Believe it or not, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has, just in the past 6 days, sent out 12 - count 'em - 12 different emails smearing Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers and Republicans in general, while begging for contributions to offset Rove's American Crossroads group and what they describe as its $1.2 million dollar ad buy.
Here is the chronology:
-April 25th: emails from Senator Michael Bennet and DSCC Executive Director Guy Cecil
-April 26th: emails from Senator Barbara Mikulski and DSCC Political Director Crystal King
-April 27th: emails from renowned hatchetman James Carville, and Guy Cecil again
-April 28th: email from just as renowned hatchetman Paul Begala and no one else (how'd that happen?)
-April 29th: emails from Senator Patty Murray and Guy Cecil again
-April 30th: emails from DSCC Online Communications Director Jason Rosenbaum, Senator John Kerry and Guy Cecil's 4th one (maybe there have been three today to make up for the one-email slack on the 28th. Of course the day isn't over and there might be even more).
Is there anything wrong with relentless email solicitations? Other than the annoyance factor some people might feel due to their intense frequency, not at all.
But is there anything wrong with the bogeyman recitation they spew out? Yes, there is, because the thrust of every one of these emails is either primarily, or exclusively, that Karl Rove is a monster, the Koch brothers are monsters and Republicans are monsters.
Where is the Democrat MESSAGE about what Barack Obama has ACCOMPLISHED? Nowhere, that's where. It is buried in the same place as the national budget for the last three years.
If Democrats ever figure out a way they can stash the attacks on every Republican known to mankind and, instead, talk about anything positive that the Obama administration has done to benefit the country (other than lamely claiming "yeah, things stink, but it would have been worse under Bush"), do let me know. That is an email I would like to see.
Here, for your delectation, is a quick takedown of President Obama's "spike the football" ad, which first brags that President Obama agreed to let our military take out osama bin laden, and then suggests Mitt Romney would not have done so, based on two pieces of "evidence":
-A report from Reuters, August 6, 2007, that Mitt Romney criticized Barack Obama for vowing to strike al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary, and
-Romney's comment, also in 2007, that "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person".
This is what Mr. Romney actually said about then-candidate Obama's vow to strike al qaeda inside Pakistan, straight from the Republicans' Iowa debate:
"It’s wrong for a person running for president of the United States to get on TV and say we’re going to go into your country unilaterally. Of course America always maintains our option to do whatever we think is in the best interest of America. But we don’t go out and say “ladies and gentleman of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country [and] we didn’t think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out”. We don’t say those things, we keep our options quiet."
In other words, Romney did not question the concept of doing so, he questionned the concept of blurting it out to the world instead of quietly doing what has to be done.
And this is what Mr. Romney actually said about going after osama bin laden - his full response, not just the part cherry-picked by Obama & Co.:
AP REPORTER LIZ SIDOTI: "Why haven't we caught bin Laden in your opinion?"
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I think, I wouldn't want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He's one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He's by no means the only leader. It's a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It's not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that."
A bit different, wouldn't you say? Romney's answer was not that bin laden should be left alone, it was that the policy should be expanded far beyond just one man, to "Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course (other such organizations)....to defeat global violent Jihad".
Bottom line: Not only did Barack Obama's "TA-DA, LOOK WHAT I DID!!!" ad about osama bin laden show him to be full of himself, but his evidence that Mitt Romney would not have done the same show him to also be full of something else: something far more approriate for flushing, or using to make gardens grow, then to be used dishonestly in an offensive campaign ad like Mr. Obama's.
One last thing: As bad as this is, expect it to get worse. A lot worse.
Yesterday marked three years since we have had a budget - because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will not allow there to be a vote on one.
This enables President Obama and his fellow Democrats, including Reid, to attack every budget proposal/suggesion made by Republicans, without having to put up any alternative plan at all.
What, aside from Reid's blatant disregard of his responsibilities, does it take for this insanity to occur? It takes an Accomplice Media, which have barely informed voters of this disgraceful dereliction of duty, and have informed them even less of who is responsible for it.
How can they call themselves journalists? How can they even look at themselves in the mirror?
Here is a very, very funny joke from our pal Toy Insurance Bob. And - uncharacteristically for Bob - it is so clean that you can tell it to anyone:
THE HEARING PROBLEM So this guy thinks his wife must be having a hearing problem, because whenever he asks her something he never gets any answer.So he tells his friend about it, and asks what he should do.
The friend says “Here’s an easy way to see how her hearing is.Stand about 40 feet away from her and, in a normal conversational speaking tone, ask her something. If she doesn't hear you, go to 30 feet, then 20 feet, and so on until you get a response.”
That evening, his wife is in the kitchen cooking dinner.So he moves to the back of the den, about 40 feet away and, in a normal conversational tone, he asks, “Honey, what's for dinner?” He hears no response. So he moves closer to the kitchen, about 30 feet from his wife and repeats, “What’s for dinner?” Still no response. Next he moves into the dining room where he is about 20 feet away and asks a third time.Again he hears no response. Now he walks up to the kitchen door, about 10 feet away. “Honey, what's for dinner?” Once more, no response.
Finally he walks right up behind her, maybe one foot away and says “Would you tell me WHAT’S FOR DINNER”?
And his wife answers “FOR GOD SAKE, BERT, FOR THE FIFTH TIME, IT’S CHICKEN!!!”
BBSS is when you first toss BS, and then double down on it.
According to Hillary Chabot and Matt Stout's article in Saturday's Boston Herald, Harvard Professor and Democrat Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren has again claimed she is a "native American" - even though neither she or her campaign has produced any evidence to support this claim.
The fact that one of the tribes Ms. Warren claims to be descended from, the Delawares, say they can't find either her maiden or married name on any of their records? That is dismissed as a matter of "lax record keeping" - i.e. the tribe's existing records do not count as much as her nonexistent ones.
We learn that Occupy supporter, Harvard Law Professor and Senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren claimed minority status based on her purported Native American ancestry. Funny, she doesn’t look Siouxish.
Our friend Susan Vass is not an amateur punster, but rather a professional comedian. She writes to ask: “Could Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren marry and franchise a chain of Forked Tongue Casinos for other fake Indians?”
"Funny, she doesn't look Siouxish"? It's two days later, and I'm still laughing.
Finally, after moving heaven and earth to get necessary documents regarding the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, Republicans are apparently going to institute contempt proceedings against President Obama's racist toady and sock-puppet, Attorney General eric holder, and his disgracefully-run Department of Justice.
House GOP leaders said Friday they are pursuing a plan to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and the Justice Department in contempt for “stonewalling” them over information regarding the administration’s failed Fast and Furious gun-tracking program.
GOP Rep. Darrell Issa confirmed to Fox News that House Speaker John Boehner gave him and others on his House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform the authority to drafted a contempt of Congress resolution.
“We have a few other options (but) to a great extent we’ve been stonewalled by the Justice Department,” said Issa, R-Calif.
The Fast and Furious program was run by the ATF’s Phoenix office from 2009 until early 2011. It allowed illegal gun purchases with the expectation of tracking the weapons to Mexican drug cartel leaders. However, hundreds of guns disappeared, with some eventually turning up at crime scenes in Mexico.
"The Justice Department has not fully cooperated with the investigation into gunwalking that occurred in Operation Fast and Furious.The House Oversight Committee continues to make necessary preparations to hold Attorney General Holder in contempt if the Justice Department refuses to change course and stop blocking access to critical documents," a House Oversight Committee spokesperson said.
Allow me to remind you that, although it is sure to be tarred as a cynical election year political strategy by Obama & Co., the demands for these documents were made - and have been stonewalled - for months and months.
That is one of the reasons why almost one quarter of the entire congress of the United States (126 members at last count) and several sitting Governors, have demanded that eric holder resign, signed a no-confidence resolution which condemns his behavior as Attorney General, or both.
If Barack Obama did not want Operation Fast and Furious - in my opinion the single biggest scandal of this administration - to fester during the campaign season, then he should have directed his sock-puppet holder to hand over the documents when they were asked for.
Why did he not do so? We can only speculate. But one pretty reasonable guess is that he assumed that, like so many other things this administration has bungled, the Accomplice Media would keep voters ignorant of this disastrous initiative.
If so, he has, to some extent, made an accurate assessment: incredibly, during over a year of lies and stonewalling about a scandal which has resulted in the US arming Mexican drug cartels, the deaths of two US agents, hundreds of Mexican citizens, and who knows how many other fatal and non-fatal crimes, neither NBC nor ABC has ever done one story about Operation Fast and Furious.
But CBS News has. And Fox. And the LA Times, Washington Times and enough other media venues so that the news can come out.
Let's see what NBC and ABC report when the contempt proceedings start; if they still find a way to keep their viewers blissfully ignorant of what this administration has done.
GOOD INTENTIONS GONE BAD: EMBARRASSING AN IGNORANT HIGH SCHOOLER
This comes under the heading "It seemed like a good idea at the time".
Cole Thorna is a high school sophomore, who has been given opportunities in the past to write about several topics in the Syracuse (New York) Post-Standard - such as his thoughts about snow days, "What I want to do when I grow up" (his words, not mine), etc.
This time, however, young Mr. Thorna has been allowed to write an essay on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman shooting: an issue which involves criminality, race and social justice.
It is not my purpose to embarrass Cole Thorna. He is a teenager and, like many teenagers (me included at that age), appears to "know" that he has a complete understanding of the issue - presumably based on what he might have seen on TV, read in the Post-Standard, or heard about in class.
Sadly, however, by writing his "knowledge" and having it published in a newspaper, the gulf between what this young man "knows", and reality, is painfully obvious.
Here is what Cole Thorna wrote, in rust, and my comments (as gently as I can offer them) in blue:
Trayvon Martin did not deserve to die.Since we do not know for sure what happened, we do not know what either man deserved.Everyone has heard the story of the 17-year-old black kid who was walking home from a Florida gas station, when he was shot dead by a self-appointed neighborhood watchman.Zimmerman was not self-appointed, he had been part of neighborhood watch for years.Zimmerman wasn’t arrested until recently, since he was protected by Florida’s "Stand Your Ground" law, which states that it’s all right to kill someone if they confront you. Zimmerman was not arrested because, until this incident became publicized and turned into a racial event, it was determined that there was not enough evidence to do so.“Stand your ground” is a legal defense and had nothing to do with whether he was arrested.George Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him.
I’m a white kid, so some may argue that the gravity of the situation is somewhat lost on me, but it’s not. Nice straw man. "Some may argue" anything.I’m a firm believer in the fact that every person is considered a person, no matter what they look like, or where they’re from. I’ve lived in Syracuse for my entire life and thanks to the schools that I go to, I have lived with an unbelievable amount of diversity every single day. Unbelievable diversity?Do you think Syracuse schools are more diverse than schools in countless other mixed areas in the United States?Sorry, but it has to be said:that is the view of an ignorant, inexperienced child.
There is no doubt in my mind that this was a racially motivated murder. Then you better use your mind some more.What basis do you have for your conclusion?Have you been shown the evidence?Have you heard as much of Zimmerman’s side of the story as you have of Trayvon Martin’s – more often than not from race hustlers like al sharpton et al?If it had been a white girl, Zimmerman would’ve been in jail so fast -- although, he probably wouldn’t have shot in the first place. Now your racism is coming through.Aside from the fact that you do not know this to be true, Zimmerman himself is a person of color (half Peruvian) and comes from a racially mixed family. You are reciting a convenient, easy racial cliché from a position of ignorance.Even if Martin really did attack Zimmerman, the fact remains that Zimmerman followed the unarmed kid with a gun. "Unarmed kid"? How helpless that makes Trayvon Martin sound. I hope you weren’t fooled by that cherubic picture of the 12 – 14 year old kid that has been all over the news.Trayvon Martin was a strapping 17 year old, 6 foot-plus football player - and a gangsta thug wannabe, complete with a "grille" and tattoos up and down at least one of his arms. And that is before we get to the fact that Zimmerman could not have known if he was armed.If Martin had a gun, he would’ve been completely within his rights to kill Zimmerman, but, if he had, he probably would’ve been arrested and put in jail for years. Again, you write as though you know what happened between the two - which you do not. Zimmerman says he used his gun only after Trayvon Martin attacked him and was bashing his head on the ground. At least two eyewitnesses say Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and there are photographs of the damage done to the back of Zimmerman's head. In order for you to make your conclusion you have to either not know these facts, or ignore them.
Racism like this needs to end. On what basis do you call Trayvon Martin's shooting racist? Do you know something about Zimmerman that two months of intense investigation by just about every media venue in the country could not find?In reality, the evidence – regarding both his family and his behavior in the neighborhood – shows Zimmerman to be anything but a racist. Who told you this was an act of racism?al sharpton?Some teacher in your school who is reciting what he/she saw on TV?We need to move past these ideas of stereotypes and prejudice and coexist.The only stereotypes I see are yours.Only then can we make true progression within the human race. Progression?Ok, spend 95% on learning the facts and the other 5% on English.
The saddest part? I strongly suspect there are countless other Cole Thornas across the United States who "know exactly the same set of facts, based on what has been pumped into their heads by most media, assorted race hustlers and teachers eager to prove their "tolerance" credentials.
Is it asking too much that media report facts and teachers teach subject matter? Must children like Cole Thorna be indoctrinated this way?
Why does the left think it is funny to ridicule people by suggesting they are gay?
And why does the left make a point about specifically targeting Michele Bachmann's husband Marcus on his supposed homosexuality (FYI: to my knowledge there is no evidence at all that Mr. Bachmann is gay)?
The latest example comes to us from Jimmy Kimmel, who - to some - is a comedian. At the White House correspondents dinner, Kimmel informed the audience that keith olbermann "has more pink slips than Marcus Bachmann". And then - get ready to double over with laughter - he said that Bachmann plays Cameron, a gay character on the show "Modern Family".
This comes on the heels of bill maher's disgusting weiner/rim "joke" about Bachmann on HBO's Real Time (another proud moment for HBO and its parent company Time Warner I am sure). And, according to Noel Sheppard's blog at newsbusters.org, there was a "humorous" gay reference to Mr. Bachmann on Saturday Night Live a couple of weeks ago as well.
I wonder how Kimmel, maher and the SNL crowd feel about hating people based on their lifestyles and personal beliefs? I bet you'd get some speech out of them if you asked - in general terms, that is. But if you qualified your question by asking specifically about people who are devoutly Christian, you might get a somewhat different answer. Like about 180° different.....
As Walt Kelly's iconic character, Pogo, once said, "We have met the enemy and he is us".
Let me end with a question: How long do you think we'll have to wait for daniel savage to wish death on Kimmel, maher and the SNL people?
Why have college and university costs jumped through the roof over recent years? And where is the money coming from to pay for it?
Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby has an idea of why, and it makes all the sense in the world. Here, excerpted from today's column, is some of his thinking on the subject:
For decades, American politicians have waxed passionate on the need to put college within every family's reach. To ensure that anyone who wants to go to college will be able to foot the bill, Washington has showered hundreds of billions of dollars into student aid of all kinds -- grants and loans, subsidized work-study jobs, tax credits and deductions. Today, that shower has become a monsoon. As Neal McCluskey points out in a Cato Institute white paper, government outlays intended to hold down the price of a college degree have ballooned, in inflation-adjusted dollars, from $29.6 billion in 1985 to $139.7 billion in 2010: an increase of 372 percent since Ronald Reagan's day.
Most of that prodigious growth is very recent. The College Board, which tracks each type of financial assistance in a comprehensive annual report, shows total federal aid soaring by more than $100 billion in the space of a single decade -- from $64 billion in 2000 to $169 billion in 2010. (The College Board's data, unlike Cato's, includes higher-education tax credits and deductions.)
And what have we gotten for this vast investment in college affordability? Colleges that are more unaffordable than ever.
Year in, year out, Washington bestows tuition aid on students and their families. Year in, year out, the cost of tuition surges, galloping well ahead of inflation. And year in, year out, politicians vie to outdo each other in promising still more public subsidies that will keep higher education within reach of all. Does it never occur to them that there might be a cause-and-effect relationship between the skyrocketing aid and the skyrocketing price of a college education? That all those grants and loans and tax credits aren't containing the fire, but fanning it?
In other words, it is the taxpayer who is funding this unending cost-push spiral. Costs go up, politicians fall over each other to make up the differences, so costs go up again; apparently with the expectation that Uncle Sap will continue to make up the difference...which is exactly what happens.
At what point does this game end?
I urge you to use the link I've provided and read Jeff's entire column. You are very likely to find more logic and common sense about the tuition game there than you have ever seen anywhere else. And the more informed you are, the more exasperated by this absurd, continuing cycle you are likely to get.
On February 26th, George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death in Sanford, Florida.
It became pretty clear that his trial would be something of a farce, when the prosecutor - bowing, in my opinion, to a month of relentless racial incitement by people like al sharpton, louis farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee, and, pathetically, President Barack "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon" Obama - decided to charge Zimmerman with second degree murder.
You don't need to be a lawyer to read Florida's definition of second degree murder and know that it has no relevance to this case - not that a multitude of lawyers, including the estimable Alan Dershowitz, have not said so as well.
Lawyer: Angela Corey missed deadline to release evidence
As controversy over the $200,000 George Zimmerman raised on PayPal took center stage Friday, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey's decision to ignore legal questions raised over whether she's obeying Florida's public record law went largely unnoticed.
But the issue of whether Corey has the legal right to continue preventing the public from seeing the evidence she says proves Zimmerman committed the second degree murder of Trayvon Martin seems to be coming to a head.
The special prosecutor's office on Friday refused to make that evidence public -- even though an attorney fighting for the public's access insists Friday was when Florida law required Corey to share the evidence with the millions of people following the case.
The reason the deadline for Corey's evidence to become public was Friday, according to Scott Ponce, the attorney representing media organizations seeking access, is because that was 15 days after Zimmerman's attorney served Corey with an April 12 demand for evidence. This process of the state sharing evidence with both the defendant and public at large is known as discovery.
When denying requests from the public for the Zimmerman discovery records Friday, Corey's office told Local 6 Florida law allowed her to keep the records secret using a criminal investigative exemption because "no records have been provided to the defendant."
But Ponce, who specializes in public record law, believes that Corey can no longer use that reason to withhold records from the public, now that the 15 day discovery deadline has passed. That's because Florida law specifically excludes documents "required" to be given to the defendant from the type of records that can be withheld as criminal investigative information.
Remember Michael "Mike" Nifong, the District Attorney of Durham, North Carolina - the guy who spent months revelling in the media attention he got from the Duke Lacrosse case? Remember how fast and loose he played with the law?
Remember what happened after it turned out that no case existed? In case you do not, Nifong was fired as DA, disbarred, convicted of criminal contempt of court, sued by several of the unfairly-charged lacrosse players and, six months after his conviction, was forced to file for bankruptcy.
If I were Special Prosecutor Angela Corey, I would be paying special attention to the path that Mike Nifong traveled. Soaking up all the media attention that came his way was great...but pushing phony, unsupportable charges, and playing fast and loose with the law, ruined his life.
Ms. Corey better be very careful not to walk that same path. Especially because it sure looks like she is on it right now.
It might do well for her to remember that while "Justice For Trayvon" is a very popular slogan in some quarters, "Justice For George" is 100% as important.
Note: I originally misspelled Michael "Mike" Nifong's name, and have since corrected it. Thanks to William Anderson for reminding me of the correct spelling - and for his opinion on Angela Corey's motivation (I admit that it is a small consolation to me that the 13 hear old child he alludes to - Cristian Fernandez is his name - was actually charged with homicide by Angela Corey's office last year, when he was 12.)
The storyof how this now-13 year old child may have killed his 2 year old half brother David, and the negligence of his 25 year old mother (that's not a typo) in not seeking medical attention for hours as David lay unconscious, and his druggie, negligent grandmother, and the suicide of his stepfather, who was apparently about to be charged with child abuse, is as as sickening as any you will ever come across.
Suppose you were a Christian student, you attended what was billed as an anti-bullying event, and the speaker decided, instead to hit you with a profanity-filled frontal attack on your Christian faith?
Suppose the event was sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association, and their reaction to the speaker was praise for the speaker and an admonishment to the people offended enough to have walked out - accompanied by a half-sentence of what appeared to be a thoroughly insincere "understanding".
Well, no need to wonder. Because it happened this week at a supposedly "anti-bullying conference" in Seattle, Washington.
As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy assed.”
The speaker was Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” project, an anti-bullying campaign that has reached more than 40 million viewers with contributors ranging from President Obama to Hollywood stars. Savage also writes a sex advice column called “Savage Love.”
Savage was supposed to be delivering a speech about anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association. But it turned into an episode of Christian-bashing.
Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for SutterUnionHigh School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else.
“I thought this would be about anti-bullying,” Tuttle told Fox news. “It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”
Tuttle said the speech was laced with vulgarities and “sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.” At one point, he said Savage told the teenagers about how good his partner looked in a speedo.
As the teenagers were walking out, Tuttle said that Savage heckled them and called them pansy-assed.
The executive director of the National Scholastic Press Association provided Fox News with joint statement from the Journalism Education Association that was sent to members – after a number of people complained about Savage’s remarks.
“We appreciate the level of thoughtfulness and deliberation regarding Dan Savage’s keynote address,” the NSPA wrote. “some audience members who felt hurt by his words and tone decided to leave in the middle of his speech, and to this, we want to make our point very clear: While as a journalist it’s important to be able to listen to speech that offends you, these students and advisers had simply reached their tolerance level for what they were willing to hear.”
In other words, daniel savage was invited to speak against bullying - and, instead, decided be one, by taking what amounted to a captive audience of high schoolers and subjecting them to an angry, profane gay indoctrination session, while insulting the religious beliefs many of them hold in as offensive a way as he could come up with.
I wonder how many students this obnoxious character thinks he converted to his way of thinking by doing this. I suspect he knows that the answer is few if any - and assume he does not care. savage did not use this as an opportunity to speak for, among other things, tolerance and acceptance of gay people, he used it to defecate on people he hates. Exactly what bullies do.
Brilliant. What a great anti-bullying message that sends.
And what a meaningless statement from the National Scholastic Press Association. Cowardly, and tacitly supportive of savage's disgusting behavior: hey, this is journalism, you have to sit there and take it kids.
Speaking as a non-Christian who regularly champions gay equality in this blog, I am thrilled that so many decided not to take it and walked out on this jerk. My only regret is that there weren't more of them.
savage owes them all an apology - one that they will never get. So do the National Scholastic Press association and the Journalism Education Association - which, if their initial statement is any indication, won't be offering one either.
Evidently, anti-bullying pieties notwithstanding, it remains open season on Christians.
Oh, one other thing. daniel savage has been a welcome guest at the Obama White House. And he has said, on bill maher's Real Time show that "I wish all Republicans were fucking dead". I'm sure maher's buttons were bursting with pride, right along with the geniuses at Time Warner, which owns HBO and just signed maher to another two year contract.
The Oklahoma Highway Patrol says a portable methamphetamine lab exploded in a man’s pants as he tried to run away from a state trooper during a traffic stop.
Trooper Shiloh Hall says the man had an active meth lab in his pants that burst during a struggle with the trooper. The man was checked out by emergency personnel and booked in the OkmulgeeCounty jail on a drug charge.
All I can say is he's lucky he wasn't working for a fireworks company.
But what an opportunity for his girlfriend to go down and get high at the same time.
Note to all members of the "Lost Tribe" - i.e. the Jews (and non-Jews) who support Israel and still try to rationalize that President obama is a friend to the Jewish state: Mr. Obama, apparently, is not through screwing Israel.
His latest salvo is to ignore the freeze congress voted on giving aid to the Palestinian Authority, and release $192 million dollars to it on the grounds that, according to Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor, this would maintain "the continued viability of the moderate PA Government".
But wait. Calling the Palestinian Authority, with its adamant refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and its formal unity agreement with terrorist hamas, a "moderate" government was not enough. Vietor also informed us that “the PA had fulfilled all its major obligations, such as recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence and accepting the Road Map for Peace.”: three lies so blatant that I doubt even CAIR would be able to recite them with a straight face.
From Andrew McCarthy's blog at nationalreview.com:
...the PA most certainly does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Back in the PA most certainly does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Back in November, for example, Adil Sadeq, a PA official writing in the official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, declared that Israelis...
have a common mistake, or misconception by which they fool themselves, assuming that Fatah accepts them and recognizes the right of their state to exist, and that it is Hamas alone that loathes them and does not recognize the right of this state to exist. They ignore the fact that this state, based on a fabricated [Zionist] enterprise, never had any shred of a right to exist…
Does that look like recognition of Israel's right to exist to you?
So what do we have here? We have Barack Obama and his henchmen lying about the Palestinian Authority, for the purpose of shtupping it with $192 million dollars of taxpayer dollars, which - if the PA's history is any indication at all - will be used to attack Israel: one of our most loyal allies and the only democracy in the entire region.
Lost Tribers: When do you wake up. When do you face reality? Is the release of $192 million dollars to the PA what finally forces you, kicking and screaming, into the real world?
Or will you be figuring out a rationale for what he has done, like all the other times?
The following blog was written by Joel B. Pollak, and is currently at www.breitbart.com. Due to its brevity, I am posting this piece in its entirety. My apologies to Mr. Pollack who, of course, is free to do the same for anything I write:
Isaac Abraham, spokesperson for the family of Yankel Rosenbaum--the Jewish student murdered by a mob during the CrownHeights riot in 1991--contacted Breitbart News today to express his outrage that Al Sharpton would claim not to have incited the violence.
"That's Al Sharpton, distorting the facts. He was there inciting the riots," Abraham says.
Earlier today, Breitbart News posted an exclusive interview with Sharpton after he left a rally for Trayvon Martin in Los Angeles last night. Christian Hartsock asked Sharpton about the riots, and he denied his role:
HARTSOCK: Excuse me, Reverend...Given your role in inciting the CrownHeights riots--
SHARPTON: I wasn’t in the CrownHeights riots.
HARTSOCK: You weren’t involved in the CrownHeights riots?
SHARPTON: No, I came after the CrownHeights riots. Read the state report. We got there three days later and brought the peace. So get your facts right.
Abraham responded: "Al is lying. He was there, he called Jews 'diamond dealers.'....Maybe he doesn't think it was incitement, but he was so close to being charged by District Attorney Charles Hynes with incitement. He wasn't charged--but then he continued his venom and hatred in Israel. He basically keeps distorting the facts."
The news of Sharpton's denials today reached the Rosenbaum family, who had expressed their concern about the remarks, Abraham said. He could not understand why Sharpton was taken seriously as a media personality.
"Why does MSNBC keep on compensating a racist like that? The companies that advertise on his show--what do they think they're getting? He was hoping that when MSNBC took him on that CrownHeights will not come on the agenda.
"He's a fraud, he's a race hustler. To walk the streets and incite prior to judgment--if he can be so sure about that neighborhood watch man [George Zimmerman], why didn't he say that about the man who stabbed Yankel Rosenbaum--an innocent person that was killed by a mob that yelled 'Let's kill the Jew'?"
Is al sharpton a race hustler and a liar? Yes he is. And more.
He is also a "man" who has no problem consorting with and supporting anti-Semitic scumbags like louis farrakhan and, before him, khalid muhammed. He is also the prime fraud in the tawana brawley hoax. And a prime inciter in the Freddy's Fashion Mart torching, which left 7 people dead.. And a serial deadbeat who owes the IRS millions. And, as an extra-added attraction, sharpton runs a supposedly charitable organization, the National Action Network, which, based on his income tax returns from several years ago, apparently benefitted just about nobody but himself.
al sharpton is also an enormously influential kingmaker in the Democrat Party, and a TV show host on MSNBC - both of which should be thoroughly shamed to have anything to do with him - but apparently are not, which should tell you plenty about today's Democrat Party and MSNBC.
It figures sharpton would latch onto the Trayvon Martin case -- and incite people for a solid month, then piously proclaim that he wants "peace".
A sack of crap is a sack of crap. And this pathetic race hustler and liar, friends, is just that: a sack of crap.
Mr. Steyn has written about the various attempts by Barack Obama and his people to divert attention away from his abysmal record as President, and how those attempts have worked out.
Here, if you'll pardon a bad pun, is a little taste:
A couple of days ago, Obama-campaign top dog David Axelrod threw in the towel on the dog war. “I thought it was a little absurd to talk about what the president had done as a ten-year-old boy,” he sniffed to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, which is as near as the suddenly sheepish attack dog will ever get to conceding that Barack Obama is the first dog-eating president in the history of the republic. For those coming late to the feud, the Democrats started it, assiduously promoting accounts of a 1983 Romney vacation to Canada in which the family pooch Seamus rode on the roof of the car. Axelrod and the boys thought they could have some sport with this, and their poodles in the media eagerly played along. The New York Times columnist Gail Collins alone has referred to it dozens of times.
And then Jim Treacher, the sharp-eyed wag of the Daily Caller, uncovered this passage from Chapter Two of Obama’s bestselling but apparently largely unread memoir Dreams from My Father, in which the author recalls childhood meals with his stepfather Lolo Soetoro:
I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.
There followed an Internet storm of “I Ate a Dog (and I Liked It)” gags. Axelrod, an early tweeter of Romney doggie digs, has now figured out that the subject is no longer profitable for his boss.
For their next exploding cigar, the Democrats chose polygamy. Brian Schweitzer, the Democratic governor of Montana, remarked that Romney was unlikely to appeal to women because his father was “born on a polygamy commune.” Eighty-six percent of women, noted Governor Schweitzer with a keenly forensic demographic eye, are “not great fans of polygamy.”
Just for the record, Romney’s father was not a polygamist; Romney’s grandfather was not a polygamist; his great-grandfather was a polygamist. Miles Park Romney died in 1904, so one can see why this would weigh heavy on 86 percent of female voters 108 years later.
Meanwhile, back in the female-friendly party, Obama’s father was a polygamist; his grandfather was a polygamist; and his great-grandfather was a polygamist who had one more wife (five in total) than Romney’s great-grandfather. It seems President Obama is the first male in his line not to be a polygamist.
Terrific. Accurate. Devastating.
Thank you Mark. And please keep it coming. We'll be sure to, er, eat it all up.
Did you ever expect Barack Obama to, in his words, "spike the football" by touting his self-defined aggressiveness as a military assassin to get votes?
I sure didn't. But political analysis is a very humbling game. And I am, therefore, appropriately humbled.
Barack Obama, critic of of the Iraq war, critic of how President Bush ran the war in Afghanistan (a quick aside: when are media ever going to start talking about what an utter mess Afghanistan has become under his watch), angry critic of so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques, strong promoter of trying international terrorists in civil courts rather than military tribunals.......
.....has just put out an ad bragging about the fact that he okayed the successful attack on osama bin laden's compound, resulting in bin laden's death -- and implicitly suggests Mitt Romney would not have done the same.
Want to see the ad? Ok, here it is:
Do you think Mr. Obama's ad is tawdry, unseemly, unbecoming of a President, and almost certainly dead wrong about Mitt Romney? If so, thank you. I love it when people agree with me.
Personally, I give full credit to President Obama for his involvement in the killing of osama bin laden. But - and this is the key point - what was his involvement?
-Mr. Obama was dead set against the actions and procedures - the enhanced interrogation such as waterboarding, the aggressive phone surveillance, etc. - which resulted in our military finding bin laden. This means that, if it were up to Mr. Obama, bin laden's compound would not have been found in the first place.
-Mr. Obama's actual involvement, therefore, was that after the compound was found - again, in spite of his policies which would have prevented this from happening - he was asked "should we go in" and he said "yes".
-One other thing: the ad does not give even one word of credit to our brave military, especially the Navy SEALs, who actually went into that compound and risked their lives in the operation. But, then again, when does Barack Obama ever give credit to anyone but himself for anything?
That's it. That is Mr. Obama's great "touchdown". He said "yes" to something that any President (other than, possibly, the incomparably inept Jimmy Carter) would have said "yes" to in about one second flat, and now takes 100% credit for what our military actually accomplished.
This is why the ad, which takes a couple of years-old comments by Mr. Romney out of context, then pretends they define what he would have done bout bin laden under the circumstances Mr. Obama was presented with last year, is so fraudulent and so ugly that even some media venues which usually support the President are criticizing him for it.
One of their key criticisms is that, in 2008, Barack Obama attacked Hillary Clinton for invoking bin laden in one of her political ads. His campaign called it "the politics of fear".
But, that was then, and this is now. In the 2012 Obama campaign, consistency, along with honesty and taste, is no consideration at all. So we get an ad like the one shown above.
If Obama & Co. are this desperate, this ugly and this dishonest now.....then, in the words of Al Jolson, "You ain't seen nuthin' yet". Count on it.
Somewhere in my dusty, musty goldie oldie file, I have an issue of Forbes Media Critic from 1996. In it, there is an article which analyzes survey data from 1962 to then, in which journalists self-describe their political leanings. And, unfailingly, they are dramatically more liberal/left/democrat than the overall population.
It is now 16 years later. Have things in any way changed?
Well, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who chairs the House Judiciary committee and co-chairs the Media Fairness Caucus (which I did not know even existed) doesn't think so. And, earlier this week, Investors Business Daily published an op-ed piece in which Mr. Smith laid out his reasons, which I found very interesting. Here are a few excerpts:
According to a Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans have little or no confidence in the national media to report fully, accurately and fairly. Americans are right to be skeptical about the news they receive.
In a Pew Research Center Poll, fewer than one in five journalists said they thought "reducing illegal immigration" was a "top priority." Yet over half the American people rated illegal immigration reduction as a "top priority."
Gun control is another issue where the national media are not "mainstream." According to a study by the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy, only 25 percent of journalists listed the Second Amendment "right to own firearms" as being "essential." A Gallup poll conducted last year shows public support for the right to bear arms to be at an all-time high of 73 percent.
In 2008, Investor's Business Daily found that an analysis of federal records showed the amount of money journalists contributed in the 2008 election cycle favored Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans. Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, only 20 gave to Republicans.
Please, Please tell me this does not surprise you. Why would it? Why would any reasonable person not assume that the dramatic disparity between mainstream media's political outlook and that of the general population (otherwise known as the real mainstream) manifests itself in how they cover the news?
Of course it does. Which is why I - along with many others - write about it every day.
Is there any doubt that mainstream media are far closer to the views of the Obama administration on these issues than they are to the general population? And, accordingly, is there any doubt that this is a major reason so many of them have become President Obama's Accomplice Media; ever willing to flak for Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats rather than neutrally, dispassionately reporting the news?
Don't expect this to get better during this year's presidential campaign either. It won't. If anything these partisans posing as journalists will be even more strident in their support of Obama & Co.
That is worth remembering every time you watch, listen to, or read the "news".
Harvard trips on roots of Elizabeth Warren’s family tree
Elizabeth Warren’s avowed Native American heritage — which the candidate rarely if ever discusses on the campaign trail — was once touted by embattled HarvardLawSchool officials who cited her claim as proof of their faculty’s diversity.
Warren’s claim, which surfaced yesterday after a Herald inquiry, put the candidate in an awkward position as campaign aides last night scrambled but failed to produce documents proving her family lineage. Aides said the tales of Warren’s Cherokee and Delaware tribe ancestors have been passed down through family lore.
“Like most Americans, Elizabeth learned of her heritage through conversations with her grandparents, her parents, and her aunts and uncles,” said Warren’s strategist Kyle Sullivan.
Yeah, ok. And my great granduncle on my second cousin's side swears that I am descended from George Washington. And Pocahontas. And Louis Armstrong.....
Maybe it is because, based on many years of experience, doctrinaire left wingers like Elizabeth Warren are so used to having whatever they say accepted by mainstream media without being challenged, that they figure they can toss out just about anything without being called to account for it.
Well, that is no longer true. Not in this day of the internet, social media, etc. Now, when someone debunks this kind of BS, the word can spread lightning-fast.
Good. Anything that forces people like Elizabeth Warren to tell the truth, or at the very least provide documentation for what they claim to be the truth, is worth its weight in gold.
