I'm not exactly sure where to go with this little story from UPI. You can read it and decide for yourself (click hereto see the image):
SPLENDORA, Texas, May 31 (UPI) -- A Texas family says they are getting strength from an image of Jesus they found in the mold growing inside the shower of their home.
Chyanna Richards, who lives in the home, told KTRK-TV, Houston, she doesn't know if it's mold or mildew in the bathroom but said the appearance of Jesus' image has meaning.
"Maybe it means something. Maybe look into yourself and see if you need to change something in your life," she said.
The mold began growing in the bathroom at the Splendora home a couple months ago when Thomas George, who lives in the home, was in prison.
"He's just watching over us to make sure nothing wrong happens or I get in trouble and go back," George said. "It gives me inspiration just to do better."
Neighbor Michael Bearden said he believes the image is of Jesus but joked it reminded him of someone else as well.
"Jesus. But it kinda looks like me!" he said.
I agree Ms. Richards needs to change something in her life. But I have a feeling it is her brand of mildew cleaner.
Any thoughts you have on this, er, deeply religious matter will be given the serious consideration they deserve....
-Six in ten women who are registered to vote name the economy as the top issue they want to hear about from candidates, followed far behind by health care (23 percent), social issues (12 percent), war and security (8 percent) and education (8 percent).
-Roughly three in ten women (31 percent) believe that there is currently a “wide‐scale effort to limit women’s reproductive health choices and services” in the U.S., while the largest share (45 percent) say there are some groups that would like to limit women’s reproductive health choices and services but it is not a wide‐scale effort. Seven percent of women volunteer that no such effort exists, and nearly two in ten (17 percent) decline to offer an opinion.
What does this tell us?
Most significantly, it tells us that the economy far supersedes health care as the issue women are most interested in.
And common sense tells us that, even among the 31% of women who think there is a wide-scale effort to limit women's reproductive health choices and services, most are on the Democrat side already.
So what is the impact of this issue? Next to nothing, that's what.
Put another way, if you were running a Presidential campaign this year, which would you rather be touting? Your candidate's economic message or your candidate's women's reproductive health message? That pretty much answers itself, doesn't it.
I'm sure this must be devastating to NOW, sandra fluke and their kindred pals.....but things are as they are.
Remember that old flower-child slogan, "what if they gave a war and nobody came"? Well, Democrats declared a war on women, and that is pretty much what happened.
Speaking in Washington, D.C., Pelosi reminded everyone that there shouldn’t be income disparity between men and women.
“It’s 2012. It’s 2012, everybody. What is it we’re talking about women getting paid less? Are you going home to your little girls each day and saying: ‘Work hard, study hard, be diligent so that when you grow up you can make less than your brother?”
She added, “There seems to be a decision somewhere in some companies and parts of our economy that that’s an okay thing to do.”
The Daily Caller asked Pelosi about a report in the Washington Free Beacon that revealed that women working for Senate Democrats in 2011 had an average salary of $60,877, whereas male staffers made about $6,500 more.
Pelosi chose not to condemn the Democratic senators, claiming that it is “another world.”
What does that tell you about Nancy Pelosi? About her logic, honesty, integrity, etc?
I hope for your sake that the answer is "Nothing I didn't know already".
john edwards, the human oil slick who once was a US Senator and almost was Vice President of the United States, has dodged the bullet. Not guilty on one count, a mistrial on five others.
He therefore remains free to slime whatever he comes in contact with....at least for now.
In the immortal words of Margaret Hamilton, the Wicked Witch of the East (who would have loved edwards), "What a world, what a world."
Just a quick note to inform you that, based on looking at the lineup of videos from this morning's Today Show, it did not do a story on President Obama's incredibly stupid "Polish death camps" gaffe.
That gaffe was important enough for the Polish government to demand a response, for its foreign minister to refer to Mr. Obama's words as ignorant and incompetent, and for it to be seen as a major international blunder.
But if you rely on the Today Show for your news, it's happy-smiley time. Nothing bad in Obamaville, so let's talk a spelling bee, or turtle wrestling - both of which merited feature stories this morning.
Then they wonder why I and so many others call them biased???? You're kidding, right?
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: THE ACCOMPLICE MEDIA IN ACTION
Ken Berwitz
Do you know that a pro-life group has videoed two different instances of Planned Parenthood personnel happily helping women who come into their offices asking for sex-selection abortions (i.e. wanting to abort a female baby because they want a male)?
If you don't know about this, I don't blame you. CBS, NBC and ABC - their evening news shows and morning shows both - have not done even one story about this. Not on second of coverage. A complete blackout.
Yes, these are the same networks which relentlessly have promoted the Democrat talking point of a Republican "war on women". But when Planned Parenthood is willing to abet the termination of a fetus specifically because it would one day be a woman? No problem at all, and no news to report.
Want to see the proof? Well you can watch the videos by clicking here and here.
I don't care how pro-choice you are: unless you are a member of the Chinese communist government, where they encourage such selective abortions, this should make you sick to your stomach.
What next? Abortions because the fetus's legs aren't long enough? Or its feet are too small?
How is it possible that this story can be 100% buried by what passes for today's mainstream media? The answer is, when you have a media that vastly approves of Planned Parenthood, it is no problem at all.
When do these so-called "journalists" start acting like journalists, instead of Planned Parenthood propagandists, and reporting the news?
DAVID AXELROD GETS A TASTE OF WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE A REPUBLICAN
Ken Berwitz
Earlier today, David Axelrod was in Massachusetts, trying to make a campaign speech for President Obama. But there were so many Romney supporters there, chanting things like "Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs", that they literally drowned out the Obama people -- and caused the usually buttoned-up Axelrod to become so flustered that he repeatedly stumbled over words, and then blew the old adage "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" by reversing it....which actually was sort of entertaining.
In my experience, this is a very common tactic of Democrats, but a very unusual one for Republicans. And it clearly was effective -- at the very least, it gave David Axelrod a taste of what the other side so frequently has to deal with.
Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren acknowledged for the first time late Wednesday night that she told Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania that she was Native American, but she continued to insist that race played no role in her recruitment.
“At some point after I was hired by them, I . . . provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,’’ she said in a statement issued by her campaign. “My Native American heritage is part of who I am, I’m proud of it and I have been open about it.’’
Warren’s statement is her first acknowledgment that she identified herself as Native American to the Ivy League schools. While she has said she identified herself as a minority in a legal directory, she has carefully avoided any suggestion during the last month that she took further actions to promote her purported heritage.
When the issue first surfaced last month, Warren said she only learned Harvard was claiming her as a minority when she read it in the Boston Herald.
Warren’s new statement came after the Globe asked her campaign about documents it obtained Wednesday from Harvard’s library showing that the university’s law school began reporting a Native American female professor in federal statistics for the 1992-93 school year, the first year Warren worked at Harvard, as a visiting professor.
COMMENTER: Harvard simply does not hire graduates of the 82nd ranked law school in the country as tenured professors. Ms. Warren needed a leg up over more qualified candidates and she found it with the Cherokee scam. She used it when it suited her and she discarded it when it no longer mattered.
COMMENTER: Do you really think that as a lily white hick from Oklahoma, at that time in the history of Harvard when they were actively looking for minority faculty, that she would have been offered a job? She lied. Harvard never pursued her claim of Indian heritage because it suited their needs. And neither thought they'd ever get caught.
