. Gunned down by an Afghan “intelligence officer.” Who then departed the scene of the crime unimpeded by any of his colleagues.
Six weeks after the last NATO soldier leaves Afghanistan, it will be as if we were never there. Before the election in 2010, the New York Post carried a picture of women registering to vote in Herat, all in identical top-to-toe bright blue burkas, just as they would have looked on September 10, 2001. We came, we saw, we left no trace. America’s longest war will leave nothing behind.
They can breach our security, but we cannot breach theirs — the vast impregnable psychological fortress in which what passes for the Pashtun mind resides. Someone accidentally burned a Koran your pals had already defaced with covert messages? Die, die, foreigners! The president of the
United States issues a groveling and characteristically clueless apology for it? Die, die, foreigners! The American friend who has trained you and hired you and paid you has arrived for a meeting? Die, die, foreigners! And those are the Afghans who know us best. To the upcountry village headmen, the fellows descending from the skies in full body armor are as alien as the space invaders were to Americans in the film Independence Day.
The Rumsfeld strategy that toppled the Taliban over a decade ago was brilliant and innovative: special forces on horseback using GPS to call in unmanned drones. They will analyze it in staff colleges around the world for decades. But what we ought to be analyzing instead is the sad, aimless, bloated, arthritic, transnationalized folly of what followed.
Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. I don't know how this could have been said more clearly or more accurately.
President Obama and his Inepticons were handed a war with modest objectives and a winning strategy. They have turned it into a mindless deathtrap for our soldiers, complete with a population of hopelessly ignorant, illiterate, destitute people who are told to hate us every day, and who happily oblige.
Put another way, Barack Obama has replaced victory with its own special version of the Russian defeat model.
Thank you to Mark Steyn and the relatively few other valued writers, who insist on talking about issues of importance - in this case very great importance.
What a difference your subject matter is from the Democrat-concocted "issue" of whether Sandra Fluke is being deprived and mistreated unless ObamaCare spiffs her to $1,000+ a year in contraceptives -- even though a) condoms cost about a buck apiece, b) guys often are the ones who supply them c) oral contraception can be purchased for all of $9 a month at the local Walmart and d) in any event, ObamaCare covers employees, not students.
Ms. Fluke's story, obvously, is far more important. Just ask the rest of our media.
There would be a lot of problems with a Newt Gingrich presidential candidacy. But there would be benefits as well. And one of the biggest benefits of teh Gingrich candidacy, regardless of whether he wins or loses the nomination, is his talent, and enthusiasm, for sticking it in the ear of our biased media when they play their games on him.
Here are just the latest two examples from this past weekend.
Example #1 - the well-deserved thumping Mr. Gingrich gave ABC News's Democrat-operative-posing-as-a-newsguy, George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Mr. Speaker, there's really no way for you to get enough delegates before the convention, so this, as you said, could be a long fight if it's going to be successful for you. When we have seen this happen in the past -- 1952 for the Democrats, 1976 for the Republicans, 1980 for the Democrats -- it means that party loses in the general election. Are you worried that this kind of long fight is going to put your nominee at risk?
GINGRICH: No. George, I'll be glad to swap history credentials with you. Four years ago, I believe it was, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went all the way to late June before their race ended. And yet that seemed to actually be more advantageous to then-Senator Obama than Senator McCain having gotten the nomination early. So I think it all depends on which year you're talking about and how it evolves, what happens.
Example #2: the even bigger, and equally well-deserved thumping - for a much more important reason - administered to NBC's Meet The Press host, David Gregory, after Mr. Gregory started his interview with a question about Rush Limbaugh's apology to Sandra Fluke:
"You know, David, I am astonished at the desperation of the elite media to avoid rising gas prices, to avoid the President's apology to religious fanatics in Afghanistan, to avoid a trillion dollar deficit, to avoid the longest period of unemployment since the Great Depression, and to suddenly decide that Rush Limbaugh is the great national crisis of this week"
In those few words, Gingrich not only put Gregory in his place - masterfully and deservedly - but exposed the unrelenting, second-nature bias that Gregory and his likeminded compatriots, show every day in the guise of being journalists.
Thank you for that, Mr. Gingrich. And let me say that if you intend to continue calling out our Accomplice Media on their bias, it will make what appears to be your losing effort to become the Republican nominee a worthwhile journey.
The first excerpts are from today's lead editorial in a major US newspaper today:
Drill Baby Drill, Redux
It’s campaign season and the pandering about gas prices is in full swing. Hardly a day goes by that a Republican politician does not throw facts to the wind and claim that rising costs at the pump are the result of President Obama’s decisions to block the Keystone XL pipeline and impose sensible environmental regulations and modest restrictions on offshore drilling.
Next, of course, comes the familiar incantation of “drill, baby, drill.” Mr. Obama has rightly derided this as a “bumper sticker,” not a strategy. Last week, he agreed that high gas prices were a real burden, but said the only sensible response was a balanced mix of production, conservation and innovation in alternative fuels.
There are lots of reasons for the rise in gas prices, but the lack of American production is not one of them.
The truth is that oil prices are set on world markets by forces largely beyond America’s control. Chief among these is soaring demand in countries like China. Unrest in oil-producing countries is another factor.
Ok, from this editorial we find that drilling for more oil is definitively not the answer to our energy problems. It could not be clearer. So far, so good.
The second excerpts are from an article published on a major US newspaper's front page today:
Deepwater Oil Drilling Picks Up Again as BP Disaster Fades
HOUSTON — Nearly two years after an explosion on an oil platform killed 11 workers and sent millions of gallons of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, deepwater drilling has regained momentum in the gulf and is spreading around the world.
The reason for the resumption of such drilling, analysts say, is continuing high demand for energy worldwide.
“We need the oil,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the RiceUniversity energy program. “The industry will have to improve and regulators will have to adjust, but the public will have to deal with the risk of drilling in deep waters or get out of their cars.”
Domestic oil exploration and gasoline prices are emerging as important issues in the presidential campaign. While candidates have sparred over the reasons for rising prices, there is little disagreement over the call for more drilling, onshore and offshore.
Ok, from this article we find that drilling for more oil is definitively the answer to our energy problems. It could not be clearer.
Wow. These two papers must be about as different as night and day, right?
Both the lead editorial and the front page above-the-fold article are in this morning's New York Times.
Maybe there is some affable soul at Times headquarters who can take a few moments out of his/her busy day and introduce the news department to the editorial department. It's pretty obvious that they don't talk much.
Yep, the Times, it are a'changin'.....even within the same edition of this once-great and now-ridiculous newspaper.
I can see clearly now, the rain is gone, I can see all obstacles in my way Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind It’s gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright) Sun-Shiny day: Johnny Nash (and, thought-wise if not singing-wise, Mitt Romney)
Mitt Romney has got to be feeling pretty good about things right now. Vote-wise, he swept Rick Santorum in Michigan and Arizona last Tuesday. Yesterday, he beat paul and Santorum by double digits in the Washington caucuses (38%, to 25% for paul and 24% for Santorum). His 18% deficit in Ohio (Rasmussen, February 16th) is now a dead heat - and the two polls showing this (Rasmussen and NBC/Marist) both were conducted before Ohioans heard about the Washington win. He looks like a virtual shoo-in to predominate on this week's Super Tuesday.