Here’s a rundown of the president’s income, according to his tax returns, in the years before he paid off his student loans:
In 2001 and 2002, the Obamas would have met the $250,000 standard the president has set for those wealthy enough to afford to pay more taxes.
It’s also notable that the Obamas didn’t claim deductions for student loans on any of those years, most likely because they made too much money to qualify for the student loan deduction.
“The president and first lady worked their way through college and law school,” Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told ABC News. “Their education was made possible by student loans, which it took many years to pay off.”
Does this mean Mr. Obama is lying? No it does not. It is possible that, despite his "1%" income for those years (remember, $250,000 in the year 2000 is equivalent to maybe $350,000 - $400,000 now) he still needed all that extra time to pay off what was owed.
The point is that we do not know. And, Mr. Karl's piece notwithstanding, no one seems to be asking him for any evidence that proves it.
If Mr. Obama is using this claim in his re-election campaign, what possible explanation is there for giving him a free pass, and just taking his word for it?
Is there any doubt about why I use the term "Accomplice Media"?
Hot-tempered Detroit Tigers slugger Delmon Young was arrested early this morning after he allegedly went on an anti-Semitic tirade and attacked a man in front of a Midtown hotel, police sources told The Post.
A panhandler wearing a yamulke approached a group of people to ask for some change — and that's when Young, who was nearby, started shouting, "F--king Jews! F--king Jews!"
That's when another man and a group of his friends got into a confrontation with Young at about that quickly turned physical along Sixth Avenue, law enforcement sources said.
Young allegedly scratched a 32-year-old during the fracas on East 54th Street, pushing him to the ground in the lobby of the Hilton Hotel.
Young, known for his powerhouse arm in the outfield, was "highly intoxicated," sources said, and had to be taken to RooseveltHospital to sober up before he was arrested and taken to the Midtown North Precinct.
Young, wearing a dark blue dress suit and looking somber, was escorted from the precinct just after The outfielder kept his head down and didn't say anything as he was led to a waiting squad car.
Tigers spokesman Rick Thompson said “we’ll get back to you” when asked about Young’s status.
Young, who has had problems controlling his temper in the past, was charged with aggravated harassment. Investigators are also looking into the possibility of charging him with a hate crime. He is in custody awaiting arraignment.
Should young be suspended? Well, let's see: Out of his room for what must be hours after curfew, drunk, disorderly, in a brawl...and, for bad measure, screaming anti-Semitic epithets to boot.
I'll wait to see what the Tigers do about this sack of excrement, but if it were my team he would not wear a Tiger uniform again -- and I'm not just talking about a suspension.
1) Having read additional reports on this incident, including one from the Detroit Free Press, it turns out that delmon young did not stop at yelling "F**king Jews". I can't say I'm, surprised. If you use one slur against Jews you'll probably use others as well;
2) Incredibly, the New York Daily News report of this incident intentionally leaves out the fact that delmon young hurled any anti-Semitic epithets at all. It must be intentional on the Daily News' part, since every other report I've read cites this and indicates that young may be charged with a hate crime. This leaves me trying - unsuccessfully - to try and understand why the Daily News would leave its readers ignorant of what young said.....
FURTHER UPDATE: Let's just call it an amazing lapse on the papers' part, since, while I was typing this, the story was revised and now includes young's anti-semitic tirade. But, interestingly enough, if you look at comments section you will find that several of the earliest comments, which noted that the anti-Semitic part of the story was left out, are still there:
Add this to the "If I had a son he would like like Trayvon" message, and what do you get?
You get a Black President, making an overtly racial appeal to Black voters -- and relying on an Accomplice Media to look the other way and not inform the general voting public that he is doing it. Which, not surprisingly based on the last four years of experience, is working out just fine for him.
Would mainstream media look the other way if that were a White President, with depictions of other Whites "getting his back"?
How do these people call themselves journalists? How do they even face themselves in the mirror?
Just one more question: Is this the kind of mindset you want for four more years in the White House?
Mark Finkelstein, blogging at Newsbusters.org, has put up a terrific little snippet (1:44 in total) from today's Morning Joe show, in which a new ad from Karl Rove's American Crossroads organization is shown, then the hosts and panel react to it. The ad, which defines President Obama as a "celebrity President" whose policies have failed, is so terrific that even the leftward panel guests have trouble attacking it.
Here, see for yourself:
See what I mean? The ad grabs your attention, makes its point strongly and credibly, and leaves Barack Obama looking like a hollow shell; all glitz and no results.
No wonder Democrats hate - and fear - Karl Rove so much.
I will end by posting one of the comments made about this video, by someone calling him/herself "ArcherB", which puts things in perspective beautifully:
Does any remember the first six out of eight years of the Bush administration when he had a Republican congress? At the end of those six years, 3/4 into his term, unemployment was at 4.7% and deficit was at about $250 billion.
What happened after SIX years of Bush's "destructive economic policies" that had things so good? Democrats took over congress and in less than two years, trashed the whole country. If this mess were Bush's fault, wouldn't we have seen the damage before six years into his presidency?
Just once, I'd like to see someone remind people like Mika who writes policy, who writes the budgets, who writes the regulations, and who spends the money. Here's a hint: It's Congress!
Let me start by apologizing for the obvious "I told you so" inherent in this blog.
Ok, I'm cleansed. Now let's get to it.
First, here is the short blog I wrote on April 15th, about how Mitt Romney should address the issue of his tax returns and the amount of money they show he has made:
Just a quick suggestion for Republicans.
Democrats are now demanding that Mitt Romney immediately make his 2011 tax returns public - and his returns for years and years in the past.
When do Republicans respond by demanding an accounting of every vacation Barack Obama, his immediate family, and their tag-along friends, relatives, etc. have taken since the start of this administration, and how much those vacations have cost the taxpayer?
Given the sheer number of the Obama's vacations, where they have been to (the Obamas love to globetrot on our dime), the number of times Michelle, Sasha and Malia left at different times than the President, on different planes with different complements of security, etc.......the total amount must be in the tens of millions of dollars. It would not shock me if it approaches $100 million dollars (I mean this quite literally).
What do you think would have more of a negative impact on the US voter? Mitt Romney's tax returns, which show he was extremely successul, made a lot of money and paid many millions in taxes and charitable donations? Or Barack Obama's use of maybe $50 to $100 million dollars of taxpayer money as his family's personal vacation treasury?
When do Republicans learn how to fight fire with fire?
Blue collar Democratic voters, stuck taking depressing “staycations” because they can’t afford gas and hotels, are resentful of the first family’s 17 lavish vacations around the world and don’t want their tax dollars paying for the Obamas’ holidays, according to a new analysis of swing voters.
“They view everything through their own personal situation and if they can’t afford to do it, they can’t enjoy it, they don’t like Obama using their tax dollars to benefit himself,” said pollster John McLaughlin. “In this case, they see him as out of touch. While they are struggling he’s not sharing in that struggle and he’s basically doing what they can’t do on their tax dollars,” added the GOP pollster.
He added that the president’s attack on the rich and GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney’s wealth is working, but the voters were also lumping in the president’s vacation spending in with the General Services Administration’s Las Vegas scandal and federal spending for those who aren’t looking for work.
“There really wasn’t a real dislike for Romney. It was just that he is too rich. But on the other hand there is a start of resentment of the government,” he said. “What surprised me is that these were Democrats back biting on their own president,” added McLaughlin.
Now you know why I am doing that "I told you so".
The opportunity for Mr. Romney is so clear it almost screams out at him. Will he, and his organization, recognize that it both ameliorates the impact of Mr. Romney's wealth (as if making a lot of money is some kind of crime) and creates a negative comparison for Mr. Obama every time it is raised?
We'll see. But I would be amazed - and appalled - if they let it go by.
Note: Since I'm patting myself on the back here, let me balance it off with some self-criticism. In the original blog I speculated that the total cost of the Obamas' vacations could literally go as high as $100 million dollars. On further reflection, that probably is a wildly exaggerated estimate. The actual amount (which I'm sure is in the tens of millions) is bad enough; it doesn't need that kind of embellishment.
Just how pervasive does the Obama administration want government to be in our lives? How about its proposal that children who live on farms should not be allowed to do farm chores?
Think I'm kidding? Believe me I'm not. And if it weren't for an article at dailycaller.com which went viral and embarrassed them into quickly reversing themselves, this policy would still be on the front burner.
Under pressure from farming advocates in rural communities, and following a report by The Daily Caller, the Obama administration withdrew a proposed rule Thursday that would have applied child labor laws to family farms.
Critics complained that the regulation would have drastically changed the extent to which children could work on farms owned by family members. The U.S. Department of Labor cited public outcry as the reason for withdrawing the rule.
“The decision to withdraw this rule — including provisions to define the ‘parental exemption’ — was made in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms,” the Department said in a press release Thursday evening. “To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration.”
“I am pleased to hear the Obama Administration is finally backing away from its absurd 85-page proposal to block youth from participating in family farm activities and ultimately undermine the very fabric of rural America, but I will continue working to ensure this overreaching proposal is completely and permanently put to rest,” said Sen. John Thune, Republican from South Dakota. “The Obama DOL’s youth farm labor rule is a perfect example of what happens when government gets too big.”
The Daily Caller’s story about the proposed regulations quickly went viral on Wednesday, attracting hundreds of thousands of readers through Facebook, The Drudge Report and other online and social media platforms.
The Department of Labor, it should be noted, is headed by Secretary Hilda Solis, as radical a leftist as you can find in the Obama administration - and that is no small accomplishment either. Try and find a left wing cause she does not support, whether labor-related or anywhere else; I dare you.
Little wonder, then, that Ms. Solis would be happy to stick her government-uber-alles nose into the family farms.
Let me end by thanking dailycaller.com for embarrassing Hilda Solis and her cohorts into keeping their hands off the family farms of this country.
And, on a separate note, I would also like to thank Matthew Boyle of dailycaller.com for his dogged reporting of the Operation Fast and Furious scandal. Other than Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News and a precious few other real journalists, this scandal - in my opinion, the biggest of the Obama administration - has been buried by our so-called "neutral" media on behalf of their lord and saviour, Barack Obama.
Matt and Sharyl, the people of this country owe you, big-time, for keeping on top of Operation Fast and Furious. And they owe most of Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media the back of their hands, for acting not as journalists, but as state propagandists.
Time out from politics for, of all things, a review of a PBS special:
I very much wanted to tape PBS's 25th anniversary performance of Les Miserables, but had missed several showings of it. Last night, however, I was finally able to do so.
Having watched parts of it, however, I have to be honest: though it kills me to say so, this was a disappointment.
The story is still just as great and the music and lyrics are just as amazing. But the 10th anniversary performance was far better than the 25th, largely because several of the key performers just did not meet the (admittedly transcendental) standard I have for this show of all shows.
-The single biggest problem was Nick Jonas in the role of Marius. I'm sure he is a nice young man and can sing pop music like nobody's business. But he was painfully out of place here. Not half the voice necessary. At the end of the performance a number of former cast members came out and sang. One of them was Michael Ball, who originated the role of Marius in London and was also in the 10th anniversary performance. What a difference!!!
-Then we had Katie Hall, the young woman who played Cosette as an adult. Beautiful face, beautiful smile, beautiful voice. But, at least to me, she projected no warmth at all - certainly not as much as Judy Kuhn, her original and 10th anniversary counterpart.
-Norm Lewis, who played Javert, was excellent per se. But he suffered for being not nearly as excellent as either the original, Roger Allam, or the 10th anniversary's Philip Quast. I would say the same thing about Matt Lucas (Thenardier, the innkeeper) just not quite matching up to the original and 10th anniversary's Alun Armstrong.
Not that there weren't high spots:
-Alfie Boe, who sang lead in this performance, was great - though maybe a baby step below the great Colm Wilkinson, who originated the role and was in the 10th anniversary performance as well.
-And the wonderful Lea Salonga, who played Eponine in the 10th anniversary performance, aged up to playing Cosette's mother Fantine in the 25th - and remains just as great now as she was then.
If this sounds as if I am hopelessly in love with Les Miserables - 10th or 25th annversary performance - you read me perfectly. If it isn't the single greatest show I've ever seen, it certainly is in the top three.
But, all things considered, if PBS decides to replay the 10th anniversary performance, I will joyously DVR it and dump #25 in a minute.
This is not a good time for Rupert Murdoch. His media empire stands accused of unethical behavior.
And though I have no doubt at all that Murdoch's operation is far from the only one guilty of phone hacking and other illegal intrusions into people's privacy, the fact remains that, however widespread this may be, News of the World is among the guilty parties.
Rupert Murdoch told the Leveson inquiry on Thursday that there had been a "cover-up" at the News of the World, but claimed that he was a victim rather than an accomplice in the scheme. He also said that the phone hacking scandal will be a "blot on my reputation" for the rest of his life.
The second day of Murdoch's testimony before the media ethics panel found the mogul facing far sharper questioning than he did on Wednesday. Murdoch did not back down from his insistence that he had known nothing about the extent of phone hacking at his newspapers. (Indeed, he said that he had essentially ignored the News of the World for over 30 years.) But he said that he had "failed" by being such a remote chief executive.
In Murdoch's telling, the wool had been pulled over his eyes by a handful of people at the News of the World.
"I think the senior executives were all misinformed and shielded from anything that was going on there," he said, adding that he blamed "one or two" unnamed people for that. "There's no question in my mind that, maybe even the editor, but certainly beyond that, someone took charge of a cover-up, and we were all victims of that."
He claimed that those "strong characters," who appeared to be former News International legal adviser Tom Crone and News of the World editor Colin Myler, had prevented reporters from speaking to either James Murdoch or Rebekah Brooks.
After the hearing, Crone released a statement, saying that Murdoch was guilty of a "shameful lie" against him and Myler.
Is Mr. Murdoch personally implicated? We can't know for sure, but how can we possibly discount the possibility that he is?
Let's keep a sharp eye out to see where this goes, how many Murdoch people are involved, and how they will be dealt with. Then let's see if this net widens to other media venues as well.
First we have Joe Biden, speaking today about how President Obama is handling "negotiations" with Iran - the country he ignored when its people were marching in the street two years ago demanding Democracy:
Referring to President Roosevelt's foreign policy quote about "speaking softly and carrying a big stick," Biden told the crowd that Obama followed a similar path while negotiating with Iran.
"I promise you, the president has a big stick. I promise you," Biden said as the crowd laughed.
Then we have this picture from several months ago, of Debbie Wasserman Schultz apparently discussing the size of, er, something with President Obama:
Is it just me, or are these two both, in their own way, giving us a heretofore unreported insight about Barack Obama?
If so, I would have to say it comes under the heading of "More Information Than I Need To Know".
Not for nothing do I call them Jackass Joe and Dim Bulb Debbie.
But as for Mr. Obama? I do admit to being a little envious. Well, ok, maybe a lot envious.
I will now show you the latest news from Egypt, that wonderful paradigm of freeom, democracy and tolerance which has sprung from the Obama-facilitated deposing of Hosni Mubarak. It will come to us via excerpts from Lee Moran's article at London's Daily Mail.
(Note: the foreign press is where I get most of my information about Egypt and Libya these days. Funny thing: ever since the "Arab Spring" started looking like a disastrous backslide to fundamentalist shari'a law, the domestic mainstream media can't seem to find many reasons to talk about it):
Egyptian husbands will soon be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives - for up to six hours after their death.
The controversial new law is part of a raft of measures being introduced by the Islamist-dominated parliament.
It will also see the minimum age of marriage lowered to 14 and the ridding of women's rights of getting education and employment.
Egypt's National Council for Women is campaigning against the changes, saying that 'marginalising and undermining the status of women would negatively affect the country's human development'.
TV anchor Jaber al-Qarmouty slammed the notion of letting a husband have sex with his wife after her death under the so-called 'Farewell Intercourse' draft law.
'This is unbelievable. It is a catastrophe to give the husband such a right! Has the Islamic trend reached that far? Is there really a draft law in this regard? Are there people thinking in this manner?'
Let's see: Egyptian husbands can have sex with their wives' corpses (the article says that wives can have sex with their dead husbands too, but unless rigor mortis sets in fast I doubt you'll hear about many instances of its happening).
And we'll have 14 year old brides, who might as well get married since educational and employment opportunities are about to go bye-bye.
Would it be fair to say that, in Barack Obama's re-election year, information like this would be damaging to his chances? Is it just possible that this is why our wonderful "neutral" media are not talking about Egypt anymore?
And, yes, these are the same media who squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.
A Des Moines woman who publicly thanked President Barack Obama on Tuesday for helping her obtain health insurance actually is receiving her coverage through a long-standing state program.
CeCe Ibson was asked to share her story as an introduction to a Michelle Obama speech Tuesday in Windsor Heights. She talked about losing her health insurance when she lost her job as a lawyer two years ago. She bought private coverage for her two children, she said, but could not find it for herself.
“No one would insure me because of my pre-existing conditions. No one. Until President Obama stood up for me and millions of Americans like me across Iowa and across the country,” she said.
In fact, Ibson’s current coverage is provided by HIP Iowa, a state program for people whose health problems make them ineligible for most commercial insurance. HIP Iowa was created in 1987, during Republican Terry Branstad’s first stint as governor. Most of the program’s subsidies come from fees paid by commercial insurers.
Is she also one of the women who faint, on cue, at Obama rallies? Does she know Sandra Fluke, the 23 year old struggling college student who turned out to be a 30 year old career left wing activist getting a $59,000 a year education? Is she acquainted with the three women who came forward to accuse Black Republican Herman Cain of infidelity without any actual evidence, and then disappeared the minute he ended his presidential bid? Just curious......
In 2010, during the height of the so-called "Tea Party movement" (which, it should be noted, is far from over), several relatively moderate Republicans were defeated in primaries by more rightward opponents. At that time media - reasonsably enough - characterized it as a Republican lurch to the right. Most of those media also suggested that this rightward movement showed how marginal and out of touch the Republican Party had become.
Well, a funny thing happened in Pennsylvania two days ago. Two relatively moderate Democrat house members, Jason Altmire and Tim Holden, were defeated in their primaries by appreciably more left wing opponents. Most newspaper accounts suggest Mr. Altmire and Mr. Holden went down because they opposed ObamaCare, which enraged left wing activist groups enough so that they "worked" the districts and made sure Altmire and Holden were unseated.
Altmire and Holden were part of a dwindling group of moderate (not "conservative", as some media called them, but moderate) "Blue Dog Democrats": i.e. Democrats who had not gone as far left as the rest of the party. And they were both exorcised for their crime of staying somewhere near the center.
Now there are even fewer Blue Dog Democrats....and the pressure is that much greater for what is left of them to roll over for the left wing, which has taken firm ownership of their party.
With this in mind, I ask you to think about the primary coverage you saw on Tuesday night, and all of yesterday. Tell me: Have you watched, heard or read any news features which, in any way, pointed to this as evidence that the Democrat Party has lurched leftward? Have you come across any analyses which pointed out that, according to just about every poll, most people do not want ObamaCare, so Altmire and Holden were more in touch with the average person than their opponents or their overall party? Or that this suggests Democrats are unduly influenced by/beholden to left wing activist groups (you might even call them the Democrats' Tea Party movement)?
The closest I have seen is today's article in the New York Times, which quotes one Democrat county chairman as saying "...the Democratic Party became more liberal". Thats it: not leftward, just liberal. The article, it should be noted, goes on to blame Altmire and Holden's defeat more on redistricting than the left wing/moveon.org crowd punishing them for the heresy of occasionally straying off the plantation. I'm not buying.
It is getting harder and harder to remember when we had actual journalists, and serious investigative reporters willing to go in whichever direction the news led them.
Too bad for them. And, especially, too bad for us.
I do not know who Barack Obama's biological father is. I wasn't there when it happened.
That said, over the last several years I have read, and heard, speculation that the great secret Barack Obama has tried to hide by not producing his original birth certificate (please tell me you don't believe the computer-generated concoction he tossed at us last year is real) is not related to his citizenship status, but to who his actual biological father is.
Until now, I have never blogged about this possibility, because I have not seen any evidence to support the claim. This is not a gossip column. Whispers are not good enough.
However, I have just learned that documentarian Joel Gilbert, who is associated with the decidedly rightward worldnetdaily.com, has spent two years researching this possibility, and claims to have unearthed a good deal of evidence indicating there was a relationship between Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and the Black communist radical Frank Marshall Davis.
Mr. Gilbert believes that Davis is Barack Obama's biological father, and has used the evidence he gathered to create a full length documentary titled "Dreams From My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception". It is scheduled for release in July.
Let me again say that I do not know whether there is any truth to the claim that Franklin Marshall Davis is President Obama's real father. But I am now at the point of wondering whether there anything to it.
Two days ago, President Obama told us that he and his wife Michelle had finally paid off their college loans just 8 years ago: quite a journey, given that Mr. Obama last attended a school in 1991, which means it took him 13 years to retire the debt.
Do you believe him?
The only way to know for sure is for Mr. Obama to release his college records - which, of course, would also mean giving us a look at who, if anyone funded any part of his college education, including whether he received foreign aid from, say Kenya or Indonesia.
Is that why he refuses to release them? No one knows for sure. But what we do know is that keeping them under wraps means there is no way to check his claims regarding student loan payoffs.
This leads to the question I ask of mainstream media: why, over the four years-plus since Mr. Obama began actively campaigning for the presidency, have they never demanded to see those records? Why have they simply accepted what Barack Obama has told us about his college years without demanding any evidence to back it up?
Let's also remember that this is the same Barack Obama who is pushing the so-called "Buffett Rule", which is predicated on Warren Buffett's claim that he paid a lower rate of income tax than his secretary -- and the same mainstream media which have never demanded to see the actual tax returns so they could check whether Buffett's claim was true.
My question about the "Buffett Rule" is the same as it is for the college records: why do they simply accept what Barack Obama says, without ever demanding evidence to back it up?
Is there any wonder that I call them Barack Obama's Accomplice Media - ever willing to accept whatever he tosses their way, with or without documentation?
Did they do the same for George Bush, or any other Republican President? Would they do the same? No, of course not. This free pass is owned by Barack Obama. End of story.
How can they call themselves journalists? How can they even face themselves in the mirror?
President Obama recently touted algae as a potential source of energy, and now the Environmental Protection Agency has invested in converting spinach into an energy source.
The EPA awarded a $90,000 grant over the weekend to Vanderbilt University students "who designed a biohybrid solar panel that substitutes a protein from spinach for expensive silicon wafers that are energy intensive to produce, and is capable of producing electricity."
They won the grant despite "nagging doubts about how the slight power from the panel would convince the judges," one Vanderbilt professor explained.
Let me get this straight: the Environmental Protection Administration, under Obama-appointed Secretary Lisa P. Jackson, has issued a grant of $90,000 - taxpayer money, of course - so that a team of students can generate a "slight" amount of electricity from spinach?
Look, I'm as fond of spinach as the next guy. I'm sure the energy it provides is of great use to Popeye The Sailor Man when he is beating the stuffing out of Bluto, scaring off the Sea Hag and having his way with Olive Oyl.
But as a source of energy? Let's just say there is a little voice whispering in my ear that offshore and ANWR drilling just might have a tad more impact on our short and long term needs.
Almost every time I am shown an email from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), it assures me that virtually every penny of the organization's funding comes from "grassroots" donations. Until now, depending on which email is being referred to, "grassroots" money has accounted for either 90% or 95% of the DSCC's total funding.
But today's email, signed by Senator Michael Bennet, has outdone even that amazingly high percentage. Here is how it starts:
First right-wing extremists took aim at women's healthcare. Now, they're trying to double interest rates on millions of student loans.
And thanks to the Citizens United ruling, Karl Rove and the Koch brothers will try to make this radical agenda law by defeating President Obama and taking over the Senate with nearly unlimited cash.
Our side's different -- 97% of our support comes from grassroots donations. It's you vs. the Rove and Koch attack machine.
Yeah, I know. Women's health care, right wing extremists, Karl Rove, the Koch brothers....every standard-issue bogeyman is there, right up front (and, of course, mentioned again later on as well). Yawn.
But I was intrigued by the claim that "97% of our support comes from grassroots donations" (I'm quoting it in bold print because that is how it was written on the email). 97% is a new DSCC email high.
I have to admit, it made me a tad suspicious. So I decided to check as best I can.
To my knowledge, there is no online information detailing DSCC funding - at any rate, none I could find. So, as an alternative, I decided to check on donations for the top of the ticket, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and see if I might get any insight there.
To that end, the Obama-Biden campaign is nice enough to provide a list of their biggest campaign bundlers. That is where I got the data compiled below. In looking at it, please note that I have assumed, very conservatively I think, that the highest bundlers ($500,000 or more) average just $600,000 per person. Every other assumption is a mid-point:
First Quarter Donations, Provided by Obama-Biden “Bundlers”
$500,000 or more (assume $600,000 each): 117 bundlers equals $70,200,000
FYI: If the Obama-Biden ticket is also getting 97% of its donations from "grassroots" sources, then that $149 million is 3% of what it hauled in during the first quarter of this year. Add in the "grassroots 97%", and Obama-Biden's first-quarter total would come to almost $5 BILLION dollars - $4,961,700,000 to be exact. .
That, folks, is one helluva grassroots organization.
Tell you what, though: maybe I'm just a hopeless cynic, but I doubt very much that the Obama-Biden campaign is raking in donations at the rate of $5 billion a quarter. Therefore I do not think the Obama-Biden campaign is getting 97% of its contributions from "grassroots" sources.
And y'know what? I don't think the DSCC is either.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz makes a big mistake when she goes on Fox News Channel. That is because it is where she is asked questions. Not smiley-face, creampuff softball questions, but actual, real ones.
Want an example? CLICK HERE, and listen to her duck, shuck and dance trying to avoid a simple, direct question from Fox's Brett Baier, about why Democrats have not produced a budget in over three years (which, not incidentally, gives them an opening to attack every Republican budget proposal, without having to defend one of their own).
If this doesn't explain why I call her Dim Bulb Debbie, nothing will.
Oh, and as a fun little extra, enjoy the beginning of the interview, in which it sounds as if she mistakenly refers to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as "Harry Reems" (at about :25 into the audio).
FYI, Harry Reems - real name Herbert Streicher - was a pornographic actor, who co-starred with Linda Lovelace in the 1972 porn, er, classic, "Deep Throat". (Note to Senator Reid: I've seen Deep Throat. And, trust me, you should be more than a little complimented by Wasserman Schultz's mistake).
Over the last several weeks we have seen first time unemployment claims jump upward.
Yesterday we learned that new home sales were down 7% from the previous month, existing home sales were down 3% and new home starts were down 6%..
Today we learn that new orders for manufactured durable goods decreased 4.2% from last month.
All of this has occurred well over 3 years since President Obama and his huge Democrat majority in both houses of congress passed the so-called "stimulus package", which resulted in unemployment rising rather than falling, and has put us trillions of dollars more into debt every year since.
It is a major embarrassment for the congress of the United States, that I have a reason to call Rep. Paul Ryan a courageous man.
After all, what did Rep. Ryan do.....other than just talk honestly about Medicare and Social Security? What did he do....other than point out what everyone seems to know already, which is that both are rapidly becoming insolvent and must be changed in order for them to exist in the future? What did he do....other than propose changes to these programs that would retain their structure for people currently or soon to be on them, while modifying them for people whose entry is further down the road, so the programs will still exist at that time?
Isn't that what responsible congresspeople are supposed to do? You'd never know it by the tidal wave of opprobrium dumped on Ryan - almost exclusively from Democrats, who need to pretend that little or nothing has to change so they can satisfy the enormous - and growing - entitlement bloc.
In any event, on the assumption that there are still a good many people interested in the truth about Medicare, I would like to call your attention to a terrific article by Douglas Holtz-Eakin (former Director of the Congressional Budget Office) and Jim Nussle (former Chairman of the House Budget Committee and Director of the Office of Management and Budget), which I found at nationalreview.com (you didn't think I picked it up at msnbc.com, did you?). Mr. Holtz-Eakin and Mr. Nussle's article gives us a quick, easy-to-understand lesson in just what condition the program is in, and why it is so imperative that something be done about it.
Here are a few key excerpts:
Medicare is bleeding cash — a fact disguised by creative accounting. According to Monday’s release of the 2012 Trustees Report, in 2011 Medicare took in $260.8 billion in payroll taxes and beneficiary premiums, but spent $549.1 billion in medical services. That means last year Medicare ran a $288.3 billion cash shortfall.
Advocates of the status quo argue that Medicare receives “general revenue transfers,” but that’s government-speak for raiding the Treasury to spend other tax revenues. It’s the dramatic use of general-revenue transfers that has hidden Medicare’s true insolvency from the public and masked Medicare’s contribution to the national debt.
Since taking office, President Obama has overseen a Medicare cash-flow deficit of more than $869 billion. This includes $570.7 billion in red ink accumulated since the passage of the president’s signature health-care law, which siphoned off $732 billion in Medicare funding over the next ten years. By the end of 2012, the trustees project that the Obama administration will have overseen a $1.2 trillion Medicare cash shortfall.
Left unchanged, Medicare costs will continue to escalate, leading to annual shortfalls and a projected cash-flow deficit of over $450 billion in 2020.
A sensible solution would be to offer Medicare beneficiaries the option of a defined-contribution program — as proposed by House Republicans and Mitt Romney. Seniors would be budgeted an annual contribution, which could be adjusted to reflect costs associated with their health status and financial wherewithal. For the federal budget, the result is a capped exposure to Medicare — one that would adjust to reflect the number of seniors and inflation.
That would be great news for the nation’s spending outlook. It would be even better news for the exploding debt and the threat it carries to the nation’s economic health. Most importantly, it would secure Medicare for future generations.
Do we need a revamping of Medicare - a real one, not the window-dressing variety? Of course we do, and the faster the better.
Will we get it during an Obama presidency? Obviously the answer is no: entitlements without any idea of how they are funded is Obama & Co.'s coin of the realm. Without them, Democrats can no longer win elections.
So thank you, Rep. Ryan, for your courage in making proposals that, in a more reasonable world, would be celebrated rather than defecated on. Please keep up the battle. We need people like you more than ever.
I watched the Today Show for most of its first hour this morning. Here is what I learned:
-A ditsy young lady accidentally spilled some yogurt on President Obama's pants leg, and - between giggles - was very apologetic, while Mr. Obama showed what a great sport he was and more or less laughed the incident off;
-President Obama was on (NBC's) Jimmy Fallon* show last night, and did a hilarious routine with Fallon - at least the paid hosts on Today indicated they thought it was. This also showed what a great sport Mr. Obama was, and how cool he is, which would impress the younger segment whose votes, and turnout, he must have to win in November;
-I was told, in passing (two sentences, I think) - far less than Barack Obama's yogurt and Fallon puff pieces - that Mitt Romney won five out of five presidential primaries, including Delaware, which Newt Gingrich desperately needed to keep his already-minimal hopes alive. This made Romney's nomination a virtual certainty.
-And I was not told a thing about new information regarding the killing of US Border Agent Brian Terry: a third murder weapon was uncovered which, like the other two, almost certainly came from "Operation Fast and Furious" - i.e. the intentional sale of assault weapons by the US Government to Mexican drug cartels.
In fairness, however, it would be impossible for NBC to report this as new information, because that would suggest it reported the previous information. NBC, you see, has never reported a thing about Operation Fast and Furious it to its viewers.
It has been over a year since the Operation Fast and Furious scandal broke. The Attorney General of the Unites States, eric holder, has been caught lying about it in sworn congressional testimony. Almost one fourth of the entire congress is on record as either demanding that holder resign, signing a no-confidence resolution against him or both. And not one NBC story about it.
This is the single biggest scandal of the scandal-ridden Obama administration. Border agent Terry is dead. Customs agent Jaime Zapata is dead. Hundreds of Mexican citizens are dead. And God alone knows how many other crimes, fatal and non-fatal, on both sides of the border, have also resulted from Operation Fast and Furious. But people who rely on NBC for news - whether the Today Show or the nightly news with Brian Williams - do not even know it exists.
I talk a lot about the sad state of NBC "News". If any readers still wonder why, this should give them a pretty good idea.
Mitt Romney has won all five primaries today - New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware, where he more than doubled the vote total of Newt Gingrich, who hoped to do quite well there.
UPDATE: A number of web sites are reporting that Newt Gingrich will drop out of the race next Tuesday and endorse Mitt Romney. I have no idea why he would wait a week to do so, but that is what the reports say.
There are also reports that Rick Santorum will soon formally endorse Romney.
If true, this will leave ron paul, who , after 43 primaries, has yet to win even one. paul barely even makes it to et cetera status.
Much (not all) of the Republican right wing is outraged by the fact that Mitt Romney has named Richard Grenell his national security and foreign policy spokesperson.
Why would this be? After all, Mr. Grenell has a tremendous résumé, most notably as President Bush's spokesperson at the United Nations, but also as a spokesperson for, among others, New York Governor George Pataki.
Well, the reason is simple (maybe simple-minded would be a better descriptor): Richard Grenell is gay. Overtly, unashamedly gay.
How much does this rankle some social conservatives? Well, here is an excerpt from Bryan Fisher's commentary at afa.com (American Family Association):
Gov. Mitt Romney stepped on a landmine by appointing Richard Grenell, an out, loud and proud homosexual, to be his spokesman on national security and foreign policy issues. Grenell has for years been an outspoken advocate for homosexual marriage. In fact, word is that he left the Bush administration because President Bush would not formally acknowledge his homosexual partner.
Since, as the saying goes in D.C., personnel is policy, this means Gov. Romney has some ‘splaining to do. This clearly is a deliberate and intentional act on his part, since he was well aware of Mr. Grenell’s sexual proclivities and knew it would be problematic for social conservatives. It’s certainly not possible that there are no other potential spokesmen available, men who are experts in foreign policy and who at the same time honor the institution of natural marriage in their personal lives.
So this has all the appearances of a deliberate poke in the eye to the pro-family community, and a clumsy one at that, coming right on the heels of endorsements from Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Dallas and the National Organization for Marriage, and right after the governor accepted an invitation to deliver the commencement address at Liberty University.
As I explained in a much-discussed Tweet over the weekend, the message Gov. Romney appears to be sending to the pro-family community through his Grenell appointment is “drop dead.”
Given the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters, the risk to national security of having a homosexual in a high-ranking position with access to secret information is obvious.
Fisher goes on to make a number of demands of Mr. Romney regarding homosexuals, which you can read, if you care to, by using the link I've provided above.
My reaction to Bryan Fisher's opinions and demands? Oh brother, here we go again.
Yes, Richard Grenell is homosexual. SO WHAT? What does that have to do with his capabilities as a spokesperson? Whose business is it what Mr. Grenell does in his bedroom besides Mr. Grenell and whomever he shares that bedroom with?
Regarding "the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters", what does that have to do with Richard Grenell and his partner? Can Bryan Fisher or anyone else who feels as he does assure me that every heterosexual spokesperson out there does not have frequent and anonymous sexual encounters? How about the politicians, on both sides of the aisle? Can we talk about John Edwards? Or Newt Gingrich? Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.?
And how is it obvious that a gay man who is 100% out of the closet would be a risk to national security? If he were hiding his homosexuality, maybe. But he is not.
For the record, I would say the same thing about a heterosexual who was hiding his sexual encounters with women other than his wife. How is that less of a security risk than a closet gay?
The point, of course, is that you don't have to be gay to have skeletons in your closet which might constitute a security risk. Skeletons are bipartisan, and, unlike Mr. Fisher, do not discriminate by sexual orientation.
Look, this is a free country. If Bryan Fisher does not like homosexuals or their lifestyle, that's his business. He, along with every other AFA member, is welcome to dislike or even despise gay people at will.
But neither Bryan Fisher nor anyone else is welcome to demand that sexual orientation must be some kind of disqualifying factor for Mitt Romney's staff. That is ridiculous. And intolerant. And, happy to say, clearly rejected by Mr. Romney.
I congratulate Mitt Romney for selecting so obviously experienced and talented a man for this job. I hope he performs brilliantly.