Next, let's consider a new me-myself-I claim uncovered about Ms. Warren, from last year. It comes to us via an excerpt from an article at realclearpolitics.com (click this link to see/hear the video):
“I was the first nursing mother to take a bar exam in the state of New Jersey,” U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told an audience at the Chicago Humanities Festival in 2011, in a video posted on the CHF website.
In fairness to Ms. Warren, there is no truth to the rumor that she has also claimed Neil Armstrong plagiarized "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" from her, after she walked on the moon 3 years before he did. Or that Charles Lindbergh only made it to Paris because he was following her plane.
On April 4, after Mitt Romney wiped out Rick Santorum in three primaries, James Carville said “He was like a chicken with his head chopped off. The chicken is dead. The only person that don’t know it is the chicken.”
Substitute Elizabeth Warren's name for Rick Santorum's and it is just as true.
My advice to Ms. Warren is to take that description to heart. Her situation is nothing to cluck at.
Just how biased is MSNBC's Ed Schultz? Just how intensively does he feed his viewers left wing red meat, to the exclusion of any other point of view?
Well, let's take a look at how he has "reported" this past year's recall turmoil in Wisconsin, which was fueled by the public sector unions' rage against Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans.
From February 14, 2011 through May 18, 2012 anti-Walker guests dominated by a count of 237 (99.6%) to 1 (less than .5%). In that same span Schultz devoted a portion or a majority of 128 episodes to attacks on Walker.
Critics of cable news often suggest that MSNBC and Fox News Channel (FNC) are carbon copies of each other with FNC catering to the conservative side. However, over that same time period, Shultz’s 8 PM EDT time slot competitor -- FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor -- spent only 19 shows discussing Walker and those displayed a more balanced guest list with a total of 12 pro-Walker advocates (44%) to 8 (30%) Walker opponents, with 7 (26%) neutral voices.
Wow. 237 to 1. Does that speak for itself, or what?
Oh, did I mention that, last year, Ed Schultz was paid $190,000 from unions for "representational activities"? Is it just possible that this had something to do with his advocacy role on their behalf in Wisconsin?
MSNBC defensively rationalizes this overt conflict of interest by claiming the money is donated to charity.
That's nice. But what would you do for the people who gave you that kind of money, regardless of where it ultimately went? You'd do plenty, wouldn't you?
And when Schultz donated the $190,000 to charity, did he get any tax benefit from it?
Why can't the people who run MSNBC just be up-front and admit that Ed Schultz is in the hip pocket of unions, and that he runs his show as an ongoing indoctrination session for them every night?
And why can't they admit that, for all their attacks on Fox News, it, is dramatically more fair and balanced than MSNBC will ever be under its present management?
"The reality is that in jurisdictions across the country, both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common and have not yet been relegated to the pages of history," Holder told the audience, made up of black church and political leaders, during a faith leaders summit in Washington.
Holder said the Justice Department was currently examining proposals made by several states to change their rules for third-party registration, early voting, and requirements for voter ID.
"If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and will approve that change," he said. "When a jurisdiction fails to meet its burden in proving that a voting change will not have a racially discriminatory effect, we will object, as we have in 15 different cases."
Voter ID laws, which requires voters to present official government identification before they cast a ballot in an elections, have become a hot-button issue this election cycle. Since 2008, voter ID laws have either gone into effect or are pending in at least 11 states. Five other states had measures that were eventually vetoed by governors. Some form of photo ID laws are now on the books in at least 30 states. Republicans have backed the measures, calling them necessary to prevent voter fraud. But a federal panel last year found that there was little to no election fraud in the United States. While other critics of the laws say that the groups most likely to be harmed by the rules -- blacks, Latinos, the poor, and college students -- are groups that are key parts of the Democratic voting bloc. According to a recent study, nearly one in four African Americans does not have a state ID.
Unbelievable.
eric holder, the disgraceful toady and Obama sock-puppet, is the Attorney General who refused to prosecute Black panther thugs who intimidated voters in Philadelphia during the 2008 election - even after they did not even challenge the charges against them. He is the Attorney General who has not said a word or done a thing about the Black panthers' bounty on George Zimmerman's head. He is the Attorney General accused, by a career DOJ lawyer who resigned in disgust, of telling the Department of Justice to concentrate on instances of discrimination against Blacks, not discrimination by Blacks.
And now he stands in front of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), a racist organization which specifically includes and excludes members based on the color of their skin, to tell its members that voter ID laws suppress the Black vote - which inherently means that he considers Black people less able to secure voter ID's than non-Blacks.
Please keep in mind that every state which is enacting Voter ID laws is making them available - free - to all citizens regardless of color. Therefore neither racism nor financial discrimination (i.e. poor people not being able to afford an ID) is any issue whatsoever.
Also, given the political bent of the Huffington Post, it is important that you go to he links it provides in the above excerpts and see what they really say. You will find that the article 100% misrepresents the federal panel's findings from last year, and that its source for claiming nearly one in four Black people have no ID is the far-left, soros-funded joke, The Brennan Institute for Social Justice.
I guess the huffington post staff just assumes (or fervently hopes) readers will see the links, assume they validate what is written in the article, and not actually read them. Sorry, guys: I do.
In any event, even assuming it is true that almost one quarter of Black people currently do not have IDs, so what? IDs are being made available, for free, to anyone regardless of color. If Black people who are legally allowed to vote want to do so, nothing is stopping them from getting one, just like everyone else - including over 3/4 of Black people who already have IDs. Where is the problem with that?
Now the big question: why, in this election year, is Barack Obama's stooge, eric holder, working so hard to prevent people from simply having to demonstrate that they are who they claim to be when casting their ballots? What do you think he is really advocating for?
I can think of something. It involves two words, one of which starts with v and ends with r, the other of which starts with f and ends with d.
I used to have a great deal of respect for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Over the years, as he has become more and more imperious, that respect level has dwindled down to its current level, which hovers between low and very low.
And it is dropping again.
Mayor Bloomberg hasm correctly, noted that many people weigh too much. And he has decided to do something about it. But his idea is not simply to educate people about the dangers of overweight (as if they didn't already know), and insure that good health is taught in the schools (which it already is), his idea is to ban large-size sugary drinks.
Excerpted from Michael M. Grynbaum's article in yesterday's New York Times:
New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.
The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.
The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.
“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”
Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him, and the board’s chairman is the city’s health commissioner, who joined the mayor in supporting the measure on Wednesday.
Mr. Bloomberg has made public health one of the top priorities of his lengthy tenure, and has championed a series of aggressive regulations, including bans on smoking in restaurants and parks, a prohibition against artificial trans fat in restaurant food and a requirement for health inspection grades to be posted in restaurant windows.
Restaurants, delis, movie theater and ballpark concessions would be affected, because they are regulated by the health department. Carts on sidewalks and in Central Park would also be included, but not vending machines or newsstands that serve only a smattering of fresh food items.
At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed.
Let's start with the obvious: who is Michael Bloomberg to disallow people from buying large drinks? He is the elected Mayor of New York City. Not the elected God.
You can stop right there and, as far as I am concerned, the issue is closed.
But let's continue with another obvious fact: People, obese or non-obese, buy large size sugary drinks because they want them. And if they want them, they will have them. Forcing them to buy, say, two 16 ounce Cokes instead of one 24 or 32 ounce coke will not change their drinking habits.