If Romney does win Ohio (which certainly is a strong likelihood), then Rick Santorum's race is about over. His surge would indisputably be ended and he would sink back to second-tier status. ron paul is not an issue: his economic message still resonates, but as a candidate he does not have even one primary win.
That leaves Newt Gingrich, sort of. But it is more than likely too late for him. Even if Gingrich should win a few southern primaries in the coming weeks, Romney's people will (correctly) argue that it is irrelevant because, after four years of Obama, any Republican will win the south. But Romney can bring home northern industrial states that Gingrich has barely even been competitive in, and they are the key to a Republican win.
Romney may still have a few wobbles left here and there. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that he is not going to fall down. That is probably why even conservatives like Eric Cantor and Tom Coburn have endorsed him this week. They are party loyalists, realistic enough to understand when the die has been cast. Time to coalesce around a winner and go after the real opponent.
Much, maybe most of, the right wing of the Republican Party will not like a Romney candidacy. And I don't blame them. He is well "to the left" (if you can actually call it that) of their political philosophy. But what is their choice? To vote for Barack Obama? Or to try to find a third-party candidate who, if successful, would siphon off enough votes to elect Barack Obama as surely as if they had cast their ballots for him? That's not going to happen.
And their unhappy vote should be just fine with Mitt Romney. His perspective is, or at any rate should be, very basic: a vote counts the same, whether the voter is applauding or holding his/her nose when it is cast.
In an ideal Republican world, if Romney does as well as it looks like he will do on Tuesday, Santorum and Gingrich will accept reality and drop out for the sake of their party. Unfortunately for Republicans, however, I doubt either one will.
But, regardless, the Romney nomination train, which was in jeopardy of derailing just a short time ago, now looks like it is back on schedule and revving up to leave the station.
Rush Limbaugh's apology to Sandra Fluke was direct, contrite....and quite obviously the result of immense pressure by - I am certain - his syndicator over the loss of advertisers. I strongly suspect the syndicator expects, or has been told outright, that an apology will give them cover to reverse field and stay with Limbaugh's show.
Rush Limbaugh said that Ms. Fluke's self-description made her a slut and a prostitute. Since I don't have any advertisers to lose (at least not yet; that may change in the near future) - and even if I did (I don't react very well to being strong-armed - let me say that Ms. Fluke's self characterization did make her a slut. Over $1,000 a year for contraception? She would have to be screwing her brains out to need that much. (The prostitute thing was over the top, but next to nothing compared to some of the crap spewed by left wing people.)
And this is before we get to the fact that Fluke was an obvious plant, whose contraceptive needs had nothing to do with the hearing (ObamaCare covers employees, not students). What a phony, fraudulent little dog and pony show - one which could only be perpetrated with the complicity and acquiescence of media. Which media, as usual, provided, and then some.
Are you surprised by the media bias? I hope not. Remember, these are the same media which look the other way, no matter what bomb-throwers on the left spew at us.
bill maher immediately comes to mind. I love his lamer-than-lame excuse that he's on HBO (i.e. subscription TV) rather than radio, so calling people names so vile they leave anything Rush Limbaugh said in the dust is somehow acceptable. It isn't. The names and the language are just as vile. And the media, which never say a thing about maher's truckload of filth, but went bat-excrement over what Limbaugh said, are shameful beyond belief for their hypocrisy.
FYI: last week, bill maher contributed $1,000,000 to the Democrat Party - which, for the record, is not a subscription entity. But not a word from these propagandists posing as journalists anyway. Evidently $1,000,000 from someone who regularly throws pig-excrement at the people he hates (and they are legion) is a perfectly acceptable mega-donor.....to Democrats, that is.
Ditto for the garbage spewed nightly by just about every host on MSNBC. Days ago, I put up a compendium of Chris Matthews' disgusting, vicious, personal invective. But, in the next few days, I think I'll do the same for some of the others on that sorry network, to bring home even more clearly a) how much worse what they said is than what Limbaugh said and b) how completely their garbage is always ignored by our wonderful "neutral" media.
The simple fact of the matter is that, in this country, if you are a left winger you can say anything, and it is perfectly fine. If you are a right winger, you better watch every word, because they can, and will, nail you for it.
It's easy to win when the referee is on your side. The left knows this full well, and exploits it to the max.
Maybe someday we'll get a fair-minded media again. But that day does not appear to be coming any time soon, does it?
....my wife and I have spent the past 24 hours (and the next several) with our terrific son, beautiful daughter in law and transcendentally spectacular grandchildren, who we are currently baby-sitting while their mom and dad attend a wedding. But I will try to get in a couple of quick posts anyway.......
This one is for the "Lost Tribe": i.e. my fellow Jews who support Israel but still intend to vote for Barack Obama this year.
From Gallup's yearly study of United States attitudes about the Middle East:
Take a good look at this chart. Note the difference between how members of each party feel regarding Israel. A very good look.
Then think about how far it goes toward explaing how the Obama administration interacts with Israel -which, most recently, has included our secretary of defense giving the the world, including every one of Israel's enemies, a heads-up on what he expects Israel to do about Iran's nuclear capability. You know, the nuclear capability Obama & Co. keep telling Israel to ignore while waiting for the sanctions to work -- sanctions which have not stopped Iran for even one second so far.
It's always good to know the company you're keeping.
Sometimes the hypocrisy of our media is just plain stunning.
For days, they have obsessed over a couple of remarks made by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh about a heretofore unknown activist/law school student named Sandra Fluke. Mr. Limbaugh said her sexual behavior suggested she was a slut and a prostitute.
Media have gone half (actually, maybe a lot more than half) out of their minds with horror over this impossibly ugly breach of good taste. One or two sponsors have even been pressured into pulling their ads from the Limbaugh radio show.
With that in mind I would like to post a list, put together by John Hawkins, of 10 comments made in recent times by "comedian" and HBO star bill maher - comments that media did not bat an eyelash about. In reading it, please keep in mind that these are only Mr. Hawkins' top ten: he had dozens and dozens of similar comments to choose from.