This latest installment of Why Actors Should Just Shut Up And Act is brought to you by two-time Oscar winner, and huge hugo chavez fan, Sean Penn.
Here is Mr. Penn's wit and wisdom, straight from CNN's Piers Morgan interview show:
What happens is that people become pawns, become sheep of movements of comfort, those things that will keep them out of either complicated thought that they don’t aspire to, or out of a kind of tolerance that they don’t understand. To become a polarizing figure, you’re polarizing for those who are self-polarized, and I think that what we want to see and what I can’t do, what young people can do with each other is where the movements will always be because it’s in that that those things will be given greater breadth, and the lessons and the education will infuse itself into that. It’ll be a human education.
At the same time, we do know that the country has been swinging, you know, in terms of the polarization on the Right to incredible kind of fundamentalist situation where you have people like – we talked about Rick Santorum – where, where actually they are virtually contradicting all the Constitutional principles in their rhetoric. And so you say, “Well look, okay, you can believe that, but you cannot equate that with this Constitution. That’s not an interpretation issue. It means that you did not read the Constitution, and indeed you are anti-American.”
I am very pro-American in the sense of a Constitutional America, and I’m very pro-American in terms of a diverse America and one where we do reach out and understand that to be too mono-cultural is to limit ourselves and create the insecurity that we’re currently facing.
What can you say to such analytical expertise, such depth of perception?
Well, in my case you can say "Huh? Wha?" Maybe it's just my lack of insight, but I have trouble understanding what the #&$% Penn said.
I mean, who knew that Sean Penn - an actor - was such an expert on the constitution, and that Rick Santorum - a lawyer with 16 years in congress as a house member and senator, was such a constitutional ignoramus?
Maybe I should just assume that what reads like a pile of compost is a pile of compost, and conclude that an actor who cannot figure out what is wrong with the way hugo chavez runs Venezuela is probably not a leading constitutional scholar either.
The only good news for Penn is that he said it on Piers Morgan's show. That is because Morgan competes with Fox's Sean Hannity, who gets roughly four times his audience, and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, which gets roughly double his audience. the way I figure it, if you insist on making a fool of yourself on TV, a low rated show is the best place to do it.
Sean Penn is an excellent actor. Now: can someone please convince him to just shut up and act?
My congratulations to the career race hustlers, like al sharpton, louis farrakhan, jessie jackson, etc., and the opportunistic race inciters like spike lee, roseanne barr and, most regretfully, President Barack ("If I had a son he would look like Trayvon") Obama. No one can say you haven't had an impact.
For the past month, there has been a rash of Black on White racial attacks, with the perpetrators making sure to cite Trayvon Martin as the reason for their violence.
A man charged with a hate crime in Oak Park this week told police he was so upset about the Trayvon Martin case that he beat up a man because he was white, authorities said.
Alton L. Hayes III, 18, of Oak Park, and a 15-year-old Chicagoan — both black — walked up behind the 19-year-old victim and pinned his arms to his side early Tuesday, police said. Hayes then picked up a large tree branch, pointed it at the man and said, “Empty your pockets, white boy.”
They rifled through his pockets, threw him to the ground and punched him in the head and back “numerous times,” police said.
After he was arrested, Hayes told police he was upset by the racially charged Trayvon Martin case in Florida and beat the man because he was white, CookCounty state’s attorney’s office spokeswoman Tandra Simonton said, citing court records.
It was the second attack in the past week in Gainesville in which assailants yelled the first name of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black 17-year-old who was shot and killed by crime-watch volunteer George Zimmerman as the teen walked back to his father's girlfriend's apartment in Sanford on Feb. 26.
In Gainesville early Saturday, a 27-year-old white man was beaten by a group of between five and eight black men as he walked home on Southwest 23rd Terrace, police said.
The victim told police the attackers shouted "Trayvon!" before beating him, though he was intoxicated and could not give a description of the attackers or their vehicle.
Mobile police need your help to catch a mob that beat Matthew Owens so badly that he's in critical condition.
According to police, Owens fussed at some kids playing basketball in the middle of Delmar Drive about Saturday night. They say the kids left and a group of adults returned, armed with everything but the kitchen sink.
Police tell News 5 the suspects used chairs, pipes and paint cans to beat Owens.
What Parker says happened next could make the fallout from the brutal beating even worse. As the attackers walked away, leaving Owen bleeding on the ground, Parker says one of them said "Now thats justice for Trayvon." Trayvon Martin is the unarmed teenager police say was shot and killed February 26 by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman in Samford, Florida.
According to the Toledo (Ohio) Blade), a 78 year old man in Toledo Ohio says he was beaten by a group of Black teenagers who invoked Trayvon Martin as well. The police dispute that it was a racial attack, because one of the 6 teenagers was White. You can make of that one what you will.
Do you have any doubts at all that there have been more such attacks? Maybe a lot more? Me neither.
So let us give credit where credit is due. sharpton and his kindred buddies have every right to be proud of the result of their weeks of marches and incendiary speeches: a second degree murder charge against George Zimmerman - which, based on the evidence we know so far, it seems impossible he could ever be convicted of.
But they should be just as proud of the racist crime wave their marches and incendiary speeches have generated; of the fact that Trayvon Martin has now become the rationale for racist thugs when they commit violent crimes against White people who have nothing to do with the Martin incident. Because that, too, is their doing.
Now, where are the anguished attacks on these race-hustling lowlifes from our wonderful "neutral" media? Where are their poignant, plaintive cries over the growing number of racist crimes being committed in Trayvon Martin's name?
If I can easily find a list of these crimes, is there any doubt the network news shows can, the morning shows can, the New York Times can, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.? So why have we not heard from them?
No wonder so many of the mainstream media have no problem with our racist Attorney General eric holder, who cannot find a reason to investigate the new black panther party,even after it literally puts a $10,000 bounty on George Zimmerman's head, dead or alive.
The legislation would have little chance of passing in a stalemated Senate or being approved by a GOP-held House, but it would allow Democrats to push their electoral advantage with Latino voters just as the presidential campaign heats up in July.
“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” Schumer said in an interview.
He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.
Why are they doing it? Because, sadly, the Democrat Party has increasingly devolved into the party of entitlement and government giveaways.
"Come one, come all. Don't worry about the laws, because we are Democrats, and we control the Presidency and the Senate, and especially our 100% compromised sock puppet of an Attorney General.
"Welcome in, don't worry about a thing. Oh, and by the way, it is illegal for you to vote -- but we are doing everything we can to make sure there are no voter ID's at the polls so no one can check if you do (wink, wink). Remember, we are Democrats. D E M O C R A T S. Got it? Ok, good."
Personally, I wonder if Republicans have the courage, and integrity, to push back on this issue.
I don't expect (or want) Mitt Romney to run on a platform of ousting every illegal. That is not a good idea at all, and in any event would be virtually impossible to accomplish.
But I wonder if he has the strength to say something like:
"Look, I agree that there have to be accommodations for some illegals - for example, those who have been here so long that their children, through no fault of their own, know no other country but the USA. But, special cases aside, in a Romney administration, illegal is going to mean something. I will do everything I can to seal our borders tighter than a drum. I will instruct federal law enforcement to aggressively find, and deport, illegals who have come here more recently and have no roots in the community. I will instruct them to work hardest at deporting illegals who commit crimes, no matter how long they have been here. In other words, if I am President, immigration laws finally, at long last, will start to have some real meaning."
Would that lose Mr. Romney votes? I'm not sure it would. How many people who support illegal immigration do you figure are voting Republican this year anyway? Not many.
Would it gain him votes? Well, first read the polls on how the general population feels about illegal immigration. Next, look at the enormous success Alabama has had with legal citizens getting jobs since its toughest-in-the-nation immigration laws were enacted last year (from 9% unemployment down to 7%!). And then think about how people would react to a politician taking the plunge and talking candidly and bluntly about an issue, rather than out of both sides of his mouth.
Maybe I'm just a dreamer, but I see a net gain here; one which comes from being straight with voters about a major issue.
Does that sound like a win-win situation to you? It sure does to me.
After three years of what arguably is the single most imperial presidency in my lifetime, Barack Obama's increasingly frequent displays of arrogance do not often suprise me. But the arrogance displayed in The New York Times' lead story this morning managed to do the trick.
It started with this headline and (in the print edition) sub-head:
Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals
With “We Can’t Wait’ as Motto, Finding a Way to Flex Presidential Muscle
Allow me to translate: For two years, President Obama had huge Democrat majorities in both houses, so what he wanted, he got. And the two pieces of legislation Mr. Obama wanted most were 1) the so-called "stimulus package", which managed to put us 5 trillion dollars more in debt while raising the unemployment rate - an amazingly negative daily double - and 2) ObamaCare, which virtually every poll shows that the country does not want.
Not surprisingly, there was a price to pay. Due, in no small part, to Mr. Obama's two great legislative "triumphs", in the 2010 elections Republicans won the house of representatives outright, and significantly closed the gap in the Senate.
Needless to say, this effectively ended Mr. Obama's ability to get whatever he wanted from congress without breaking a sweat - which, as you might expect, did not sit well with him.
So, Barack Obama being Barack Obama, his response has been to simply ignore congress as much as possible, and act as though he were elected Dictator instead of President.
How, specifically, does he do this? Let's go back to the New York Times story, and look at a few telling excerpts:
WASHINGTON — One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism.
For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush forflouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals.
But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.
Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”
Aides say many more such moves are coming.
The Obama administration started down this path soon after Republicans took over the House of Representatives last year. In February 2011, Mr. Obama directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, against constitutional challenges. Previously, the administration had urged lawmakers to repeal it, but had defended their right to enact it.
The sharpest legal criticism, however, came in January after Mr. Obama bypassed the Senate confirmation process to install four officials using his recess appointment powers, even though House Republicans had been forcing the Senate to hold “pro forma” sessions through its winter break to block such appointments.
“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama declared, beneath a “We Can’t Wait” banner. “When Congress refuses to act and — as a result — hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”
Fascinating. Especially from a man who at one time taught constitutional law.
Barack Obama and his people may consider congress an obstruction. But, in case he forgot, the constitution defines congress as one of the three branches of government, every bit as important as the presidency. It is not some throw-rug to be kicked aside because the great and powerful Obamandius finds its legal powers inconvenient.
And using an obnoxious slogan like "We Can't Wait" - which not only suggests that the President sees congress as nothing more than an annoying little impediment to his supremacy, but that his agenda is shared by all the rest of us, which I assure you is untrue - does not change the constitutional powers and prerogatives of congress by even one iota.
Who does Barack Obama think he is? Some kind of tinhorn dictator? A hugo chavez wannabe who has decided that becoming President somehow elevated him, and him alone, far beyond the presidency's legal prerogatives?
Specifically, Health and Human Services (HHS) is diverting something like $8 billion dollars into a part of the medicaid program that, due to ObamaCare, was scheduled to disappear this year. Now the disappearance will occur after the election - in the hope that seniors won't be the wiser.
Here are the particulars:
The most oppressive aspects of the ObamaCare law don’t kick in until after the 2012 election, when the president will no longer be answerable to voters. More “flexibility,” he recently explained to the Russians.
But certain voters would certainly notice one highly painful part of the law before then — namely, the way it guts the popular Medicare Advantage program.
For years, 12 million seniors have relied on these policies, a more market-oriented alternative to traditional Medicare, without the aggravating gaps in coverage.
But as part of its hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts, the Obama one-size-fits-all plan slashes reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage starting next year — herding many seniors back into the government-run program.
Under federal “open-enrollment” guidelines, seniors must pick their Medicare coverage program for next year by the end of this year — which means they should be finding out before Election Day.
Making matters even more politically dangerous for Obama is that open enrollment begins Oct. 15, less than three weeks before voters go to the polls.
But the administration’s devised a way to postpone the pain one more year, getting Obama past his last election; it plans to spend $8 billion to temporarily restore Medicare Advantage funds so that seniors in key markets don’t lose their trusted insurance program in the middle of Obama’s re-election bid.
The money is to come from funds that Health and Human Services is allowed to use for “demonstration projects.” But to make it legal, HHS has to pretend that it’s doing an “experiment” to study the effect of this money on the insurance market.
Think about it: Three weeks before the election, senior citizens would suddenly become aware that Medicare Advantage has been cut to the bone by Obama & Co.
How do you suppose they would feel about it? How do you suppose this information would play in, say, Florida? Do you think it just might have a deleterious effect on the Obama re-election campaign? How about in New Jersey, with its huge number of 55-and-over complexes? How about any other state with a large senior population?
We now know how the Obama administration is handling this issue.
We know it certainly will not involve honestly advising senior citizens that Medicare Advantage has been gutted, and explaining why they did it. See, that wouldn't work too well, since the reason - implementation of ObamaCare, which most people do not want - is lousy. Nope, that won't do.
Instead, the Obama administration, abetted by its sock puppet HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius, will just divert funds from somewhere else to keep Medicare Advantage afloat in its present form...until after the election. Then, it will be OK for seniors can find out, because it will be too late for them to vote accordingly.
But now that Mr. Sasse and Mr. Hurt have let the cat out of the bag, and exposed the Obama administration's senior-suckering strategy , let's see how our wonderful "neutral" media handle it.
Think of the Medicare Advantage story as a major opportunity for them to demonstrate they are not just an Accomplice Media, hopelessly in the tank for Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats. So how prominently do you figure it will be discussed tonight on the network news? On the cable news shows - especially MSNBC and CNN?
Which partisans tend to be more politically knowledgeable and open-minded; Republicans or Democrats? You can probably develop a heated argument about this in any bar in the country (and just as probably wind up with a bloody nose for your trouble).
Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.
On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey titled “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.”
The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.
“Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge,” said the study, which noted that Democrats outscored Republicans on five questions by an average of 4.6 percent.
However, Pew’s data suggests that the Democrats’ low average rating likely is a consequence of its bipolar political coalition, which combines well-credentialed post-graduate progressives who score well in quizzes with a much larger number of poorly educated supporters, who score badly.
For example, the survey reported that 90 percent of college grads recognized the GOP as the party most supportive of cutting the federal government. But that number fell to 54 percent of people with a high-school education or less.
In contrast, the Republican party coalition is more consistent, and has few poorly educated people and fewer post-graduates.
Pew’s new study echoes the results of many other reports and studies that show GOP supporters are better educated, more empathetic and more open to criticism than Democrats.
Assuming these poll data accurately reflect the overall population, they tell us several things:
-One, obviously, is that Republicans, as a group, are more knowledgeable about political matters.
-Another is that Republicans, by and large, inhabit the middle ground, while Democrats, to a much greater extent, are comprised of the highest-educated and lowest-educated segments.
What does any of this mean? Well, that's up to you. But, at the very least, these findings might be worth remembering the next time someone - like maybe a friend, co-worker or just about any MSNBC show host - smugly assures you that Republicans are a bunch of ignorant dimwits.
It is certainly no surprise that President Obama wants to get as much of the youth vote as possible. According to Aliyah Shahid's article in the New York Daily News, that is why he will be on Jimmy Fallon's late night show this week, and will also be "roasted" at the White House by Jimmy Kimmel.
But while Mr. Obama is yukking it up with the two Jimmies, young voters - between gales of laughter, of course - might also want to pay a bit of attention to Hope Yen's article for the Associated Press, which will tell them, among other things:
The college class of 2012 is in for a rude welcome to the world of work.
A weak labor market already has left half of young college graduates either jobless or underemployed in positions that don't fully use their skills and knowledge.
Young adults with bachelor's degrees are increasingly scraping by in lower-wage jobs — waiter or waitress, bartender, retail clerk or receptionist, for example — and that's confounding their hopes a degree would pay off despite higher tuition and mounting student loans.
About 1.5 million, or 53.6 percent, of bachelor's degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years.
Out of the 1.5 million who languished in the job market, about half were underemployed, an increase from the previous year.
I strongly urge you to read Ms. Yen's entire piece, so you can appreciate how woeful prospects are for young people entering the job market.
And when you do, please, remember that we are 3 1/2 years into the Obama administration, and well over 3 years since the so-called "stimulus package" was supposed to stop the unemployment problem in its tracks.
Do you think that Barack Obama's smiling and mugging for the cameras with Jimmy and Jimmy will take young people's minds off of his abysmal economic performance, and keep them in a happy, laughing place through election day?
On a non-political note: two of yesterday's Major League baseball games are worth talking about, albeit for very different reasons.
In the New York Yankee - Boston Red Sox game, played at Boston's Fenway Park (during its 100th anniversary celebration, for good measure), Boston was leading 9 - 0 after five innings. Game in the bag, right?
Well, no. The Yankees scored one run in the 6th inning....then 7 runs in the 7th, and 7 more in the 8th. The final score was Yankees 15, Boston 9.
The fans' reaction to their team, their relief staff, and most especially their new manager, Bobby Valentine? Let's just say it wasn't a standing ovation.
Then we had the Chicago White Sox - Seattle Mariner game, played at Seattle's Safeco field. In it, White Sox pitcher Phil Humber tossed a perfect game: 27 up, 27 retired.
Or did he?
The 27th batter, Brendan Ryan, worked the count to 3-2. Humber's "payoff pitch" was well out of the strike zone, so much so that the catcher, A.J. Pierzynski could not handle it and it went careening behind him.
Ryan started to go for the pitch, but checked his swing. At least that's the way it looked to me. But home plate umpire Brian Runge called him out. The call was so outrageous to Ryan that instead of running to first base when Pierzynski could not handle the ball (which, I think, would have ended the perfect game as much as if he had walked), Ryan first stood and screamed at umpire Runge, then started to run. By that point, it was too late and he was thrown out at first.
So does Humber's pitching performance, which was brilliant regardless of what happened with the last batter - go in the books as a perfect game? Yes it does. But, sadly, it goes in with at least somewhat of an aroma.
Oh, one other thing. Phil Humber, originally a first round pick of the New York Mets, is now the the 7th ex-Met pitcher to toss a no-hitter or a perfect game. But, as a Met, no pitcher has ever thrown a no-hitter in the team's 52 year history. Strange stuff.
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
What you have just read is the thirteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. Passed at the end of the Civil War, its intent is as plain as day. No slavery, no indentured servitude.
Now, what does it have to do with the union movement? Well, I can make a weak, but at least minimally viable argument that it might be invoked in states without so-called "Right To Work" laws.
"Right To Work" laws, which currently exist in about half (23) of the states, prevent labor agreements which force all workers to join unions and pay union dues. An argument can therefore be made that in the 27 states where it is legal for unions to negotiate "closed shops" in which all workers must join a union whether they want to or not, workers have been forced into involuntary servitude. It's a weak, lame argument, but it does have at least a small degree of credibility.
But wait: that is not how the thirteenth amendment is being invoked.
Incredibly - absolutely unbelievably - the thirteenth amendment is being invoked in the "right to work" state of Indiana!. A union contends that if workers are free to decide whether they will join, the union itself was forced into involuntary servitude on behalf of the non-joiners.
Read that again. Make sure you digest every word. And then please trust me when I say it is no typo. That's for real.
Indiana’s law prohibits employers from making union membership a condition of getting or keeping a job. The union’s February lawsuit claimed the law violated its members’ Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of “equal protection” under the law.
But an amended complaint filed on Wednesday added a Thirteenth Amendment claim as well. The new lawsuit suggests that when nonunion employees earn higher salaries and better benefits because of the union’s negotiation on behalf of its members, the union has been forced to work for those nonunion employees for free.
Got that? If you work at a shop that has union members, and the shop offers you the same deal as union members get, the union has involuntarily been forced to work on your behalf.
Shaking your head in amazement? I don't blame you.
But that's the lawsuit. So let's consider not just the upside (i.e. the union got workers a better deal) but the downside (the union didn't do as well as, say, other unions do).
-If you are a non-union worker who thinks the union negotiated poorly and should have gotten another $1 an hour for its workers, does this mean the union should pay you the additional money? You're stuck with its bad deal, aren't you?
-Or if you think the union got too few sick days for its workers, should the union compensate you if you get sick and exceed the maximum? After all, you're stuck with the same number of sick days, aren't you?
-Or if the union's latest deal raised pay and benefits to where the company was forced to lay off some of its workers, should only union members be laid off? Non-members didn't force the company's hand this way, did they?
Simply stated, the thirteenth amendment union ploy may well be the single most asinine attack on right to work legislation I have ever seen.
But stay tuned: if this can be put in a lawsuit today, then something even more asinine can certainly be put in one tomorrow. Records were made to be broken.
Over the years, I have written several blogs about Zuhdi Jasser - a doctor, a veteran of the US Navy, a proud citizen of the USA, and a devout Muslim. And today's news merits another blog.
It seems that Mr. Jasser has just been appointed by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to serve on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. And this has enraged the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Why are they enraged? Well, maybe it has something to do with the fact, that CAIR is a group which is consistently at the forefront of defending Muslims accused of terrorism, and rarely at the forefront of condemning radical Islam throughout the world. By contrast, Mr. Jasser has no problem at all distinguishing between decent, peaceful Muslims and jihadists.
Moderate American Muslims exist...And it’s not that hard to find them. Just see who CAIR and MPAC (the Muslim Public Affairs Council) are denouncing.
This week, they are after Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Senator Mitch McConnell has appointed Dr. Jasser to serve on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and this has sent the most prominent Muslim American organizations to the barricades. A dishonest character-assassination campaign has been launched against Jasser, urging Muslims to protest the appointment. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told The Blaze that Jasser “has long been viewed by American Muslims and the colleagues in the civil liberties community as a mere sock puppet for Islam haters and an enabler of Islamophobia.”
That gives you the flavor of CAIR’s level of discourse
So who is Jasser? He’s the son of immigrants who fled Baathist Syria in the 1960s. Syrians, as we have seen in the streets of Homs and other cities over the past twelve months, are among the bravest and most oppressed people in the world. Zuhdi, a devout Muslim, attended the University of Wisconsin, and then joined the U.S. Navy and earned a medical degree from the Medical College of Wisconsin. His eleven-year service in the Navy included deployments to Somalia and service as the internist on call for the U.S. Congress.
In contrast to CAIR and some of the more frequently quoted American Muslim groups, Jasser and AIFD do see a problem with radicalization within the Muslim world. They reject the reflexive cry of discrimination in response to fears of Islamist penetration of mosques, prisons, schools, and other institutions.
Jasser insists upon the centrality of ideas. Most American Muslims are not radical, but the lures are plentiful. He compares himself with Colonel Nidal Hasan, the military psychiatrist who committed mass murder at FortHood.
“Hasan did not go to sleep one night a normal, compassionate, patriotic constitutional American Muslim military psychiatrist and wake up the next day a barbaric radical wanting to viciously murder his fellow soldiers,” Jasser testified. His mind and character were distorted by Islamism.
Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has said, “The problem is radical Islam. The solution is moderate Islam.”
But there are things we can do. We can stop enabling the most destructive voices within the American Muslim world by pretending that they speak for American Muslims. We can stop indulging the fiction that concern about Islamic radicalism amounts to anti-Muslim discrimination. And we can do everything possible to support and honor those, like Zuhdi Jasser, who are manfully battling the forces of darkness.
Ms. Charen is exactly right.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser should be a hero to Muslims throughout the United States....and a much-needed counterpoint to the apologists/enablers of radical Islam at CAIR and other such groups.
I have no doubt Mr. Jasser will be a major asset to the Commission on International Religious Freedom...as he is a major asset to his country and his religion.
Please join me in wishing Zuhdi Jasser every success.
Here is a verbatim quote from California's Democrat Senator, Barbara Boxer: one which demonstrates her depth and insight just about perfectly:
“I got to say to the women out there, whether you’re a Republican, a Democrat or Independent, if you’re a self-respecting human being, please vote for President Obama. And for the men who care about women, do the same thing.”
Uh.....ok. So the way a woman demonstrates her self-respect, and the way a man demonstrates he cares about women, is.....to vote for Barack Obama. Women who vote for Mitt Romney have no self respect and men who vote for Mitt Romney don't care about women.
Thanks, Barbara. Your, er, brilliance, shines through perfectly.
And congratulations to the voters of California. This is what you apparently wanted, and this is what you got.
-he does not know which of the two started the fight,
-he has no evidence to prove George Zimmerman started the fight,
-he has no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin started the fight, and
-he has no evidence to dispute Zimmerman's claim that he was going back to his car after being told by the 911 dispatcher that his pursuit of Martin wasn't needed.
Significantly: 1) Dale Galbreath is the prosecution's guy, not Zimmerman's, and 2) all of his testimony was given under oath and fully usable in the trial.
Now, let me ask again as I have asked before: How is it possible - even remotely possible - for George Zimmerman to be convicted of second degree murder? Galbreath's testimony establishes enough reasonable doubt so that there might be enough to charge him with manslaughter. And even that is more than a little iffy.
In the real world, the George Zimmerman second degree murder case is over.
In the world of Racialpoliticsville, however, it is full steam ahead.
jon corzine, the utterly disgraced former Democrat Senator and Governor of New Jersey, who claims not to know the whereabouts of $1.2 billion dollars his clients entrusted with MF-Global, the company he ran into the ground.....is still a major $$$ bundler for the Obama campaign.
Can you believe it? Led by corzine, MF-Global screwed its clients out of over a billion dollars, then suddenly declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which put his clients' money somewhere in space and his employees out in the street. Yet corzine is not only walking the streets a free man, but is happily accepted as a money machine by Obama & Co.
And how have we found out about it? It was noticed on Obama-Biden's own bundler list by Daniel Halper of the conservative weeklystandard.com, and is now all over the blogosphere - primarily rightward sites, of course.
Are you surprised? You couldn't have expected this scrutiny of the Obama-Biden bundlers by our wonderful "neutral' mainstream media, could you? Of course not. You know better, don't you?
Do you think jon corzine would be free and clear if he had bundled $500,000+ for a Republican? Do you think our media would not have been demanding charges be brought against him during the almost half-year since MF-Global blew up? Do you doubt that they would be attacking Mitt Romney every way they could think of if his campaign had a "bundler" like corzine?
I often use the term "Accomplice Media" when writing about how most mainstream venues treat Barack Obama and his administration. This is why.
Well, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has trotted out Patty Murray again, to extract money from the Democrat base by lying to them.
Here is her latest email, in rust....with my comments in blue:
I wish I didn't have to write this, but we are days away from the latest in a long line of Republican attacks on women. Actually this is the latest in a long line of (li)emails from you and other Democrats, trying to fool your sucke...er donors by making this ludicrous claim.
So far this year, Rush Limbaugh called a student women's health advocate a “slut” based entirely on her self-described sex life.If Sandra Fluke was telling the truth about she and her law school pals needing over $1,000 a year for contraception – enough for a full year of oral contraception plus over 1,000 condoms – they could probably keep an entire wing of the Chicken Ranch in the black and Mitt Romney pledged to shut down Planned Parenthood. An overt lie.Mitt Romney pledged to remove federal funding from Planned Parenthood, not shut it down.What is this aversion you have to telling the truth? And now Senate Republicans are trying to eliminate the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). House Republicans already voted to end it last month, and now a critical vote will be held in the Senate. Another lie.Republicans are perfectly willing to vote for VAWA now, as they always have in the past, but senate Democrats changed the wording to include same-sex marriage language and an end-around for illegal aliens.I debunked this BS last month, when the DSCC’s Executive Director Guy Cecil wrote the same lie in his own email.You can read my take-down by clicking here This vote is expected in only 5 days, and we need your help.
The Republican agenda is intent on defining women as second-class citizens. Liar.Twice before, VAWA was reauthorized with widespread, bipartisan support from both houses of Congress. But now, Republicans have grown so radical they won’t even commit to protecting women from violence. Lying again.The Republican position on VAWA has not changed, you have changed VAWA. We have to take a stand for VAWA. Join Senate Democrats and EMILY’s List -- demand Republicans reauthorize this law.
Click here to add your voice in support of women.Unless this links you to a petition to demand that the VAWA act reauthorization be written exactly as it was all the other times, don’t do it. Everybody should stand up in support of women. Join us now.
How would you like to have a guy whose father was a diplomat, whose grandmother was a bank vice president, who went to one of the most exclusive and prestigious prep schools in his home state, then to Columbia University and Harvard University, without having to work his way through those schools or disclose where the money to pay for them came from, tell you he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth?
Well, that happened on Wednesday. The whine...er, speaker was President Barack Obama. And, despite Press Secretary Jay Carney's patently fraudulent, petulant disclaimer, Mr. Obama's comment was aimed directly at presumptive Republican opponent Mitt Romney.
Here is how Mr. Romney responded:
"I'm certainly not going to apologize for my dad and his success in life. He was born poor. He worked his way to become very successful despite the fact that he didn't have a college degree, and one of the things he wanted to do was provide for me and for my brother and sisters."
"I know the president likes to attack fellow Americans. He's always looking for a scapegoat, particularly those (who) have been successful like my dad. I'm not going to rise to that. This is a time for us to solve problems.
This is not a time for us to be attacking people, we should be attacking problems."
Other than - very minor nit here - the fact that Romney should have said "I'm not going to lower myself to that" instead of "rise", he nailed it.
I suggest you remember Barack Obama's incredibly obtuse self-characterization - and quote him on it the next time someone tells you that Mitt Romney is the one who is out of touch with the real world.
An increasing number of Democrats are taking potshots at President Obama’s healthcare law ahead of a Supreme Court decision that could overturn it.
The public grievances have come from centrists and liberals and reflect rising anxiety ahead of November’s elections.
“I think we would all have been better off — President Obama politically, Democrats in Congress politically, and the nation would have been better off — if we had dealt first with the financial system and the other related economic issues and then come back to healthcare,” said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), who is retiring at the end of this Congress.
Miller, who voted for the law, said the administration wasted time and political capital on healthcare reform, resulting in lingering economic problems that will continue to plague Obama’s reelection chances in 2012.
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) also criticized his party’s handling of the issue, and said he repeatedly called on his leaders to figure out how they were going to pay for the bill, and then figure out what they could afford.
Cardoza, who like Miller will retire at the end of the Congress, said he thought the bill should have been done “in digestible pieces that the American public could understand and that we could implement.”
The most recent wave of misgivings from Democrats began with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who told New York magazine that Democrats “paid a terrible price for healthcare.”
Frank said Obama had erred in pushing the legislation after GOP Sen. Scott Brown’s January 2010 victory in Massachusetts, which took away the Senate Democrats’ 60th vote.
Most of the second-guessing has come from retiring members such as Frank and Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who this week predicted the law will be Obama’s “biggest downside” heading into the November elections. Such members can afford to be more candid in speaking their minds without offending their leadership, but are also likely to reflect the feelings of other lawmakers in the House and Senate.
And as bad as that looks, it's worse. An increasing number of Democrats - in this case, mostly non-retirees - are lining up against President Obama on his Keystone Pipleline stand as well.
The reason? For both ObamaCare and the Keystone Pipeline, Mr. Obama is on the wrong side of the issue, his stand is not popular with voters, and congressional Democrats do not want to lose their election by riding the wrong horse. Can you blame them?
I'm sure you have noticed that we barely heard a peep out of dissident Democrats until now: i.e. they were perfectly happy deferring to Obama & Co. until it started getting close to election day. But I hope you're not surprised. That's politics.
The real point of interest is how voters will react to the fact that some Democrats - maybe with a lot more to come - are abandoning ship on these issues.
This assumes, of course, that our wonderful "neutral" mainstream media pick up this story and inform the electorate.
Funny thing about the Trayvon Martin case. Every new piece of evidence uncovered makes George Zimmerman's story more credible.....and the ravings of sharpton, Jackson, farrakhan, several vile members of the Congressional Black Caucus (itself a racist organization), etc. more ludicrous.
ABC News exclusively obtained a graphic photograph of George Zimmerman’s head covered in blood that was taken just three minutes after the shooting that left 17-year-old Trayvon Martin dead. This news comes as Zimmerman is set to go before a judge in a bond hearing on Friday.
The picture shows two cuts on the back of Zimmerman's head with blood trickling down.
Zimmerman, who shot and killed 17-year-old Martin on February 26 in a gated Sanford community, claimed he killed Martin in self-defense. Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder for the shooting death of Martin.
The photograph appears to be the first publicly disclosed piece of evidence that could help support Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. Sources tell ABC News that investigators have seen the photograph and are aware of the photographer’s story.
The person who took the photograph told ABC News he heard Martin and Zimmerman fighting before the shooting and that after Martin was killed, Zimmerman asked the photographer to call Zimmerman’s wife, allegedly blurting out, “Man, just tell her I shot someone.”
GPS and other data embedded in the photo shows it was taken at the scene with an iPhone just three minutes after the shooting, according to ABC News.
ABC News said the photographer said gunpowder marks were clearly visible on Martin’s hooded sweatshirt.
Zimmerman was treated at the scene, then transferred to the police station, where his wounds appear to be less visible in surveillance video.
That picture could be part of the evidence shown to the judge in court Friday morning during Zimmerman's bond hearing.
Here is the photo itself:
And here is the still image from a police video taken when Zimmerman was brought in to the station. Please notice that the laceration clearly visible on the back of Zimmerman's head coincides with the one spewing blood in the picture above:
So now we have a photo which clearly shows blood from wounds on the back of George Zimmerman's head. And we have an eyewitness account that there were gunpowder marks on Trayvon Martin's sweatshirt, which means he was shot at close range - as he would have been if Zimmerman's account of a physical fight was true.
With this new evidence, it is impossible to meet Florida's legal standard for second degree murder. How can the prosecution prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin "without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life" instead of in self defense, when the preponderance of evidence indicates self-defense?
Can someone possibly explain to me, therefore, how the judge can do anything but dismiss the second degree murder charges against George Zimmerman?
Wait, don't bother. I'll answer for you. The one and only possible reason these charges will not be summarily dismissed is that the race hustlers have screamed loud enough and long enough for the judge to fear doing so. Specifically, the fear of reprisals against him personally - political or even physical - and fear of riots in the streets by people who have been lied to and incited for over a month.
The race hustlers want blood. And I don't mean the blood trickling down the back of George Zimmerman's head which corroborates his story.
And, travesty of justice though it would be, I would not at all be surprised if they get what they want.
A WOMAN who was injured while having sex in her hotel room during a work trip is entitled to compensation.
In the Federal Court today Justice John Nicholas ruled that the woman was injured during her “course of employment”.
The woman’s barrister argued that sex was an “ordinary incident of life” in a hotel room, much like showering and sleeping.
The Judge ruled that “if the applicant had been injured while playing a game of cards in her motel room she would be entitled to compensation” and the fact that the woman was engaged in sexual activity rather than some other lawful recreational activity while in her hotel room does not lead to any different result.
The woman, who cannot be named, challenged the rejection of her workers' compensation claim for facial and psychological injuries suffered when a glass light fitting came away from the wall above the bed as she was having sex in November 2007.
The woman in her late thirties was required to travel to a country town by her employer, the Human Relations Section of the Commonwealth Government agency.
She arranged to meet a male friend there who lived in the town. They went to a restaurant for dinner and at about or went back to the woman’s motel room where they had sex that resulted in her injury.
The male friend said in his statement at the time that they were "going hard” and he did not know if they bumped the light or it just fell off.
“I think she was on her back when it happened but I was not paying attention because we are rolling around.”
I have to say I'm impressed. I've had some sex in my day, but I can't say I've ever been going at it so hard that I could not tell what position my partner was in, or whether she was bumping so hard into the light fixtures that she dislodged one of them.
How would you have liked to be the desk clerk that night? "Hello, this is Room 407. We were having sex and the lights went crazy". "Congratulations, sir" "No, no, you don't understand. We're having a major problem with the fitting" "Congratulations again, sir. You must be very proud of the size of your..." "No, no, the woman I'm with just got a facial...." "Look, I don't care what kind of sex you two like, just don't tell me about it, ok?".
Maybe it's just me, but having a woman writhe in ecstacy and scream "f**k my light fittings out!!!" just doesn't have a lot of cachet
Besides, at this stage of my life, I'm probably better off being nailed with a light fitting than having that kind of sex. And I bet, in retrospect, John Garfield and Nelson Rockefeller wished they had felt the same way.