Can Mayor Bloomberg possibly be naive enough to think that if people are able to buy the drinks they want, just not enough for one drink to satisfy them, those people won't buy more to make up the difference?
All Mr. Bloomberbg will accomplish is to remind New Yorkers that HE has decided HE is in charge of THEIR lives. Which he has no right whatsoever to be.
Another point: some, maybe a great many, people buy large drinks as an economy. It is cheaper, for example, to share one large drink at a movie theater or sporting event than to buy two smaller drinks. So, by Mr. Bloomberg imposing his view of what people's diets should be on every person in New York, he is also forcing even people with no weight problem at all to spend more money.
Then there is this bizarre concept of insisting that people at fast food restaurants be sold smaller cups of sugary drinks....but allowing free refills. What does that accomplish? Has anyone in the history of fast food declined to have the additional soda he/she wants because it necessitates walking up to the free refill counter?
Finally, there is the fact that overweight people, other than a few who have medical conditions, are overweight because they proactively decide to eat/drink enough to get them that way. If Mayor Bloomberg bans drinks above a certain size, what does he think it will do? Transform overweight people into health fanatics? That is not going to happen. It will just get them to buy more smaller-size units of what they want - which is an unecessary financial drain on them and, most ironically, a windfall for the sugary-drink makers, who charge more per ounce for smaller sizes.
And where will this end? If you can ban large-size sugary drinks, can't you ban large-size meal portions? Desserts? Rich salad dressings - rich being defined by The Great And Powerful Bloomberg? If you can do one, you can do another.
Why not just issue a thousand-page edict on what people in The Wonderful World Of Bloomberg are and are not allowed to eat, drink, and do for the rest of their lives, and be done with it. One law, end of story.
The bottom line: This law is wrong. It is ridiculous. It is not going to lessen obesity, it will just lighten people's wallets and earn the sugary drink makers more money.
Maybe it's time for Mayor Bloomberg to stop acting like a tinhorn dictator. Maybe it is time for him to start remembering who he is - and isn't.
IS DONALD TRUMP A RACIST FOR QUESTIONNING BARACK OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
Ken Berwitz
Let me start with the answer to that title. No. Of course he is not. The question is ridiculous.
The reason I am asking is because Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, with characteristic hyperbole and obeisance to hard left orthodoxy, has written a blog attacking Mitt Romney for not repudiating Donald Trump's skepticism over the authenticity of Barack Obama's long form birth certificate.
Cohen feels Mr. Romney "...ought to know that the so-called birthers exude the fetid aroma of racism: To them, the oddly named Obama just doesn’t look like a president should." Translation: To question the birth certificate is to be a racist who wants Obama out of office for no reason other than the color of his skin.
Based on this brilliant analysis, Cohen then "reasons" (that may be a highly exaggerated verb) that since people who doubt the authenticity of that birth certificate are racist, and since Obama repudiated the racist jeremiah wright, Romney must therefore repudiate Trump. And he calls Romney a raft of names for not doing so, including cowardly, indecent, unprincipled, and opportunistic (Cohen somehow left out pimply-faced, balding and psoriatic - oversight I guess).
Could this be more idiotic?
I would usually say no. But, having read some of the commenters' reactions (Washington Post commenters are vastly hard-left, and I would not at all be surprised if this were the result of an organized effort directed at the paper), I have to say yes it can.
Want a sampling? Ok. Here are a few of them. Take a look and, just for fun, rank-order which of the commenters are most in need of psychiatric help:
When Wright name was discovered with Obama, I did some checking and some things he says are true but whites find some truths offensive when they are racist but of course deny they are and try to make something out of nothing.
With that said I don't agree with everything but I don't agree with anyone on everything.
-----------------------
After all that is said in this article, the issue of Mr. Romoney's birth place is pushed aside. What a Hoot to discover that Mr. Romoney is a illegal immigrant. Until he can prove his U.S. birthplace, Mr. Romoney is a illegal immigrant.
-----------------------
In a dark past of our history they did their dirty deeds in the dark of night wearing bedsheets and dunce-caps. These days their ilk vent their vile spleens through rumor, innuendo and lies, and they have found a leader. Donald Trump has appointed himself the Pied Piper of the former lynchers and haters. A role he was born, it now appears evident, to play. In our democracy these knuckle-dragging droolers have the right to vote which makes them attractive to Mitt Romney who will do or say anything for a vote in his quest to become president. In what history will see as its most egregious example of crass pandering and abandonment of one's integrity and self-esteem Mitt Romney has groveled at the feet of Donald Trump and sent him forth to deliver that hate stained vote. In keeping with his life of cowardly decisions and actions Mitt Romney will publicly seek to distance himself from the Trump hate-machine but we will not see him condemn it. Such is the man who wants to be our president. Such is the man who wants us to trust him with our childrens future. Such is not a man, only the shadow of one.
----------------------
Donald Trump is the lowest of the low. We in Florida are taking a petition for women, minorities and all immigrants to stop watching the Apprentice. He only cares about the dollar so this is what we will be doing. We are appealing to all decent human beings to stop watchin that piece of nonsense he has on TV. We can go a step further and boycott his casinos, hotels, etc. Apart from Hitler and the other disgusting despots of the world, he is the most offensive person in modern times. It is a shame that we have to share the same air space with this ugly person. We say boycott everything Trump.
Tolerating (up to a point) crazy supporters who appeal to a fringe element is a legitimate strategy. But "the Rev." Wright's supporters really are a fringe, and Obama eventually disowned him when he got too offensive. Not so the Donald. A majority of Republicans believe that the president is an illegal alien who's stolen their guns and their liberty. The fact that this is code talk for what they really hate about him, the color of his skin, is not lost on Mittens Romney. He has a lot to gain by hanging around with a guy who will say what he himself is too cowardly to admit, that his main support is among racists. And given enough degenerate racists voting, he may get his big wish.
Enough? I agree.
That is the kind of "intelligence" a ridiculous, gratuitously hateful blog like this generates.
I assume Mr. Cohen is very proud of himself for writing what he did, or else he would not have done so. But I wonder how the Washington Post feels about this kind of material being published under its masthead, and the comments it spawns.
I hope, for the paper's sake, it makes them more than a little uncomfortable.
Did you know that President Obama knows more about Judaism than any other President?
The source for this preposterous claim is.......President Obama. And the basis for his claim is that he had a lot of Jewish friends in Chicago, and read about Jews.
In case you think I'm kidding about this - and I wouldn't blame you, since it sounds so impossibly ignorant and hubristic, read the following excerpts from Natasha Mozgovaya's article in Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper:
"Rather than describe how deeply I care about Israel, I want to be blunt about how we got here," Obama said, reminding his guests that he had so many Jewish friends in Chicago at the beginning of his political career that he was accused of being a puppet of the Israel lobby.
Obama also stressed he probably knows about Judaism more than any other president, because he read about it - and wondered how come no one asks Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner or Senate minority leader Mitch McConnel about their support to Israel.
It's hard to know where to begin.
Let me start with the fact that having a lot of Jewish friends doesn't mean you know squat about Judaism. What the hell did Barack Obama do with those friends? Discuss the Torah? Halachic law? Analyze the individual prophets? I have friends from many different backgrounds. That makes me an expert in nothing.
And the fact that he read about Jews? WHAT did he read about Jews? What is that even supposed to mean? I spent a year at a Jesuit school - Saint Louis University - and I read The Da Vinci Code. Trust me when I tell you it didn't turn me into a Catholic scholar.