Here they are:
10) “I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president. You know, this [BP oil spill] is where I want a real black president. I want him in a meeting with the BP CEOs, you know, where he lifts up his shirt so you can see the gun in his pants. That’s — (in black man voice) ‘we’ve got a motherfu**ing problem here?’ Shoot somebody in the foot.’”– Bill Maher
9) “To those people who say, ‘My father is alive because of animal experimentation,’ I say ‘Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.’ Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off.” — Bill Maher
8) “Why couldn’t, uh, why couldn’t have (Rush Limbaugh) croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?” — Bill Maher
7) “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.” — Bill Maher
6) “At least half of the [Ten] Commandments are stupid!” — Bill Maher
5) “I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow….I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” — Bill Maher
4) “But I’ve often said that if I had — I have two dogs — if I had two retarded children, I’d be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They’re sweet. They’re loving. They’re kind, but they don’t mentally advance at all. … Dogs are like retarded children.” — Bill Maher
3) “You can’t be a rational person six days a week and on one day of the week, go to a building, and think you are drinking the blood of a two thousand year old space god. That doesn’t make you a person of faith…, that makes you a schizophrenic.” — Bill Maher
2) “Did you hear this – Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan and she’s demanding that we invade ‘Tsunami.’I mean she said, ‘These ‘Tsunamians’ will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb twats, did you…”
1) “Again, (America is) a stupid country with stupid people who don’t pay attention.” — Bill Maher
Would you like to compare these comments to what Rush Limbaugh said? Would you like to put them on the offensive-comment scale versus Limbaugh calling a sexually profligate unmarried woman a slut, and see where they land?
And let's remember that, just last week, bill maher contributed one million dollars to Barack Obama's re-election campaign. So those comments are from a huge Obama contributor - and, believe me, that money isn't about to be returned in shame and embarrassment.
Yet maher gets a free pass, while Limbaugh gets the "omigod what a pig" treatment.
I rail a lot in here about media bias. And if this doesn't show you why, I don't know what would.
How do our so-called media call themselves "journalists"? How do they even face themselves in the mirror?
How many bankruptcies of how many "Green" companies that were funded by taxpayers, and had ties to Democratic contributors, do there have to be before our wonderful "neutral" media start stringing them together and attacking the Obama administration for them?
Evidently we have not reached the number yet...though it certainly is growing.
A partial list would include Solyndra. And Evergreen Solar. And SunPower. And SpectraWatt. And Beacon Power.........
And now Abound Solar.
Abound Solar is another "showcase" green company, like Solyndra et al, which President Obama not only supported, but lliterally made a speech about, touting how great it was going to be for us.
The result? Another $400 million of our tax dollars down the tubes. Another load of jobs lost to a company whose demise any analyst who cared about cost versus competitive price could have predicted without half trying. And another Democrat contributor - in this case, left wing heiress Pat Stryker - being bailed out by the Obama administration, via our tax dollars.
Read all about it here, in Amy Oliver's devastating exposé for townhall.com.
To our media: I realize that Sandra Fluke's sex life is far more important than the billions and billions of dollars Obama & Co. are pissing away on behalf of their major contributors -- a little like those 2,000 or so waivers for ObamaCare that always seemed to go to Friends Of Barack; you know, the ones you never did any major investigation on or asked any hard questions about.
But, in a spare moment when we are not talking about how Ms. Fluke and 40% of the rest of Georgetown University Law School's female students require that we pay over $1,000 a year each so they can copulate to their hearts' content, maybe this might be worth a paragraph or two.
You surely don't need me to tell you that a controversy is raging over whether religious institutions should or should not be allowed to decline parts of the ObamaCare mandate which go against their religious beliefs - most especially concerning contraception and abortion.
Well, here are the results of two poll questions on this subject. One of them was conducted under the auspices of the leftward-leaning Kaiser Foundation. The other one was conducted by the much-closer-to-neutral Pew Research Center.
Take a look at the results, note the difference in findings, and then see if you can spot any possible reasons for that difference.
First the Kaiser Foundation question ), and results (polling conducted February 13 - 19):
In general, do you support or oppose the new federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the cost of birth control?
Now the Pew Research Center question and results (polling conducted February 8 - 12):
Have you heard about the issue of a religious exemption for the coverage of contraceptives…
A lot/a little………………… 62%
Not at all……………………. 38%
(Among those who have heard about it) Should religiously affiliated institutions that object to the use of contraceptives…
Be given an exemption from this rule ………………………………………. 48%
Be required to cover contraceptives like other employers……….. 44%
Man oh man, that is a big difference. Can you see what might have caused it?
Well, there are two things.
The most important, of course, is that Kaiser did not ask about the actual issue - i.e. whether religious institutions should be allowed to decline coverage for contraceptive usage. Instead, it asked a general question about whether birth control should be included -- which even people who want the religious exemption might agree to, on the grounds that people not of their religion should have the option. In other words, Kaiser stacked the deck in favor of getting the answer Democrats would most want to see. By contrast, Pew asked a question about the actual issue.
The second is that Kaiser asked the qeustion of its entire sample, not just people who had some level of awareness of the religious-institution issue. That, or course, makes sense for Kaiser's question, since they eliminated the religious issue anyway. Pew, on the other hand, asked only of people who had at least some idea of what the issue was.
The results? Kaiser provides a showcase "result" for the Democrat position on this issue, by cooking the question. Pew provides a far different result, slightly in favor of the Republican position, by asking the relevant question of people who have an idea of what they are answering.
There is an old saying: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure".
I figure you know what that saying means to these poll results.....
OAKLAND -- Three Occupy Oakland protesters suspected of stealing an Oakland woman's wallet and making offensive remarks about her perceived sexuality were charged Friday with robbery and committing a hate crime, both felonies, authorities said.
Among the evidence against the three, besides the victim identifying them, is a video of the confrontation taken by a fellow Occupy Oakland protester.
The confrontation happened about Feb. 22 in the 4000 block of Piedmont Avenue. Police said that some Occupy Oakland protesters were demonstrating against a Wells Fargo bank branch there when a woman across the street expressed her opinion about the Occupy movement and the way it's being handled, Wingate said.
Wingate said a handful of protesters quickly surrounded the 42-year-old woman and prevented from leaving the area. Her wallet was taken from her purse, and protesters yanked a Barack Obama pin from her clothing, police said.
Wingate said she was also verbally abused, including making derogatory remarks about her perceived sexuality. A protester punched the woman and she was bruised and scratched in the altercation.
Hora charged the three with a felony robbery and a felony hate crime because the woman was injured in addition to being verbally insulted.
Oakland is one of the relatively few cities where there currently is more than nominal "Occupy" activity - largely because its feckless, useless, largely "Occupy" supporting mayor, Jean Quan, allowed it to grow, fester and break as many laws as it cared to for so long that the so-called movement became deeply entrenched there.
That is what she sowed, and this is what she, and Oakland's citizens, are now reaping.
So, of course, this is all over the news media today, right? I mean these are the same media which gave us breathlessly positive coverage of the "Occupy" movement for months, isn't it? NBC-TV New York, in particular, was a veritable daily calendar of events for the Zuccotti Park "occupy" people (I can't call them protesters, because so many were vagrants, hard-core homeless and other varieties of freeloaders who showed up not for ideological reasons, but because it was a place they could crash without the police hassling them, and get all that free stuff being handed out).
Uh....nope. It isn't. Sandra Fluke, the slu...er, excuse me, sincere, courageous dedicated women's rights activist whose parents should be proud of her nonstop sexual encounters that she wants us to subsidize....is much more important.