Here is the latest in my series on real racism - not the manufactured kind we often see in media, but the genuine article.
This example comes to us from Touré Neblett - a left wing writer and commentator who seems to dislike his first name, because he never uses it.
Neblett has written a piece for Time Magazine on racism - a subject he seems to specialize in talking and writing about. Within it, he discusses the Trayvon Martin shooting. Here is what he has to say:
George Zimmerman provides a fascinating case study because his moment of evincing bias is caught on tape. He said, “This guy looks like he is up to no good — he is on drugs or something,” showing us he saw a Rorschach of a tall black boy walking in the distance and assumed he was a criminal and a drug user and to be feared. None of these things were true—in fact, the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse has repeatedly found that blacks use illegal drugs at about the same rates as other races. Zimmerman is also said to have mentored two black children in his neighborhood. Does that prove he’s not a racist? No. Humans are filled with contradictions, so Zimmerman could have gotten to know those neighborhood boys and embraced their humanity but not extend the expectation of humanity to someone he didn’t know.When Zimmerman went to mentor those children he was one subself, and when he spotted Trayvon a different subself kicked in, powered by a constellation of thoughts that aligned black men with criminality.
Zimmerman was taught by society that young black men are on drugs and criminals and that fallacy sits in his subconscious alongside how to ride a bike. If he didn’t live in a world where people are constantly acting on that fallacy then he wouldn’t have that in his subconscious. Racism is not inherent like the ability to learn how to read. It’s learned. And we are teaching it well.
Whew. It's hard to know where to begin.
Ok, let's start with that "moment of evincing bias" line, based on nothing other than Neblett's edited version of what Zimmerman said (more on this below): "This guy looks like he is up to no good - he is on drugs or something".
How does that translate into racism? Does Touré Neblett know for a fact that Zimmerman's comment referred to Trayvon Martin's skin color, not the way he was comporting himself? Or, worse still, is it that Neblett knows Zimmermanspecifically did refer to the way Trayvon Martin was comporting hiimself and decided to edit that part out - much as NBC "news" doctored the audio tape last week?
Our answer comes straight from the transcript: here is Zimmerman's entire comment, without Touré Neblett's editing job:
”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.”
Got that? Nothing about skin color at all. But a specific mention that, despite the rain (which would cause most people to move along pretty quickly) Martin was "just walking around looking about" - i.e. what someone who might have been casing the area would do.
I can stop right here and make a very credible claim that Neblett deliberately invented a racial story which does not exist. But there's plenty more.
Neblett then goes on to tell us - as if it were an indisputable fact - that Zimmerman assumed, because Martin was Black, he was a criminal and a drug user.
How does Neblett know this? Your guess is as good as mine. Personally, my crystal ball broke this morning. So, at least until the repair guy comes, I still can't tell you what happened in a situation I was not there to see or hear.
Then Neblett acknowledges that Zimmerman had mentored two Black children in his neighborhood - hardly the kind of activity you would expect from a racist.
But Neblett is not about to let a trifling little fact like that destroy his "Zimmerman is a racist" narrative. To get past it, he invokes a painfully contrived little deus ex machina: "humans are filled with contradictions". In other words, the fact that George Zimmerman did not behave like a racist in the past, when he was just being himself before there was any Trayvon Martin issue to deal with, doesn't count. It's a "contradiction".
And the fact that, using this so-called logic Neblett could say exactly the same thing about Zimmerman's interaction with Trayvon Martin and conclude he was not a racist? Irrelevant'n'immaterial.
See, it all depends on which subself Zimmerman was in at the time. And don't forget that constellation of thoughts thingie.....
If, at this point, you are getting the idea that I think Touré Neblett is full of what a bull produces after dinner, you read me perfectly.
Put another way, I have found that people who scream "racism" the loudest, often are among its most overt purveyors.
In my opinion, Touré Neblett is a case in point; and an excellent example of what real racism is all about.
Over the last several days, I have noticed a spate of features on TV, radio and in the newspapers regarding Mitt Romney's wealth (some estimates put it at about $250 million dollars) and what he should do about it in the general campaign.
(I don't recall media having anywhere near as much of a problem with John Kerry's far greater assets in 2004....but that is for another blog on another day).
In my opinion, the one and only course of action Mr. Romney should be taking in this regard is to use his wealth as a political asset. I think he would be making a huge mistake not to.
Let's understand that, whether or not Romney wants his wealth to be an issue, it is going to be. Democrats have already made it one. Is there a single voter in the United States who doesn't know that Mitt Romney is rich? Will there be by election day? There is absolutely no way to hide it.
The important thing for the Romney campaign to understand, is that there is absolutely no reason to hide it. His wealth can be an enormous political asset.
What Mitt Romney has to do is frame the discussion of his wealth on his own terms. And it is not at ll hard to do.
Romney should be telling voters that the reason he became so wealthy is because he is smart, effective and successful. He should point out that his success was due in great part to the opportunities available to him - and everyone else - in the United States -- but also because he, in particular, was exceptionally good at what he did. (At this point, Mr. Romney should also toss in how he turned the Olympics from a scandal-plagued loser into a huge winner).
Then Mr. Romney should ask voters point-blank whether they want a President with a proven track record of success at generating revenues and turning things around. He should be asking them if they think that is the kind of man, and the kind of track record, needed to reverse the disastrous last four years, with their trillion dollar plus deficits, high unemployment and soaring gas prices.
And (this is optional, Mitt) if it were me, I would then punctuate the point by making a direct personal comparison with Barack Obama. I would say something like:
"Four years ago we elected a President whose entire history consisted of spending other people's money without creating prosperity for anyone. By contrast, my entire history has consisted of earning money and successfully creating prosperity, both for myself and for the people around me. A large part of that success was achieved by taking over problem situations and turning them around. Which of us do you think the country would be better off with for the next four years?"
In President Obama's latest move to divert attention from his abysmal record in office, he has decided to crack down on ..... oil speculators.
Yep, that's the problem. Oil speculators. That's why gas prices have more than doubled since he took office.
-It has nothing to do with his stifling of new drilling for oil - while happily subsidizing drilling by other countries (Brazil immediately comes to mind).
-It has nothing to do with appointing Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, a man who is on record as avidly wanting oil prices to go up, so we will all be forced to use alternative energy sources (you know, the ones that he gave billions of your tax dollars to, which went bankrupt, one after another).
Nope, it isn't any of those things. It is oil speculators. After all, when they speculate that oil prices are going to rise, they buy oil futures contracts at higher prices, and that raises the cost of gas at the pump, doesn't it?
Of course, when they speculate that oil prices are going to fall, they buy oil futures contracts at lower prices, and that drops the cost of gas at the pump as well. But in the one-dimensional word of Obamanomics, that somehow doesn't count. So forget about it...at least until after election day.
The Obama administration proposed new measures Tuesday to limit speculation in the oil markets, seeking to draw a contrast with Republicans who have been calling for more domestic drilling during a time of near record gasoline prices.
The new proposals require oil traders to put up more of their own money for transactions, ask for more money for market enforcement and monitoring activities, and call for higher penalties for market manipulation.
"None of these will bring gas prices down overnight," Obama said at a White House press. "But they will prevent market manipulation, and help protect consumers."
Let me again remind you that, despite Barack Obama's implied - and absolutely dishonest - claim that this can do nothing but lower gas prices, all it actually does do is make it harder to conduct business in yet another sector of the economy. And making it harder to conduct business is one of the few things Obama & Co. are truly proficient in.
Next time one of your Democrat friends starts talking about speculation driving up the price of oil, ask him a few questions, like: How do you tell a speculator from a non-speculator? How, exactly, do “speculators” raise the price of oil? If the speculators are wrong about the fundamentals of supply and demand, won’t they lose their shirts? If speculators are responsible for high oil prices, why aren’t they also driving up the price of natural gas, which is at a historic low?
Please note that these are not independent, outside organizations. These are groups created directly and specifically by the Obama Biden campaign.
Then add in Barack Obama's overtly racist comment about Trayvon Martin ("If I had a son he would like like Trayvon"). What do you have?
Do you have a President trying to bring us together? Or do you have a President specifically working to compartmentalize the United States by race and ethnicity: Blacks and Latinos versus Whites?
How fast would a White President who did anything like this be called a racist who sees people by their color and ethnicity, not their value as individuals? Would it take even one day?
And - biggest question of all here - WHERE ARE THE MEDIA?
This is a travesty of what the United States is supposed to be about, and what - we thought - it had progressed to. We have a President whose actions are less like John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, than they are like Lester Maddox or George Wallace --- and a media perfectly willing to look the other way on his behalf.
Who would have thought that our first Black President would be the one to send racial progress reeling decades backwards? Yet we are seeing it right in front of our eyes.
The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough. For the good of this country, vote this man out of office.
Dick Clark, probably the greatest rock and roll impresario of all time - and one of the hardest working, most successful TV producers and show hosts of all time - died today after suffering a massive heart attack. He was 82 years old
In the 1950's Mr. Clark started his unique career first as a Philadelphia DJ and then, far more significantly, as the host of American Bandstand, an after-school dance party with the latest hits for kids from Philadelphia. The show eventually went national and was on for decades.
Then, as described by the obituary at ABC News:
When Dick Clark moved to Hollywood in 1963, "American Bandstand" moved with him. He started Dick Clark Productions, and began cranking out one hit show after another; his name became synonymous with everything from the $25,000 "Pyramid" to "TV's Bloopers & Practical Jokes" to the "American Music Awards." In 1972, Dick Clark became synonymous with one of the biggest nights of the year.
"Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve" on ABC became a Dec. 31 tradition, with Clark hosting the festivities for more than three decades, introducing the entertainment acts and, of course, counting down to midnight as the ball dropped in New York's Times Square.
The Museum of Broadcast Communications has done the math, and figures that Dick Clark Productions has turned out more than 7,500 hours of television programming, including more than 30 series and 250 specials, as well as more than 20 movies for theatre and TV.
All this earned Clark a long list of awards and accolades: Emmys, Grammys, induction in the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It also made him one of the richest men in Hollywood; he also had stakes in a wide range of businesses, including restaurants, theatres and real estate.
Even after a stroke in 2004 that left him visibly debilitated, Clark continued broadcasting the New Year's Eve show up to, and including this past December 31.
There has never been anyone like Dick Clark, and I doubt there ever will be again. He was truly one of a kind, and his death is a great loss to the pop culture of this country.
For months and months, Democrat operatives, and mainstream media (please excuse my redundancy). have had at Mitt Romney because, decades ago when his (large) family took car trips, he used to put the family dog, Seamus, in a kennel crate on the roof.
The Romneys claimed that Seamus loved being up there, and there are no indications he was any the worse for wear because of it. But it has become a great opportunity for opponents to claim Mr. Romney was some kind of animal abuser.
I have little doubt that Obama people would have told and retold the Seamus story straight through this year's presidential campaign.............if not for this little snippet which, as it turns out, was in Barack Obama's own book, Dreams of My Father:
“With Lolo (Obama's stepfather), I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy)."
Please note that Mr. Obama does not say he was uncomfortable or unhappy with eating dog meat. He does not say he tried to turn it down but was forced to eat it by his stepfather. He simply says he ate it. No problem at all.
Call me a cock-eyed optimist (make that a cockerspaniel-eyed optimist) but, as someone rooting for Romney to unseat Obama as President, I have to think this just might diffuse the Seamus story.
There is a big difference between having a dog on the roof of your car and a dog on the roof of your mouth........
This, to my knowledge, is the first blog I have ever written about Ted Nugent. And I hope it will be the last.
Ted Nugent is not a politician. He is not an academic. He is famous as a former rock star who either has become, or always was, politically conservative, and who likes to own guns.
Recently Ted Nugent endorsed Mitt Romney for President. Romney happily accepted that endorsement.....
.....but it turns out that Nugent is a huge liability because he is prone to saying amazingly stupid things. And this weekend he truly outdid himself by telling a National Rifle Association (NRA) gathering:
"I'll tell you this right now: If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year. We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November. Any questions?"
Does that sound like a threat against the Obamas? Nugent emphatically claims it was not, and that he was only speaking figuratively.
Well, no one can prove for 100% certain whether his words were intended as a threat. But they certainly can be construed as one. And, at the very least, they were unbelievably stupid -- stupid enough for Mitt Romney to immediately condemn them as "divisive and offensive". How could he not?
Just a wild guess: don't count on seeing Nugent and Romney on the same stage again.
One last thing: I am certain Democrats will try to use Ted Nugent's comments to offset Hilary Rosen's comment about Ann Romney last week: i.e. "see, both sides have people who say stupid things like that".
For the record, there is no comparison. Ted Nugent is a has-been rocker with no political standing. Hilary Rosen is a major Democrat insider, who has been a prolific visitor to the Obama White House (at least 35 times since Mr. Obama took office) and a major advisor to the DNC.
Don't let them fool you into equating the two. The equation does not exist.
There are many, many ways to show that most of our so-called mainstream media are acting less as neutral journalists than they are as propagandists for the Democrat Party.
But few are as blatant as mainstream media's refusal to call senate Democrats on the fact that, against the law of the country, they intentionally have not produced a budget for the last three years.
I wonder how many readers are looking at that last sentence and saying "Huh, is that true?" To those who are, let me say that you are not at fault. If you don't know about this fact, it is because media, in a continuing effort to protect their party of choice, have intentionally kept you ignorant of it.
Keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em. That is the motto of far too many of these JINOs (Journalists In Name Only).
And what happens when one lone senate Democrat decides this is not acceptable anymore (NOTE: before you get too impressed: the senator, Kent Conrad, is retiring so, politically, he has nothing to lose)?
The Democratic Senate has not adopted a budget in three years. This is not only flagrantly irresponsible, it is a violation of federal law. Outgoing Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, who is retiring at the end of the year, apparently felt pangs of conscience, because he decided it was finally time for his committee to mark up a budget. He announced that the committee would do so, starting tomorrow.
...Conrad assured ranking Republican Jeff Sessions that amendments would be allowed, and as recently as a few hours ago, Conrad’s and Sessions’s staffs were working out details of the amendment process.
Then, earlier this afternoon, Conrad gave a press conference in which he made the stunning announcement that there will be no budget markup after all. Instead, he will present a budget to the Budget Committee tomorrow. There will be no amendments and there will be no votes; not, at least, until after the election. Apparently Conrad had been proceeding on his own initiative, and at the 11th hour Harry Reid–supported by members of his caucus who do not want to have to go on record in favor of any budget–shut down the process.
This is a startling abdication of responsibility by the majority party in the Senate.
...Harry Reid’s latest maneuvering ensures that no Democratic Senator will have to vote on a budget before the election in November.... The Democrats’ feckless inability to face fiscal reality, as manifested in the Senate’s failure to adopt a budget for three years and counting, is the clearest evidence of that party’s unfitness to lead the nation.
That is what mainstream media have determined you should not know about. And a lot more as well (use the link I've provided above to read John's entire piece to see for yourself).
Nothing to see here, sheeple, just move along, move along...
I often mention that I cannot wait for the 2012 elections to take place. Most of the time I am referring to the possibility of removing Barack Obama as President. But the likelihood of Republicans taking control of the senate back from Harry Reid & Co. (I'd call it odds-on, since Democrats are defending 23 of the 33 seats up for grabs) is right at the top of my wish list as well.
FROM THOSE WONDERFUL FOLKS WHO CALL ISRAEL AN APARTHEID COUNTRY.....
First a few facts:
-About 15% - 18% of Israel's population is comprised of Palestinian Arabs (they have to be Palestinian Arabs, since Israel, like Jordan, Gaza and Judea/Samaria - also known as the West Bank - were carved from the land area known as Palestine);
-Palestinian Arabs in Israel are legally citizens of the country
-They can vote in free elections (men and women both);
They can serve in government (there are currently 14 Arabs in Israel's Knesset/Parliament);
-They can own and sell property.
-They can enter and leave the country;
-Their children can go to the universities.
What I have just described is a level of freedom and access that cannot be found in any Arab country on the face of the earth. That's right. Israeli Arabs have more freedoms and more access to the benefits of their country than Arabs have in any Arab country on the face of the earth.
Palestinian Arabs, in particular, have virtually none of these benefits in Arab countries. Among their own brethren they are despised and discriminated against everywhere. Other than a tiny trickle each year to Jordan - itself a Palestinian Arab state - not one Arab country on earth allows Palestinian Arabs to emigrate and become citizens. Zero. Zip. Nada.
And, as I'm sure you must be aware, no Arab country allows Jews to emigrate and become citizens. Even in Jordan, which our misinformed, and/or dishonest media love to call a "moderate' state, Jews are forbidden by law to become residents. That's right folks. It is illegal for a Jew to live in Jordan. In the country's 66 year existence, not one known Jew has ever been legally allowed to live there.
Yet, it is Israel that is continually denounced as an apartheid state. Not any Arab country, but Israel.
What reason can there possibly be for that, other than overt anti-semitism, kissing up to Arab states because they have so much of the world's oil, or a combination of the two? If you can come up with anything else, please let me know.
Now, with this in mind, please read the following excerpt from an article at the Times of Israel. See if you detect any hint of apartheid - not the bogus apartheid that Israel is denounced for, but the real kind:
JERUSALEM (JTA) — Jewish leaders in Hebron have called for international intervention to help the Palestinian man sentenced to death for selling a home near the Cave of the Patriarchs to Jews.
A letter on behalf of Muhammad Abu Shahala, a former intelligence agent for the Palestinian Authority, was signed by Hebron Jewish community leaders David Wilder and Noam Arnon, and addressed to, among others, the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon; U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; the president of the European Council of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy; and the director general of the International Red Cross, Yves Daccord, among others.
Shahala reportedly was sentenced to death for his part in selling what has become known as Beit Hamachpela (the Machpela House) to a group of Jews. He reportedly confessed to the sale after torture and was subject to a rushed trial, according to Arutz-7, which cited various news agencies. Palestinian officials said Shahala was not authorized to sell the home.
The death warrant still must be signed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, according to reports.
“It is appalling to think that property sales should be defined as a ‘capital crime’ punishable by death,” the Jewish leaders write in their letter. ” The very fact that such a ‘law’ exists within the framework of the PA legal system points to a barbaric and perverse type of justice, reminiscent of practices implemented during the dark ages.
You want apartheid? Try that on for size. A Palestinian Arab in Hebron - part of the west bank - dares to sell a single house to a Jew, and he is tortured into confessing his "crime", then sentenced to death.
In Israel, land transactions between Arabs and Jews are an everyday occurrence. But among Palestinian Arabs it is a capital crime.
So, yes, there is Apartheid in the Middle East. But Israel is about the last place you will find it.
Those are the facts. Now grow old waiting for media to report them.
I wonder what David Axelrod will say about this one?
The latest Pew poll is out. And it shows that, in just the past month, Mitt Romney has closed a 12% deficit versus President Obama to just 4%. Here, for your information (and Mr. Axelrod's opprobrium) are the data - along with the key issues which voters are basing their decisions on:
Please note that, of the top four issues for voters, three are economy related and the fourth is health care. Then remind yourself that our economic data continue to be lousy (despite the Accomplice Media's best efforts to portray them otherwise), and that most people are against ObamaCare, the administration's signature health care initiative. Maybe, just maybe, those factors have something to do with this turn of events.
Please also note that, despite Democrats' intense efforts to make them key issues this year, abortion and birth control remain at the bottom of the list - exactly where they were when David Gregory, George Stephanopoulos and other "neutral" media personalities tried to help Obama & Co. by moving them up the ladder. And that is no "Fluke" either.
So let's review. About a half dozen polls have come out in the past few days. With a single exception, every one of them either has Mr. Romney closing in on Mr. Obama or leading him outright. And even the one that has Mr. Obama ahead by wide margin, CNN/Opinion Dynamics, has Romney closer now than he was the last time around.
Remember, too, that we are only about a week into the part of this campaign where Mitt Romney has been able to pay full attention to Barack Obama, rather than slugging it out with a major Republican competitor (Newt Gingrich seems to still be fantasizing that he is somehow in this race, but he isn't, and ron paul is bordering on the outskirts of kucinichville).
The bottom line? Anyone who thinks Barack Obama is coasting to a second term better think harder. And any Democrat running for the house or senate who thinks he/she can ride Mr. Obama's coattails is delusional altogether.
Life was so much easier for Barack Obama when Republicans were battling each other. He could smile, go about his business, and generally posture himself as above the fray.
The polls were better too. It stands to reason that President Obama would do better when his potential opponents were fighting each other instead campaigning against him.
But now that Mitt Romney is almost certainly going to be the Republican nominee, and he - along with Republicans who have coalesced behind him - are concentrating their attacks on Mr. Obama's eminently attackable record? Things are a tad different.
Although in the past week, we have one poll - the CNN/Opinion Dynamics poll - showing Obama with a 9% lead over Romney (happy days are here again!), several others, including Rasmussen, Fox and Gallup, show Romney ahead of Obama (whoops).
But the last straw - for Barack Obama's long-time advisor David Axelrod that is - is Gallup's latest 5 day tracking poll*. For most of this year, it showed President Obama ahead of Mitt Romney. However, in the past week there has been a sudden turn. Now Romney is ahead of Obama, and has opened up a bit of daylight: 48% to 43%.
So what is Mr. Axelrod's reaction? He has jumped up, confronted these poll data head on, and.......blamed it on the poll data.
That's right. You read that correctly. It's Gallup's methodology that has caused this turnaround. Not the trillion dollar plus deficits, or the lousy job numbers, or Mr. Obama's racist comment about the Trayvon Martin case, or his days late/half-hearted disclaimer of close confidante Hilary Rosen's assault on Ann Romney, or any of that stuff. Nope, it's Gallup.
"Gallup is saddled with some methodological problems," Axelrod tweeted today. He also directed Twitterati to a National Journal piece arguing that Gallup polls showing Romney in the lead "has a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012."
At this point you might be saying to yourself "Say, isn't this the same Gallup poll that David Axelrod didn't have a bad word to say about when it showed Barack Obama ahead? What did they do, change the way the study works?" The answers: a) it is the same poll and b) nothing has changed, except that Axelrod doesn't like the numbers now.
And if, next week, the poll re-reverses and shows Obama ahead, I can assure you David Axelrod won't be whining about its methodology, any more than he was until now.
Does anyone in the Obama administration ever do anything but blame other people for everything? Just asking........
Guy Benson, the political editor at townhall.com, has put up as good a blog as I have ever seen on just how opaque the supposedly "transparent" Obama administration really is - including the succession of its members who plead the fifth amendment, and then are allowed to just continue in their jobs.
Yes, I know it is a legal right to plead the fifth. But it is also a legal right for an administration to assure its people that anyone who does so is acting in direct contradiction of the President's commitment to transparency, and will be relieved of his/her position. So far as i know, that never has happened: not by this hopeless bunch of charlatans and liars.
Here is the first part of Mr. Benson's blog. Click here to read the rest:
Another day, another killer RNC video needling the Obama administration. This time, they're taunting members of the executive branch for repeatedly declining to incriminate themselves during sworn Congressional testimony. A doff of the cap to whomever thought of framing the clip around the question of identifying Obama's "favorite" constitutional amendment. Not only is it cheeky within this context, it also calls to mind the president's recent legal struggles, attempted demagoguery of the Supreme Court, and subsequent feeble spin.
How perfect that the latest CYA "no comments" come just as the Obama machine begins its dopey "what's Romney hiding?" song and dance. As Carol quipped last night, is this really the fight they want to have? But on a more serious note, will there ever be real accountability for any of this? Architects of the lethal Fast and Furious program were promoted, and the Justice Department continues to stonewall Congressional investigators to the point of insult. Post-Solyndra, Secretary Chu awarded himself an 'A' grade for his handiwork on energy costs (I seriously doubt this report will stifle his ongoing self-congratulation tour). And the unparodiable outrages continue to pile up in the wake of the GSA junket fiasco. Toss in the recent revelations of influence peddling and cash for access inside the White House, and Americans may begin to suspect President Obama may have been talking out of his posterior when he handed down this grand pronouncement on the second day of his administration:
Bob Beckel is a left wing liberal who is a regular on Fox News shows.
(Let's stop here and note, for the benefit of anyone who thinks that MSNBC is similar to FOX, just from a different political perspective, that I cannot say the same about about any right wing conservative on MSNBC, because there aren't any. Ok, point made. Now back to the blog.)
Mr. Beckel was on Sean Hannity's show last night. During a commercial break he got into a heated and - at least from his mouth - profane argument with conservative guest Jennifer Stefano about the value of Project Head Start. That, by itself, is hardly news.
What is news, however, is that the show came out of break and Beckel, who was so intent on telling Ms. Stefano what an idiot she was that he did not hear Hannity say "we're back", proceeded to tell Stefano, quite loudly, that "You don't know what the fuck you're talking about".
Did he really do that? Well, watch the video below, which I pulled from newsbusters.org (among countless web sites where it was available) and see/hear for yourself. In doing so, please note that the most amazing part is not when Beckel uses the f-word, it is at the end when he blames Hannity for his own language!!:
Enjoy the circus?
Ok, the first thing I am going to do may surprise you. I am going to stand up, sort of, for Bob Beckel. I have it on pretty good authority that a lot of foul language is spewed in TV studios during commercial breaks. I personally recall seeing/hearing one similarly embarrassing instance just a year or two ago, during an NBC-TV New York local news show, when long-time anchor Sue Simmons used the same word Bob Beckel did. Excrement happens.
That said, however, let's remember that Beckel's angry, insulting-toned use of the word was to a woman. In this day of moral outrage at the drop of a hat - against conservatives, that is - what do you think media would be saying if a conservative male, as physically large and burly as Beckel, used the same demeaning tone to spit out an f-bomb to a left wing woman he disagreed with? The demands for him to be fired would be so loud that the man in the moon would be able to hear them without a satellite transmission.
But don't expect those same keepers of the moral flame to demand that Beckel be ousted from Fox. The rules are different for left wingers (though, with or without their demands, I suspect Fox will be forced to suspend him for at least some period of time).
Now we come to the grand finale, the classic ending of this little vignette. When Hannity and the other guests finally convinced Beckel that he said the f-word on live TV - and it took a great deal of convincing - his strongest reaction was not to apologize (though eventually he did do so). It was, instead, to attack Hannity. I kid you not: Bob Beckel - who has been on countless Fox shows and certainly has an idea of when they come in and out of commercial breaks, attacked Sean Hannity on the grounds that Hannity did not warn him they were back on the air.
Now that's entertainment.
And even more entertaining were the reactions of Stefano and Hannity: Stefano spontaneously dropped her jaw in amazement. Hannity, with equivalent amazement, said "Now you're blaming me for this? You're like Obama, you're blaming me". And Stefano chimed in "No personal responsibility; a typical liberal".
This could not have come out funnier if it was written by a group of Tea Partiers (a group Jennifer Stefano is involved with, which probably is what made her so galling to Beckel).
Anyway, that's the story. And if Fox is forced to part ways with Bob Beckel (which I hope they do not do, since it really was an accident), with a potty-mouth like that and a willingness to curse out women, he probably can get a job as bill maher's sidekick. He can be Ed McMahon to maher's Johnny Carson -- except, of course, for the fact that Carson and McMahon had more talent in their little fingers than.......etc.).
IN CASE YOU THINK MICHIGAN IS THE ONLY EXAMPLE.....
My previous blog spoke of the sickening scam perpetrated by former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which forced people who cared for their developmentally disabled family members to become union members and pay part of the money for their family members' care as union dues.
In case you think that is a unique occurrence, let me remind you of another union scam I wrote about last July 1 which, in concept, is just like it. This scam occurred in Wisconsin - until Governor Scott Walker took office, that is - and involved school districts being forced to pay wildly inflated insurance premiums to the insurance company created by, and evidently for, the Teachers Union's ever-bulging wallets.
You can read my entire blog by clicking here. But, let me give you the excerpts I pulled from Byron York's column for the Washington Examiner at that time, which described one school district's experience (the Kaukauna school district, near Appleton, WI) and, I am certain, a great many others as well:
In the past, Kaukauna's agreement with the teachers union required the school district to purchase health insurance coverage from something called WEA Trust -- a company created by the Wisconsin teachers union. "It was in the collective bargaining agreement that we could only negotiate with them," says Arnoldussen. "Well, you know what happens when you can only negotiate with one vendor." This year, WEA Trust told Kaukauna that it would face a significant increase in premiums.
Now, the collective bargaining agreement is gone, and the school district is free to shop around for coverage. And all of a sudden, WEA Trust has changed its position. "With these changes, the schools could go out for bids, and lo and behold, WEA Trust said, 'We can match the lowest bid,'" says Republican state Rep. Jim Steineke, who represents the area and supports the Walker changes. At least for the moment, Kaukauna is staying with WEA Trust, but saving substantial amounts of money.
Translation: The union scam was that school district's could only buy insurance from the Teachers' Union. This allowed the Teachers' Union to charge whatever it wanted - which clearly was a great deal more than what would have been charged in the real world. The money that would have gone to the schools went into the Teachers Union pockets instead.
Because - and only because - Governor Walker was elected, that scam no longer exists. The result is that teachers unions can't stuff their pockets with money they have no right getting, more money goes to education instead, and taxpayers are soaked that much less. If ever there were a win/win/win situation, this is it.
Now for two big questions:
1): How many other union scams are there in how many other places that we have not yet heard about. You can't think these are the only two, can you?
2): How come our wonderful "neutral" mainstream media have done virtually nothing to uncover these scams? Where are their journalistic ethics? Where are their investigative reporters? When did they decide to forgo their professional responsibilities and become an offensive line for union scams?
If there are more such union scams (and I have no doubt there are many, many more of them), let's hope that they somehow see the light of day, so that voters understand a) what they are, b) who the scammers are and c) which media are working to keep them ignorant of this information.
Suppose you had a developmentally disabled relative who needed home care - maybe your mother, father, one of your children.
Now suppose you, as the concerned family member taking care of that relative, were required to declare yourself a government employee. And, because you were a government employee, you were compelled to join a government employee union, which meant that union dues would be taken from the payments to care for that relative and placed, instead, into the union's coffers? Would you be outraged? I certainly hope so.
But things like that never happen, do they?
Well, before you answer, please read the following excerpts from Michael Jahr's article at michigancapitolconfidential.com. See how you feel about it:
MIDLAND — Michigan’s 60,000 home health care aides will no longer be deemed government employees — meaning they cannot be forced into a government employee union and have dues withheld — as a result of legislation signed today by Gov. Rick Snyder. The next step is for the Michigan Department of Community Health to immediately stop the collection of dues from subsidy payments intended to assist developmentally disabled adults and the diversion of those funds to the Service Employees International Union, said Patrick J. Wright, director of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation.
“Ending this lucrative charade is terrific news for Michigan’s home health care providers who have seen nearly $30 million skimmed from their payments over the last six years,” said Wright. “The designation of these private contractors and family members as government employees was illegal from the beginning. Michigan’s Constitution explicitly states that only the Legislature can define government employees. No political arrangement or interlocal agreement can change that.
“Now that the law has been clarified, the dues skim must end,” he added.
The arrangement that allowed the SEIU to skim from Medicaid payments to some of the state’s most vulnerable residents was concocted during the administration of Gov. Jennifer Granholm. An interlocal agreement between DCH and the Tri-County Aging Consortium allowed for the creation of the Michigan Quality Community Care Council, which served as the “employer” for what were really self-employed independent contractors or, overwhelmingly, family members caring for loved ones.
Unbelievable? It starts at unbelievable, and descends from there.
This was never anything but a scam; a payoff to unions on the backs of disabled people. Former Governor Jennifer Granholm should have been ashamed to sign it into law - but probably wasn't, because she has always been 100% in bed with SEIU and the other unions she sold her soul to, in return for $$$ and organizational support.
Conversely, current Governor Rick Snyder should be proud of signing the legislation that ended it.
Now: when do our wondeful "neutral" mainstream media report - heavily - about this sickening scam? Why am I reading it at michigancapitolconfidential.com, but not seeing it on the network news or the morning shows?
Sorry for asking. You already know the answer, don't you?
A 17-year-old varsity baseball player in suburban Cleveland is being banned from walking at his own graduation for racking up two too many unexcused absences. While those circumstances might be considered the fault of the athlete in most cases, Carrollton (Ohio) High senior Austin Fisher's case is a rather extraordinary one: His absences were all brought on by time he spent caring for his mother, who has spent the past six years battling breast cancer.
As reported by Cleveland Fox affiliate WJW, Fisher has missed 16 days during his senior year, none of which have technically been excused. The Carrollton school district caps the number of absences allowable for a student to walk with his or her graduation class at 14, a number which means that Fisher will not be able to walk across the stage with the rest of his classmates.
"They can't change it. They said guidelines are guidelines," Austin Fisher told WJW. "It won't be changed. I can't walk.
Are you blinking your eyes in disbelief? If so, I don't blame you.
Are these people complete imbeciles? Can they not find a way to make an exception in this case? What are they teaching at Carrollton High School? That being an honorable, caring young man who goes 1,000,000 extra miles on behalf of his seriously ill mother is a punishable activity?
If the authorities at Carrollton High School cannot figure out a way to let Austin Fisher walk on his graduation day, they are not educators; they are sick bastards in need of a humanity transplant. I hope every student, and every parent rises up until this impossibly sorry bunch starts acting like they have hearts in their chests, not rulebooks.
MORE PROOF (AS IF YOU NEEDED ANY MORE) OF HOW EASY IT IS TO COMMIT VOTER FRAUD
This is for anyone who still believes that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in the United States.
The incredible spectacle you just watched was videotaped on April 3: primary day in Washington DC.
Project Veritas people went into poll locations around Washington D.C. claiming to be, among others, Bean Jealous (who heads the NAACP), Bill Maher, and David Brock. In every case, the poll workers provided a ballot, thus allowing the fraudulent Project Veritas person to vote. (To my knowledge none of them actually did. The purpose of this exercise was not to break the law, it was to prove they could have if they wanted to.)
The funnest part is towards the end, where one of them tries to get into the offices of mediamatters.org; and is turned away because he does not have a valid ID.
As you may realize - and if you do you're probably laughing through gritted teeth as you read this - george soros-funded mediamatters.org, is one of the internet's most strident opponents of Voter ID's.
Can you say H Y P O C R I T E S?
The final vignette shows one of the Project Veritas people claiming to be political commentator Alicia Menendez - who, not incidentally, is the daughter of US Senator Robert Menendea (D-NJ). She is asked for a valid ID. And guess what? She doesn't get the chance to vote.
Isn't that amazing? If you ask for a valid ID and a fraudulent voter can't provide one, the fraudulent vote is not cast. Y'know, that idea is so crazy it just might work.
Regarding the video itself? My personal opinion is that anyone who watches it and still claims there is no voter fraud, either is brain dead or wants the voter fraud to take place. What's yours?
This has nothing to do with politics. But it should be said.
Yesterday was the 65th anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the color line and becoming the first Black major league ball player in modern history.
Most people know Mr. Robinson's name and have a vague idea of what he had to overcome as a Brooklyn Dodger in the late 1940's - and right on through his 10 year major league career. Sadly, most do not know what Mr. Robinson had to overcome beforehand, especially in the then-segregated armed forces during WWII. Most also do not know what a remarkable business career he had afterwards. But that is for another blog.
My purpose in writing today is to note that Jackie Robinson's widow Rachel, and his daughter Sharon, were part of the ceremony at Yankee Stadium last night.
Let's remember that Ms. Robinson not only was Jackie Robinson's rock, but that she suffered through the years of racism and hatred right along with him. It takes quite a lady to go through what she did and come out with such class, such grace.
Let's also remember that Rachel Robinson is a highly accomplished woman in her own right - a former Assistant Professor of nursing at Yale University among other things. And daugher Sharon is an Educational Programming Consultant for Major League Baseball, as well as Vice Chairperson of the Jackie Robinson Foundation. I'm sure Mr. Robinson was proud of both women in his lifetime, and would be triple-proud of them now.