As far as no one asking John Boehner or Mitch McConnell about their support for Israel, the reason just might be that they DO support Israel.
Neither of them suggested, for example, that Israel should unilaterally go back to the pre-war 1967 borders, and then negotiate further concessions/swaps from there. And neither of them attacked Israel for daring to build a couple of hundred residential housing units in East Jerusalem. That was you, Mr. President. And that, among other things, is why people question your support.
We have had 43 Presidents (I count Grover Cleveland once). Some have been good and some have been bad. But I wonder if we ever had one who was anywhere near as self-impressed as Barack Obama.
Every internet-savvy person knows that "lol" stands for "laugh out loud". People use it all the time in chat rooms, on social media, etc. to indicate they think something is funny.
But I actually did "lol" just now, when I read the latest blog by leftward writer and activist Michael Tomasky, in which he agreed that Barack Obama made an awful mistake last night when, while honoring WWII Polish hero Jan Karski with a Medal of Freedom, Mr. Obama referred to "Polish Death Camps" rather than nazi death camps. As noted in my previous blog, this unbelievably egregious gaffe absolutely enraged the Polish government.
Here is what Tomasky had to say about it:
For Obama to refer to a "Polish death camp" is just ghastly. How in the world could that happen? Some callow kid in the speechwriting office didn't know the difference? His or her boss also didn't know? And what of Obama? I will assume that he does know better. But he said the words.
Assuming he knew it was wrong when it was coming out of his mouth, why didn't he just stop and say: "You know, Mr. Karski, it says here 'Polish death camp,' so that's what I said, but I want to correct that. We all know that these were German camps." That's all. Easy peasy. He really should have just taken charge of the moment there and shown some honesty and candor.
The reason I laughed out loud - and a heads-up to Michael Tomasky: Jan Karski was given the Medal of Freedom posthumously. He died in 2000.
If Mr. Obama wanted to correct his gaffe to Mr. Karski personally, he would need someone who communicates with the deceased. Maybe Mr. Tomasky could hook him up with Whoopi Goldberg's Oda Mae Brown character from Ghost. Or, in a pinch, Michael Keaton's Beetlejuice might be able to help out.
Barack Obama making ridiculous and/or inaccurate statements is not news. He does it all the time. This is the man who told us the country has 57 states, who stood in front of a military gathering and said he honored fallen soldiers "many of whom I see here today", etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
But Barack Obama making a ridiculous, inaccurate statement so offensive that a government - an ally, no less - is screaming bloody murder? Enough so that media - however grudgingly - have to report it? That's news.
Poland demanded a “strong and clear response” from the U.S. after President Barack Obama’s mention of a “Polish death camp” while honoring a Pole who told the world about the Holocaust.
“We can’t accept such words in Poland, even if they are spoken by a leader of an allied country,” Prime Minister Donald Tusk told journalists in Warsaw today. “Saying Polish concentration camps is as if there was no German responsibility, no Hitler.”
“The president misspoke -- he was referring to Nazi death camps in German occupied Poland,” Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said in a statement. “We regret this misstatement.”
The text of Obama’s remarks on the White House website hasn’t been corrected as of today.
“The White House will apologize for this outrageous mistake,” Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski wrote on his Twitter Inc. account. “It’s a shame that such a momentous ceremony has been overshadowed by ignorance and incompetence.”
"The President misspoke"? Ok, thanks Mr. Vietor, that makes things all better I'm sure.
Now, what about the fact that, elsewhere in the article, it is pointed out that Poland has been complaining of newspapers using that term since 2004, which caused a number to stop doing so - a fact that, incredibly, seems to have eluded Obama & Co.?
And what about the fact that, as of today, the White House still has "Polish death camps" on its web site? Is that supposed to undo the damage?
How upset is the Polish government about this incredibly stupid gaffe? In a departure from conventional diplomatic protocol of, oh, about 10,000,000,000,000 miles, its Foreign Minister has called it "outrageous", and the product of "ignorance and incompetence".
Hey, this guy understands Barack Obama better than a lot of voters ever will.
All that is missing to show that the Foreign Minister understands Mr. Obama completely, is him saying "This is how you treat an ally? Who do you think we are? Israel"?
Jennifer Rubin is a mostly conservative commentator who, for the past year and a half, has written a blog for the Washington Post web site called "Right Turn".
(Funny, I never see any of the leftward Post writers - Eugene Robinson immediately comes to mind - writing under the title "Left Turn". I guess there's no such thing....).
While I usually enjoy reading Ms. Rubin's blogs, I'm a little frustrated by yesterday's edition, which talks about media making a big deal out of the fundraiser Donald Trump is running for Mitt Romney - i.e. their latest demonstration of lickspittle obedience to the Obama campaign.
Please do not get the wrong idea: I am not frustrated because Ms. Rubin is wrong. She is dead on target. I am frustrated because she beat me to the punch. I was going to write virtually the same point of view, using at least one of the same examples, and she got their first.
Arrrggghhhhh.
Rather than re-invent the wheel, here are a few key excerpts of Ms. Rubin's commentary:
The notion that Donald Trump’s fundraiser is somekind of debacle for Mitt Romney is one more “shiny object” stunt that is a transparent diversion by the Obama campaign so the media will avoid examining President Obama’s record. And it’s yet another indication of just how in-the-tank-for-Obama is so much of the media coverage
That Romney has disclaimed any hint of birtherism is also no reason for the media to restrain itself.
Nor is hypocrisy any hinderance. Obama’s super PAC continues to take money from Bill Maher, who not only demeans women in terms unusable in The Post, but also has taken to anti-Mormon bigotry. Yawn goes the media.
An Obama bundler is a porn producer. And, “Team Obama includes a self-identified ‘Muslim Palestinian-American’ campaign fundraiser who has a history of blasting Israel in highly charged letters and newspaper articles about the Middle East conflict.” More yawning from the media.
But that’s par for the course. Romney will talk this week, according to a campaign e-mail, about “President Obama’s abysmal economic policies harming job creation . . . [and that] President Obama not only doesn’t understand the economy — he also opposes the free-market principles that built it.” Obama wants to talk Trump. That’s the 2012 campaign in a nutshell.
Exactly.
President Obama cannot run on his abysmal record - other than lying about it and hoping his Accomplice Media continue to say "yes boss, we'll tell the sheeple every word you ask us to".
So he has to divert attention from that record to Donald Trump. Or Karl Rove. Or Charles and David Koch. Or Waldo, or the man in the moon, or Mr. Mxyzptlk....anything but that @*#%ing record.
And as long as the Accomplice Media simply (and I do mean simply) regurgitate every word emanating from The Great And Powerful Obama, he can largely get away with it.
Thank you Ms. Rubin for seeing right through this. How I wish some of your colleagues would do the same.
How can an apparently fake document like Barack Obama's so-called "long form birth certificate" stand as authentic?
Donald Trump asked that question last year, and he is asking it again now.
One the one hand, that's too bad for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. I am certain he would love for the birth certificate issue to go away, because it is a distraction from his central campaign message that Barack Obama has made a shambles of our economy.
On the other hand, Donald Trump, for all his egotism, pomposity and bluster, has a point. The document seems clearly to be a fake. A phony. A fraud. A concoction generated on Adobe Illustrator.