But, in the future (as in the past), when these same protesters manage to shut down, say, a bank or stock trading concern, or chain store location? You can bet there will be coverage. Plenty of it.
And, yes, these are the same media that squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.
As children, we were always afraid that the bogeyman was going to get us. Most of us outgrew that by the time we started going to school. But, as adults, we are often threatened with different kinds of bogeymen....and, as it turns out, bogeywomen too.
The latest of them is a Democrat-inventeed bogeywoman named Sandra Fluke.
A week ago no one outside her personal circle ever heard of Sandra Fluke. She was a law school student at Georgetown University and a "women's reproductive rights" activist. The end.
But, just as the marines need a few good men, the Democrat left need a few good bogeymen and bogeywomen. So they picked Sandra Fluke to be one of them.
And it is working. Media are going out of their collective minds lionizing Ms. Fluke, and vilifying Rush Limbaugh for saying we call people like this sluts and prostitutes. Yesterday she even got a call from President Obama, who - picking up on Limbaugh's rhetorical question asking what Ms. Fluke's parents think about this - told her that her parents should be proud of her.
For what, Mr. President? For telling us...
-that she has so much sex at Georgetown that she needs $3,000 or more in contraception during the three years she will be there. and...
-...that 40% of the other female Georgetown Law School students have the same need, thus are having the same amount of sex as she is (I wonder how they feel about Ms. Fluke's claim)?
I'll bet Ms. Fluke's parents are just busting their buttons with pride.
As noted in a previous blog, if condoms cost $1 a piece, and Ms. Fluke is the only one providing them, not her male partners (that worn-out ring-shaped configuration in my wallet as a young man suggests otherwise), it would mean that she is having sex almost three times a day, every day - periods included - throughout law school (how did she find the time to testify? To study for exams? For that matter, to eat meals or sleep?)
When I was growing up, and I am sure it is still true today, a female classmate who was that willing to have that much sex that frequently was called a slut. But, regarding Ms. Fluke, Democrats and their Accomplice Media are telling us that it is a horrible insult, that this is the behavior not of a slut but of a sincere, dedicated activist, and that it is therefore an awful thing to say.
Well, it isn't.
Limbaugh's accompanying claim about prostitution (i.e. she wants to be reimbursed for contraceptives, so she wants to be paid to have sex, so she's a prostitute) is silly and over the top. But I guarantee that he got a bump in his ratings because of it....which, after all, is what he was looking for. The angrier Limbaugh's enemies get, the more listenership he gets - especially, I suspect from the angry ones. Mission accomplished.
If you want to see real prostitutes - not the sexual kind, but political prostitutes - keep watching the Democrats run Sandra Fluke in front of you every day as proof that Republicans (Rush Limbaugh being used by them as a metaphor for all Republicans) are misogynists, dedicated to regressing women back to the middle ages.
One last point -and it is a huge one.
The Sandra Fluke dust-up is supposed to be about whether or not the ObamaCare insurance mandate should include contraceptive and abortion services in religious-run institutions which do not believe in them. But did you know that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Sandra Fluke, because ObamaCare does not have anything to do with insurance for students?
How can Ken have just said that? Has he gone crazy? What lunatic-fringe web site did he see it in?
Er, the answer is that I read it in a legal brief. Filed by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Specifically, the brief filed in the United States Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action #1:11-cv-01989-JEB.
Plaintiff: Belmont Abbey College.
Defendants: KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHAND HUMAN SERVICES; HILDA SOLIS, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY.
Plaintiff’s Complaint also makes passing reference to its student health plan, but plaintiff likewise has not alleged any injury from the operation of the preventive services coverage regulations with respect to that plan. Neither the preventive services coverage regulations nor any other federal law requires plaintiff to provide health insurance to its students – much less health insurance that covers contraceptive services. The preventive services coverage regulations only apply to “group health plan[s]” and “health insurance issuer[s]....Only health coverage offered to employees or their dependents qualifies as a group health plan, 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-91(a)(1), and plaintiff is not a health insurance issuer for purposes of the ACA, see id. § 300gg-91(b)(2). If plaintiff chooses to provide a self-insured health plan to its students – and again, there is no requirement in federal law that it do so – then the health plan is not required to cover contraceptive services.
Translation: According to the administration's own people, Sandra Fluke's demands have exactly nothing to do with ObamaCare, therefore exactly nothing to do with this issue.
The only reason she was there, was because Democrats needed a bogeywoman.
Now there's something that the Accomplice Media somehow missed. I wonder why?
General Motors has told 1,300 employees at its Detroit Hamtramck that they will be temporarily laid off for five weeks as the company halts production of the Chevrolet Volt and its European counterpart, the Opel Ampera.
“Even with sales up in February over January, we are still seeking to align our production with demand,” said GM spokesman Chris Lee.
Lee said employees were told Thursday that production would put on hold from March 19 to April 23.
The Chevrolet Volt, an extended-range electric car, is both a political lightning rod and a symbol of the company’s technological capability.
Chevrolet sold 1,023 Volts in the U.S. in February and has sold 1,626 so far this year.
In 2011, Chevrolet sold 7,671 Volts, but fell short of its initial goal of 10,000.
GM had planned to expand production of its Volt plug-in hybrid to 60,000 this year, with 45,000 earmarked for the U.S.
“We did not design the Volt to become a political punching bag and that’s what it’s become,” Akerson told Congress on Jan. 25.
The most amazing part of this excerpt is Spokesperson Chris Lee saying "even with sales up in February over January...".
Up to WHAT? The goal was 45,000 domestic sales this year. if GM maintained that "UP" number of 1,023 for the rest of the year it would wind up with 12,276 sales -- about one fourth of what it intended.
This is roughly the equivalent of a football coach saying the team was doing better because last week it lost by 35 points and this week it lost by 28.
Look, I'm very sorry about the 1,300 workers who have been laid off. I mean that with 100% sincerity. But at some point facts have to be faced. And the fact is, the Chevrolet Volt is a stinker. The only reason GM is selling any at all is that pressure is being brought to bear on companies to buy them as fleet cars. In terms of personal sales, John and Jane Q. Consumer want a Chevy Volt about as much as they want an advanced bowel virus.
Why is Chrysler doing so well? Here's the answer - and it is guaranteed to put the "Green" crowd into a tailspin:
Perhaps surprisingly at a time when fuel prices are climbing, Chrysler reported hefty sales increases for its bigger, more fuel-thirsty models such as the Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV, up 47%, and its big cars. The full-size Chrysler 300 sedan was up 480%, and the mechanically similar Dodge Charger was up 124%.
The moral of this story is that people want what they want, and you can't force-feed them what they don't want - especially with a loser like the Chevrolet Volt, which costs more than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, even when the difference in fuel cost is taken into account.
Oh, one other thing: Before you get too excited over what a great story Chrysler is for the US auto industry....the company is no longer US owned. Fiat controls 53% of Chrysler, after Obama & Co. gave the Italian automaker something like 8 - 9 billion dollars of our tax money in forgiven debt and other goodies to take it off our hands. Now it is selling cars like hotcakes, while GM - which is still US owned, and which taxpayers took an even bigger soaking on - is down in sales.