And I have no doubt he would be especially thrilled at how absolutely radiant Ms. Robinson looked last night -- just three months short of her 90th birthday!
I hope you join me in wishing her good health and a continued productive life for many more years to come.
So help me, David Axelrod (yes, that David Axelrod) said these words, verbatim, on Chris Wallace's Fox New Sunday:
“The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead, and an economy that continues down the road we’re on.”
Finally, something we agree on.
Either Mr. Axelrod has crossed the Rubicon but good...or maybe, just maybe, his comment didn't come out exactly the way he intended it to.
Regardless of which it is, if I were Romney & Co. that quote would be on a lot of my advertising....starting right now.
According to Matthew Boyle of dailycaller.com, Rep Justin Amash (R-MI) has called on eric holder, the disgraceful, racist toady of an Attorney General Mr. Obama has inflicted on us, to resign over the Operation Fast and Furious scandal.
Mr. Amash is the 124th member of congress to demand that holder resign, sign an official house resolution of no-confidence in holder, or both. That is almost fourth of the entire congress.
And other than a number of reports by Sharyl Attkisson of CBS news about the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, there has been not one report about it on the major networks. Not one report on NBC "news". Not one report on ABC "news". Zero. Zip. Nada.
Hey, I guess it is not that important. After all, what is almost 2,000 automatic weapons being sold by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the death of at least two US agents and hundreds of Mexican civilians, not to mention countless other crimes we are not aware of and countless additional crimes to be committed in the future? To our wonderful "neutral" media, the answer apparently is nothing at all.
The one good thing I can say about eric holder's performance on Operation Fast and Furious is that, while he was lying to our faces in his testimony to congress - as subsequently uncovered documents proved - at least he wasn't acting as lord high protector of racist, anti-semitic lunatics like the new Black panther party. Maybe if he were still testifying, he wouldn't be acting as their lord high protector now, as he so clearly is.
eric holder is far and away the single most disgraceful excuse for an Attorney General I have seen in my lifetime. He should either resign or be fired, probably with significant charges brought against him.
But he won't be. Not as long as he is Barack Obama's loyal sock-puppet, and not as long as the Accomplice Media continues to preserve and protect Mr. Obama and his administration.
So when do you figure NBC and ABC, the New York Times, etc. will consider reporting the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, or the fact that 125 congresspeople have demanded eric older's resignation, signed a no-confidence resolution against him, or both? Will they finally do it now, or continue to keep their millions and millions of viewers ignorant of the single biggest scandal of the Obama administration?
Remind me again: do these people call themselves JOURNALISTS??????
Hilary Rosen, one of the closest confidantes of President Obama, and the DNC, makes a stupid comment that exposes her contempt for women who stay at home to raise children - and then makes an even stupider "apology" which makes it clear she didn't intend to apologize at all.
So what does the Obama administration do about it? Well, one thing is to trot out Chuck Todd, among its most reliably obeisant mouthpieces at the thoroughly compromised "news" division of NBC, to try to convince viewers that they should ignore the whole thing.
Here is the transcript of Todd's absolutely fraudulent attempt at damage control, from yesterday's Meet The Press (which Rosen was supposed to have been on, but declined - possibly because Obama & Co. told her to stay the hell out of the public eye until this blows over):
'We saw the Romney campaign desperately trying to find anything to close this gender gap, change the conversation away from this idea of access to health care, things like that, and instead, move it to something that is on more comfortable turf. So they found one thing, and boy did they move to essentially manufacture a controversy because this is not an Obama surrogate. This is a paid CNN commentator, all of those things. But they were pretty effective at using them - we know the echo chamber that's out there."
Nice touch, Chuck, to claim that this was a desperate attempt by Romney to change the conversation away from so-called women's issues - when it was your pals in the media, with Meet The Press host David Gregory front and center among them, who pushed it into the center ring in the first place. You get points for creativity. Not journalistic integrity, but creativity.
In reality - a far, far cry from what Chuck Todd is selling, to say the least - Hilary Rosen has been one of the most intensely active Obama insiders of this administration.
According to Jim Geraghty in his fact-laden column of last Thursday, White House visitor logs show that, since Barack Obama became President, Rosen has visited the White House a minimum of 35 times. That compares to 9 visits from General David Petraeus, 16 from Energy Secretary Steven Chu and 12 for Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Does that look like there is no connection between Obama and Rosen to you?
And this is before we get to her close advisory association with the Democratic National Committee - which the serial liar Debbie Wasserman Schultz now is pretending never existed.
Oh, and did I mention that the Managing Director of Rosen's company, SKDKnickerbocker, is Anita Dunn, formerly President Obama's White House Communications Director?
See, this is how they do it. There is nothing magical or esoteric about their technique. It is the high hard one right down the middle of the plate. They send their flaks - like Chuck Todd (and a great many more) - out to lie for them. Then they count on most of the mainstream media to continue preserving and protecting Barack Obama by not calling the Chuck Todd's of the world out on their lies.
And, for three years, it has worked like a charm.
There is no bottom to this administration. Or to the cesspool that "journalism" in this country has become.
Democrats are now demanding that Mitt Romney immediately make his 2011 tax returns public - and his returns for years and years in the past.
When do Republicans respond by demanding an accounting of every vacation Barack Obama, his immediate family, and their tag-along friends, relatives, etc. have taken since the start of this administration, and how much those vacations have cost the taxpayer?
Given the sheer number of the Obama's vacations, where they have been to (the Obamas love to globetrot on our dime), the number of times Michelle, Sasha and Malia left at different times than the President, on different planes with different complements of security, etc.......the total amount must be in the tens of millions of dollars. It would not shock me if it approaches $100 million dollars (I mean this quite literally).
What do you think would have more of a negative impact on the US voter? Mitt Romney's tax returns, which show he was extremely successul, made a lot of money and paid many millions in taxes and charitable donations? Or Barack Obama's use of maybe $50 to $100 million dollars of taxpayer money as his family's personal vacation treasury?
When do Republicans learn how to fight fire with fire?
Did you know that, just this week, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed a repeal of Wisconsin's "Equal Pay Enforcement Act" - a law enacted in 2009 which made it easier for women to seek legal redress if they were not receiving equal pay for equal work? The repeal sailed through Wisconsin's legislature on a party-line basis, with Democrats against and Republicans in favor.
When I read this, I assumed out of hand that there must be a lot more to the story. After all, what possible reason could Governor Walker have to repeal a law like that - especially when he is in the middle of a recall election?
But I have to say, I have gone through page after page of google entries - and Governor Walker's own web site - looking for a rationale for the repeal. And I cannot find one.
Either there is a good reason for the law to be repealed that is completely eluding me - or it is one of the dumbest, least explicable moves by a sitting Governor that I have ever heard of.
And if there is a good reason, why on earth is it not on Governor Walker's web site? Did he think no one would notice that he repealed this law?
Unbelievable, and then some.
If I find out anything further about the repeal I will certainly put up a blog about it. Meanwhile, can someone explain to me why Scott Walker would have done this? Help me to understand? I'll wait.......
UPDATE: National Review Online has put up an explanation of why Governor Walker repealed the "Equal Pay Enforcement Act". There is a good deal of logic to it - though, if for nothing other than to avoid its potential political impact, I think he should have tried to avoid repeal until after the recall election.
You can read it by clicking here. But here are a couple of key excerpts to whet your appetite:
In 2009, Wisconsin enacted a law that would help victims of sex discrimination win bigger awards. Such victims already could file their cases with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in federal court, or with the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. But lawmakers thought that once an accuser had won before an administrative-law judge — the final step of the process that starts with the Department of Workforce Development — she should then be allowed to file her case in a Wisconsin circuit court. Circuit courts were directed to award compensatory and punitive damages of up to $300,000 for large employers, whereas administrative-law judges may only make the accuser “whole” by awarding back pay, attorney’s fees, etc.
That law was called the “Equal Pay Enforcement Act,” and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker signed its repeal on Thursday. Unsurprisingly, the Left pounced. State senator Dave Hansen accused Walker of “turning back the clock on women’s rights in the workplace.” His fellow senator Christine Sinicki said the move was typical of an “anti-woman” legislative session. Obama’s campaign joined in the fun, with spokeswoman Lis Smith claiming the bill “showed how far Republicans are willing to go to undermine not only women’s health care, but also their economic safety.”
But simply put, there is no great sex-discrimination problem in Wisconsin workplaces that is not being addressed by federal law and preexisting state laws. Further, by making it easier to extract punitive damages from businesses, the 2009 law made Wisconsin companies vulnerable to frivolous claims.
BOOKWORM'S DEFINITION OF WHY THE LEFT HATES ANN ROMNEY
I occasionally read a web site called www.bookwormroom.com. It is written by an anonymous woman who claims to be a closet conservative who lives in decidedly left wing Marin Country (North of San Francisco), and is married to a left-leaning husband.
I have no idea if any of that is true. But I do know that "bookworm" has written an excellent piece on why the left hates Ann Romney - especially her comments regarding the stay-at-home mom, which "bookworm" claims to be.
You can read it all by clicking here. But let me give you the last three paragraphs, which sum things up beautifully:
For the last many years, I have been the single most important influence on my children. Yes, they go to school (public school, yet); and yes, they both have thriving social lives; and yes, I’ve been unable to insulate them from a Leftist pop culture that is hostile to traditional norms and to conservatives generally, but I’m still the most important person. Of all the influences in their lives, I am the one who is most present, most consistent, and most trusted. I’m sure they’ll pull away as they get older, and they may even rebel, but I’ll still be that little voice in their brain, imparting facts, values, and analyses.
I am the counterweight to the state. Therefore, I am dangerous. I am subversive simply by existing. My love for my children is a dominant force that works its way into their psyches and that trumps the state-run schools and the state complicit media world. Some mothers, of course, are entirely in sync with schools and media. They happily reinforce the statist message. But those of us who don’t are a powerful anti-statist force and we must be challenged.
The Left’s problem with Ann Romney transcends her husband’s wealth, her (and his) Republican identification, and her decision to work for her children, rather than for a paying employer. The Left’s problem with Ann Romney is that she represents the triumph of the individual. No wonder they hate her so much.
I don't know how that could have been said any better.
Seventy-four Democrats in the House of Representatives have joined the leftist J Street organization in supporting the Obama administration's attempt to force Israel into making painful and possibly dangerous concessions to the Palestinian Authority.
“In our view, support for a two-state resolution is inseparable from such support for Israel, its special relationship with the United States, and its very survival as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people,” the letter asserted.
Seven Jewish members signed the letter, including Reps. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), Reps. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also signed the letter.
While J Street claims it is a “pro-Israel” organization, its policies have ranged from supporting the libelous Goldstone Report to opposing sanctions and military actions against Iran. The organization has provided a forum for radicals advocating boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel and has denied, despite evidence to the contrary, that it receives funding from George Soros, the multi-billionaire financier of radically left leaning organizations.
A total of 74 Democrats - 38% of the entire Democrat house membership - has signed on with the hard left "Israel can do no right/Palestinian Arabs can do no wrong" J Street crowd, whose idea of a "two state solution" is that Israel give Palestinians everything they want in Gaza, Judea and Samaria (the west bank)......and then in Israel itself.
Do you really think these people represent your views on Israel? Do you really feel comfortable and welcome among them?
Before answering that question, answer these:
-Would Catholics feel comfortable and welcome within a political party that aggressively attacks the Vatican?
-Would women feel comfortable and welcome within a political party that aggressively opposes equal pay in the workplace?
If the answer is no, then maybe you should be doing some reconsideration.
The case for the Buffett tax keeps eroding. When President Obama announced the idea, he said it would help "stabilize our debt and deficits over the next decade." Then came the inconvenient revelation that the new 30% millionaire's tax would raise only $46.7 billion over 10 years, and would leave about 99.5% of the deficit intact in 2013. It was a far cry from "stabilizing the debt."
Now we learn that the Buffett tax the Senate is expected to vote on early next week will make the deficit worse. That's because both Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats have made it clear that their new "fairness" tax is to offset the revenue loss from another provision related to the Alternative Minimum Tax.
That measure would exempt more than 20 million middle class Americans with incomes as low as $80,000 a year from getting nailed by the AMT.
The Joint Tax Committee—the official scoring referee on tax bills—calculates that the combination of AMT repeal for the middle class and the Buffett tax would add $793.3 billion to the debt over the next decade.
Got that? As President Obama and his fellow Democrats atempt to boob-bait their bubbas* into believing that this "Rule" has anything whatsoever to do with addressing the trillion-dollar-plus deficits they have inflicted on us, they - along with their Accomplice Media, ever vigilant to preserve and protect Obama & Co. - conveniently leave out the fact that it is supposed to offset the repeal of AMT.
And what does the actual "offset" result in? A net deficit increase of almost $80 billion dollars more to the budget each year for the next decade (and, presumably on and on from there).
These people apparently think we are all idiots --- reasonable enough, given that believing this load of BS requires us to be idiots. Mindless idiots without intelligence, perception or understanding of any kind, who dumbly, numbly accept their lies of omission and commission, one after the other.
The saddest part? Obama & Co. have plenty of bubbas who are ripe for this boob-baiting. They will greet the "Buffett Rule" legislation with little other than praise for the Obama administration and unbridled joy that it has put the wood to those rich people they hate so much.
"Screw 'em all. Make 'em pay. Yeah, that's the ticket. Why should they get to keep their money when they have so much and we can force them to give more of it to us? Go Barack go!"
The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.
NOTE: Not that it is very significant, but in the interest of accuracy I originally wrote "boob-bait their bozos". The actual expression, originally used by Daniel Patrick Moynihan to denote making fools of gullible people, was boob-bait the bubbas". I have therefore changed it accordingly.
This knee-slapper is from bill maher's latest edition of "Real Time" on HBO. The gay-bashing reference is to Michele Bachmann's husband, Marcus:
"New Rule, if you order the new Pizza Hut pizza with the hot dog-stuffed crust, you have to pay more for healthcare. And stop acting like this is a new idea. For years, Marcus Bachmann has been telling the delivery guy, 'I’d like a weiner in my rim.'"
This is what passes for humor among the maher set. Pretty pathetic, wouldn't you say?
FYI: There is no evidence of any kind that Marcus Bachmann is gay. But maher's comment is clearly meant to suggest Mr. Bachmann is gay - and to ridicule him for his "gayness". This is not the first time maher has done so either.
Don't expect any of those groups which talk a good game about "civility" (when it's Rush Limbaugh, that is) to demand that he apologize, or that the show be cancelled, though.
Remember: maher may be an obnoxious, hate-filled pig. But he also is comfortably left wing. So the rules don't apply.
Suppose you are the President of the United States, and the head of the General Services Administration has just created a major embarrassment for you, by spending at least $822,000 of the taxpayers' money on a lavish Las Vegas boondoggle.
And suppose, when the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee calls on him to explain his actions, he tells them that he is going to plead the fifth amendment -- i.e. he won't answer questions because they might tend to incriminate him.
What do you do? Do you go on your merry way, or do you tell that arrogant punk he either testifies or is immediately fired?
The General Services Administration official tasked with organizing a now-infamous $822,000 Las Vegas conference plans to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights ahead of a scheduled Monday grilling on the Hill.
On Thursday, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) served a subpoena to require Jeff Neely to appear before the committee, according to Democratic committee documents obtained by POLITICO. Neely’s attorney on Friday informed the committee Neely will exercise his right against self-incrimination and requested not to attend the hearing.
“Requiring Mr. Neely to travel from California to appear before the Committee when you have been advised that he will not answer any substantive questions posed to him does not advance any legitimate Committee purpose,” the attorney wrote, according to the documents.
jeff neely won't testify because his answers could be self-incriminating? And his lawyer makes a snivelling, arrogant statement that, since he will refuse to answer questions because it might land him in the clink, the committee has no legitimate reason to ask them in the first place?
neely should be summarily fired. Today.
Maybe our wonderful "neutral" media would like to take time out from its primary function of preserving and protecting Barack Obama, to demand it.
President Obama has released his tax return for 2011 - and stridently demanded that Mitt Romney do the same (FYI: Mr. Romney has promised to do so when the returns are finished and filed, as Mr. Obama well knows. Therefore, his "demand is pure political gimmickry - designed to fool you into believing he "forced" Romney to do what Romney was going to do anyway).
A few questions:
-This is the first year in quite a while that the income he shows is below $1,000,000. Is that a coincidence? Or is it a strategy to make Barack Obama look less wealthy than he is, enabling him to trash "the rich" - and pretend he isn't one of them?
-Mr. Obama's income - this year, anyway - would exempt him from the "Buffett" Rule". Isn't that politically convenient?
-Mr. Obama is paying about 20% in federal tax - far below the 35% maximum that the IRS tax tables show for his income. That means he is using tax deductions, and plenty of them, to lower his tax rate. Isn't the idea of a rich guy gaming the system to pay less than his fair share what Obama & Co. rail about when they're on the stump? Could this possibly be more hypocritical?
-Isn't that tax rate less than what Mr. Obama's secretary pays? How, then, can he, in good conscience, support the "Buffett Rule" - which is based on the premise (as yet unproven, since we've never seen the tax returns) that Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, when he himself is in exactly the same boat? Why is he not voluntarily kicking in the difference?
I thought I would ask those questions, since I have little doubt that our wonderful "neutral' media will do nothing more than point out that Mitt Romney pays a lower percentage on his tax return than Mr. Obama (without mentioning that Romney's income is almost all from long term capital gains which is taxed before it ever gets to him, and his tax return shows only the second round of taxation on that money, not the first). Then they will drop it right there.
"Preserve and Protect": our media's motto when it comes to Barack Obama.
If anyone can turn Newark around, Mayor Booker can. He is a young, fresh, dynamic Democrat (in the party of Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Clyburn, Conyers, etc. etc. et. what a refreshing change that is), and a doer rather than a pontificator.
Now, let's fast-forward to yesterday. From foxnews.com we have this:
NEWARK — Newark Mayor Cory Booker was taken to a hospital Thursday night for treatment of smoke inhalation he suffered trying to rescue his next-door neighbors from their burning house.
"I just grabbed her and whipped her out of the bed," Booker said in recounting the fire. Booker told The Star-Ledger he also suffered second-degree burns on his hand.
The fire started in a two-story building on Hawthorne Avenue in the Upper Clinton Hill neighborhood, shortly before the mayor arrived home after a television interview with News 12 New Jersey.
Five people were taken to the hospital for treatment: the mayor, a woman from the house and three members of his security detail. The woman was listed in stable condition at Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston with burns to her back and neck.
Booker left his home shortly after this morning to make an appearance on the CBS Morning Show in New York.
I'm no expert on Newark. But the city seems to be in the middle of a serious revitalization. And Cory Booker seems to be spearheading it.
Add to that the quality of the man -- believe me, this was no stunt, no staged event; by all accounts Mr. Booker's only concern was saving another human being -- and what do you have? It seems pretty evident that what you have is a true class act.
Let me repeat what I said a year and a half ago: Newark is lucky to have Cory Booker.
And Chris Christie better be looking long and hard over his shoulder come next Gubernatorial election.
WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MEDIA CALLING YOU A LIAR.....
Visitor logs show that Hilary Rosen has been to the White House 35 times since Barack Obama took office, including at least 5 meetings with Mr. Obama himself. That is almost once every month.
Jay Carney, yesterday, on Hilary Rosen's access to the White House, from foxnews.com:
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to downplay Hilary Rosen's frequent visits to White House today, responding to a question of how many times the Democratic adviser with ties to the Obama campaign has visited the White House stating ‘I know three, personally, women named Hilary Rosen’... ‘I have not seen her here very frequently.’
Jay Carney knows three women named Hilary Rosen? I doubt that there are 25 women by that name in the entire country -- probably a lot fewer -- and Jay Carney personally knows 3 of them?
How many Hilary Rosens have you ever met in your life? I'm 66 years old and the next one I meet will be the first.
Jay Carney has not seen Hilary Rosen at the White House very frequently -- when she's their almost once a month?
These are the kind of lies - obvious, overt lies - a man like Jay Carney tells when he is certain the media will not call him out on what a liar he is. And, as is painfully clear, he is absolutely right in his certainty.
I use the term Accomplice Media a lot in here. This is why.
I have just been sent the latest in a seemingly unending string of Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) emails, attacking Republicans and begging for $$$.
This one, signed by DSCC Executive Director Guy Cecil has the usual attack lines, and references to that nefarious Karl Rove Democrats hate so completely. Par for the course.
But it also has a flat-out lie. A lie that I have seen one too many times:
Why we need a Buffett Rule: Warren Buffett's secretary pays almost 36% in income taxes, while Mitt Romney pays less than 14%.
Bullcrap. That is untrue. The Buffett rule applies exclusively to federal taxes. So let me show you the federal tax rate for 2011. See if you notice a bit of a discrepancy:
If your taxable income is between...
your tax bracket is:
Tell me: How is it that Warren Buffett's secretary is paying a higher tax rate than the maximum rate that exists in the IRS code? Can you help me out on that one?
She isn't, of course. Not even if she declares no deductions of any kind (which, of course, she does). It is an obvious, overt lie.
And that is before we get to the fact that no one has seen either of the two tax returns to actually check how much they pay.
Isn't amazing that the same media, which will go over any Republican claim with a fine tooth comb (e.g. look at all the fact-checks, just this week, on Republicans' claim that women lost the vast majority of jobs under Obama), have never demanded that Warren Buffett and his secretary produce their returns? It's not like they are private any more - not after Buffett and his Democrat cronies have used this claim for months and months to demonize Republicans and push tax legislation.
Are we supposed to just believe them? Take what they say on faith?
Uh................no. That's not operable. Unlike the Accomplice Media, some of us like to see actual evidence of political claims.
How can these people call themselves journalists? How can they even face themselves in the mirror?
ANOTHER INTERESTING INSIGHT ABOUT GEORGE ZIMMERMAN
Here is a picture of George Zimmerman at his arraignment. Take a good look and see if you notice anything interesting:
George Zimmerman, center, stands with a SeminoleCounty deputy and his attorney Mark O'Mara during a court hearing …
Are you seeing what I'm seeing?
Is it just me, or is George Zimmerman's skin color a lot closer to the Black deputy than it is to Mark O'Mara?
Yes, that's right. George Zimmerman - who, let's remember, is half Peruvian - is a person of color. A relatively light-skinned person of color, but a person of color nonetheless. If you saw him walking down the street with that (also light-skinned) Black deputy, you might even think the two were brothers.
That's interesting, isn't it? Especially because, in the solid month that this story has been front-page news, I have not seen one media venue report that Mr. Zimmerman is visibly not White. Not one.
But this is just the latest interesting insight about George Zimmerman that has come to light:
-We have seen just about every media venue relentlessly show a years-old picture of Trayvon Martin that looks absolutely nothing like the 6 foot plus, athletic young adult George Zimmerman saw that night.
-We have been told over and over again that Zimmerman sustained none of the injuries he claimed to have suffered in his physical confrontation with Martin -- until a serious look at the police department video clearly showed they were there.
-We have been told over and over again that Zimmerman apparently used the racial epithet "f#cking coon" under his breath on the 911 tape -- until the audio was enhanced and listened to more closely, after which it became apparent that he said "f#cking cold" instead.
-We have been treated to an audio tape that had Zimmerman saying Trayvon Martin was acting like he was up to no good and that he looked Black, which suggested he made a direct tie between the two -- until we found out that the tape had been doctored, and the dispatcher's question, "Is he White, Black or Hispanic", which is what Zimmerman was responding to when he said Martin looked Black, had intentionally been edited out.
At what point does it become clear that mainstream media's position on the Trayvon Martin case is "we have our story and we're sticking to it"? That the facts which belie that story are seen as nothing more than inconvenient embarrassments to be swept under the rug? That media intend to create, and nurture, a racial maelstrom, and are not finished doing so?
This is not what a neutral media would do. It is what an Accomplice Media would do. And who are the Accomplice media acting in concert with? Sadly, it is the hustlers who have done nothing but fan the flames of racial incitement, and the President who said "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon".
LEFT WING WOMEN AND MOTHERHOOD: THE TRUTH COMES OUT
This will be my third blog about the firestorm created by Democrat operative and regular visitor to Obama's White House Hilary Rosen, and her sneering, dismissive put-down of Ann Romney's value as a stay at home mom ("actually, she's never worked a day in her life").
I am writing it for two reasons.
-One reason is to follow up on my speculation that the Today Show, which did not report a word about Rosen's piggish comments the day after they were made, would do so today because now they have her "apology" (in reality, just as sneering and dismissive as the original words) to ameliorate the damage. Unfortunately, I was correct. Thursday there was nothing...but this morning we had a feature story which essentially said, "yeah, she said it so she apologized, so let's forget the whole thing".
Will that happen? Will the story die immediately? Not if Republicans have any intelligence at all (which, admittedly, is questionable). More on this further on in the blog.
-The other reason is to discuss what Hilary Rosen's insult -- and, much more importantly, the "reaction" (if you can call it that) of so-called women's organizations to it - tells us about the true face of those organizations.
Where are the "women's organizations" in this firestorm? Most of them are in hiding, that's where. What great advocates for women they are!
But at least one of them is not in hiding: Terry O'Neill, President of the National Organization for Women, has weighed in with her opinion.
So what does she think? Well, assuming that N.O.W. really is a national organization for women, she should be screaming bloody murder about what Rosen said, and how it demeans the millions and millions of women who devote themselves to raising their families as stay-at-home moms.
But - surprise, surprise - she is not screaming bloody murder at all. Here is O'Neill's reaction, via a transcript from her appearance on MSNBC's hard left "Ed Show":
“What would we be saying if Hillary Clinton had said this: that Ann Romney has never, has not worked for pay outside the home a day in her life? That's my understanding that's an accurate statement, and that raises the exact issue that Hilary Rosen was trying to get to, which is do Mr. & Mrs. Romney have the kind of life experience and if not, the imagination, to really understand what most American families are going through right now? I think that that was what Hilary was getting out, and so she left out the words "for pay outside the home."
Where to begin?
-Well, how about the fact that O'Neill does not have one bad word to say about Rosen's condescending dismissal of stay at home moms. Remember, though she was insulting Ann Romney personally, the insult itself was that stay-at-home moms do not work. Thus the insult is not to Ms. Romney only, it is to every stay-at-home mom.
This is someone who claims to represent all women???????
-Then we have O'Neill's manufactured modifier. She invents a quote by Hillary Clinton which does not exist, about working for pay outside the home....and then tries to sell the absurd claim that it is what Hilary Rosen meant to say, she just "left out the words". O'Neill is trying to convince you that Rosen, a long-time business and PR executive who is paid handsomely to advise people on what to say, was neither capable of expressing a simple thought clearly or of correcting herself when it came out differently than what she meant.
Yeah, right. And the cow jumped over the moon.
-Finally, we have O'Neill adding to the insults, by assuring us that Ms. Romney (and, of course, her husband as well) have neither the life experience nor the imagination to understand an average family.
In other words, instead of criticizing Hilary Rosen for her sickening put-down of women who run households full-time, Terry O'Neill sides with her...and does some additional piling on of her own.
Are you surprised by this? Did you expect something different? I hope the answer, based on years of observation, is "no". Because the truth is, an organization like N.O.W. would never dispute what Hilary Rosen said. To the contrary, it would fully agree with her.
Anyone who thinks so-called "women's organizations" like this one give a rat's butt about women as an overall gender, is not paying attention. In reality they are left wing organizations, run by left wing activists, whose interest in women begins and ends with women who either are as left wing as they are, or can be manipulated in that direction.
Traditional stay-at-home moms are not a concern of the Terry O'Neills of the world. They are an embarrassment to them. They are a shame, a disgrace.
To this bunch, running a household is not a women's issue, it is a woman's enslavement. Women's issues, aside from workplace equality, center on abortion and contraception. That's what "real" women care about.
They do not see women as women, they see women as vaginas. That is what they are, and that is what their rights are all about.
No wonder the "women's organizations" barely kicked up a storm when bill maher called Sarah Palin a "cunt" and a "dumb twat". Conceptually, they see women exactly the way he does. And the fact that his vile words were aimed at Sarah Palin, who - like Michele Bachmann, like Michelle Malkin, like Ann Romney, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. - is a conservative woman? All the better.
That said, however, I think there is an argument for being thankful to Hilary Rosen, Terry O'Neill and their likeminded "women's advocates". After all, this incident has given us a rare look at what they really are and what they really think. By baring their their teeth and exposing their true feelings, these two - both avid supporters of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party, as if you didn't already know - (and the "women's organizations" which have not spoken up at all) have provided us with a major heads-up about how they evaluate women.
Not very pretty, is it?
Earlier in this blog I mentioned that Hilary Rosen (and N.O.W. Terry O'Neill as well) are presenting Republicans with a major opportunity.
Their disdain for women heads of household has left a gaping hole in the Democrat narrative that Republicans are at war with women: one that can have a major impact among voters.
Specifically, Republicans - especially Mr. and Ms. Romney - should be going all out to talk about how respected and valued they consider stay-at-home moms to be. How completely they understand the hard, serious, meaningful work these women engage in as they keep the budget, make sure there is food on the table, clothing in the closets, that the children get to where they have to be for school and play, that their homework gets done, and the 1,000 other things necesssary in the course of managing a household. They should point out that, if there is a male head of household, he very definitely should be fully involved as well -- but that, nonetheless, the primary responsibility falls on a stay-at-home mom, and her value is incalculable.
That narrative is 100% credible. Why? Because it is 100% true. And it should resonate not only with stay-at-home moms, but also with career women who remember their stay-at home moms, and/or have stay-at-home friends. Which is to say just about every woman there is.
Let the Hilary Rosens and Terry O'Neills sneer out their insults. Let them continue to tell women that they are defined by how they use what is between their legs. Who cares?
When the message is aimed at women who give a damn about women, people like Rosen and O'Neill are on the outside looking in.
Fortunately, like everything else in North Korea, its long range rocket launch was a complete failure.
Evidently, instead of being lifted into orbit, it spent about 90 seconds intact. It then broke up and landed in the ocean.
Therefore, instead of establishing itself as a world military power, North Korea established itself as a world laughingstock.
Does this bode well for the current head of state, kim jong un - son and grandson of the previous heads of state?
Well, maybe.....if North Korea's state run "news" venues declare the launch a success. When you control all means of communication you can do things like that.
But, personally, I doubt that he will be head of state for very much longer. There is no success of any kind in North Korea except military success - whether real or imagined. Without that, there is nothing at all.
In case you are wondering about how some of those wonderful, tolerant folks on the left have reacted to Ann Romney's pointing out that stay at home moms have a real job......
Michelle Malkin, herself no stranger to being called disgusting offensive names which demean her race and her female anatomy, has compiled some of them at her new web site; twitchy.com. I won't post the incredibly vile filth here, but if you want to see it for yourself, feel free to click on this link.
Did you enjoy what you read?
Now grow old waiting for our wonderful "neutral" media to report a thing about it. Because they won't, any more than they reported the same sick, perverse filth for the years and years (no exaggeration) it has been used on Ms. Malkin. And Sarah Palin. And Michele Bachmann. And, just about any other female conservative who dares not to fall into lockstep with what leftists demand all women must think.
Remember: these are the people who demand "civility" from the right....and the ones who want Rush Limbaugh's head on a silver platter for calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute".
SPEAKING OF COMMENTS THAT GENERATE INSINCERE APOLOGIES....
As long as we're talking about one obviously insincere apology, why not two?
Here, according to Melanie Michael of WTSP-TV Tampa Bay, is what new Black panther party "chief of staff" michelle williams had to say earlier this week, during an online interview with someone Ms. Michael describes as a nationally syndicated radio personality who works under the name - I'm not making this up - "Bubba The Love Sponge":
"Let me tell you, the things that's about to happen, to these honkeys, these crackers, these pigs, these pink people, these ---- people. It has been long overdue. My prize right now this evening ... is gonna be the bounty, the arrest, dead or alive, for George Zimmerman. You feel me?"
Now, williams apparently feels there is a necessity to apologize for her comments. Here is the "apology":
"If my words, my words that I had to say out of anger will make the American people address this issue, let it be my time, Melanie. Let it be my time to address this issue with America, that we say enough is enough. We can't have any more killings.
"My words were out of anger. I did not incite, I did not promote, nor did I encourage anyone to go and pick up a gun."
Wow. What remorse.
Isn't it sweet that williams told us she said nothing inciteful; nothing that promoted or encouraged anyone to go and pick up a gun? After all, when did a bounty on someone's head, dead or alive, ever do that?
One thing that confuses me, though. Why would michelle williams even have bothered? It's not like the Department of Justice gives a damn about what she said, is it? Among the Barack Obama/eric holder set, the new Black panther party enjoys brahmin status. They couldn't do anything holder's DOJ would find actionable if they tried......as proven by the fact that they have tried. In Philadelphia in 2008, in Sanford, Florida in 2012, and God only knows how many other times in between.
Tell me: If that were a White racist screaming about niggers, jungle boogies and porch monkeys, then talking up a bounty, dead or alive on the head of a Black suspect, do you think the Department of Justice would be on it?
Some questions just answer themselves, don't they?
I count the seconds until the 2012 election....when we have a chance to turn the Department of Justice back into a Department that actually cares about Justice for all, not exclusively through the ugly racial prism that this compromised horror show of a DOJ sees it through.
An apology with a sneer. That seems all Hilary Rosen is capable of.
About an hour ago, no doubt after getting the excrement kicked out of her by a succession of Democrats for her insult of Ann Romney and all stay-at-home mothers, this is what Rosen had to say, via the following excerpt from Amy Bingham's piece at ABC News:
Less than 24 hours after Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen mocked Ann Romney for having "never worked a day in her life," Rosen apologized to Romney this afternoon for her "poorly chosen" words and aimed to "put the faux 'war against stay at home moms' to rest once and for all."
"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended," Rosen said in a statement. "Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."
Put the faux war against stay at home moms to rest? Declare peace in this phony war?
That is not an apology. That is a sneering admonishment to leave her the f#@& alone.
Ann Romney is far too much of a lady to tell Hilary Rosen to take her "apology" and stick it straight up her rectum. But I'm not. Consider it done.
And don't think for a moment that Hilary Rosen's accidental exposure of what she, and people like her, really think of stay at home moms will be forgotten any time soon. Nor should it be.
One other thing: I read earlier today that neither NBC nor ABC's morning shows bothered to report the comment Rosen made (as a Today show viewer I can attest that this is at least half right). Evidently, the fact that Rosen is a mouthpiece for the DNC and has been to the Obama White House dozens of times - not to mention representing Sandra Fluke - just doesn't make her comments newsworthy enough.
But I'll bet body parts that the comment - with a quick assurance that Rosen "apologized" so the matter is laid to rest - will be on both of them tomorrow.
Yesterday I blogged, somewhat derisively, about the "True but false" rating the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler gave Mitt Romney's claim that 92.3% of the jobs lost during the Obama adminstration were lost by women. I also pointed out that Kessler, far from being a neutral arbiter, was a vocal critic of Republicans - which hardly made him the right person to evaluate such a claim. And that, of course, is before I tried to decipher what "true but false" even means (I'm still working on it).
Well, today we have another example of a so-called "neutral" fact-checking entity deciding that the claims are accurate but false. This time it is the (decidedly leftward) Tampa Bay Times' "PolitiFact" feature. The Times' evaluator was Margaret Hamilton, a former colleague of Kessler at that (Obama supporting) Washington Post.
This doesn't get many points for fairness, does it?
In any event, Ms. Hamilton wrote a relatively extensive critique of the Romney camp's claim, which you can read by clicking here. Let me give you its conclusions below:
Romney's website said that women account for 92.3 percent of jobs lost under Obama.