But, you might ask, if that is the case, how then is it possible that this apparently fake document was, and continues to be, second-naturedly touted as authentic by virtually all mainstream media?
Good question. Here is the step by step process.
First a "long-form birth certificate" was created. This was done to finally shut up the so-called "birthers" (Donald Trump is far from the only skeptic), who have spent years demanding to see something other than that green "Certification of Live Birth" - the one media spent two years describing as the original. (In that regard, do you recall even one media venue apologizing for that claim after this new "authentic birth certificate" was released last year? I know I don't).
Then it was issued - suddenly, out of nowhere, with no advance notice. This insured that its existence was reported before skeptics could either examine the document or announce they would be doing so.
Finally, the Accomplice Media, working - as they almost always do - in concert with the Obama administration, declared "there, that's the birth certificate, this ends the issue" -- without any of them having it checked by experts, to determine its legitimacy.
This last part is the key. It is what makes everything work.
See, if mainstream media venues do not have one or more experts examine the document, then report that "in my professional, expert opinion, with my reputation on the line, this is a real birth certificate", they eliminate the possibility that any of those experts will come to a different conclusion - i.e. "in my professional, expert opinion, with my reputation on the line, this is not a real birth certificate".
Now let me ask you a question: which mainstream media - '"I'm talking about CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. - have hired experts to examine the document, then report their findings?
You can't come up with any, can you?
I'm betting you can name commentators who said it was real. "Journalists" who said it was real. But no actual experts. Think about it. Take your time. Can you come up with even one name? (Actually, I can. One media venue I am aware of did speak to an expert. More on that further on).
Doesn't it strike you as odd that, with an issue this controversial for this long, virtually no media venue would make any attempt to validate the document's authenticity?
But they sure have been telling us, in definitive terms, that it is the real thing, haven't they?
Illustratively, that is what Wolf Blitzer did in his extremely contentious interview with Donald Trump yesterday. That is what the Today Show did this morning, when, speaking of skepticism regarding the birth certificate, it told viewers "the claim was discredited more than a year ago".
Discredited by who? Certainly not the Today Show, if they never had the document checked.
By contrast, you can go on line and find literally dozens and dozens of different web sites which go into meticulous detail showing how the so-called copy of Mr. Obama's original long-firm birth certificate is layered, has different typefaces, different colorations of individual letters, etc. - all of which would be impossible if the document were originally created on a single typewriter and then just copied.
Here is the latest site showing some of the discrepancies - but google "Obama birth certificate forgery" and you can find numerous other sites, many of which go into painstaking, step by step detail in demonstrating exactly how it was done.
Earlier on, I noted that I am aware of one expert who supposedly said Mr. Obama's long form birth certificate was authentic. The expert's name is Jean-Claude Tremblay (yes, that was also the name of a famous hockey player), and he was quoted in an article by Fox News's Jana Winter as saying there are explanations for the apparent "layering" and we shouldn't be suspicious about the birth certificate.
However, even that lone expert opinion has turned to dust. Mr. Tremblay, upon reading Ms. Winter's piece, wrote a response to the Fox News article in which he vigorously denied making any such conclusion. His exact words:
I want to clarify a few things written in that blog post after my brief conversation with Ms. Winter. The blog post on FoxNews has generated so many comments good and bad. I also feel that Ms. Winter has attributed a conclusion to me in the title that I did not mention during my interview. Some of my statements, mainly regarding the use of OCR software were also not 100% accurate. I only spent a short time looking at the PDF the day before. I feel obligated to make some clarifications.
First, I never thought that what I saw in the Birth Certificate PDF was a proof of its authenticity. For me, what I have seen does not prove that it is legit, nor that it is a fake, nor that there has been any tampering whatsoever. The title of the blog does not represent my conclusion. It would be unprofessional and simplistic within my area of competence to come to a conclusion one way or the other.
Ironic, isn't it, that of all the media venues, Fox News - which is disdained by the others as a right wing mouthpiece, and insultingly called Faux News - was the only major media venue which asked an expert's opinion -- and (albeit erroneously as it turned out) reported conclusions that would have been favorable to President Obama.
So what do we have here?
We have almost all mainstream media insisting that the issue was laid to rest with last year's issuance of the alleged long form birth certificate --- just as they did two years before when the "Certification of Live Birth" was issued and these same media were telling you that it was the original document -- something that, as noted earlier, not one of them, to my knowledge, has ever apologized for being wrong about.
How do they know the birth certificate is authentic? Based on their decision not to have experts examine the document, the answer is that they don't.
Do they want to know? Based again on their decision not to have experts examine the document, the answer is no.
So our wonderful "neutral" media can go after Donald Trump all they want. They can ridicule him and excoriate him for daring to do what they damn well should have done themselves. And, since the weight of so many media venues is far greater than even a powerful man like Donald Trump, they'll probably convince most people that he is a nut and they are the voice of reason.
Pathetic.
How do they call themselves journalists? How do they even face themselves in the mirror?
Just a quick note: The Texas Primary is today. And, as in Arkansas just last week, Barack Obama is opposed by John Wolfe Jr.
In Arkansas, voters gave Mr. Wolfe over 40% of the vote versus Mr. Obama. (And let's not forget that, in the Kentucky primary, "uncommitted" got over 40% of the vote versus Mr. Obama as well)
How will things turn out tonight? Will it be another major embarrassment for the President - which - as was the case last week - our Accomplice Media barely talk about if they talk about it at all?
I'll have more to say about this when the results come in.
UPDATE: Well, this time Mr. Obama dodged the bullet. He wound up with 88% of the Texas primary vote, versus 12% to Mr. Wolfe and two other candidates.
Not that an embarrassing vote total would have made a lot of difference anyway, since most of our wonderful "neutral" media have steadfastly refused to report the previous embarrassments in, among other states, West Virginia, Arkansas and Kentucky.
Until just recently, I thought of Newark Mayor Cory Booker as a young, dynamic, HONEST, PRINCIPLED man.
Well, he's still young. And he's still dynamic. And that, sad to say, is where it ends.
The Sunday before last, Mayor Booker spoke his mind about the advertising by both President Obama and Mitt Romney (he called it "nauseating"), and stood tall in talking up the benefits of equity capital firms, including Mitt Romney's former company, Bain Capital, even as Mr. Obama was engaged in a frontal assault against Bain (while simultaneously raking in $$$$$$$ from other such firms).
Needless to say, the Obama people did not like what they heard from Mr. Booker.
I don't know what kind of pressure they put on him. But, within hours, he was backtracking. And in a day he was on the attack against Bain Capital. Just like his boss, Barack Obama, told him to.
However, there was still a problem: namely, the untidy fact that, whatever came afterward, Mr. Booker, while on Meet The Press, said this about equity investment companies in general and Bain Capital in particular:
"I have to just say from a very personal level, I'm not about to sit here and indict private equity. To me, it's just this--we're getting to a ridiculous point in America, especially that I know. I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record, it ain't--they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses, And this, to me, I'm very uncomfortable with."
That clear enough for you?
So how did Mayor Booker handle this obvious contradiction? Did he stand up like a man and take responsibility (some would call it credit) for those comments?
Nope. He forced his communications director, Anne Torres, out instead - as if it were her fault. You can read all about it via Alexis Levinson's blog at dailycaller.com.