Just another great "triumph" of this incredibly inept administration that the Accomplice Media barely have reported.....
Yesterday I blogged about the ridiculous New York Times editorial that suggested Republicans may have already lost Michigan and Wisconsin, based on the latest polls showing Barack Obama ahead of Mitt Romney in both states. I pointed out how transitory polling was, and noted that the data were collected before Mr. Romney swept Michigan and Arizona in the primaries, which would likely give him a big upward bump in polling.
Well, I haven't seen new Michigan or Arizona data yet. But here's something from Rasmussen research about next week's Ohio primary:
The Republican Primary race in Ohio is one of the biggest prizes on Super Tuesday, and it’s now a tossup.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Primary Voters in Ohio, taken last night, shows former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum attracting 33% of the vote and Mitt Romney earning 31%. That’s a significant tightening of the race. Two weeks ago, Santorum led Romney by 18 percentage points.
Maybe it's just me. But I just can't help suspecting that, if Mitt Romney's Ohio numbers can jump up that quickly versus Rick Santorum in two weeks, his Michigan and Wisconsin numbers just might have a chance to jump up versus Barack Obama in the SEVEN MONTHS between now and the election.
As for the New York Times? I'm still laughing. They may not make a lot of sense, but they sure do write funny editorials.
How badly are taxpayers getting hosed on ObamaCare?
Well, it may interest you to know that, according to the Associated Press, the cost of helping "middle class people" get health insurance has, somehow, grown 30% in the past year. That's $111 billion dollars.
According to the article, this little tidbit was "buried deep in the budget" - presumably in the wistful hope that it would not be noticed.
So what happened to cause such an enormous increase? Must have been something pretty dramatic, right?
“Administration officials say the explanation lies in budget technicalities and that there are no significant changes in the program”
Translation: "Nothing changed, we're just taking $111 billion more, ok?"
But let's be fair. "Administration officials" are policy wonks. A higher-up, like Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius must know, mustn't she? I mean, she's in charge of ObamaCare, right? Well, according to the article:
“Kathleen Sebelius, who is in charge of carrying out the health law, indicated she was unaware of the changes”
That's it. That's your answer. NO answer. Nobody knows. Nobody can say. There's just another $111 billion dollars there, from out of nowhere, for no reason, to no purpose, in a program that won't even be implemented for two more years.
And how many other "nobody knows" increases will be added on top of this $111 billion before the plan starts? Your guess is as good as mine.
That, readers, is a hosing. A major hosing. It is exactly what anyone not completely in Barack Obama's pocket feared would be happening with this monstrosity, and it has already started.
Thank you, Fox News, for publishing this story. And something-else you, all media which are not reporting it, even though you subscribe to the Associated Press, thus have the same story available as Fox does.
I guess you must be too busy with more important news, like what Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke.
Offensive commentary: When it is Rush Limbaugh - the hated, right wing Rush Limbaugh - media cannot jump fast enough.
One look at the tsunami of negative attacks on Mr. Limbaugh for the comments he made yesterday about Sandra Fluke will show this with crystal clarity. He is bigger news than the continuing riots in Afghanistan, the Republican primary battle (the latest polls show Romney jumping to parity with Santorum in Ohio) or even the latest news on Whitney Houston.
But do these same media have a similar level of concern about the offensive comments made by others - maybe even others whose views they are more in tune with?
I have an idea. Let's see if we can get a little insight by looking at the leader in morning network television, the Today Show.
This morning I watched a long feature on Today about the Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh controversy, in which Mr. Limbaugh was excoriated 8 ways from Sunday. The segment - two segments, actually - lasted a whopping 6 1/2 minutes, with the first 3 1/2 consisting of what largely amounted to a hit job on Limbaugh and the other 3 consisting of an interview with Sandra Fluke. Notably absent: Rush Limbaugh or anyone else who might agree with the point he was making.
Well, ok. We now know how NBC has set the market for what it deems to be offensive commentary: a 6 1/2 minute toasting of the commentator. Fair enough.
With that in mind, I will now post a tiny (and I mean that literally, it is an extremely small sampling) of comments that veteran commentator Chris Matthews has made on the air over the past year - comments that neither NBC nor, more generally, mainstream media, have attacked at all.
First the comments, and then my thoughts about them:
-January 27th 2011: Michelle Bachmann is a "balloon-head" and an "ignoramus" and Hillary Clinton is a "she-devil", "Nurse Ratched" and "Madam DeFarge";
-February 2, 2011: The Tea Party is "out for scalps", is comparable to the Muslim brotherhood and is a bunch of "war-whooping nutballs" (how thrilled the Native American population must have been to hear this);
-February 8, 2011: Newt Gingrich is "a mortal enemy to our civilization", Sarah Palin "talks like a cuckoo clock";
-September 23, 2011: Criticism of President Obama is not because of his failings, but because of racism on the part of Whites;
-February 21, 2012: People who are anti-gay convert to Catholicism: i.e. Catholicism (presumably more than any other religion, including Islam) is a repository for anti-gay people);
There is more. So, so much more. But this sampling should be enough to demonstrate that Chris Matthews is a hater, who has no problem at all in spewing the most extreme, offensive garbage he can think of. So, given Today's grave concern about offensive commentary, he must have been the subject of one hit job after an other on the show, right?
Uh, wrong. There never has been even one such segment about Chris Matthews on Today.
Hmmm, here's a thought: do you think this has anything to do with the fact that Chris Matthews is a TV show host on both NBC and MSNBC? Can it possibly be that if you work for the same network as the Today Show you can be as offensive as you like, as often as you like, and it is no problem whatsoever?
You tell me.
Please also note that, for illustrative purposes and to keep this blog down to a managable size, I have restricted myself only to Chris Matthews . If I add Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, and kick in the massive volume of offensive material from keith olbermann's former MSNBC show, there will be so much to work with that, like a flea in a dog pound, you won't know where to begin.
So I salute The Today Show for its hard-hitting exposé of what offensive commentary is, by doing 6 1/2 minutes on Rush Limbaugh.
But - just a modest proposal here - maybe, at some point in the future, Lauer, Viera, Curry, Roker, et al might consider doing a few seconds on these other folks - the ones who have made so many far more offensive comments than those of Mr. Limbaugh.
I'm sure those few seconds will air any day now. Annnny dayyyyyy...........
On Monday, Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student (and "women's rights" activist - a fact most media conveniently leave out), testified before the House Democrat Steering and Policy Committee, chaired by Nancy Pelosi. In her testimony, Ms. Fluke demanded that insurance should cover the cost of her contraceptives. Ms. Fluke's exact words:
“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke said, referring to the fact that the university doesn’t pay for contraception. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”
(There is something to say about Ms. Fluke's claims about the cost for contraceptives, but I'll hold off on it until further on in this blog.).