By comparing job figures with January 2009 and March 2012 and weighing them against women’s job figures from the same periods, Saul came up with 92.3 percent. The numbers are accurate but quite misleading. First, Obama cannot be held entirely accountable for the employment picture on the day he took office, just as he could not be given credit if times had been booming. Second, by choosing figures from January 2009, months into the recession, the statement ignored the millions of jobs lost before then, when most of the job loss fell on men. In every recession, men are the first to take the hit, followed by women. It's a historical pattern, Stevenson told us, not an effect of Obama's policies.
There is a small amount of truth to the claim, but it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
The numbers are accurate, but that provides only a small amount of truth to the claim? Ok, thanks Margaret. (Incidentally, could that "Our Ruling" headline possibly be more imperious? This is an opinion, not a ruling. Nobody died and left the final word on what is and isn't true in the hands of Margaret Hamilton and the Tampa Bay Times.)
As you might expect, the Romney people did not take kindly to this "ruling". In that connection, Mr. Romney's policy director, Lanhee K. Chen, fired a lengthy letter off to PolitiFact detailing its position. You can read the letter by clicking here - which will bring you to a surprisingly fairminded article on the controversy by Jon Ward at huffingtonpost.com
Meanwhile, let me post several excerpts from Mr. Chen's letter below:
I was deeply troubled to read your piece dated April 6, in which you review Romney for President Press Secretary Andrea Saul's statement that "women account for 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama," find it to be "accurate," and then rate it "Mostly False." Putting aside the obvious problems with rating an accurate statement mostly false, your analysis in this instance was so inadequate that the piece ended up being little more than Obama for Americaspin.
In your piece, you reject the use of the January 2009 through March 2012 timeframe as representative of the Obama administration's tenure, writing "Obama cannot be held entirely accountable for the employment picture on the day he took office, just as he could not be given credit if times had been booming." But one month earlier, on March 2, you reviewed a statement by Newt Gingrich that 16 million jobs were created during the Reagan years. Using exactly the same analysis provided by the campaign here, you wrote, "The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps the most widely used data on employment, which can be accessed on its website on a month-by-month basis. In January 1981, the month Reagan took office, there were slightly more than 91 million Americans employed. By January 1989, the total was 107.1 million Americans. That's an increase of 16.1 million employed Americans." On this basis, you rated the Speaker's statement as "True."
If a statement that begins assessing President Reagan's record as of the month he took office is rated as "True," how can the use of the same metric count against the veracity of Ms. Saul's statement here?
Your second criticism of Ms. Saul's statement focuses on a supposed lack of context. You write, "by choosing figures from January 2009, months into the recession, the statement ignored the millions of jobs lost before then, when most of the job loss fell on men."
First, why should it matter that men had already lost millions of jobs? Was it now women's "turn"?
Second...if you had taken the time to look at job growth since the recession ended in June 2009 (with the President's stimulus now in effect), you would have found exactly the same picture. Since that time, less than one-eighth of the economy's meager job creation has gone to women.
To push back against Ms. Saul's statement, you offer two claims from so-called "experts." Each of these were flatly untrue and would themselves have deserved ratings of "False" had you taken the time to evaluate them.
Far more troubling were the selection of your two experts.
As you may or may not know, Gary Burtless has already donated twice to President Obama's campaign this cycle.
Much more inexplicably, Bestey Stevenson, who you identify simply as "a business and public policy professor at Princeton University," was until recently the chief economist for Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. She also authored a recent opinion piece for Reuters entitled "The Case for Obama's Jobs Program."
On a final, fitting note, Ms. Stevenson has a Twitter account and on April 6 tweeted "This recovery has not been good for women." Those forty-two characters are far more accurate than anything that you wrote.
In summary, your piece confirms Ms. Saul's claim as accurate, and then relies on a direct contradiction with a prior Politifact piece and incorrect claims from two publicly acknowledged Obama supporters (including one Administration official!) as the basis for rating it "Mostly False." I hope you will agree that this rating was inappropriate and that the piece does not reflect the journalistic standards to which your organization intends to hold itself. Please retract the piece and issue a correction as soon as possible.
Ok, there are the two sides.
Now: which of them comes out looking more accurate?
We have reached the point where the only way to accept each attack on Mitt Romney and his family is to start with the sentence "Barack Obama cannot run on his record, so this is what he has to say".
Case in point: The despicable, smug, arrogant, unfeeling comment by DNC spokesperson - and, not at all surprisingly, close Debbie Wasserman Schultz confidante - Hilary Rosen. This is what she said on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 show:
"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying ‘well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and, when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing'.Guess what?His wife has actually never worked a day in her life”.
What a disgusting, piggish comment to make.
Ann Romney was a stay at home mom - who occasionally took time off from her busy schedule of sitting in a silk housedress, eating bonbons and watching soap operas, to raise five children.
Anyone who claims that raising five children is not work - a full-time, rigorous job- is either either stupid or lying. Got that, Hillary?
Oh, and let's also remember that Ms. Romney has Multiple Sclerosis, and is a cancer survivor. I guess that doesn't count either.
There is no bottom to today's Democrat party. None at all. No attack is despicable enough, vicious enough, personal enough or disgusting enough to hold back on.
If Hilary Rosen - or her DNC boss Wasserman Schultz - had even one iota of honesty, integrity or class, they would be apologizing for that ugly comment. But neither of them does. So all we have gotten so far is a clumsy, thoroughly dishonest claim by Rosen that she didn't mean it the way people are taking it.
You saw the quote. And, since I don't edit or doctor transcripts like NBC, you can rest assured it is exactly as Rosen said it. If you can come up with any alternative meaning, do let me know.
Oh, one other thing: Since I mentioned NBC and it's doctoring of transcripts, when is the network going to name the senior producer it claims to have fired? And why should we believe that these demonstrated liars fired anyone, until they give us an actual name?
UPDATE: As bad as I thought this was, it turns out to be even worse.
After Hilary Rosen made her insulting comment about Ann Romney, Ms. Romney wrote a tweet - reports are it is the first she has ever written - in which she said:
"I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work."
That's it. Every word of it. No attack on Hilary Rosen, nothing negative, just a strong assurance that raising children is hard work; something any mother - other than a left wing, politicizing attack dog like Hilary Rosen - already knows.
And here is how Hilary Rosen responded in her own tweet:
“I am raising children too. But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children. You know that don’t u?”
Just as arrogant, sarcastic and sneering as her original comment.
FYI: Regarding Hilary Rosen's raising of children: Rosen is a lesbian, who, with her "wife", gay activist Elizabeth Birch, adopted two children. The women separated years ago, and I cannot find any information on how the children were raised or - assuming they are not grown up yet - who is responsible for raising them now. But we do know that Rosen has been an entertainment industry, now Political PR executive, for many years.
Therefore, anyone who asks how many nannies/caretakers Ann Romney had while raising her children, had damn well better be asking the same of Hilary Rosen.
Further, to read Rosen's tweet about "young American women", you would swear that she was talking from experience, wouldn't you? Well she wasn't.
Though it is extremely hard to find (google "Hilary Rosen bio" and see for yourself) it turns out that Rosen is not a "young American woman" at all. She is 53 years old. Nor has she ever been in any marginal financial position: Rosen was born and raised in the upper middle class suburb of West Orange, New Jersey and, as noted above, she has held executive jobs, mostly in the entertainment industry, for many years.
In other words, it is clear that Hillary Rosen never has been strapped for $$$ even one day of her life. Just like Ann Romney.
But, regardless of her personal situation - and the obvious hypocrisy detailed above - Hilary Rosen's comments, in and of themselves, establish her as a pig. Democrats should be ashamed that she speaks for them.
I just watched a Today show segment with Trayvon Martin's parents and lawyer.
They had just finished discussing why it would have been appropriate to charge George Zimmerman with second degree murder - which requires "a depraved mind showing no regard for human life"
And then Trayvon Martin's mother, Sabrina Fulton - who seems uncomfortable saying anything but what she really thinks - tells the audience that, in her opinion, the shooting was an accident. (NOTE: I strongly hope I am wrong, but can't help thinking that the family's lawyers will coach Ms. Fulton in an effort to correct this "weakness" before the trial).
Lucky for the race hustlers that Ms. Fulton's opinion can be dismissed and ignored. Because if it was an accident, this case is over now.
Yesterday I said the Trayvon Martin case is becoming more bizarre by the minute. I repeat.......
Special prosecutor Angela Corey has decided to bring charges of second degree murder against George Zimmerman.
And Zimmerman, who may have been hiding out of state, is reported to have voluntarily turned himself in.
For whatever it's worth, I 100% expected Zimmerman to be charged with murder. If Corey had not done so, there would have been riots in the streets, stoked by the race hustlers and their willing accomplices in the media.
Would charges ever have been brought if there had not been intense racial incitement? We'll never know for sure.
However, just one tiny question remains. How do they expect to prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, rather than shooting him in self-defense?
The answer: if, during the trial, racial fires are sufficiently restoked by sharpton, farrakhan, Obama (yes, he's included here), the new Black panther party, etc. etc. etc., it could happen.
Put another way, will George Zimmerman get a fair trial, or are we seeing a lynching in progress?
UPDATE: Here is Florida's definition of second degree murder (I'm showing only the definition of a first-person murder, not an accomplice murder):
Definition of Second Degree Murder
Murder with a Depraved Mind
Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.
Is it just me, or does this charge appear ludicrous to you as well?
How can the state possibly prove that George Zimmerman acted with a depraved mind and no regard for human life?
Remember, I'm not asking if you think that was his state of mind, I am asking how it can be proven. Keep in mind that this isn't George Zimmerman sauntering up to Trayvon Martin and shooting him dead. Two eyewitnesses are on record as saying that, before the shooting, there was a fight, and that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman.
Based on the eyewitness testimony, I don't see any possible way Zimmerman can be convicted of second degree murder. Even without the eyewitnesses, what basis is there to convict on that charge?
The only answer I can come up is an appalling one: in a racially charged atmosphere, anything can happen.
DIM BULB (AND THIS TIME LYING ALSO) DEBBIE STRIKES AGAIN
You're not going to believe this one.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat, congressperson from South Florida, Chair of the Democratic National Committee - and, at least ostensibly, concerned member of the Jewish community/Israel supporter - agreed to be the keynote speaker at a fundraiser headed by a Muslim activist who not only specializes in defending suspected terrorists, but is, himself, currently on the Federal Terrorist Watch List.
You have every reason to think I'm hallucinating, so let me show you the first paragraph of William Bigelow's piece for breitbart.com. Please, please, be sure to click on the link he provides, read the flyer it leads you to, and also read the commentary below that flyer.
DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was scheduled to give the keynote address at a fundraiser hosted by an American Muslim on the Federal Terrorist Watch List, is backing out. Called out by her Republican opponent Joe Kaufman, Wasserman Schultz’s spokesman issued a statement that “there was a miscommunication, she is not speaking to the organization … we never agreed to do a fundraiser, nor this event.” But, as usual, Wasserman Schultz is lying. You can see the flyer here.
Either that flyer was concocted out of thin air (yeah, right) or Wasserman Schultz is a liar who agreed to speak at this ugly event.
As Bigelow points out further on in his blog, it's not like it would have been Wasserman Schultz's maiden voyage into associating with Jew-hating, Israel-hating scumbags with $$$$$ in their hands.
Note to Ms. Wasserman Schultz: You may not value my opinion, but here it is: being a dim bulb, and a liar, is no way to go through life. You should think about that.
May Joe Kaufman be a worthy opponent. Because if ever a congressional district needed a change of representation, this is the one.
This, folks, is from the Obama administration -- the one which continues to drumbeat that Republicans are waging a war on women.
Excerpted from Andrew Stiles' piece at freebeacon.com:
Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.
Try to even begin to imagine the hullaballoo mainstream media would raise if that analysis came out of the Bush administration.
But it did not come out of the Bush administration. It came out of the Obama administration. Therefore, I assure you that, for the most part, imagining is all you will be able to do. Because, just as they bury virtually every other piece of incriminating information about Obama & Co., mainstream media will bury this too.
Watch tonight's news, read the major dailies tomorrow, watch the morning shows.....then tell me if I'm right or wrong.
For those of you who do not know, Tonton Macoute was a dreaded character in Creole mythology, who came in the night to kidnap children - usually children who had misbehaved in some way - stuff them in his gunny sack and take them away never to be seen again. In some versions of the myth, Tonton Macoute ate the children.
When Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier took control of Haiti in the late 1950's, his personal military was called the Tonton Macoutes, because, in the fashion of that mythical figure, they had a habit of taking Duvalier's enemies in the night, never to be seen again.
Fast-forward to 2012.
It kills me to say this. But when I look at what has become of the Department of Justice, I see an updated verison of the Tonton Macoutes.
In this version, they are not military, they are legal troops. Instead of acting in a fair and equitable way, the DOJ has now degenerated into acting as a personal force on behalf of Barack Obama, through his disgraceful toady and sock-puppet, the execrable eric holder. And, saddest of all, justice itself is what has disappeared in the night, apparently not to return until we rid ourselves of Papa Barack.
The latest demonstration of what I am talking about came just this morning. The Associated Press is reporting that eric holder put in an appearance at career racist and anti-semite al sharpton's so-called "National Action Network" (does anyone know what this "organization" does other than promote al sharpton?). holder promised to bring in the DOJ if there is evidence that a federal civil rights crime has been committed in the Trayvon Martin incident.
You can stop right there. What in the world is the Attorney General of the United States doing in front of a group that has been at the forefront of stirring up the ugliest racial tensions over this incident, and doing everything in its power to keep them at fever pitch? Does holder speak in front of White citizen's councils too? If not, why not? They are no less racist than sharpton's Black-only garbage dispensary.
Are Black racists more acceptable to holder than White racists? Evidently they are.
And, since there is significant evidence that George Zimmerman fired his gun only after he was attacked by Trayvon Martin (two eyewitness accounts had Martin on top of Zimmerman, not the other way around) has he also promised the Zimmerman family he will bring in the DOJ if there is evidence that a federal civil rights crime has been committed? Or does eric holder think civil rights apply only to Black people (his actions over the past three years make that answer plain as day, I'm only asking pro forma).
Then we have the fact that George Zimmerman's life has directly been threatened by the sick, thoroughly racist and hate-filled "new Black panther party" - complete with a bounty on Zimmerman's head.
The "new Black panther party", it should be noted, is based in Washington D.C. and claims to have 45 chapters nationally, so there is no issue whatsoever about whether it falls under federal jurisdiction. The answer is absolutely, definitely yes.
But, as yet, not one word out of holder or the Department of Justice about the threats on George Zimmerman's life. Zero.
If George Zimmerman is counting on Papa Barack's Tonton Macoutes, he is in a world of trouble. Frankly, Zimmerman is just too White for eric holder to give a damn about. If he is killed, he is killed. That's his problem.
Simply stated, in the era of Obama/holder, groups like the National Action Network and the new Black panther party are above reproach. It is the rest of us who have to keep one eye open in the night.
I count the seconds until the 2012 election, when we have a chance to rid ourselves of this impossibly ugly scourge, and regain a Department of Justice that treats all races equally -- i.e. that has a legitimate reason to use the word "Justice" in its name.
Glenn Kessler is the Washington Post's "fact-checker": i.e. the guy who checks what politicians say and tells you whether it is true or false.
Let's stop right here for just a moment. What basis does the WaPo have for designating Mr. Kessler or anyone else as the final arbiter of what is true and what is false? What are his credentials? Does he have some special power that nobody else has?
Of course he doesn't. It is his OPINION. That's all it is.
At this point you might be thinking that it would be beneficial to know Glenn Kessler's political views. Well, the Post isn't saying. But here, from Macmillan, the agency which books speeches for Mr. Kessler, is the first topic on his list. I think it just might give you a hint:
Recovering from the Bush Years: Kessler's discussion of foreign policy in the age of Obama, and how the new administration will seek to repair America's place in the world.
This is the guy they put in charge of political fact-checking? This is the guy who is supposed to provide a neutral evaluation of what Democrats and Republicans say? Holy excrement.
Ok, so we know that Glenn Kessler is about as neutral as the Steinbrenner family during a Yankee-Red Sox series.
With that in mind, Kessler's latest "fact-check involves the Republican response to Obama & Co.'s charges that the party is waging a "war on women": i.e. that, to the contrary, it is Barack Obama's policies which have been extremely damaging to women, and the statistics prove they have made out terribly during his administration.
Would you like a few excerpts? Ok, sure. But please note that I have eliminated all of Kessler's caveats, disclaimers, and assorted other desperate attempts to get around the accuracy of the data. I have culled it down only to actual conclusions. However, if you use the link provided above, you can read Mr. Kessler's comical gyrations for yourself:
“For far too long women have been left behind in Obama’s job market. Of the 740,000 jobs lost since Obama took office, 683,000 of them were held by women. That is truly unsustainable.”
— Statement by Sharon Day, co-chair of the Republican National Committee, April 6, 2012
In an effort to fight back against Democratic claims of a Republican “war on women,” the Republican National Committee has rolled out a new and startling fact—that under Obama, women have lost seven times as many jobs as men.
We found this statistic surprising because we had been under the impression that men had fared worse than women in the recession. So do the RNC’s numbers add up?
Now that the economy is growing again, men are recovering jobs at a faster pace than women. In fact, the latest employment reportshows that male participation in the work force was up 14,000 while female participation fell 177,000, in part because women tend to work in retail or government jobs (such as teaching), which have been cut in recent months.
(For the record: here are the statistics if one measures from the end of the recession, our preferred metric: more than 2.2 million jobs have been added under Obama, but the gain for women was just 284,000.)
The Pinocchio Test
We cannot fault the RNC’s math, as the numbers add up. But at this point this figure doesn’t mean very much. It may simply a function of a coincidence of timing — a brief blip that could have little to do with “Obama’s job market.”
If trends hold up over the next few months, then the RNC might have a better case. But at this point we will give this statistic our rarely used label:
TRUE BUT FALSE
Can you believe this BS?
Republicans say that women have made out terribly during the Obama years. The statistics show that women have made out terribly during the Obama years. Glenn Kessler cannot dispute that women have made out terribly during the Obama years.
So what is his conclusion regarding Republican claims that women have made out terribly during the Obama years?
TRUE BUT FALSE.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. Kessler. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your "neutral" fact checking of the Republican response.
No, Glenn, I didn't mean it that way. I really can't tell you how much I appreciate your "neutral" fact checking. I can't because it isn't neutral. It is ludicrous.
Do yourself and your paper a favor. Stick to sticking it to Republicans. Because when you pretend to be a neutral fact-checker, you have about as much credibility as those emails that ask you to help extract $10,000,000 from Nigeria in return for 10% of the money.
Ozzie Guillen is the manager of baseball's Miami Marlins. At least as of now.
I have to think he is on very thin ice in that regard, because - as is Mr. Guillen's habit (it's not like he hasn't done it before) - Guillen opened that big mouth of his and self-created a major firestorm.
For reasons unknown, Mr. Guillen decided to spout off about Cuban dictator and mass murderer fidel castro. Time Magazine quotes him as saying:
"I love Fidel Castro. I respect Fidel Castro, you know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that motherf****r is still here."
Let me start with the fact that Ozzie Guillen is a free man in a free country. He has every right to say what he said. I'm not just tossing that off to get past it, I mean it with 100% sincerity.
But the things people say have meanings and consequences. And just as Ozzie Guillen has a right to say what he did about castro, so do others have a right to react to his words. (This may be why he has spent the last few days desperately apologizing for what he said, and assuring anyone who will listen that he does not like anything about fidel castro.)
With that in mind, let's consider Mr. Guillen's intent.
Frankly, in reading this I do not get the sense that he was endorsing castro. To me, it reads like an over-the-top, bloviating way of admiring the fact that castro has managed to stay alive and in power so long - i.e. a reference to castro's tenacity, not his quality as a head of state.
But that leads to an obvious question: what in the world was Ozzie Guillen, a baseball manager, thinking when he decided to pontificate about fidel castro? When does this man learn to shut the hell up?
Remember; Guillen manages the Miami Marlins. Miami is a market loaded with Cuban refugees, most of whom hate castro's guts. Any comment about castro, therefore, whether positive or negative, is going to be news. Big news. It is going to be scrutinized, dissected and evaluated.
And if Miami's Cubano population concludes that the manager of its local major league team has good words to say about castro - which certainly might be assumed from his words - how do you think it will react? Is it not clear that most Cubanos will be up in arms, demanding that Guillen apologize? Maybe even that he should get the axe?
Of course they will. Guillen's words are not some off-the-cuff nothing to people whose families were forced to flee castro's Cuba, usually with little other than the shirts on their backs - many of whom also have lost loved ones to castro's murdering henchmen or to his third-world prisons.
Talking up castro may wow 'em at Hollywood dinner parties. But among Miami's Cuban community there is a far different understanding of who and what castro is. And that understanding is not based on some Hollywood fantasy, spun by actors trying to prove their left wing credentials in la-la-land. It is based on grim reality.
Finally, what should the Marlins do about Guillen?
Well, they have just suspended him for five games.
Personally, I think the suspension is ridiculous. Does the Marlin hierarchy really think that Miami's castro-hating Cuban population - or, for that matter, its castro-hating non-Cuban population - will consider this an appropriate response?
I would think that, if anything, this kind of suspension is likely to make things even worse. Why? Because it trivializes what Guillen said. A five game suspension is what you get for being involved in a stupid little push-and-shove skirmish on the field. It is meaningless. Absolutely nothing.
It seems evident to me that the only thing Miami can do to get past the maelstrom Ozzie Guillen self-created is to fire him as manager.
Is that unfair? Probably. But what else can possibly resolve this situation?
I expect that it will not take long for the Marlins to realize as much, and act accordingly. We'll see.........
Did you ever see the 1939 movie (horribly dated, I admit), Mr. Smith Goes To Washington?
If so, you might remember one of the characters, Senator Joseph Harrison Paine (played to the hilt by Claude Rains). Paine started out an honest man, but made the mistake of casting his lot with a corrupt "boss". Over time he became more and more corrupted by this association, until he was reduced to being a pathetic shadow of his former self. The movie ends with Senator Paine finally being overcome by what he had degenerated into, and confessing it on the floor of the senate.
This leads me straight to our media and Barack Obama.
The Obama administration has been an absolute disaster:
-We have had the so-called "stimulus package", which was supposed to have solved our unemployment problem, has generated three trillion-dollar-plus deficits, with more to come in the future - and higher unemployment anyway.
-We have had the horrific Operation Fast and Furious scandal, in which the administration literally armed Mexican drug cartels, resulting in two US agents and hundreds of Mexican citizens dead - that we know of so far.
-We have had the bizarre Green Scandal, with an energy secretary proud of giving billions of taxpayer dollars in loan guarantees to companies that could not, and did not, succeed, while driving gas prices to more than double where they were when Barack Obama took office.
-We have had one foreign policy disaster after another - most notably our ice-cold relationship with Israel, and the facilitating of what almost certainly will be shari'a law governments in Egypt and Libya;
-We have had the monstrous money-pit called ObamaCare forced down our throats, though most polls show that the country does not want it.
-We have had an all out war on the implementation of Voter ID's, though just about everyone - Republican, and Democrat, White and Black - support it.
-We have a Department of Justice which, under President Obama's toady and sock-puppet, eric holder, has been perverted into a royal palace guard, more intent on protecting Barack Obama, while dispensing racially prejudiced "justice", than enforcing the laws of our country.
And, worst of all, we have an Accomplice Media which, like Senator Paine, started out rooting too hard for President Obama...then, over time, allowed itself to get in deeper and deeper, to look the other way again and again, as this disastrous administration has continued to damage the United States.
Over and over we have seen the Accomplice Media either downplay, or simply bury, the actions of this administration. Operation Fast and Furious is possibly the single most egregious example, with two networks - ABC and NBC - never having done even one story on it, thus leaving their millions of viewers completely ignorant of the arming of drug cartels and the hundreds of deaths it caused.
What we need is a Joseph Harrison Paine. Maybe a few Joseph Harrison Paines. Maybe a great many of them.
What we need is for members of the media - the higher profile the better - coming to grips with just how far beyond the pale they have gone to support the unsupportable. And to speak up, acknowledge what has happened, and come clean.
In short, we need media people with the strength, and willingness, to retrieve their integrity.
Are there any out there capable of doing so? I wish I were more optimistic in my expectations.
Rick Santorum has "suspended" his campaign for the presidency.
Although it was not said in so many words, most media are taking this to mean that he is dropping out and effectively conceding the nomination to Mitt Romney.
We can speculate over whether Mr. Santorum's decision was due to the realization that he could not win, concern that if he lost his home state of Pennsylvania (which was very possible) it would damage his chances for statewide office in the future, the illness of his beautiful three year old daughter, Isabella, or some combination of the three.
But regardless of what reason(s) were most persuasive, Mr. Santorum has, albeit somewhat belatedly, made the correct decision.
Newt Gingrich remains in the race, technically speaking. But he is not even pretending to be a serious contender anymore and might use this opportunity to formally drop out as well.
And ron paul, with his grand total of 67 delegates out of 1,135 counted, is an irrelevancy.
It is time for Republicans to line up behind Mr. Romney and start their work on removing the woefully inept, damaging Obama administration from power.
In 2008, when Democrats surged to the polls after eight years of George W. Bush, CNN’s exit polls showed a seven-point advantage for Democrats, 39/32, which mirrored Obama’s seven-point victory in the popular vote. In 2010′s midterms, CNN exit polls showed a 35/35/30 split. By contrast, the previous WaPo/ABC poll in March had a D/R/I of 31/27/36, which undersampled both parties relative to independents but left Democrats with a 4-point advantage — perhaps an arguable model for 2012 turnout. Today’s has a D/R/I of 34/23/34, adding seven points to that Democratic advantage and presenting a completely unrepresentative, absurd model for the 2012 turnout.
What happens when you switch from a D+4 to a D+11 in measuring Obama’s standing? Suddenly, his job approval goes from 46% to 50% — actually, a rather weak gain given the sampling distortion in the poll. Not coincidentally, the last time Obama hit 50% in this poll was in February, which also had a D+11 sample, after January’s D+7. Adding seven points to the Democratic advantage impacted Obama’s performance in all areas, although perhaps not as much as the editors had hoped:
Economy — Up six points from 38% to 44%
International affairs — Down two points from January’s poll, 47% from 49%
Right/wrong direction – Up three points from January
Hmmmm. Let's see.
If Democrats comprised 7% more of the sample than they should have, and Republicans comprised 7% less, what do you suppose that did to the poll results?
Yep. That's exactly what it did.
And, yes, these are the same media which squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.
THE DEAD VOTER BLOC, AND THE REPUBLICAN NON-RESPONSE
Having written several blogs over the past 24 hours about how easy voter fraud is to accomplish, let me bring in another key element that remains virtually unreported by our so-called "media".
According to a Pew Center report, issued almost two months ago and reported by politico.com - hardly what you'd call a charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy - there are over 1.8 million dead people with active voter registrations around the country.
Based on other reports I have read/blogged about, and plain common sense, I have no doubt a disproportionate number of these active registrations are in large urban areas of major states.
Let's put these two factors together, shall we?
1) No valid ID necessary - just tell us who you say we are and we'll believe you.
2) Almost 2 million dead people with active registrations - voters who cannot possibly challenge anyone else voting under their name.
So tell me: what do you come up with?
In my opinion, anyone who knows these facts and does not conclude that that the opportunities for voter fraud - undetected and undetectable voter fraud - are unlimited, either wants voter fraud to take place, is non compos mentis, or both.
Now the big question: What are Republicans going to do about it? Why haven't they already done something about it?
Why are Republicans not demanding - as loudly and as publicly as possible - that the voter rolls be purged of dead voters immediately. BEFORE the 2012 election?
Why have Repuiblicans not been demanding - as loudly and as publicly as possible - that this be done for the 2 months since this information became available?
Do they want to be cheated out of elections? What is wrong with them?
I just had The Today Show on for its entire first hour. And not one word about James O'Keefe and his Project Veritas.
Not one word about how O'Keefe was able to send a young, bearded White man to Attorney General eric holder's voting place, have him claim to be eric holder - complete with holder's home address - and, without any problem whatsover, be ok'ed to vote as eric holder (he did not do so - that would be breaking the law, you see - but this was purely discretionary on his part).
If you want to see the actual video of this happening, along with a couple of other similarly easy and successful attempts at voter fraud, just click here. It's quite a show.
This is the same Today show which, in past months, did all those reports and features on the Voter ID controversy, with all those Democrats assuring us that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, and all those claims that expecting people to produce a valid ID before voting is racist - as if even one legal voter of any race would be affected.
Amazing, isn't it? All those reports were newsworthy. But now, with an actual video showing a man who looks about as much like eric holder as I do like Brad Pitt getting holder's voting rights without any question at all? Not worth showing.
This means that the people who rely on the Today show for their news literally do not know this happened In their world, it doesn't exist.
Vice Presidentially speaking, this is the silly season. It is when just about every politician anyone ever had a good (or bad) word to say about is written up as a potential Vice Presidential nominee.
I usually just laugh them off, which is why you have seen so little about VP picks in this blog. But now that - as chronicled by hotair.com's Tina Korbe - Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and most recently Nikki Haily, have floated Florida Rep. Allen West's name as a possible running mate for Mitt Romney, I feel I have to say something.
As regular readers know, I have enormous respect for Allen West. He is a self-made man, a career military man from a military family, who spent years "in the line of fire", deployed in Iraq, and rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel. After retiring from the Army, Mr. West was briefly a high school teacher, then was a civilian advisor in Afghanistan. Academically, he holds an undergraduate degree from the University of Tennessee, a master's degree in political sckience from Kansas State University, and a master of military arts and sciences degree from the Army's Command and General Staff Officer College.
Are you impressed? Very impressed? I certainly would hope so.
But a Vice President is one heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States. And as impressive as those credentials are, they do not qualify him to run the country.
Politically, Allen West is a first-term member of the house of representatives, who has spent about 1 1/4 years in office - and, due to redistricting, stands a very good chance of being voted out in November.
That's it. That is Allen West's entire political career. Does it qualify him to be next in line for the Presidency? Obviously not. Not even remotely close.
Rep. West barely has had time to learn how it all works, what the protocols are, or even where the men's rooms are, let alone accumulate the body of knowledge that would put him in contention for higher office.
Liking Rep. West, supporting most of his views, and respecting his non-political career is one thing. Putting him into a Vice Presidential candidacy because of it is quite another.
I'm sure you know that the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, is currently being decided by the United States Supreme Court.
You may also be aware that, since the Democrat congress and President Obama pushed ObamaCare through two years ago, a majority of states filed suit to stop the implementation of ObamaCare on constitutional grounds. And that federal judges have ruled it both constitutional and unconstitutional.
So why, if there is so much doubt that ObamaCare will be found constitutional, does the administration continue spending untold millions of taxpayer dollars implementing it?
The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.
The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.
Republican lawmakers have tried to cut off funding to implement the healthcare law, at least until after the Supreme Court decides whether to strike it down. That ruling is expected by June, and oral arguments last week indicated the justices might well overturn at least the individual mandate, if not the whole law.
“While President Obama and his Senate allies continue to spend more tax dollars implementing an unpopular and unworkable law that may very well be struck down as unconstitutional in a matter of months, I’ll continue to stand with the American people who want to repeal this law and replace it with something that will actually address the cost of healthcare,” said Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee for healthcare and is in a closely contested Senate race this year.
The Obama administration has plowed ahead despite the legal and political challenges.
Why would the Obama administration do this? Why would they extract another half billion dollars from our hopelessly deficit-ridden economy, on top of the millions and millions already spent, to implement a program which may not even exist when the Supreme Court hands down its ruling in June?
I can think of only two reasons:
-One of them is generic: since this administration is headed by Barack Obama, a man who has done nothing in his adult life but spend money other people produced without a care in the world about where it is coming from, maybe it is just not in his DNA to be concerned about wasting money this way.
-The other is a bit more insidious. I call it the "Fait Accompli Strategy".
Simply stated, President Obama, and the people around him, may feel that the further they get in implementing ObamaCare prior to the Supreme Court decision, the harder it will be for the Supreme Court to strike it down, on the grounds that all that money has already been spent, all those people have already been hired, all those medical decisions have already been made, etc. etc. etc.
With those possible reasons in mind, I have two questions for you:
-Which of them is the good one?
-And what will the Obama administration say if, after the money is spent, ObamaCare is ruled unconstitutional? "Whoops, sorry about that"?
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that there is no proof that in-person voter fraud is a problem. He's about to see proof that even he can't deny.
In a new video provided to Breitbart.com, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas demonstrates why Holder should stop attacking voter ID laws--by walking into Holder’s voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder’s primary ballot. Literally.
The video shows a young man entering a Washington, DC polling place at 3401 Nebraska Avenue, NW, on primary day of this year--April 3, 2012--and giving Holder’s name and address. The poll worker promptly offers the young man Holder’s ballot to vote.
The young man then suggests that he should show his ID; the poll worker, in compliance with DC law, states: “You don’t need it. It’s all right. As long as you’re in here, you’re on our list, and that’s who you say you are, you’re okay.”
That, folks, is so clear that even a member of the Brennan Institute for Social Justice would have trouble explaining it away (though I have no doubt it will act like the soros-funded left wing mouthpiece itis, and try).
Thank you James O'Keefe and the Project Veritas people, for again exposing what lying phonies politicians and left wing activists are when they claim voter fraud is virtually nonexistent.
Thank you, breitbart.com (and the other web sites interested in disseminating reality rather than partisan BS), for putting it out so everyone can see.
And shame beyond belief to the so-called mainstream media, any one of which could have done exactly the same thing at polling locations throughout the country and gotten exactly the same result, but chose not to on behalf of Attorney General eric holder and the other lying phonies in this woeful administration.
Let me say it again, as I have so many times before: Requiring a valid voter ID prevents only one group from voting: illegal voters.
It does not prevent old people from voting. It does not prevent students from voting. It does not prevent racial minorities from voting.
It prevents illegal voters from voting. The end. Period.
No wonder Obama & Co. are so against it.
UPDATE: We have a response from the eric holder-led Department of Justice. If anything, it is more disturbing than how easily the voter fraud was accomplished.
According to Ben Shapiro of breitbart.com, a DOJ official said, so help me:
“It’s no coincidence that these so-called examples of rampant voter fraud consistently turn out to be manufactured ones.”
I almost fell off my seat when I read that. OF COURSE the examples are manufactured ones, you incomparable dolt. The people who are actually committing voter fraud do not go public with how easy it was afterwards. They just vote vote fraudulently. And they can do so as easily as James O'Keefe's people can, for exactly the same reason: if no one checks, there is no way to find the fraud.
The Department of Justice under eric holder is more than just a disgrace. It is an owned and operated subsidiary of Obama, Inc.
And our so-called media, which have looked the other way time and again and again on behalf of holder and Obama, are not journalists. They are accomplices.
PRESIDENT OBAMA, TRAYVON MARTIN & THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS
I have written a number of blogs about Trayvon Martin and the race hustlers who, without benefit of knowing what actually happened, have used this incident to incite tensions to a fever pitch.
But I am remiss in having left one out.
President Obama said "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon". What could that possibly mean, other than that he commiserates more with Trayvon Martin because he was Black?
Mr. Obama's comment was racist. Flat-out. And his Accomplice Media, as usual, have given him a free pass by ignoring the racist nature of his comment.
Try to imagine what those same media would have said if, after a Black man killed a White teenager, President Bush said 'If I had a son he would have looked like the White boy". Think about it.
And one other thing....
Several days ago, President Obama commented on the fact that the Augusta National Golf Club, where the Masters Tournament is played, admits only male members. Mr. Obama expressed his support for admission of women members by saying "(it's) kind of long past the time when women should be excluded from anything"
That's nice, Mr. President. Now when do you say the same about White congresspeople and the Congressional Black Caucus?
The Congressional Black Caucus is an overtly racist group. It excludes members based specifically on the color of their skin. When do you say "(it's) kind of long past time when skin color should exclude anyone from anything"? Or is it wrong for White congresspeople to be racists, but ok for Black congresspeople?