That's right. Instead of Mayor Booker doing the right thing - the honest, principled thing - and either reaffirming his original, clearly stated positions, or taking the blame for his subsequent flip-flop, you can wave the hapless Ms. Torres goodbye. Anyone who thinks her resignation, one week after the Meet The Press debacle, was a coincidence, is living in dreamland.
I like to think I get things right a good deal of the time. But I'm a big boy, and big boys admit they are sometimes wrong.
Apparently I was wrong about Cory Booker. He has shown me he's not special at all; just another hack politician.
If this one doesn't wake up at least some members of "The Lost Tribe" to what the Democrat Party is about these days, I don't know what will.
Do you know who faiz shakir is? If not, you're about to.
faiz shakir is a hardline radical who clearly hates Jews and hates Israel. He is also a left wing Democrat operative who, for years, ran the george soros-funded Center for American Progress's web site, thinkprogress.com, as a happy home for anti-semites. It got so bad that even the Obama white house, which is near-umbilically dependent on soros' money, had to say something about it.
Now, however, shakir has a much better gig. He has been hired by Democrat house minority leader - former (and, conceivably, future) speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi, as her senior advisor.
How can this be? How can this "man", with his extensive history of anti-Israel, anti-semitic involvement, become a senior advisor to one of the most prominent Democrats in the country?
Hey, it's easy --- provided that two conditions are met: 1) Democrats are comfortable with Ms. Pelosi hiring shakir on, and 2) their Accomplice Media decline to report about it. Which is what has happened.
But we are fortunate. We have Daniel Greenfield's article at frontpagemag.com to tell us all about faiz shakir, complete with full referencing so we can see that everything he has written is for real.
I will show you a few key excerpts below -- if you promise to use the link I provided in the previous sentence and read Mr. Greenfield's entire exposé. Promise? Ok, here are the excerpts - and please pay special attention to:
-The link which tells you about Danielle "Jewbags" Gilbert, the self-hating, Israel-hating "Jew" (I'm ashamed to use that term when talking about her) who currently works for DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and
-The last two paragraphs,
both of which I have put in bold print:
In 2000, he oversaw a week of events that raised money for Islamic terrorists murdering Jews. From 2005 until the present, he oversaw a left-wing blog whose contributors used language that even he admitted was anti-Semitic. And now Faiz Shakir is about to become a senior advisor to the Democratic Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
Moving Faiz Shakir into such a prominent role where he will be able to influence policy and messaging for a key Democratic Party figure, while keepingDanielle “Jewbags” Gilbert on as the DNC liaison to the Jewish community, is proof once again that the Democratic Party does not take bigotry seriously when it is directed at Jews. Not only that, but it even rewards the bigots with plum posts.
Faiz Shakir had co-authored the “Fear Inc.” report, which had implicitly claimed that Islamophobia was the product of a Jewish conspiracy, and had written positively about the Tunisian Islamist Al-Nahda Party and its genocidal head, Sheikh Rashid Ghannouchi, who has engaged in blatant anti-Semitism, and has said, “There are no civilians in Israel. The population—males, females and children—are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed.”
Under Shakir, ThinkProgress has promoted Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamists, much as he tried to direct funds to Hamas during his Harvard days. It has been a long time since Shakir was a student and as someone who claims to be a foreign policy expert, there is no doubt that during his tenure at ThinkProgress he knew exactly what he was doing.
ThinkProgress is not just a site; it’s the messaging apparatus for the most influential think tank in the country. It’s where Democrats and their media allies pick up their talking points in their war on truth, justice and the American Way. And as senior advisor to the Democratic Minority Leader in Congress, and aspiring Majority Leader, Faiz Shakir will be doing what he was doing all along.
The Center for American Progress is the Soros Shadow Party’s tool for influencing domestic and international policy, but it is also filled with members of another shadow party: the agents of the Muslim Brotherhood. As a senior advisor to Nancy Pelosi, Faiz Shakir will be doing directly what he once did indirectly, openly what he once did covertly.
Putting a man like Shakir into such a position is a statement that the Democratic Party no longer cares what it reveals about itself as the last vestiges of caution that it adopted after September 11 fall away and the dark blotch of the two shadow parties covers it over. And so a man who chaired a week of events that raised money for an Islamic terrorist group, whose charter calls for the extermination of the Jewish people, and who ran a messaging apparatus whose contributors used anti-Semitic language, will now run the messaging apparatus for the leader of congressional Democrats.
The elevation of Faiz Shakir is yet another reminder to Jews that there is no longer a place for them in the Democratic Party.
This, folks, is today's Democrat Party. Nancy Pelosi hires a senior advisor that hamas, hezbollah and the lunatics running Iran might consider for a lifetime achievement award, and everyone from Barack Obama down is fine with it. Not a peep out of any of them.
If you are a Jew, and/or if you support Israel, you should know about faiz shakir, and just how welcome he, and others like him, are in today's Democrat Party. I hope I am helping you to do so.
At the beginning of this blog, I referred to "The Lost Tribe". Regular readers know that reference is to people, Jewish and non-Jewish both, who support Israel but still intend to vote for Barack Obama anyway.
Maybe - maybe - learning about these facts, which mainstream media have moved heaven and earth to shield from them, will wake a few lost tribers up.
If so, I welcome them back to reality - and ask nothing more than that they continue to hear/see/read both sides of the story from now on.
I do not often read the Boston Herald's Holly Robichaud - who, when she is not writing, is a long-time Republican strategist. But her latest column is very worthwhile reading: it combines a heavy dose of sarcasm - even less subtle than Ann Counter's - with several very significant points about the condition of Democrat senate candidate Elizabeth Warren within her own party.
Here are a few excerpts:
Next weekend, commonwealth Democrats are holding their annual state convention. It will be a gathering of moonbats wearing Birkenstocks and socks, union payroll patriots and limousine liberals. Although Fauxcahontas Elizabeth Warren is their anointed candidate to take on U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, state Democratic Party Chairman John Walsh is predicting that Marisa DeFranco, a Boston immigration lawyer with a mere 1200 Facebook friends, is going to get 15 percent of the delegates, allowing her to be on the September ballot. That means Sitting Duck Warren will have to face a primary.
By allowing DeFranco on the ballot, does that mean Democrats think that Lieawatha is a flawed candidate? Have Democratic leaders lost control of their party? Or is this their backup plan in case October’s hot Halloween costume is a Democratic Senate candidate, complete with Indian headdress?
Last summer, Obama refused to nominate Fauxcahontas to head up the new Consumer Federal Protection Bureau.
As Vice President Joe Biden would say, Lizzy being snubbed is a “big (expletive) deal.” She dreamed up the consumer agency and built it. The White House’s reason for failing to nominate Fauxcahontas is due to a belief she could not get confirmed by the Senate. Maybe we now know why.
I can't say I agree with everything Ms. Robichaud says. But I do enjoy the way she says it.
I think I'll be reading her more often.
Meanwhile, if Ms. Robicheaud happens to come across this blog, I think I'll give her a taste of my own sarcasm regarding Elizabeth Warren, from my blog of May 11th:
Here is the latest installment of my series on real racism - which, as regular readers know, I expand to include religious intolerance as well.
It comes to us from an article, too short to excerpt, from WPXI-TV, Pittsburgh:
A Cranberry Township restaurant has a sign outside its doors that reads, "Flying remote control airplanes into Muslim people at the mall is my thing."
Part-time owner of Domenico's, Michael Pollice, said this isn't anything new. He's displayed signs like it in the past and sees nothing wrong with continuing to do so.