Rush Limbaugh, whom I assume needs no introduction, took considerable offense to Ms. Fluke's testimony. Mr. Limbaugh's exact words:
"Three thousand dollars for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex — and, she wants us to pay for it. … They’re admitting before congressional committee that they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills!
“What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”
(Limbaugh later backtracked to a limited degree and said that Ms. Fluke had "round heels" -- an old-time expression for a woman who is easily coaxed on her back for sex).
So what do we have here? A few thoughts:
Regarding Mr. Limbaugh:
-His terminology was offensive. And, pretty clearly, the offense was intended. If I stopped right there, I assume the Limbaugh haters would be in agreement with me. But - sorry to the haters - there is a lot more to this.
-Offensive though his language was, Limbaugh made a completely valid point. To run up a $3,000+ tab for contraception during the three year Georgetown Law School program means Ms. Fluke - not to mention the 40% of her female compatriots she similarly implicates - must be having an absolutely huge amount of sex.(that's where the "slut" terminology comes in). His "prostitute" reference (i.e. she demands to be compensated for the contraceptives she chooses to use when she has this absolutely huge amount of sex) is a lot more iffy, but, as intentional hyperbole goes, was highly effective - which brings me to the next point.
-Let's remember that Rush Limbaugh is a radio personality. And, since stirring up controversy is good for listenership, this is going to work very well for him (illustratively, I rarely listen to his show - but you can bet I'll have the radio on today). Why would it be a surprise that a radio show host might say things in a way that would generate listener interest?
Regarding Sandra Fluke:
-Let's start with the fact that Ms. Fluke's $3,000+ claim for contraception is so ridiculously inflated that it insults the intelligence of anyone who actually cares to think about what she said (this apparently excludes a great many in our media, who just passed the $3,000+ claim along as though it was immutable fact).
There are dozens and dozens (probably hundreds and hundreds) of web sites making mincemeat of Ms. Fluke's claim this morning. To cite just one, here is an excerpt from Craig Bannister's blog for cnsnews.com:
At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year. (By the way, why does CVS.com list the weight of its condom products in terms of pounds?)
Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesn't cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know).
And, that’s not even considering that there are Planned Parenthood clinics in her neighborhood that give condoms away and sell them at a discount, which could help make her sexual zeal more economical.
Besides, maybe, these female law students could cut back on some other expenses to make room for more birth control in their budgets, instead of making us pick up the tab. With classes and studying and all that sex, who's got time for cable?
And, let's not forget about these deadbeat boyfriends (or random hook-ups?) who are having sex 2.74 times a day. If Fluke's going to ask the government to force anyone to foot the bill for her friends' birth control, shouldn't it be these guys?
All of this seems to suggest at least two important conclusions:
If these women want to have sex, we shouldn't be forced to pay for it, and
If these co-eds really are this guy crazy, I should've gone to law school
Further, this does not take into account the fact that free condoms are readily available from multiple sources, or that a woman's male sex partner (lesbian sex doesn't require contraceptives) should probably be the one supplying them in the first place. Maybe he's the one who should be compensated.
-Beyond that utterly ludicrous $3,000+ claim, there remains the issue Mr. Bannister raises that, using condoms, it would mean she is having sex almost three times a day, every day (yes I know there are other forms of contraception, but as Secretary Sebelius indicates, they don't run this bill up any more than the condoms do).
What do you call an unmarried woman who has sex with one or more partners (who knows the actual total) three times a day, every day, if not a slut?
And if Ms. Fluke is correct in stating that 40% of her female counterparts at Georgetown Law School are having as much sex as she is, what does that make them?
So the bottom line is that Rush Limbaugh's language was offensive and intentionally provocative. But he certainly has a point, at least about what Sandra Fluke's sexual profligacy says about her, so what is the big deal?
Tell you what, though: if media want to obsess about offensive commentary, maybe there are a tad more important examples of it. In that connection, my next blog will show you comments far more offensive than Rush Limbaugh's, which they did not care at all about.
Oh, one last thing: If Sandra Fluke is even close to being accurate about the amount of sex at Georgetown, that has to be the hottest campus in the history of higher education.
President Obama said his formal apology to Afghan President Hamid Karzai for the burning of Korans by U.S. troops last week has "calmed things down" after the incident sparked an outbreak of violence across the country.
"We're not out of the woods yet," Obama said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' Bob Woodruff at the White House. "But my criteria in any decision I make, getting recommendations from folks who are actually on the ground, is what is going to best protect our folks and make sure that they can accomplish their mission."
Still, the president's critics and some members of the military have questioned the appropriateness of the move, given the subsequent murder of two U.S. military officers at the hands of an Afghan inside one of the capital's secure ministry buildings.
"Everything else -- the politics or second guessing of these various decisions -- I'm not worried about," Obama said.
Our military burned a number of Korans - which, according to them had already been desecrated by their Muslim owners, who used them to write, and pass, messages to each other (which is haraam: forbidden).
President Obama apologized for the burning of the korans. I have not, and will not, attack him for this, because I agree that the apology should have been forthcoming -- as long as it established that the burning was of what we understood to be defaced korans and was not meant as any disrespect (did Mr. Obama do that? I do not know).
But when the burnings were used to inflame the entire country, to cause riots among Afghanis based on who knows what rumors were being spread, to cause a wave of killings among Afghani nationals, and, most importantly, to justifly the cold-blooded killing of our soldiers - soldiers who had nothing to do with the burning of the korans? Then it was time to demand an apology from Afghanistan.
Where is our apology? Where is any explanation for how a country can so quickly, so facilely, become a national riot zone and violence-fest? The fact that we have received next to nothing in the way of an explanation or apology is bad enough by itself.
But, in the midst of the riots and killing, for the President of the United States to claim that his apology to them has "calmed things down"? That not only is a blatant lie, but it is a disgrace and a dishonor to our troops, who bear the brunt of Afghanistan's primal, ignorant behavior.
And for him to parlay that lie into a comment that "I'm not worried about..." anyone who dares to question his actions and his claims?
Who does this man think he is? Have the media been so pathologically willing to protect Barack Obama and cover his ass at every possible turn, that he now megalomaniacally imagines himself to be above criticism?
Here's some news for you, Mr. President. Things have NOT calmed down. And you goddamn well SHOULD worry about the criticism of others. Nobody died and appointed you Barack The Omnipotent. You may have forgotten this, but you have the capacity to make mistakes and get things wrong -- in fact it appears to be your single most prolifically displayed attribute.
For the honor of our troops who serve so bravely and, apparently, unappreciatedly in Afghanistan, not to mention the entire country, it is time for you to demand in the absolute strongest terms that Afghanistan apologize for what is happening there, and take steps to DO something about it.
Do you have the strength to take this action? Or will you do what you do best: hide behind your Accomplice Media, play a round or two of golf, go on a vacation and hit the fundraising circuit?
Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is facing criticism for her upcoming appearance at a fundraiser hosted by an American Muslim leader who was placed on the Federal Terrorist Watch List.