The Augusta National Golf Club is a private entity. Therefore, as odious as President Obama (and me) find its exclusionary policies - which for many years also included rejecting Black members (I doubt there are more than a tiny handful even today) - it is at least legal.
But congress is not a private entity. It is a federal entity, with federal officeholders performing federal duties on federal property, for which they are paid from federal funds.
Simply stated, there is absolutely no right whatsoever for a racist group like the Congressional Black Caucus to exist.
Mr. President: since you seem so eager to put your two cents in about Trayvon Martin's race, and the exclusionary policies of the Augusta National Golf Club, when will you be speaking up about the Congressional Black Caucus?
A 78-year-old Ohio man says he was a victim of a hate crime when he was severely beaten by group of youths -- who allegedly said "this is for Trayvon," referring to the unarmed black Florida teen killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer.
The man, Dallas Watts of East Toledo, told police he was walking home Saturday afternoon when he was confronted by six youths, both white and black, ages 11 to 17, FoxToledo.com reports. One of the youths allegedly said "take him down."
Watts said he told the youths, "Why me? Remember Trayvon." He told FoxToledo.com that he meant it in a "peaceful way," since he had nothing to do with the Florida killing. But police suggest the youths may have misinterpreted Watts' words as threatening.
"[Get] that white [man]. This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]," the boys are quoted as saying in a police report cited by the Toledo Blade.
It appears that simple fact checking isn't part of the reporting process at the New York Daily News. Even worse, the story that they declined to fact check was about an explosive situation in Sanford, Florida where supposedly neo-nazis were patrolling the streets in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting.
The Daily News finally revised their story but only after being contacted by professor William Jacobson of the Legal Insurrection blog who did the fact checking for them with the Sanford police that they should have done in the first place. Did anyone bother to contact the Sanford Police? I did, and the Sanford Police deny any indication of Neo-Nazi groups patrolling in Sanford.
Here’s the e-mail exchange:
My initial e-mail (which included an embedded link to the Memeorandum thread):
“There are a number of reports in the media that Neo-Nazis are conducting armed patrols in Sanford. Can you confirm or deny whether this is true, and provide any information you have on the subject? If someone is able to get back to me as soon as possible (and before Monday) that would be appreciated, since such rumors are spreading.”
Response from Sanford Joint Information Center:
“At this time the City of Sanford has not confirmed the presence of Neo-Nazis groups.”
My follow up:
“You say “not confirmed.” Is there any indication of such patrols that the Department is aware of?”
Further Response from Sanford Joint Information Center:
“We have no indication of any such patrols at this point in Sanford. The only large gathering was the children and their parents at the Easter egg hunt.”
For The Daily Beast, Huffington Post, Mediaite, and The Daily News to spread such thinly-sourced claims without verification at a time when racial tensions already are high is irresponsible in the extreme.
And I hope that in the future we are spared pious MSM lectures about their "credibility" since this is but the latest example of a blog doing the fact checking they should have done but neglected to do with disastrous results.
Three incidents. One violent, the other two racially indendiary.
How many more acts of violence, inciteful graffiti, and wild, unconfirmed rumors, have taken place, all over the country? How many more will take place in the future?
This is exactly what happens when race hustlers, and an acquiescent media, take a blowtorch to an already smoldering situation.
It is the Trayvon Martin fallout.....just the beginning of it.
I hope the sharptons, farrakhans, Jacksons, Lee's, barr's, Finneys, Bashirs, etc. are proud of themselves. I hope their pals at NBC, ABC and so many other media venues are just as proud.
They certainly have a reason to be. This is their doing.
Mike Wallace, arguably the single most iconic newsman/interviewer in television history, died last night at a health care facility in New Haven, Connecticut, at the age of 93. Reports suggest that Mr. Wallace died of natural causes.
Myron Leon Wallace was born and raised in Brookline, Massachusetts. After graduating the University of Michigan in 1939, he became a radio reporter. His career included stints in radio, newspapers, as a stage performer. But the overwhelming portion of his career was on Television. where he started in 1949, spent years doing a variety of different entertainment and news shows, and eventually became famous as a hard-nosed interviewer and investigative journalist.
Mr. Wallace was one of the founding on-air personalities of 60 Minutes. He was a regular contributor to the show from its inception in 1968, through 2006. He then did occasional features on the show for two more years.
During that time Wallace won the staggering total of 21 Emmys, along with 5 Peabody awards.
He is survived by his wife Mary, a biological son, Fox News's Chris Wallace, and a stepson and stepdaughter.
You may have liked Mike Wallace and you may not have. But it is indisputable that he was one of the greatest, maybe the greatest, TV news personalities of all time. I doubt we'll see his like again.
Remember Donald Berwick, the Obama administration's pick to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services?
If so, you may also remember that Mr. Berwick was a recess appointment of President Obama's - largely because his overt love affair with Britain's National Health Service (NHS) would have made a confirmation vote very difficult.
The reason? it would have generated a dialogue regarding how awful the NHS has become as a health care supplier; especially how dismissive it has become regarding treatment for older citizens. Such a dialogue would obviously have raised the "death panels" issue Obama & Co. were trying to beat down, and would have suggested that this is how Medicare, Medicaid (and ObamaCare overall) would operate if Berwick acted on his beliefs and modelled them after NHS.
Eventually, when the recess appointment period was ending - and after Republicans had taken over the house of representatives and were much stronger in the senate - Mr. Berwick resigned rather than be skewered, then dumped, by the new congress. Smart move.
When Kenneth Warden was diagnosed with terminal bladder cancer, his hospital consultant sent him home to die, ruling that at 78 he was too old to treat.
Even the palliative surgery or chemotherapy that could have eased his distressing symptoms were declared off-limits because of his age.
His distraught daughter Michele Halligan accepted the sad prognosis but was determined her father would spend his last months in comfort. So she paid for him to seen privately by a second doctor to discover what could be done to ease his symptoms.
Thanks to her tenacity, Kenneth got the drugs and surgery he needed — and as a result his cancer was actually cured. Four years on, he is a sprightly 82-year-old who works out at the gym, drives a sports car and competes in a rowing team.
‘You could call his recovery amazing,’ says Michele, 51. ‘It is certainly a gift. But the fact is that he was written off because of his age. He was left to suffer so much, and so unnecessarily.
Sadly, Kenneth’s story is symptomatic of a dreadful truth. According to shocking new research by Macmillan Cancer Support, every year many thousands of older people are routinely denied life-saving NHS treatments because their doctors write them off as too old to treat.
It is often left to close family members to fight for their rights. But although it is now British law that patients must never be discriminated against on the basis of age, such battles often prove futile.
This, readers, is the wonderful, benevolent system that Donald Berwick wanted for the USA (and, trust me, the example you just read is barely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what is wrong with NHS).
This is what was just fine and dandy with President Obama - and still is, since he most assuredly would have kept Mr. Berwick in charge of Medicare and Medicaid if he thought there were any chance that he would be confirmed.
Do you remember Sarah Palin warning about "death panels"? Do you remember the intense media derision aimed at her because of that warning?
Well, when you do, please also remember that Barack Obama put Donald Berwick in charge of Medicare and Medicaid and that Mr, Berwick was a huge advocate of Britain's NHS.
Then decide who was more deserving of your derision.
' decision to air an edited call from George Zimmerman to police in the moments before he shot Trayvon Martin was "a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call," according the president of network's news division.
The edit in question, which aired on the network's flagship "Today" morning show last week, made it appear that Zimmerman told police that Martin was black without being prompted, when, in fact, the full tape reveals that the neighborhood watch captain only did so when responding to a question posed by a dispatcher.
Under growing public pressure to explain the incident, NBC News President Steve Capus provided Reuters with the fullest explanation to date of how the edited call made it on air and what the network is doing to prevent such a consequential error from happening again.
I have one question: If this were just an accidental decision, and NBC did not mean to air a doctored tape which would "prove" George Zimmerman was a racist and inflame racial tensions....then how did the tape come to exist?
You cannot "accidentally" air a nonexistent tape, can you? So the NBC "newsroom" (talk about a loose description!) doctored the tape. That is the only reason it was available to be aired. Why do you suppose NBC did that?
It is hard - very hard - not to conclude that the NBC News people are a bunch of liars, lying to our faces about this, and then lying some more to try to cover up their earlier lies.
And don't think for a minute that NBC is the only network that has produced bogus "news" which seemed to prove George Zimmerman was a liar and/or a racist, then magically found, well after the fact, that the "news" did not exist. Here are two other examples (believe me there are more to choose from):
-We have ABC News, whose grainy police tape "proved" Zimmerman was not injured after his confrontation with Trayvon Martin....but then, days later, discovered that if the video was enhanced, lacerations on the back of Zimmerman's head were clearly visible.
-And we have CNN assuring us that, while talking to the dispatcher, Zimmerman muttered "f#cking coon" under his breath...which, two weeks later, when the sound was cleared up and the voice heard more distinctly, turned out to be "f#cking cold" (it was unseasonably cold that night).
If I were whatever is left of Sir Walter Scott (probably not much, since he died in 1832), I would be grinning from ear to ear at the tangled web woven by NBC and these other so-called news venues, which have disgraced themselves by rushing to air a combination of outright lies, and prejudgments which turned out to be 100% wrong.
But I am not whatever is left of Sir Walter Scott. I am a citizen of the United States who, along with the other citizens, have been fed a demonstrably false bill of goods by our so-called media - media which have acted in concert with the race hustlers like sharpton, farrakhan, Jackson, various members of the congressional Black caucus, spike lee, roseanne barr, etc. etc. etc. to turn the country into a racial tinderbox.
Yesterday we had my family's Passover seder (with other guests, of course) at my sister's house. She did her usual great job, and we loved every minute of it.
Today my wife and I are hosting her family for the second Passover seder. Lots of family and other guests on the way. And I can assure you my wife (with a bit of help from yours truly) has done a spectactular job as well.
No blogging for most of the rest of the day, obviously.
MALIA'S MEXICAN VACATION, AND OUR ACCOMPLICE MEDIA
How many 13 year old girls get to do this?
From Agence France Presse, via the Edmonton (Canada) Journal:
OAXACA, Mexico- The elder daughter of U.S. President Barack Obama is spending her spring break in the historic Mexican city of Oaxaca in the company of 12 friends, a state police official said.
The young tourists, including 13-year-old Malia Ann Obama, are staying at a downtown hotel in this city famous for its colonial architecture and well-preserved native American traditions, the official said.
"We are here to block access to the hotel by other people and escort the vehicles that are carrying the visitors to tourism sites," the police official told AFP under the condition of anonymity.
Malia Obama and her friend are guarded by 25 U.S. Secret Service agents as well as Mexican police, the official noted.
The group, which arrived in Oaxaca Saturday, has already visited the architectural zone of Mitla and the tree of El Tule believed to have one thousand years.
The sightseeing plan also includes visits to Monte Alban known for its archeological research sites and Oaxaca’s famous artisan quarters.
A few questions:
-How much money has this cost? Please include the 12 friends little Malia just had to take along, with the Air Force plane and crew, the fuel, and the 25 secret service agents, their hotels, meals, etc.
-Who is paying for Malia's Mexican vacation? (You already know the answer, but I'm asking pro forma)
-Why did I have to go to a French press agency, and a Canadian newspaper to find out about it? Why isn't it all over the US newspapers?
-Do you think our media would have reported this taxpayer-funded jaunt if it were the Bush presidency, and the girl in question was one of his daughters?
I use the term Accomplice Media a lot when I write about President Obama and his administration. This is why.
I would like to wish my Jewish friends and relatives a joyous Passover. May your intestinal tracts survive 8 days of matzohs, gefilte fish with horseradish (do you prefer the red or the white?) and wine that tastes like it was filtered through a bag of Domino sugar.
And I would like to wish my Christian friends and relatives (yes, I have a few Christian relatives as well) a solemn, holy Easter Sunday, then a wonderful day, maybe still wearing your Easter finery, with the people who mean everything to you.
About 120,000 new jobs were created - far fewer than the so-called experts predicted (expectations were for something like 175,000 - 200,000). Thus the "recovery" continues at its laughably anemic pace.
Unemployment "dropped" to 8.2% - thus it remains above where newly-elected President Obama found it upon taking office (and is even worse than it seems, as will be shown further on).
As you may remember, when Mr. Obama signed the "so-called "stimulus package" into law, unemployment was at 8.1%. We were told that its enactment would stanch unemployment in its tracks, and prevent it from rising to the 8.5% - 9.0% level which would be our fate without the "stimulus". We were led to believe that it would, instead, lower to about 6%.
What actually happened, of course, is that with the "stimulus, unemployment rose over 10%. And, in three years, during which it was mostly in the 9's, it has finally trickled down to about where it was in the first place, when the Obama administration fed us that economic cock and bull story.....while putting us about 5.5 TRILLION dollars more in debt. Great job, Mr. President.
Maybe most significantly, the percentage of people in the work force has dropped to 63.8% - its lowest level in 30 years. This drop is primarily due to people simply giving up looking for work.
In other words, the only reason unemployment is anywhere near even the 8.2% level is because it "benefits" by so many people having dropped out of the job market. If you measure unemployment with the same number of people in the workforce as there were when the Obama administration took over, unemployment is closer to 11%.
Those are the job market data. Now please reflect on how our wonderful "neutral" media have reported them. See if you're impressed.
That's it? That is supposed to convince us that NBC News was a credible, neutral news source before this "error" occurred (remember, all the network admitted to was an "error") and, now that Producer X is gone, it is a credible, neutral news source again?
Do they think that one anonymous firing also makes up for the relentlessly-shown years-old picture of Trayvon Martin as a sweet little munchkin-like tween instead of the adult-faced, 6 foot-plus young man with the football player's physique, that George Zimmerman actually saw? Do they think it is neutral and credible to continue to suppress the twitter pictures Martin himself put up to show himself to the world?
Do these geniuses think one anonymous firing also takes care of the network's ongoingly partisan "news coverage" too?
Do they think it resolves the fact that NBC has never run one story on the single biggest scandal of the Obama administration, Operation Fast and Furious?
Do they think firing Producer X will make people forget about its almost exclusively hard-left sister network, MSNBC, with its vile lineup of one vicious attack dog after another?
This is the latest in my series on racism - real racism; not the invented, concocted kind that the sharptons, farrakhans Jacksons et al of the world spew at us.
In an interview with South Carolina's Republican Governor Nikki Haley, who comes from a Sikh family but converted to Christianity, Time Magazine "reporter" Belinda Luscombe actually asked the following question:
"In New York City, which you're visiting for a couple of days, a lot of our taxi drivers are Sikhs. If you get one, are you going to give them a slightly bigger tip?"
I'm just wondering:
-If Ms. Luscombe should happen to interview Allen West, will she ask if, since a lot of shoeshine guys are Black, he slightly overtips them?
-Or if she should ever interview former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, will she ask if, since a lot of Latinos do gardening, he pays slightly more to have his flower beds weeded.
Do these people even begin to understand what racism actually is? Or do they only recognize it when the offended party is a Democrat?
A VERY IMPORTANT STATEMENT ABOUT THE MISSING LOTTERY TICKET
I would like to make a very important statement about the winning lottery ticket (over $100 million after taxes) that Mirlande Wilson claims she bought, then hid in the Baltimore McDonald's where she works, and now cannot find:
I feel I must confess. Mirlande Wilson is covering for me.
I drove down to Maryland the day the ticket was purchased, and bought it with her. I was the one who hid the ticket at the McDonald's. And, for the life of me I can't remember where it wound up. I guess the long drive just wore me out and I lost track of things.
Therefore, since the missing ticket is my fault, if the lottery commission sees fit to pay her the $$$, I will only take 25% instead of half.
Santorum won the 11 percent of primary voters who described themselves as Democrats by a sizable 44 percent to 24 percent margin over Romney.
Wisconsin was the third Midwestern battleground in which the margin of Romney’s victory over his chief rival appears to have been driven down by Democrats intent upon extending the Republican race and thus weakening the front-runner -- who is increasingly being seen as the presumptive GOP nominee -- in the general election.
Santorum’s assistance from ideologically opposed voters apparently goes back to late February when he beat Romney by 35 percentage points among Democrats in the Michigan primary. And in March, the former Pennsylvania senator racked up a 20-point Democratic advantage over Romney in Ohio.
As you can see, therefore, Santorum not only lost, those primaries, but, in reality, lost them by far more than the final numbers showed - unless, of course, you believe that Democrats were not intentionally voting for him to make it close, but truly preferred the appreciably more conservative candidate.
One other point: Last week, a Rasmussen poll showed Rick Santorum leading Mitt Romney by only 6% in Santorum's home state of Pennsylvania. The latest poll, by (admittedly Democrat-oriented) Public Policy Polling, shows Romney opening a 5% lead over Santorum.
Does Rick Santorum really want to take the chance that he will lose his own state to Mitt Romney? Does he really want to go from overstaying his viability in the nomination process to committing political suicide?
Note to Mr. Santorum: It's over. Like him or don't, Romney is the nominee. Either get behind him, or keep on forcing Romney to use time and money campaigning against you instead of Barack Obama - thus effectively making yourself part of the Obama 2012 campaign.
The Obama administration is stonewalling two lawmakers’ requests to interview a former member of the National Security staff in connection with the failed Operation Fast and Furious gun-walking program, according to a March 28 letter obtained by The Daily Caller.
California Rep. Darrell Issa and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, both Republicans, requested a response by April 4 to their letter, which asks for an interview with Kevin O’Reilly, that former staffer. But the White House, according to the letter, is blocking access to him.
Through staff, both Grassley and Issa confirmed to TheDC on Thursday that April 4 came and went without any response from the Obama administration.
In their letter to White House Counsel Karen Ruemmler, Grassley and Issa cited a cryptic email exchange between O’Reilly and William Newell, the special agent in charge of the Phoenix office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives at the time Fast and Furious was implemented. The emails, their letter suggests, indicate that Newell was going around his chain of command to personally brief the White House about developments in the gun-walking program.
“You didn’t get this from me,” Newell wrote to O’Reilly in a Sept. 3, 2010 email about Fast and Furious, according to the letter from Issa and Grassley.
Please use the link I've provided to read Volpe's entire article -- with special attention to the bold-print link directly above, which gives you a far more complete overview of just how extensive this scandal is and how aggressively the Obama administration is fighting to prevent the facts about it from coming to light.
And where are our wonderful "neutral" media on this? Where are the front page stories? The features? The editorials? Where is the outrage over almost 2,000 assault weapons sold by this administration to Mexican drug cartels? Or the US agents (Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata) apparently killed with those weapons? Or the hundreds of Mexicans killed with those weapons? Or the stonewalling by Obama & Co.?
The answer is nowhere. Because we do not have a "neutral" media. We have an Accomplice Media which, with very few exceptions, is fully content to collude with the Obama administration in burying this story, in an effort to maximize Barack Obama's chances for re-election and the Democrats' chances to hold the senate and possibly retake the house.
Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe it.
How do these people call themselves journalists? How do they even face themselves in the mirror?
DAVID BROOKS: THE NY TIMES' "COMPARATIVE CONSERVATIVE"
Quite a few years ago, when the New York Post was as far to the left as it now is to the right, then-publisher Dorothy Schiff decided to add William F. Buckley's column to its otherwise solidly left-wing contributors. This, I suppose, was to create the illusion that The Post was fair and balanced; that it presented more than one side of things.
It didn't work, of course. Buckley's stick-out-like-a-sore-thumb conservatism just made the Post's leftward nature that more conspicuous. But, at the very least, no one could dispute the fact that the paper was publishing a conservative.
Now let's fast-forward to the present: The New York Times has for quite a few years, been a solidly leftward newspaper. But, to create the illusion that it it is fair and balanced; that it presents more than one side of things, the Times has a "conservative" columnist named David Brooks.
This, folks, is where the comparison to the Post ends.
William F. Buckley was a real conservative. David Brooks is a "Comparative Conservative". By that, I mean he is center-left -- but compared to the Times' lineup of Krugman, Kristof, Dowd, Friedman, etc. he is a "conservative".
Want a textbook example of what I'm talking about? Ok. In today's column, Brooks criticizes President Obama for his attack on Paul Ryan's budget ideas. But look at the first few paragraphs and see what he feels compelled to say before doing so:
President Obama is an intelligent, judicious man who can see all sides of an issue. But every once in a while he tries to get politically cute, and he puts on his Keith Olbermann mask.
I suppose it’s to his credit that he’s most inept when he tries to take the low road. He resorts to hoary, brain-dead clichés. He wanders so far from his true nature that he makes Mitt Romney look like Mr. Authenticity.
That’s pretty much what happened this week in Obama’s speech before a group of newspaper editors. Obama’s target in this speech was Representative Paul Ryan’s budget.
It should be said at the outset that the Ryan budget has some disturbing weaknesses, which Democrats are right to identify. The Ryan budget would cut too deeply into discretionary spending. This could lead to self-destructive cuts in scientific research, health care for poor kids and programs that boost social mobility. Moreover, the Ryan tax ideas are too regressive. They make tax cuts for the rich explicit while they hide any painful loophole closings that might hurt Republican donors.
But these legitimate criticisms and Obama’s modest but real deficit-reducing accomplishments got buried under an avalanche of distortion. The Republicans have been embarrassing themselves all primary season. It’s as if Obama wanted to sink to their level in a single hour.
-President Obama is intelligent, judicious and sees all sides of an issue.
-If he wanders from his true (wholly positive) nature he can get so bad he even makes Mitt Romney look authentic.
-The Ryan budget has disturbing weaknesses, which might deny kids health care, are too regressive, and favor the rich.
-By contrast, Obama's deficit-reducing accomplishments are modest, but real.
-The Republicans have been nothing but embarrassing all primary season. And Obama's comments sunk to the Republicans low level.
-Ok, now that I've bashed Romney, Ryan and Republicans in general, I'll tell you what was wrong with what President Obama said.
This, in the rarefied purview of today's New York Times, is conservative thought.
You don't know whether to lament what the Times has become, reminisce over how much better of a newspaper it once was, or just laugh the whole thing off.
At this point I've settled in on laughing. And I'll bet that, if there is an afterlife, Dorothy Schiff is laughing right along with me.
The Department of Energy announced Thursday a $100,000 prize for software developers to come up with mobile applications to tell consumers how much energy they are using.
But there’s already an app for that.
A quick scan of the iTunes and Android markets shows nearly two dozen existing applications that accomplish the same purpose — helping users keep track of their energy consumption at home.
The most amazing thing is not that Mr. Chu is offering this kind of money for the re-invention of the wheel. The most amazing thing is that we, the taxpayers, actually pay this guy to be our Energy Secretary.
On the other hand, what is there to complain about? Steven Chu is an academic, a Democrat and a left winger. In the era of Obama, what else would you expect?
roseanne barr, the "comedian' who, among other sick filth, thought it would be funny a couple of years ago to dress up as hitler and bake "burnt Jew cookies", has now joined spike lee in tweeting to her followers (over 100,000 of them) the home address of George Zimmerman's parents.
Zimmerman, is hiding in fear of his life, because the roseanne barr's and spike lees, and al sharptons and louis farrakhans, etc,. etc. etc. of the world have spent the last month inciting people, primarily Black people, against him by calling him a racist. There remains no actual evidence that Mr. Zimmerman is a racist - in fact a good deal of evidence has been uncovered that makes him out to be the exact opposite - but that does not matter to these race hustling scumbags.
The comedian Roseanne Barr last night tweeted the home address of George Zimmerman’s parents to her 110,000-plus Twitter followers, only to delete the posting after “not fully understanding that it was private not public.”
Barr’s posting of the correct Florida address of Robert and Gladys Zimmerman came at the same time Spike Lee was issuing an apology for erroneously disseminating a tweet that purportedly contained the home address of George Zimmerman, who last month killed teenager Trayvon Martin.
The residence cited by Lee is actually the home of an elderly couple with no connection to Zimmerman.
Barr, who deleted her tweet in the face of criticism from some Twitter followers, noted that she first thought it “was good to let ppl know that no one can hide anymore.” That stance quickly changed, with Barr reporting, “But vigilante-ism is what killed Trayvon. I don’t support that.”
No, barr didn't support anyone taking the law into his/her own hands. That is why she intentionally put this man's parents in mortal danger.
Other than whatever hopelessly committed roseanne barr fans remain, I doubt that anyone believes this BS. And no one should.
On the up side, however, consider how proud barr should be if someone attacks these two people, neither of whom had anything to do with the Trayvon Martin incident, or firebombs their house, or uses it for target practice with a gun or rifle. That will be her doing. She'll finally be relevant again.
Let me end by pointing out that, after the hitler/burnt Jew cookies sick-fest - not to mention her hate-filled rants against Israel, Sarah Palin, etc. - Lifetime Networks President nancy dubuc proudly gave barr her own show, called "Roseanne's Nuts", in which she ran a nut farm in Hawaii.
The show bombed, and was quickly cancelled. But that is not the point: the point is that you can not be a sick enough leftist to disqualify yourself in the entertainment industry.
Be assured the offers will keep coming in. While George Zimmerman, now along with his parents, will keep hiding.
Michelle Malkin - the invaluable Michelle Malkin - has a new column at her web site, in which she provides chapter and verse of Democrat voter fraud scams in various states around the United States. Anyone who reads this, and can still believe the absolute BS that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in this country, is beyond all hope.
Here are a few key excerpts:
A few weeks ago, Obama senior adviser and seasoned Chicago operative David Axelrod joked on MSNBC about election corruption. Asked whether “vote early and often” scams had come to an end in his shady hometown, Axelrod snarked: “Well, certainly on the air.” Yuk, yuk, yuk.
Behind the scenes, Democrats have been busy faking petition signatures, forging ballots and enlisting medical professionals to authorize fraudulent doctors’ notes for liberal teachers-union operatives protesting Republican opponents. It’s no laughing matter.
This week, four Democratic officials in Indiana were hit with felony charges related to petition fraud in the state’s 2008 primary.
A veteran countyDemocratic Party chair, Butch Morgan, resigned in October over the scandal; three employees in the St. JosephCounty voter registration office reportedly helped Morgan execute the scheme.
Without the phony signatures, there’s a significant chance that Obama would not have qualified for the primary ballot — throwing the validity of the entire election into question.
Dr. Deb Fleming, the county’s Republican chairwoman, told the South Bend Tribune that the Democratic machine has dominated her backyard for decades. “They have ‘a culture of corruption’ here and throughout Indiana.
On Tuesday, a New York judge set new trial dates for Democratic officials and political operatives accused of another ballot fraud conspiracy. The two men also face separate voter fraud charges involving a plot by Democrats to win the radical Working Families Party primary back in 2009. The WFP is a front group for President Obama’s dear old friends at fraud-plagued ACORN.
Fox News Channel investigative reporter Eric Shawn noted that a whistle-blower in the case, WFP employee Sarah Couch, told investigators that her bosses “asked her to issue a Working Families Party press release that would ‘point blame at the Republican Party,’ and she refused to do so.”
Primary petitions. Absentee ballots. Doctors’ orders. Fraudulent signatures are becoming the signature of desperate Democrats who play the electoral game by one set of rules: By Any Means Necessary.
Yet, progressives in the media and White House continue to strike a see-no-election-fraud, hear-no-election-fraud, speak-no-election-fraud pose. And Team Obama’s Axelrod supplies the laugh track. Yuck, yuck, yuck.
First, a question: The Brennan Center for social Justice, a george soros-funded organization which media second-naturedly claims is "nonpartisan", tells us voter fraud is almost nonexistent in the USA. What about that?
Now, the answer: They are so full of crap their eyes are brown. You know it. And, believe me, they know it too. (NOTE: every time you see the media use the term "nonpartisan" to describe an organization that has the words "social justice" in it, do yourself a favor and assume the real meaning is "Left wing, but so are we so we'll cover for them").
See, the game is this: If there is no checking to see whether the people voting are who they say they are, there can be no way to find voter fraud. That means, regardless of how many people vote illegally, the number of fraudulent votes discovered will total zero - again, because the means of checking them has been eliminated. This enables the "nonpartisan" Brennan Institute for Social Justice to claim "See, we told you so. They didn't find any", as if that were meaningful in any way.
Then we have the usual-suspect race hustlers, assuring us that expecting voters to provide a valid ID somehow is racist and exclusionary.
Well, it's certainly exclusionary in the sense that it might cause some illegal voters to stay away from the voting booths. What's wrong with that? But the truth, of course, is that this would not prevent any person of any color who is legally able to vote from doing so. Associating a voter ID - which is available, free, to all legal voters - with racism, is a fraud and a scam.
You might, at this point, be wondering: "What is my job in all this? Where do I fit in"?
Well, if you want to play ball with Democrats committing the voter fraud detailed in Ms. Malkin's column (try and find a Republican doing anything similar) your job, if you choose to take it, is to act like a moron. An idiot. A mindless circus clown without the capacity to see through this clear-as-glass charade.
That is what they want, and that is what you have to do to please them.
Do you want to help these cheaters out, by acting the way they want you to act - i.e. like a moron, an idiot and a circus clown? I certainly hope not.
As regular readers know, I refer to Jews who support Israel, but still figure out ways of supporting Barack Obama anyway, as "The Lost Tribe".
This blog is an update for them: one which is unlikely to change a lost triber's seemingly endless capacity for rationalizing that Barack Obama supports Israel (which, not incidentally, is among our most loyal allies, and the only Democratic state in the Middle East). But I am posting it because they should know just how ridiculous their rationalizing is.
In his March 28th article, “Israel’s Secret Staging Ground,” in Foreign Policy, Mark Perry revealed previously secret information about Israel’s dealings with Azerbaijan; and many are now of the opinion that his article was in reality Obama’s knife in Israel’s back. According to Perry, four unnamed senior diplomats and military intelligence officers leaked information indicating that Israel has purchased air force bases in Azerbaijan for use in preparation for an attack on Iran.
The likelihood that it is mere coincidence that four senior diplomatic and military intelligence sources separately leaked the same information at the same time is very small. So John Bolton holds Obama responsible. Bolton suggests that because Obama’s private efforts to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran have failed, he decided to ratchet up the pressure on Israel by revealing sensitive, secret information that, once available to Iran, will make an Israeli offensive less likely to succeed, and thus be a deterrent to such an offensive. This is surely not the sort of thing that a head of state does to an ally; but it might be the sort of thing that an unconscionably Machiavellian President running for re-election might do if he perceives that an Israeli strike on Iran might be a political liability for him.
In the context of a broader perspective this incident takes on rather dire dimensions, as it is the latest in a long line of anti-Israel statements and actions originating with Obama or with those working close to him.
During his presidential campaign (2007-08) he revealed to the press the names of those to whom he would look for guidance on Middle East issues, his “brain trust” as it were: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Anthony Lake, Susan Rice, Bettylu Saltzman, Robert Malley, and Samantha Power, among others – a dream team for the anti-Israel crowd at home and abroad. Given his choice of advisors, it was not difficult to predict that he would be no friend of Israel
Please note that, despite these excerpts being much longer than what I usually post, there is a great deal more to Mr. Meir-Levi's piece. I urge you to use the link I have provided and read every word of it.
What does this tell you about President Obama's "unwavering support" of Israel? What it tells you is that he is lying, the way he lies about so many other things. And, pathetically, many - probably most - Jews who support Israel are willing to suspend disbelief, play lets-pretend, and figure out ways of voting for him anyway.
What is wrong with them?
At this point you may - reasonably - be asking yourself "why does Berwitz think that US Jews should base their vote only on Israel? They are US citizens, not Israelis, and Israel should not be the basis on which they vote".
Let me assure you that I agree completely. Israel certainly is not the single most important factor in my own vote, nor should it be for any other US Jew.
And, there is massive evidence that it is not. Most recently, we have a new poll, conducted by something called the Public Religion Research Institute, which indicates that just 4% of US Jews would base their vote on Israel. I can't speak for this organization or its poll, but that percentage, if true, would not surprise me a bit. I would be one of the 96% myself.
But let's also remember that poll results are the product of how questions are asked. The results of this poll are derived from respondents being asked: "Of the following issues, which one would you say is MOST important to your vote for President this year".
Let me say that this is a very fair question -- as far as it goes. But does it go far enough so that we can understand the importance of Israel to US Jews?
Illustratively, here is a question not asked in the poll: "If you felt there was convincing evidence that President Obama and his administration were acting against Israel's interests, how would it affect your vote? Would it make you much more likely, somewhat more likely, about as likely, somewhat less likely or much less likely to vote for President Obama?
Do you have any doubt that, if this question had been asked, the percentage of somewhat less/much less responses would be higher than 4%? A lot higher?
Simply stated, if US Jews can be shown that President Obama and his people are really sticking a knife in Israel's back, as David Meir-Levi claims, a lot more than the 4% who put Israel at the top of the list might rethink their vote.
The trick is getting "lost tribers" to open their minds enough so that they can see what is actually happening, not what exists in their "Democrat first, everything else last" fantasy world.
It won't be easy. But maybe the information I have posted above is a start.
EFFING "COLD": ANOTHER PART OF THE ZIMMERMAN RACE STORY FALLS APART
Remember last week when there were supposedly enhanced versions of George Zimmerman's dialogue with the 911 dispatcher in which he appeared to have said "f#cking coon" under his breath?
Well, CNN used additional enhancement (i.e. blocking out extraneous noise, raising the level of the actual voice) and, on Wolf Blitzer's show last evening, determined that it is far more likely that what he actually said was "f#cking cold". (It should be noted that it was a cold, rainy day.)
We already know that a part of the tape NBC played, which seemed to suggest Zimmerman was tying his suspicions about Trayvon Martin to his being Black, was a complete fraud. NBC edited the tape to make it sound that way, and has since "apologized" (not much of an apology if you ask me, but a definite acknowledgement that the tape was doctored).
Now: Can anyone tell me what part of this incident suggests in any way, shape, manner or form, that the shooting of Trayvon Martin had any racial component to it?
Has any news agency come up with any history of George Zimmerman being a racist? Not only is the answer no (and you have to know they've been looking), but, in actuality, as I blogged just yesterday, there is specific evidence that, just a year ago, he championed the case of a homeless Black man who was beaten by the White son of a Sanford, Florida police officer - in other words, the exact opposite of what a racist would do.
The bottom line? The claim that this was a racial incident has no basis in fact. It is a fraud. A concoction. It does not exist.
Therefore, every race hustler, inciting every crowd by calling this a racial incident, is lying to them. And we all know which race hustlers I'm talking about - I've certainly cited them by name enough times already.
Is it possible that at some point in the future someone, somwhere, might come up with some kind of evidence that Zimmerman is a racist? Sure it is; anything is possible. But my point is that there is no such evidence now. Therefore the entire "this is a racial incident" routine is based on absolutely nothing.
One other point to be made here. Yesterday, the congressional Black caucus has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives, stating that "unfounded assumptions and racial bias....led to the use of deadly force" in this incident.
Unbelievable. Not only is there no evidence to support this resolution, but the group proposing it is, itself, overtly racist.
The congresional Black caucus includes only Black members of congress, and excludes all other members based specifically on the color of their skin. For the cbc to accuse anyone else of racism is breathtakingly dishonest.
But grow old waiting for our wonderful "neutral' mainstream media to say as much.
I'm sure you have heard of keith olbermann. But I doubt that you have ever heard of Matt Saxon. And that's too bad, given how much they have in common.
In the 1948 movie "That Saxon Charm", Matt Saxon, played by Robert Montgomery, was an arrogant, ruthless jerk with an ego as big as the sky, who insulted and demeaned everyone around him because he saw himself as superior to them.
Starting to see why I'm pairing him with keith olbermann? I kind of thought so.
In the cable TV world, keith olbermann is an arrogant, ruthless jerk, with an ego as big as the sky, who insults and demeans everyone around him because he sees himself as superior to them.