"It's not real deep," said Pollice. "Because I am a shallow person."
When asked what he would say to someone who believes the sign is offensive, Pollice replied, "Get a life, man. Take it easy. Just enjoy it for what it is."
I'll assume that you don't need me to tell you what is wrong with this "man" and his apparent hobby.
I doubt that I can get through to the michael pollices of the world, but I'll try one more time. There are millions and millions of Muslims in the United States. They include people from every level of religious observance and non-observance. From every political party. From every school of thought on just about every subject.
People who think Muslims in the United States are some monolithic entity - that "if you've seen one you've seen 'em all" - are not just racists. They are also mindless imbeciles. And, sad to say, there is no shortage of them.
For that reason, you can assume that my "Real Racism' series is not done. As long as there are people like michael pollice, I will never run out of additional entries.
It is a pretty good bet that, until now, you have never heard of Jo Ann Nardelli. So let me tell you who she is, what she has done, and why the Democrat Party should fear how many other voters there are who may be thinking the same way Jo Ann Nardelli does.
Jo Ann Nardelli has been a Catholic Democrat her entire life. Her father was one before her. And she couldn't imagine a day where that wouldn't be true.
But that day was Wednesday of last week.
Nardelli has been the focus of quite the firestorm in Pennsylvania because the thing is that Jo Ann Nardelli isn't just another Democratic committeewoman. She's the president and founder of the Blair County Federation of Democratic Women, she was Vice President of the PA State Women’s Caucus, and was 1st Vice President of the PA State Federation of Democratic Women (she had been in line for the presidency of that organization in 2014). She met with Hillary Clinton, gave a rosary to Joe Biden, and appeared on the cover of US News and World Report going to Church with then Senate candidate Bob Casey Jr.
Nardelli has always been a pro-life Democrat and felt that there was always room for that position in the party. But she said that for the past few years she's felt that the party was drifting further and further away from her. She said she never shied away from speaking about her Catholic faith or her pro-life views as a Democrat.
She said that for years she hoped that she could change the party from within, make it more in line with traditional values. "I thought I could make a difference to change our party. It didn’t work," she said. "I noticed it that it’s been going more and more to the left. This is not my father’s party. I did not leave the party, the party left me."
In a letter of resignation to the Democratic party, Nardelli cited her Catholic faith.
“I respect all of you and all that I have achieved in the past. Due to personal matters and faith beliefs at this time, it is only fair to resign,” she wrote. “I will miss you all very much as you are all a part of my family; however, it is time to move forward with my life in a direction that is more in line with my faith.”
The question Democrats have to face, especially in view of the lawsuits filed earlier this month by 43 different Catholic organizations over being forced to offer contraception and abortion services in contradiction to their religious beliefs, is how many other Jo Ann Nardellis are out there.
I am not talking only about politically active Democrats who might leave the party over what many Catholics consider its strong, and increasing, hostility to their religious freedom. I am talking about just plain, average, everyday Catholics, regardless of their gender or political involvement, who have come to the same conclusion Ms. Nardelli has about the Democrat Party:
"I noticed that (it has) been going more and more to the left. This is not my father's party. I did not leave the party, the party left me...it is time to move forward with my life in a direction that is more in line with my faith".
Let's consider Ms. Nardelli's home state of Pennsylvania. This is a must-win state for Barack Obama. But it is also a state with a higher-than-average incidence of Catholic citizens: as of 2008, Catholics comprised about 23.9% of the United States, but 28.4% of Pennsylvania. How badly would Democrats be hurt if there were a proliferation of Jo Ann Nardellis?
And Pennsylvania is far from the only one. A partial sampling of other swing states with even higher percentages of Catholic populations would include New Jersey (41%), Wisconsin (29.5%) and Nevada (32.3%).
How many Jo Ann Nardellis do you suppose there are in those states?
Even several northeastern states which probably remain solidly Democrat, have enough Catholic voters to make this a concern - possibly forcing the party to commit campaign resources there which could have been used elsewhere. These include New York (37.1%), Massachusetts (42%), Connecticut (36.6%), and Rhode Island (59.5%).
And this is before we get to the fact that the Democrats' intrusion into Catholic religious freedom - led by Barack Obama - is likely to be of note to non-Catholic groups as well. If Catholics can be forced to provide insurance which offers contraceptive and abortion services, will, for example, Orthodox Jews at some point in the future, be forced to provide food that is not strictly kosher because some Obamacrat decides it is necessary for a balanced diet?
The good news for Democrats is that most people who have spent their lives regularly voting for one party will find it very difficult to switch gears at this late date. The bad news, however, is that if they become aware of others who have done so, and whose reasons parallel why they are considering a switch, it becomes that much easier.
So even if you never have heard of Jo Ann Nardelli until reading this blog, you should become acquainted with her name. Because the Jo Ann Nardellis of the country may well change the course of this year's elections.
My previous blog, written yesterday, noted chris hayes' comments about Memorial Day - specifically about calling our military people heroes - and what I thought of them.
Well, hayes has now "apologized" for what he said. Here is his "apology":
On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word "hero" to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don't think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I've set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that.
As many have rightly pointed out, it's very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation's citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday's show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.
But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.
In that statement, hayes has "apologized" two times: once for not being as great as he thinks he usually is and once for being the insulated "removed pundit" he will continue to be anyway.
Yesterday I said hayes was smug, snarky, elitist, obnoxious and called him a diseased asshole.
How in the world would this equally smug, snarky, elitist, obnoxious "apology" change my assessment?
Trust me, it doesn't.
However, there is good news for chris hayes: with an attitude like that, he has a great future ahead of him at MSNBC.
Some blogs don't need a lot of verbiage. This is one of them.
Here are the words of chris hayes, yesterday, speaking for himself - and, I am sure others at MSNBC - about honoring our military heroes on Memorial Day:
CHRIS HAYES: Thinking today and observing Memorial Day, that’ll be happening tomorrow. Just talked with Lt. Col. Steve Burke [sic, actually Beck], who was a casualty officer with the Marines and had to tell people [inaudible]. Um, I, I, ah, back sorry, um, I think it’s interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words “heroes.” Um, and, ah, ah, why do I feel so comfortable [sic] about the word “hero”? I feel comfortable, ah, uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.
My response to this is a very basic one.
I think it is very difficult to talk about chris hayes without invoking words like smug, snarky, elitist and obnoxious. And I feel uncomfortable mentioning his name, because chris hayes is so rhetorically proximate to a diseased asshole.
Yesterday, Barney Frank was one of the speakers at the University Of Massachusetts-Dartmouth commencement exercises. Here, excerpted from an article at realclearpolitics.com, is what he said at that time to educator and social activist Hubert Eugene "Hubie" Jones, who was being given an honorary Doctorate:
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was one of several speakers at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth undergraduate commencement that took place this Sunday. Frank was also one of two people that received the Chancellor's Distinguished Service Medal at the event.
However, Congressman Frank made a controversial comment about Hubie Jones, a black recipient of an honorary doctorate, that elicited an audible gasp from the audience.
In reference to the Trayvon Martin case, Frank said "you now got a hoodie you can wear and no one will shoot at you." After the audience reacted, Frank said, "I think you'll feel, I hope, pretty protected by that."
Yes, those are Mr. Frank's real words. But here are the other words; the ones I consider implicit in his comment:
"You also have a set of views I agree with. So you can say them forever and neither I nor anyone on my side will attack you. I hope you feel pretty protected by that.