Wasserman Schultz is set to keynote an annual fundraising dinner for EMERGE USA, a Muslim community group led by Khurrum Wahid, a controversial attorney with a track record of defending accused terrorists and associating with Muslim Brotherhood-backed groups.
According to a report by the Sunshine State News’ Kenric Ward, “Wahid has spoken at an event sponsored by the American arm of the South Asian Muslim Brotherhood (Jamaat-e-Islami) and the Islamic Circle of North America, an organization that has been connected to the financing of both al-Qaida and Hamas.”
Wasserman Schultz’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
The Democratic National Committee did not return multiple requests for comment.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Jewish congressperson from a Jewish area, and the chair of the DNC, is willing to schedule a fundraiser with a Muslim who is on the terrorist watch list and who has spoken on behalf of supporters of qal-qaeda and hamas???????
Of all the dim-bulb comments and actions I have enumerated about Ms. Wasserman Schultz, this may be the single dimmest of them all.
One other thing: there is an update to this story, which says that ..."Debbie Wasserman Schultz may be backing out..." of this event. MAY BE backing out? Holy excrement: that means that even after the terrorist connection to the event host is made clear to her she MIGHT STILL ATTEND???
May this wake up enough of the "Lost Tribe" in Wasserman Schultz's congressional district so that her Republican opponent, Joe Kaufman, will have a great day in November.
Earlier today I posted the first two paragraphs of this morning's lead editorial in the New York Times. I noted that the Times was putting up a doomsday scenario for Republican chances in Michigan and Wisconsin, based on recent polling data. I pointed out that polls can change very quickly - especially this early in an election year - and ended by suggesting that, "at some point between now and election day", we would have occasion to laugh at how ridiculous it was for The Times to take February polls for a November election so seriously.
Admittedly, however, I figured I'd have to wait more than a few hours to have the first laugh. But it turns out I was wrong.
Mitt Romney has opened up a double-digit lead nationally over the rest of the GOP field, according to two polls released on Thursday.
Romney took 40 percent of the support in a survey from conservative polling outlet Rasmussen, followed by Rick Santorum at 24 percent, Newt Gingrich at 16 percent and Ron Paul at 12 percent.
That’s Romney’s biggest lead to date, according to Rasmussen, and the highest percentage any candidate has received so far. The previous high had been Santorum two weeks ago, when he led Romney 39 percent to 27 percent.
Romney is at 35 percent in that poll, which spans Feb. 25 to Feb. 29. Santorum is in second place at 24 percent, followed Gingrich at 15 percent, and Paul at 11 percent.
The situation didn’t look so bright for Romney as recently as a week ago, as Santorum shot to the top of the pack after a surprising three-state sweep in the Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri caucuses. On Feb. 20, Santorum led Romney in the Gallup national poll 36 percent to 26 percent, and held a sizable lead in Michigan, as well.
-In the Rasmussen poll, over two weeks (with most movement probably in just the past few days), Mitt Romney has gone from a 12% deficit versus Rick Santorum to a 16% lead. that's a turnaround of 28%;
-In the Gallup poll, since February 20 - ten days ago - Romney moved from a 10% deficit to an 11% lead - a turnaround of 21%;
-The poll the New York Times cited which showed Barack Obama beating him by 18% in Michigan, was conducted the same time as the Gallup poll. Is there any doubt that those numbers have changed since then? A lot?
So let the laughs begin...though, somehow, I have a feeling the Times crowd may not find this nearly as amusing as I do.
Did you know that, as of tonight, President Obama will have held 100 fundraisers since announcing, last April, that he would run for re-election?
This is great news - providing you are having an argument with someone who says Mr. Obama does not excel at anything. Because no other President in the history of the United States even comes close to this much fundraising in so short a period of time.
Predictably, this did not go unnoticed by the Republican National Committee. So it put together the following chart of how many times Mr. Obama has performed other activities during the 100-fundraiser time period. Here it is:
Governing Vs. Fundraising
Tonight, Obama Will Hold His 100th Fundraiser Since Announcing His Reelection Bid In April 2011. “Pres Obama will do four re-election fundraisers in NYC Thursday, bringing fundraising total to 100 since filing for re-election last April.” (CBS’ Mark Knoller, Twitter Feed,2/28/12)
·President Bush, Who Announced His Bid For Reelection One Month Later Than Obama, Had Attended Only 56 Fundraisers At This Point In His Presidency. “Former President George W. Bush, who in May 2003 announced his reelection campaign a month later than Obama at this stage of his presidency, had attended 56 fundraisers at this time, according to CBS White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, the unofficial keeper of White House statistics.” (Paul Bedard, “Fundraiser-In-Chief: Obama’s 100 Vs. Bush’s 56 Donor Events,” The Washington Examiner,2/28/12)
100 FUNDRAISERS X 2 HOURS PER FUNDRAISER = 200 HOURS = 5 WORK WEEKS
And Obama Has Taken 21 Vacation Days Since He Began His Fundraising Tour. (Julie Pace, “Obama Ending Vacation, Readying For Reelection,” The Associated Press, 1/2/12; Alan Farnham, “Presidential Vacations: Cheapest And Most Lavish,” ABC News, 8/19/11)
A Look Into Areas Where Obama Hasn't Reached The 100 Mark Since He Began Fundraising
WHILE OBAMA WAS OUT ON HIS FUNDRAISING BLITZ, AMERICANS SUFFERED THE CONSEQUENCES
·The Average Number Of Weeks It Takes For An Unemployed Worker To Find A Job Increased From 38.3 Weeks To 40.1 Weeks. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/29/12)
·The Number Of Discouraged Workers That Have Given Up Looking For Work Increased From 989,000 To 1,059,000. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/29/12)
Since President Obama Began Fundraising, The National Debt Has Increased $1,194,586,498,473.80. (US Treasury Department, Accessed 2/29/12)
And Americans Are Still Paying High Prices At The Pump
On The Day Obama Announced His Reelection Campaign, “The National Average Price For A Gallon Of Regular Gas Rose To $3.662.” “Meanwhile, the national average price for a gallon of regular gas rose to $3.662 Monday, up 1.7 cents from the day before, according to a daily survey from motorist group AAA.” (Annalyn Censky, “Oil Above $108 Breaks 30-Month High,” CNNMoney.com, 4/4/11)
Today, The National Average Price For A Gallon Of Regular Gas Is $3.731. (AAA Fuel Gauge Report, Accessed 2/29/12)
Now that is a treasure trove of information for media to pick up on, isn't it. So why not settle back and wait for them to report any of it.
If nothing else, you'll get a nice, long rest.....
From Los Angeles comes the astonishing news that conservative activist extraordinaire Andrew Breitbart, 43 years of age, collapsed and died in the street last night.
The initial reports are that he had a bad heart and died of natural causes. However, given Mr. Breitbart's politics, how much he was despised by the left, and the suddenness of his death, you will please pardon me if I wait a couple of days to see if that's all there is to the story.