As you are probably aware, olbermann was just dumped, unceremoniously, by Current TV. This might have had something to do with the fact that, less than a year after handing him a five year $50,000,000 contract to "make" the network, the ownership apparently determined that olbermann was a supersedingly impossible pain in the rectum, with ratings far below what they had hoped for, who seemed more intent on sabotaging Current TV than helping it to succeed.
Were they right? Well, let's just say that, after the olbermann era, as before, Current TV has an audience roughly as large as the BBC would get if it broadcast the East Wickham tiddlywinks quarter-finals.
The reason I bring this up is because olbermann was on David Letterman's show last night. And here is a bit of what he had to say about his abrupt termination from Current:
“It’s my fault it didn’t succeed in the sense that I didn’t think the whole thing through. I didn’t say, 'you know, if you buy a $10 million chandelier, you should have a house to put it in'. Just walking around with a $10 million chandelier isn’t going to do anybody a lot of good, and it’s not going to do any good to the chandelier....
.....and I had 25 people who, most of them came with me from other jobs, one guy was with me four different places, and they put their careers at risk for me, and I didn’t even get a chance to say goodbye to them let alone thank them."
Get it? The problem was not olbermann. It never has been (hmmm, "has been" may be an operative term here). Not when he went bye-bye from Fox. Or from ESPN. Or from MSNBC. Or now, from Current TV.
The problem is that he is a magnificent $10,000,000 chandelier, and everyone/everything around him is garbage -- except the people he claims to have brought with him from "other jobs", who, because he got himself fired again, presumably are now left high and dry.
See why I thought of Matt Saxon?
There you have it. "That olbermann charm". He sure can turn it on, can't he?
I don't agree with James Carville that often. And I don't entirely agree with him now, since he claims this was true since the South Carolina Primary. But on the heels of Rick Santorum's defiant speech after being drubbed again last night, the analogy is exactly right:
“It was like a chicken with his head chopped off. The chicken is dead. The only person that don’t know it is the chicken.”
NBC'S "APOLOGY" FOR ITS INTENTIONAL RACIAL INCITEMENT
Actual transcript of the dialogue between George Zimmerman and the 911 dispatcher:
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.
NBC's version, played on the Today Show, MSNBC, and - I assume - NBC's Nightly News, with no indication at all that the dispatcher's question was edited out:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks Black.
Days later, after being absolutely skewered for the editing job, NBC's "apology":
"During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers”
An error in the production process? An error in the production process????
No, this was no error. This was the intentional editing of a transcript to make George Zimmerman's answer to a direct question look, instead, as if he was accusing Trayvon Martin of being up to no good specifically because he was Black - which the actual, unedited transcript clearly shows he did not do.
The only reason to edit the transcript that way, was to further inflame the already-raw nerve of racial tension over this shooting, by creating a fraudulent exchange between George Zimmerman and the 911 dispatcher, which did not take place.
Does NBC have any credibility anymore? No it does not. It lost what little it had left by creating this vile racial incitement out of thin air.
And don't think for a moment that this is anything new for NBC. Never forget that NBC is also the network of MSNBC. Which means it is the network of al sharpton. And Ed Schultz. And Lawrence O'Donnell. And Martin Bashir. And Rachel Maddow, among others. To show how impossibly one-sided MSNBC is, Chris Matthews - a lifelong liberal Democrat operative and world-class Obama lover - is about the closest thing to a centrist the network has.
Does Brian Williams consider himself a news reporter? Does he consider himself a journalist? Then how can he work for this network? Just take the money and run, Brian. But stow the "journalist" label.
You can be a journalist. And you can be an NBC "news" anchor. But you can't be both.
Now that we have endured almost a month of dishonest, slanderous attacks on George Zimmerman as a racist, by the usual cadre of race hustlers who are ever on the lookout for a corpse to exploit - the latest being Trayvon Martin's - I thought you might be interested in some facts about this "racist". Real ones, not the verbal vomit from people like sharpton, farrakhan, Jackson, spike lee, assorted members of the (overtly racist) congressional Black caucus, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Matthew Boyle of dailycaller.com has provided us with a blog today, detailing what George Zimmerman did on behalf of Sherman Ware, a homeless Black man who was assaulted for no reason by one Justin Collison, the son of a Sanford, Florida police officer.
Here is a short excerpt from Mr. Boyle's piece, that should give you an idea of what the "racist" George Zimmerman did on Mr. Ware's behalf - well over a year before he ever came in contact with Trayvon Martin:
In late 2010 and early 2011 George Zimmerman, the Hispanic Sanford, Fla., man who shot and killed 17-year-old black teen Trayvon Martin, publicly demanded discipline in a race-related beating case for at least two of the police officers who cleared him after the Feb. 26 altercation, according to records obtained by The Daily Caller.
In a letter to Seminole County NAACP president Turner Clayton, a member of the Zimmerman family wrote that George was one of “very few” in Sanford who publicly condemned the “beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on Dec. 4, 2010, by the son of a Sanford police officer,” who is white.
On Dec. 4, 2010, Justin Collison, the son of Sanford Police Department Lt. Chris Collison, was involved in a bar fight at The Wet Spot bar in Sanford. During the fight, which moved from indoors to outdoors, the younger Collison struck Ware.
Ware suffered a concussion, and paramedics took him to the hospital shortly after police arrived on the scene. Collison was not arrested or charged, even though an onlooker had video evidence of his actions.
No arrest was made and no action taken for weeks. Documents and emails now show police officers and officials from the office of the State Attorney operated with extreme caution because Collison’s father was a high-ranking law enforcement officer.
...according to members of the Zimmerman family, George printed and distributed copies of fliers on bright fluorescent-colored paper demanding that the community “hold accountable” officers responsible for any misconduct. TheDC has obtained a copy of one of those fliers.
Every Sunday, according to his family, Zimmerman would stroll through Sanford’s black neighborhoods handing out the fliers demanding justice for Sherman Ware, and calling for the police to hold their own officials accountable. Zimmerman would also place the fliers on people’s cars outside churches.
“I challenge you to stand together and to have our voices heard, and to hold accountable all of those officers, and officials whom let this atrocious attack pass unpunished until the media revealed it,” one of the fliers reads in part. “This animal could have attacked anyone of us, our children or loved ones in his alcohol fueled rage.”
Boyle also provides a copy of the flyer Mr. Zimmerman was handing out - a flyer that would never have been handed out in a million years if Zimmerman were a racist.
If Zimmerman were what these despicable race hustlers said he was, he'd have loved what Justin Collison did to Sherman Ware and loved that Collison was getting away with it.
But he didn't, did he?
This is the Duke lacrosse case all over again. Scream racism first, find out the facts later.
And, as always, the ongoing epidemic of Black on Black and Black on White violence is ignored. If there isn't a racial oppression story to be milked - whether a real one or a phony one, which is what the Trayvon Martin case increasingly looks like - those lives don't mean a damn thing to the sharptons, farrakhans, Jacksons and Lee's of the world, or their aiders-and-abettors in the Accomplice Media.
Mitt Romney won the D.C. primary, more or less uncontested.
Mit Romney won the Maryland primary with 49% of the vote versus Rick Santorum's 29%.
Mitt Romney won the Wisconsin primary with 43% of the vote versus Rick Santorum's 38%.
In total, Mitt Romney now has 652 delegates, versus 269 for Rick Santorum, 140 for Newt Gingrich and 67 for ron paul. This, of course, is before the New York, California and Connecticut primaries, all of which are nearly certain to go Romney's way.
Barring some impossible-to-fathom act of god, there is no way that Rick Santorum can catch Mitt Romney. Obviously, neither Gingrich nor paul can either.
Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee. And Rick Santorum, instead of getting behind him - as have increasing numbers of conservatives and evangelicals (Santorum's presumed base) - is intent on continuing his no-win campaign anyway.
For what purpose? Is it blind ambition? An ego trip? Or just that he is so much of a zealot that he cannot see the result which is in front of his eyes?
Whatever the reason, Rick Santorum is now officially damaging his party.
I would hope that party members - especially the people who have supported Santorum, thus the people he most trusts, start talking sense to him. And he finds the capacity to listen to what they have to say.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: CONSTITUTIONAL IGNORAMUS, LIAR, OR BOTH?
I (along with many others across the blogosphere) am still shaking my head in disbelief at President Obama's ignorance of the constitution, and to his thinly veiled threat aimed at the "unelected" Supreme Court regarding its impending ruling on ObamaCare.
I was going to write about this today. But Steven Hayward and John Hinderaker at powerlineblog.com have done such an excellent job of it that I would serve you better by just putting up excerpts from their blogs (each of which is very, very well worth reading in their entirety).
I’m grateful for the favor Obama did for us yesterday of exposing his extreme constitutional ignorance, with his comments on how it would be “unprecedented” for the Court to strike down a law passed by a “strong majority” in Congress. (As if a House margin of seven votes is a “strong” majority.)
I’ve been growing weary of hearing people mention that he’s a “constitutional scholar,” since he never published a single thing on the subject either as editor of the Harvard Law Review or as a member of the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School. But hey—he taught constitutional law, didn’t he?
His course on constitutional law, one of several constitutional law courses on the U of C curriculum, dealt exclusively with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment—the favorite, all-purpose clause for liberal jurists to use to right wrongs and make us more equal by judicial fiat. There is no evidence that Obama ever taught courses that considered other aspects of constitutionalism, such as executive power, the separation of powers, the Commerce Clause, or judicial review itself.
Yesterday Barack Obama launched an attack on the Supreme Court that bordered on the bizarre. Apparently unaware of the most basic principles of constitutional law, going back to Marbury v. Madison in 1803, he said:
I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.
And I — I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint; that, uhhh, an uninelected, uhhh, group of — of people would somehow overturn, uhhh, a duly constituted and — and passed, uh, law. Uh, well, uh, uh, is a good example. Uhh, and I’m pretty confident that this, — this court will recognize that, uh, and not take that step.
Putting aside the fact that Obamacare passed with anything but a “strong majority” of Congress, the concept of judicial review has been established for over 200 years; for a president not to understand this displays shocking ignorance. Not to mention the fact that most of the liberals’ favorite Supreme Court decisions involved overturning laws that were enacted by democratically elected Congresses or legislatures, e.g., Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas and many more.
Both Mr. Hayward and Mr. Hinderaker go on to talk about how President Obama, with characteristic clumsiness and lack of grace, is now trying to backtrack from these comments.
But he can't.
All Mr. Obama can hope for is that his almost unfailingly reliable Accomplice Media will run interference for him and bury this story as quickly and deeply as possible. Which, in fact, they have already largely done.
That, however, does not change the fact that Barack Obama - either because he is ignorant of the constitution he claims to be an expert on, or he is just lying to us again, or both - not only made a fool of himself with those comments, but also showed himself to be an imperious bully trying to ram his agenda straight through the judicial branch.
IT'S GOOD TO BE THE PRESIDENT'S ILLEGAL ALIEN UNCLE
Last night I was watching a little of Mel Brooks' hysterically funny "A History of the World, Part I" In one of the vignettes, Brooks plays the part of French King Louis XVI. And every time he does something outrageous -which, of course, he gets away with because of who he is - Brooks looks into the camera and says "It's good to be the king".
Mel Brooks is a very funny man and that was a very funny bit. I laugh every time I see it.
Well, here's a version of that bit from real life. And, trust me, it isn't funny at all.
President Obama's uncle has reportedly been granted a hardship driver's license by the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles just a week after he lost the right to drive for 45 days in a deal in a drunken driving case.
The license granted Monday allows 67-year-old Onyango Obama to drive from to to get to work as manager of a Framingham liquor store.
Obama convinced a hearing officer that the inability to drive would pose a hardship on his job working for Conti Liquors, the Boston Herald reported.
Registry spokeswoman Sara Lavoie told the newspaper that Obama "met all of the criteria" to qualify for the hardship license, including a letter from his employer and proof he was enrolled in an alcohol treatment program.
Obama is the half brother of the president's late father. He was arrested in Framingham in August after a police officer said he made a rolling stop at a stop sign and nearly caused the officer's cruiser to crash into Obama's sport utility vehicle. Police said Obama registered 0.14 on a blood-alcohol test, above the state's legal limit of 0.08.
Onyango Obama, who is from Kenya, is also appealing a deportation order that dates to 1992, when he failed to renew his application to remain in the U.S.
Let's review: Onyango Obama is here illegally, and should have been deported many years ago. He was arrested for drunken driving. And Massachusetts - Governed by big-time Obama supporter Deval Patrick - has decided to hand him back his illegal driver's license (it must be illegal, since his current status is that he should be deported) so that the drunk driver can go back to his illegal job -- in a liquor store.
Would this be done for your uncle? Or would he have summarily been deported?
Yes, it's good to be the President's illegal alien uncle.
sylvester, a left wing flame thrower, has decided to conduct an ongoing frontal attack on Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch who, in his twisted mind, has committed the unforgivable sin of being a conservative woman.
To this end, sylvester has said, on-air, that Ms. Kleefisch performed fellatio on all the talk show hosts in Milwaukee, and that she "pulled a train" (street slang for sexually servicing numbers of men at a time).
For the record, Rebecca Kleefisch is a 36 year old married mother of two young children., and the comments are 1,000 miles beneath contempt.
sylvester also made insulting remarks about the way Ms. Kleefisch's hair looks. FYI, Ms. Kleefisch is a cancer survivor who had chemotherapy.
Is that disgusting enough for you? Well, if the answer is no, there is more.
I just read what sylvester said about Ms. Kleefisch's children. Here it is:
"I love it that your kids have actually have to hear about what evil things you're doing. I hope they have to hear it every day. And I hope they come home right to you. And just because you’re good looking—and and she is—and just 'cuz you’re cutes and I'm sure you got a precocious little daughter you put in little Jon Benet contests, and I'm sure you have a little jock son, and they come home and say 'Mommy, they’re saying you’re a witch.' You are a witch!"
john sylvester works for WTDY radio.
WTDY disgraces itself every day it allows a pig like john sylvester to defile its air time. And, apparently, that is just fine with its Program Director, rex charger, who keeps him on the air anyway.
And where are the so-called women's groups? You know, the ones which had a collective excrement hemmorhage over Rush Limbaugh calling sandra fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute"? This is 1,000 times worse, and not a word out of them.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: These are not women's groups at all. These are left wing groups whose interest in advocating for women extends only as far as their political views. If you are a politically conservative woman, this bunch doesn't give a damn about you.
LESLEY JANE SEYMOUR: DENSE, IGNORANT OR DISHONEST?
Yesterday I had a medical procedure which, somewhat surprisingly, has me, for the most part, flat on my back right now. I am up now, only for a few moments, because I feel compelled to blog about a remarkable comment I just heard while watching the reliably leftward Andrea Mitchell's show on MSNBC (where else?), during which she interviewed Lesley Jane Seymour, the editor in chief of something called More magazine.
Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Seymour were discussing the large gender gap which, according to new polls, has developed between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Ms. Seymour's opinion, evidently shared by Ms. Mitchell, is that this is largely due to the battle over contraception which has taken place in recent months.
There certainly is logic to her conclusion - and if she had stopped there, I would not be writing this blog.
But she did not stop there. Ms. Seymour informed us (without a word of disagreement from Ms. Mitchell), that she couldn't understand why Republicans decided to fight this battle. That is was settled a long time ago. And why, oh why, would they start in with it again. After all, look at what happened to their poll numbers. What in the world were they thinking?
That is what got me out of bed and to the computer.
Er, Ms. Seymour: Did you just spend the last three months in a cave, or did you make a new years' resolution to give up paying attention to political news? Or - sadly, the most likely of the three - are you just lying on behalf of Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular?
It is true that contraceptives were not on the radar until a few months ago. But the people who force-fed this issue back to the forefront were not Republicans. They were Democrats - who did so in about as heavy-handed a way as possible, and with copious help from their Accomplice Media.
Please click here, read my blog of February 20th, titled "ANATOMY OF AN ISSUE, CREATED BY THE ACCOMPLICE MEDIA", and see how they did it
Here are some key excerpts to jog your memory:
January: During a Republican presidential debate on ABC, George Stephanopoulos. debate host and career Democrat operative/partisan, asked frontrunner Mitt Romney a number of questions about contraception - an "issue" that virtually did not exist at the time.
Was this nothing more than the random, albeit bizarre, insertion of a series of non-sequitur questions about a subject virtually no one was talking about at the time? Well, let's decide by looking at what has happened since:
-President Obama put out a mandate which forces Catholic and other institutions to provide contraceptive and abortion services, against their religious and moral convictions;
-Mr. Obama took the heat for a couple of days, then offered a "compromise" which was little more than an accounting trick - i.e. the institutions would still foot the bill for what they believe to be against the word of God;
-Suddenly, as if on cue, much of the reliably pro-Obama, leftward media started talking abortion and contraception as if it were the biggest issue in the country today -- which, as we discussed earlier, it is anything but;
-Since then, Obama hatchetmen (and women; e.g. Nancy Pelosi) have repeatedly and intensely, cited a "study" by the Guttmacher Institute which, they say, shows that 98% of Catholic women use birth control. This is supposed to prove that President Obama's decision is in tune with Catholic sentiment.
In actuality, the Guttmacher institute - which is closely aligned with Planned Parenthood, says no such thing in its study: it is a lie created by contorting data beyond recognition. From Tim Graham's blog at newsbusters.org:
-The Sunday shows are full of contraception and abortion. Illustratively, David Gregory - who I used to have a lot of respect for, but am rapidly losing - spends much of the last two Meet The Press shows talking about it, and comes up with this handy-dandy, Democrat-usable line "The year of birth control moms".
Do you think this is random? Do you think this just happened? For your sake, I hope not.
The obvious truth is that this "issue" has been created out of thin air, and immediately blown into lead-story status, by media venues which are overtly partisan toward Democrats and, more generally, the left.
And this, of course, is before Democrats trotted out sandra fluke, whom they presented as a 23 year old law school student who struggled to pay for her contraception.
Is Ms. Seymour aware that all of this was a lie? That sandra fluke is, in reality, a 30 year old career activist who belongs to a number of different left wing "women's" groups"? That this "struggling student", who claims to need help with the cost of contraceptives, is managing to pay - either by herself or on someone else's bankroll - $59,000 a year for her Georgetown law school education? Or that she has a rich left wing boyfriend, Adam "cutey pants" Mutterperl, who takes her on trips around the world, as chronicled in their facebook pages?
Either Lesley Jane Seymour is as dense as asbestos, ignorant as a troglodyte, or intentionally dishonest on behalf of her candidate of choice, Barack Obama.
Today there ae three Republican primaries: Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington D.C.
Rick Santorum is not on the ballot in D.C., so there is no issue about him losing there. He is far behind in the Maryland polls, and there is little issue about him losing there as well.
In Wisconsin, where Santorum has spent much more time campaigning than Romney (though Romney has far outspent Santorum in advertising), the polls suggest Romney will win by maybe 7% - 10%. That is daunting for Santorum, but within the range where he could pull an upset and win the state.
If Rick Santorum wins Wisconsin I would not blame him for continuing on, because it might suggest that, despite Romney having more than double his number of delegates, Santorum might be on a major upsurge.
If Santorum loses Wisconsin by more than a few points, however, it is time to get out.
Several pundits are saying he will stay in through Pennsylvania no matter what. Personally, I think this is ludicrous. Yes, it is very possible that he can eke out a win in his home state. But so what? He's not winning anywhere else, is he?
Barack Obama and his people are seeing the same dynamic and, as of this week, are directing their negative advertising against Mitt Romney personally, not Republicans generally. They are correctly reading the political writing on the wall, and reacting accordingly.
Newt Gingrich, albeit grudgingly, seems to be moving toward dropping out and supporting Romney. ron paul was never in this to begin with.
If Santorum is swept tonight, it is time for him to start working toward unifying the party against Barack Obama.
I agree that Mitt Romney is far from an ideal candidate. But it will be clear that he is the candidate. And Mitt Romney in any form will be better than Barack Obama. Can anyone look me in the eye and tell me that Mr. Obama is an ideal candidate?
If Santorum loses Wisconsin, then for the sake of his party and the country, let it be his swan song.
A quick note about The Today Show and Trayvon Martin. While doing the report, Today - again - showed only the "red shirt" picture of him, taken years before the shooting.
This in no way looks like the 6 foot-plus tall, adult-faced young man George Zimmerman actually saw - who possibly was wearing the gold "grille" over his teeth that is in his twitter picture, which is favored by gangsta thugs and their wannabes (interestingly, no one is saying a thing about that).
Every time NBC uses this picture to depict what Trayvon Martin looked like during the confrontation with Zimmerman on February 26th, it is lying to every viewer.
Add to that NBC's doctored audio tape, which turned Zimmerman's answer to the 911 dispatcher's question into a racial inference, and what do you have? A news organization or a left wing propaganda mill dedicated to inflaming racial tensions?
President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of "judicial activism" that Republicans say they abhor.
And from an article at Agence France Presse:
US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.
Translation: If the Supreme Court does not uphold the Obama administration's attempt to unconsititutionally mandate insurance coverage whether any of us want it or not, that is an act of judicial activism.
My problem with Mr. Obama's complaint - and his implied warning to the court - is that determining the constitutionality of law is the one and only thing the Supreme Court of the United States is supposed to do.
If Mr. Obama doesn't like the way the SCOTUS works, and feels it necessary to make ominous comments like the ones above, then maybe he should find another line of work.
Starting next January 20th, say around noontime, would be fine with me.
CORRECTION: My sister, herself a lawyer, has reminded me that the Supreme court does, in fact, have duties other than ruling on a law's constitutionality. You can read the full range of SCOTUS duties by clicking here.
This does not, however, change what I said about President Obama.
THE "STAND YOUR GROUND" LAW & BLATANT POLITICAL DEMAGOGUERY
Just a quick note, regarding the Democrats who have been screaming for weeks now about those @^&#ing Republicans and how they were responsible for Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law which, they claim, gave George Zimmerman license to kill Trayvon Martin.
When "Stand Your Ground" went before Florida's state senate in 2005, it was approved by a vote of 39 - 0, with one member not present.
In other words, every Democrat in Florida's state senate voted for it. No different than Republicans. If you eliminated all Republican votes "Stand Your Grond" would have passed unanimously anyway.
What does this mean? It means that the Democrats who ignore this fact to attack Republicans are blatantly misinforming the public so they can politically demagogue "Stand Your Ground" - and further inflame racial tensions in the bargain.
If you are as troubled by this as I am, I suggest you remember who they are. Especially on election day.
As the race hustlers continue to inflame people in Sanford Florida, we have this, excerpted from Monique O. Madan's article in the Miami Herald:
Update: An argument among gang members sparked the shooting. Read the updated story here.
Gunmen fired a barrage of bullets at a crowd of mourners who were gathered Friday night at a North Miami-area funeral home, injuring 12 people and killing two, according to Miami-Dade police..
The gunmen remained on the loose early Saturday.
Witnesses said one of the two killed was shot in the chest.
The funeral was for Morvin Andre, 21, of North Miami, killed in a March 18 shooting, according to witnesses. He was buried at nearby Southern Memorial Park Saturday morning.
The shooting happened outside North Miami city limits in the 14900 block of West Dixie Highway. The area is just southwest of Florida International University’s north campus. Several funeral homes and a cemetery are in the busy area, as well as stores and restaurants.
The West Dixie Highway corridor has been the scene of several shootings in recent years.
This atrocity occurred three days ago. In a busy area where, only by dumb luck, many more people were not wounded or killed. And there have been other shootings there over recent years as well.
This is certainly a story of Black people as victims. Of Black people at risk.
Yet there is no angry rhetoric and no marches, and no demands made by al sharpton, or louis farrakhan or Jessie Jackson or Spike Lee or any of the other race hustlers who have jumped all over the Trayvon Martin case. And there has been little or no national coverage by the same media which have covered the Trayvon Martin shooting non-stop.
Has President Obama made a statement that his children could have looked like the victims of this shooting - or, for that matter, like the shooters - as he did about Trayvon Martin?
If they catch the shooters, will media make a point of putting up years-old pictures of them, taken before their involvement in the gangsta-thug culture, as they have of Trayvon Martin - with his "grille" and his twitter name of " NO_LIMIT_NIGGA"?
No, none of this has happened. And none of this is going to happen. That is because these Black lives are not important. They don't count. They are meaningless.
Why? Because the shootings and deaths are Black--on-Black crimes. So there is no racial incitement to be created from them, as there is to be created in the Trayvon Martin shooting. The attitude seems clearly to be Wwho cares if Blacks die if other Blacks kill them? What can we get out of that?"
Do you want to live in a racially polarized society? I hope not. It is about the last thing in the world I would want.
But if you do, you should be loving every minute of the Trayvon Martin circus. Because that is what these race hustlers are using his corpse to create.
And, helped along every step of the way by an Accomplice Media, they are doing a bangup job of it.
In case you were wondering if NBC and MSNBC are sincere in their effort to get the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story right....
I just checked MSNBC's home page. And it has a picture of Trayvon Martin on it.
Guess which one?
Yep, you guessed it. The "red shirt" picture of an angelic Trayvon Martin from years ago.
Not the 6 foot-plus Trayvon Martin who liked to wear a 'grille' (gold teeth), gangsta-thug style - i.e. the Trayvon Martin that George Zimmerman saw. Has anyone checked to find out if his "grille" was in when Zimmerman confronted him?
NBC is pathetic. Its news people ought to be ashamed of themselves....assuming they have any capacity for shame that is.
The other day, NBC and its sister network, MSNBC, played audio tape of the exchange between George Zimmerman and a 911 dispatcher. The audio clearly showed that Zimmernan tied his assessment that Trayvon Martin was "up to no good" to the fact that "he looks Black". Very, very damning.
Except for one thing: that was not what happened.
What happened was that NBC doctored the tape, by editing out the dispatcher's question to Zimmerman: "Is he White, Black or Hispanic". In other words, Zimmerman did not tie Martin's skin color to anything, he answered a specific question asked by the disapatcher.
How much of an embarrassment has this become to NBC? Enough so that it has told Erik Wemple of the Washington Post “We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”
To which I would say........that's a start. Nothing more.
When you have a cold, you blow your nose. You do so because it will temporarily unstuff your nose, but certainly not because you think it will cure the cold itself.
Similarly, my expectation is that NBC will launch its internal investigation and probably reprimand or fire a couple of hapless zhlubs in the newsroom who, basedon how NBC works these days, did nothing more than what they were expected to do.
But will NBC then declare the matter resolved - like blowing your nose and declaring the cold over?
Frankly, I expect they will. But I hope not. Because NBC's problem goes far, far deeper.
The editing of that tape is nothing more than a symptom. NBC has become a left wing propaganda mill, which does not report news so much as it directs news to the leftward side it so clearly favors.
Perhaps the single most glaring example of how far gone NBC is can be found in its "coverage" of Operation Fast and Furious.
Operation Fast and Furious, arguably, is the single greatest scandal of the Obama administration. Almost 2,000 assault weapons were sold by the administration to Mexican drug cartels with the idea that they would then be traced back to the drug kingpins. But almost none of them were traced. The result?
-Two US agents, Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata, are dead - so far. Both almost certainly were killed with those weapons.
-Hundreds of Mexican citizens are dead.
-Countless non-fatal acts of violence and other criminality have been committed.
-Attorney General eric holder has been caught lying under oath to congress about when he knew of this Operaton;
-Almost one fourth of the entire congress of the United States has either demanded holder be fired, signed a no-confidence resolution against him or both.
Yet NBC has never run one story about it. Not one story in the well over a year since this scandal broke. If you ask someone who relies on NBC for news what Operation Fast and Furious is, that person will answer "What's that? What are you talking about?".
So let NBC launch its internal investigation. Let it provide its findings. Let it punish the poor zhlubs who will be hung out to dry for it.
But remember that if this is all that happens, it is a charade, which will change nothing about what NBC has become.
Here, folks, is a sampling of what the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) has sent out to current and former contributors over just this weekend, in the hope that it will raise more cash for Obama & Co.
In reading these excerpts, please remember that a) they are only a small part if what is being pumped out by this crew, and b) it is a sampling of only three days' worth.
Enjoy the "civility":
From Senator John Kerry:
I'll cut to the chase: If we don’t hit our goal before Saturday’s FEC deadline, we may give the Republicans the tiny advantage they need to snatch the Senate away from you.
But we know too well that polling in March won’t matter a bit in November if Republicans spend a tidal wave of Koch Brothers’ cash clouding the truth with the lies and smears that have been the GOP trademark for as long as you and I can remember.
Trust me -- it works. And this time it could cost us the Senate. Believe me. I know firsthand. And I'm not willing to turn back the clock to the days when the Senate was a rubber stamp for Republican extremism. We know what the Republicans do when they think they can get away with it. They find a few radical right-wing millionaires to bankroll TV ads and smear campaigns that tear down Democrats.
Your contribution before Saturday’s deadline is vitally important. We have to be able to respond to the dirty tricks and the outright lies so we can re-elect President Obama and defend our majority.
From (DSCC Executive Director) Guy Cecil:
This month, the GOP wants to end health care reform through the Supreme Court. Next month, they will use SuperPACs to launch multi-million dollar attacks against it, President Obama and Democratic candidates.
In 72 hours, we will know if we are on track to be able to defend the president and Democratic candidates: either we will have enough money, or we won’t. If we do, we will take them on in every battleground state. If we don’t, our voice will be smothered under a wave of disgusting ads trashing President Obama and every Democrat on the ticket.
From Senator Patty Murray
Dear Arleen - Senator Kerry cut to the chase below. If we don't make our fundraising goal in 48 hours, we could be handing the White House and Senate to the Republicans. On April 1, our totals will determine whether Democrats have the money to stop them.
Last night, the House voted to end the Violence Against Women Act. This is just the latest example of what we will no longer be able to stop if Republicans take over the Senate. Rove and his cohorts only need to swing four seats to make it happen, and we expect an unprecedented flood of attack ads hitting battleground states in April. We need $1 million this month, and we're about 70% of the way there. I'm asking if you could please help with $5 right now. We have 48 hours to fight back.
From (DSCC Director of Online Communications) Jason Rosenbaum:
The question is this: Will you help Democrats raise this last $305,000 before this critical FEC deadline in 48 hours? If the answer is no, Karl Rove’s SuperPAC ads will air next month without a response from Democrats. That would cause enough damage to Democratic candidates to hand four Senate seats to the Republicans, and turn the Senate into Eric Cantor’s rubber stamp factory.
Just this week the House voted to pass the Ryan budget and to end the Violence Against Women Act. These are just the latest examples of the terrible legislation we can’t stop if Democrats lose the Senate. If they swing just four seats, government will once again be the playground of Karl Rove and his cronies. Don't wait -- stand with President Clinton and the DSCC right now.
From Bill Clinton:
Democrats know that turning an economy around takes real leadership and a true commitment to the middle class.
Sadly, he's up against opponents who have no interest in helping do the hard work. They'd rather divide America than lead it. Just look at what's happening now -- are we really supposed to believe that women's rights are getting in the way of job creation?
But these divide-and-conquer tactics have won them elections before, and if we're going to protect Democrats in 2012, we need to fight back before it's too late.
And the special interests are going to come at us with every nasty trick in the book, spending as much as $500 million to beat President Obama and take the Senate.
Without fired-up Democrats, we’d still have insurance companies in charge of our health care. Our auto industry would be done for. Medicare and Social Security would be gone. And we wouldn’t have the Democratic Senate firewall that is currently keeping these anti-woman policies from becoming law. ==========
From Senator Al Franken
Now throw this into the equation. Karl Rove and his pals are ready to spend $500 million attacking President Obama and the Democrats before November. And the DSCC – the only organization solely devoted to fighting back and keeping the Senate blue – is $90,000 short of its fundraising goal, with just 15 hours left before the deadline.
X = President Romney. Y = a Republican Senate. X + Y = Z. Solve for Z.
Z could mean the end of Medicare as we know it. Z could mean outrageous restrictions on women’s access to health care. Z could mean more giveaways for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and nothing left over to help the middle class.
But there’s one variable that equation doesn’t account for: You. (NotU. You, the person reading this email.) Your contribution to the DSCC will help us fight back against the far right, defend President Obama and the Democrats, and stop a Republican agenda so radical, you could say it’s irrational. (Get it?)
If all Democrats needed to re-elect President Obama and keep our Senate majority was a single Senator who could prove the Pythagorean Theorem in less than five minutes, I could save the day all by myself. I’ve actually had daydreams about that.
But, alas, it’ll take more than elementary geometry to help the DSCC reach its $90,000 goal before Saturday night’s deadline. We need your help. By which, again, I mean your money.
(NOTE: This is supposed to be humorous. You were supposed to be laughing)
We are down to the final few hours before this first FEC deadline of 2012. Falling short would signal to Karl Rove and the Republican SuperPACs that we don't have the resources to defend President Obama and Democratic candidates. We simply can't show that kind of weakness. They would destroy us.
Missing this goal would put the Republicans one step closer to total control of Washington -- and the end of Medicare and women's rights as we know them. ==========
Here's a fun little game for you: See how many times you can count Karl Rove's name. And the claim that Republicans are at war with women. And the claim that they want to end Medicare. And the claim that they want to end health care.
Remember, folks, this is from emails sent in just the past three days. And it is only a small portion of the emails: in the interest of brevity I've left out a lot more.
Remember when President Obama and his people were hailing end of Hosni Mubarak's rule in Egypt as a "foreign policy victory"? Remember how they were doing that victory lap, assuring us that this was the "Arab Spring", with freedom and democracy taking hold? Remember how those well-bred, well-fed, English-speaking, social network-using Egyptians in Tahrir Square were going to be running the show?
Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it? When was the last time you heard Mr. Obama, or Ms. Clinton or Mr. Reid or Ms. Pelosi or any of the other gleeful Democrats talking about an "Arab Spring" or a "foreign policy victory" in Egypt?
CAIRO — Egypt’s most powerful Islamist organization on Saturday nominated one of its members for president, breaking a promise that it would not enter the race and angering critics who called the decision an attempt to control the country.
The Muslim Brotherhood announced at a news conference that Khairat el-Shater, the group’s top financier and arguably its most influential member, would be the candidate of its political wing, as a rift grows between the Islamist group and the country’s ruling military leaders.
The group recently said it was considering fielding a candidate in the May election only because it was concerned that former regime figures backed by the ruling military council would win if it did not.
The Muslim brotherhood, a fundamentalist group that would impose shari'a law on Egypt is breaking a promise it made to secularists? What a shock.
Further on, the article mentions that the brotherhood won almost half the seats in Egypt's parliamentary elections. It does not mention that the salafists, even more radically fundamentalist than the brotherhood, won about a quarter of the seats as well, which means that Egypt's parliament is overwhelmingly fundamentalist.
Are you surprised by these results? I hope you are not. Of course Egypt would move this way. The only people who believed that Egypt was in any way defined by the westernized twitter fans in Tahrir Square was the hopelessly benighted Obama administration, and its Accomplice Media who engaged in the same fantasy.
Egypt is not Tahrir Square. Egypt is 80,000,000 people, a quarter of the entire Arab population of the world, most of whom live in rural surroundings, not big cities. Poverty, ignorance and illiteracy abounds. Millions and millions of Egyptians know little other than the koran, and what their local "clerics" tell them it means. Could anyone in his/her right mind possibly believe they would vote for anything that we recognize as "freedom and democracy"? That is the last thing they want. It is unknown to them. To most Egyptians, "democracy" means freely electing the people who will then impose anti-democratic shari'a law.
Add to it a Muslim brotherhood president, and what do you have? An "Arab Spring"? A "foreign policy victory' for the United States, with "freedom and democracy" taking hold?
Realistically: is Egypt moving toward western civilization, or Afghanistan?
This is what we got when President Obama and his people decided to help facilitate the end of the Mubarak government. This is the real "Arab Spring". This is the true nature of our "foreign policy victory".
And it is even worse in Libya - another place neither the administration nor its Accomplice Media ever talk about anymore - where we bombed for 6 months so that the despicable moammar qadaffi would be replaced by radical murderers who are in bed with al qaeda. This is better? This is who we helped to take over?
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!!