Politically, Andrew Breitbart started as a liberal Democrat. But, if you believe the stories circulating today, Mr. Breitbart had something of an epiphany during the Clarence Thomas hearings (i.e. the "high tech lynching") which started him on the way to becoming the highly effective conservative firebrand he was until last night.
Among his many activities was starting and running a number of web sites(e.g. biggovernment.com, bigjournalism.com, bighollywood.com) which specialized in uncovering, and publicizing, left wing activities. His "victims" - if the word applies - included Andrew Weiner, ACORN and Planed Parenthood, among others.
Mr. Breitbart leaves a wife, Susannah Breitbart (daughter of veteran humorist Orson Bean) and four children.
We have lost one of the very best of a hopelessly outnumbered breed - a conservative with the cajones to stand up to a media which, for the most part, hates conservatives. He had guts. He had class. He was almost always right - and you can take that word in both its meanings.
May Andrew Breitbart rest in peace - if a man so vibrant, and so willing to go to battle for what he believed is capable of doing so.
The letter is so worthwhile that, like Tom, I think readers should see its entire contents. So here it is:
Obama is no uniter
Of the million ways our first black president could have honored Black History Month, he chose to debut "African-Americans for Obama." Once again, this self-indulgent man plays the race card, creating social and political division, and ignores the many, many accomplishments of past and present black Americans.
Are you aware, Mr. President:
* That it was Republicans who supported the Civil Rights Act while the Democrats conducted a 57-day filibuster against racial equality. Sen. Robert Byrd, the late Democrat from West Virginia, spoke against the civil rights bill for 14 straight hours.
* That it was a Democrat governor (George Wallace) who blocked the schoolhouse door to keep out black students
* That the police chief of Birmingham, Ala., was Eugene "Bull" Connor, a Democrat and KKK member who ordered the police attack on thousands of peacefully demonstrating black children. They assaulted with high-pressure hoses, clubs and dogs and then jailed nearly a thousand children. "Bull" Connor was Alabama's Democratic National Committeeman and was later elected to statewide office.
* That it was a Republican federal judge, Frank Johnson, who in 1956 ruled in favor of Rosa Parks and who in 1965 ordered the Democratic governor, George Wallace, to allow Martin Luther King's voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery.
African Americans have suffered greatly at the hands of your political party, Mr. Obama.
... What have you really done for black Americans in the last three years? You have used them and their painful history to create your own personal playground while they stand outside the fence looking in.
You should be as ashamed of rallying "African-Americans for Obama" as I would be if Newt Gingrich was pushing "Whites for Gingrich" or Mitt Romney's campaign slogan was "Mormons for Mitt."
Exactly. And I think toasts are in order.
Here's to you, Ms. Robinson: one look at the Black unemployment numbers under this administration - especially the Black teenage unemployment numbers - tells us just how on-the-money you are.
Here's to our Accomplice Media, which barely ever report on how desperate things have become for Black Americans under the woefully inept, unsuccessful "leadership" of Obama & Co.
And here's a second toast to the Accomplice Media who, with virtually no exceptions, have given Barack Obama a free pass on his appeal to Black Americans despite the fact that:
-a) It is directly racial - and racist as well (the two have different meanings, but both fit here);
-b) President Obama's call for Black Churches to rally behind the Obama candidacy, is a direct breach of the separation between church and state media so avidly demand when the offender - real or imagined - is someone other than Barack Obama.
If media's aim is to show how far in the tank they are for Barack Obama? Mission Accomplished. It could not have gone more successfully.
REPUBLICANS LOSE MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN: THE NEW YORK TIMES HATH SPOKEN
The bad news for Republicans is that Republicans have alienated the middle class in Michigan and Wisconsin, thus have lost both states to Barack Obama in November. The good news, I guess, is that since they now know these states are lost, they can use the campaign money elsewhere.
Do you think this is me talking? I would hope you know better. So whose opinion am I posting? Who is so idiotic, so partisan, so ridiculous, that they would say such a thing at the beginning of March, over a half year before the election takes place and before the campaign between President Obama and a Republican candidate even begins?
Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum fought each other to nearly a draw in the Michigan primary and may actually have to split its delegates, but together they may have lost Michigan for their party by running campaigns that were completely disconnected from the lives of middle-class voters and pushed ever farther to the right margins of American politics.
A month ago, the state was rated a tossup in this November’s general election. But after voters got a taste of the Republican field, Michigan seems to be on President Obama’s side of the ledger, along with Wisconsin. Both elected Republican governors in 2010, but large numbers of blue-collar voters have turned away from the party after realizing how little regard it has for their interests.
See what I mean? It's all over. The New York Times hath spoken (I'm using the biblical form of "has" because I feel it is fitting for this kind of prophecy).
But I do have a couple of questions for the Obama love....er, fiercely neutral editorial staff at the Times:
-Assuming you are correct in stating that a month ago the two states were competitive, and now they are not, by what logic do you conclude that there is no likelihood voters will change their minds again - and again and again - before November? Was there a time-clock that ran out on February 29?
-The editorial cites a poll which finds that Mitt Romney would lose Michigan to Barack Obama by 18 points. But that was conducted on February 19th and 20th - when the battle between Romney and Santorum had heated up to fever pitch, the polls showed Romney losing Michigan by plenty, and Barack Obama's approval numbers were at their highest in months: a perfect storm in Mr. Obama's favor. But since then, Romney came roaring back to win the primary vote in Michigan and Barack Obama's numbers have fallen substantially. Is there any doubt that the same poll, taken today, would show a sharply different result? Does that not tell you in crystal-clear terms how quickly fortunes rise and fall early in an election year?
Bottom line: The New York Times has published an editorial that is long on Republican hatred and wishful thinking, but short on logic and common sense. Sad to say, this is not an unusual occurrence for the Times, so you can expect to see more of it in the future as well.
Meanwhile, let's all remember the words of that second paragraph, which I will end this blog by repeating:
A month ago, the state was rated a tossup in this November’s general election. But after voters got a taste of the Republican field, Michigan seems to be on President Obama’s side of the ledger, along with Wisconsin. Both elected Republican governors in 2010, but large numbers of blue-collar voters have turned away from the party after realizing how little regard it has for their interests.
Remember them well. Because I have a feeling that, at some point between now and election day, we will be laughing about them.
hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.
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:
-Could the Obama administration have been more inept, incompetent, misfeasant and dishonest about the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya?
-When will President Obama stop lying about the effect of the sequester - which is doing little other than saving the taxpayers money?
-What century will Egyptian women's rights wind up in after the Muslim Brotherhood is through?
-How many layoffs and reduced hours will companies inflict on workers because they are forced to pay for ObamaCare?
-After Hagel and Brennan, is Obama finished with picking anti-Israel appointments, or will there be more?
Right down to:
-Who wants Piers Morgan least? The USA or the UK?
-Will Lindsey Lohan dry up, just go away, or both? (I'm rooting for both)
-Does anyone care that Chris Hayes has a show on MSNBC - including his immediate family?
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!!