"But be careful never to stray from those views, Hubie.
Because if you do - if you ever question a thing about Trayvon Martin's actions, or far worse, if you ever disagree with the far left welfare-state-entitlement philosophy my side espouses, you will be called an Uncle Tom, an oreo cookie, a traitor to your race and a lot worse.
Today we remember our military men and women - those who currently serve, those who have formerly served, those who have been injured and those who have fallen, in defense of this country.
They are heroes.
Let's honor them. Because they damn well deserve it.
DOES THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN THINK JONATHAN LAVINE IS MITT ROMNEY?
Ken Berwitz
Why do I ask the seemingly strange question in that title?
Well, first let me reprise an excerpt from my May 14th blog, which talked about an ad attacking Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain Capital:
According to breitbart.com's Mike Flynn, the Obama campaign has just put out a two minute ad which attacks Mitt Romney for layoffs sustained at GST Steel. The company was purchased by Bain Capital in 1993, when it was run by Mr. Romney, and went bankrupt in 2001, with about 750 jobs lost.
Is this an honest attack on Mitt Romney or another Obama lie?
Here is your answer. Forgetting for a moment that the bankruptcy was in no small part due to a downturn in the steel industry:
-There is this little matter of the fact that Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in 1999 - two years before the bankruptcy occurred, and
Now that you are reminded of the honesty level displayed in Mr. Obama's last attack ad about Bain Capital, please read this excerpt from Jonathan Karl's May 22nd blog for ABC news:
The Obama campaign’s latest attack tells the story of workers at an Indiana office supply company who lost their jobs after a Bain-owned company named American Pad & Paper (Ampad) took over their company and drove it out of business.
Here’s what the Obama Web video doesn’t mention: A top Obama donor and fundraiser had a much more direct tie to the controversy and actually served on the board of directors at Richardson, Texas-based Ampad, which makes office paper products.
Jonathan Lavine is a long-time Bain Capital executive and co-owner of the Boston Celtics. He is also one of President Obama’s most prolific fundraisers. He has already raised more than $200,000 for the Obama campaign this election, according to Federal Election Commission records.
What is going on here?
Has the Obama campaign decided that it can trash the actions of Jonathan Lavine, one of its most valued money-men, and then blithely change the name and pretend it was Mitt Romney instead?
Do Obama & Co. really think they can get away with this? Why would they think so?
It takes two key ingredients for a campaign to behave this way. One is complete disregard for the truth - which, this being the Obama campaign - is no problem at all. The other is an assumption that mainstream media will look the other way and act as its accomplices - which, this being the Obama campaign - is all too often what actually happens.
But not this time.
Thank you Mr. Karl for speaking the truth. And shame on the Obama people (assuming they have any), for either twisting or disregarding the facts.
Why do you think you have to do this? President Obama has been in office for almsot 3 1/2 years. Why not just run on his reco........uh, never mind.
TRAYVON MARTIN: ABOUT THAT "ICED TEA" AND SKITTLES...
Ken Berwitz
We all "know" that Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman just after he had gone to a convenience store to buy "iced tea and skittles". And we all "know" that iced tea and skittles is about as innocent a purchase as there could be. All it does is satisfy an innocent young man's desire for a soft drink and candy, right?
Well, hold on to your hats. That may not be the way of things at all.
Much of what you are about to read was derived from a two-part analysis at something called theconservativetreehouse.com. I do not know this site and cannot speak either for its credibility or its motives. But every one of the links it provided, which I am using as the basis for my own commentary, checked out 100%. You can read the web site's entire analysis by clicking here and here - and I hope you do, so you can make your own judgment of its validity.
Why would this make a difference? What possible reason would there be to care about whether Trayvon Martin's soft drink flavor was iced tea or watermelon?
The answer, straight from the urban dictionary, and cannabis.com, is that those are two ingredients used to make a concoction called "lean", which appears to be a popular high for Black kids.
First, what, specifically, is "lean"? According these exerpts from urbandictionary.com:
Purple Drank is a intoxicating beverage also known by the names lean, sizzurp, and liquid codeine. It is commonly abused by southern rappers and wannabe suburban teenagers. It is a mixture of Promethazine/Codeine cough syrup and sprite, with a few jolly ranchers and/or skittles thrown in.
Next, go to the cannibis.com site I've linked above. If you can get through the heavy dose of profanity used by its fans, you will find that watermelon flavored soft drinks have become a popular alternative to Sprite when making "lean"
Now: Why have media continued to misstate Trayvon Martin's convenience store purchase as iced tea instead of watermelon fruit juice for the past three months?
Is it an honest error? That's certainly possible - I've been doing it myself, for no other reason than that I didn't see the crime photograph and didn't know it would have made any difference.
But, apparently, anyone hip to urban culture might well have known the significance of the watermelon drink. Which leads us to Travyon Martin's lawyer, Benjamin Crump.
I am not casting aspersions here because I have no proof,. But I must at least entertain the possibility that a lawyer like Benjamin Crump, who apparently often deals with urban clients on urban issues, might well know this.
Is that why he told us Trayvon purchased iced tea instead of watermelon fruit juice?
Is this some kind of cover-up for what Trayvon Martin was really doing when he decided to go out to a convenience store in a rainstorm? Did he put some of this concoction together for the walk home? Is this why he might have been "just walking about, looking about", as George Zimmerman described, instead of moving along to try to get out of the rain?
Ironically, if Martin had been drinking lean, it also could be used as part of his defense. The urban dictionary tells us that:
Lean slows you down. It makes you feel good. It's meant to be sipped on, and it taste damn good. One of the best feelings you will ever experience. Euphoria with a hint of sedation.
That information might be used by the prosecution to indicate Trayvon Martin could not have been the kind of aggressor George Zimmerman described, because it would have slowed him down and mellowed him.
Of course the defense could also argue that Martin was a 6 foot-plus football playing 17 year old, therefore very strong. And "lean' might have slowed him down to where he could bash Zimmerman's head on the concrete hard enough to only hurt him, not kill him.
One other thing, and it is a very important point: The autopsy report, so far as I know, did not indicate the presence of promethazine and codeine in Trayvon Martin's system. If it wasn't there, whatever use he might have intended to put the watermelon juice and skittles to is moot.
However, a) I do not know that the full autopsy report has been released and b) I do know that the prosecutor has not released all the evidence. So it remains a possibility.
How's that for a little something to think about as the Trayvon Martin case moves along?
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, this morning, on CNN's "State of the Union", speaking about the attempt to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker:
“It’s given the Obama for America operation an opportunity to do the dry run we need of our massive, significant dynamic grassroots presidential campaign"
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, this morning, on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers", speaking about the attempt to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker:
“I think, honestly, there aren’t going to be any repercussions. It’s an election that’s based in Wisconsin.”
Democrats apparently are really scared that the Supreme Court will declare part, or maybe even all, of ObamaCare unconstitutional --as well they should be, since it seems pretty clear that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.
So what are they trying to do about it? Apparently they are trying to intimidate at least one member of the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, into changing his vote and effectively handing over health care - one-seventh of the entire budget - to the tender mercies of government bureaucracy.
They are waging an embarrassingly obvious campaign, hoping he will buckle beneath the pressure of their disapproval and declare Obamacare constitutional. The crucial question is whether Congress exceeded its enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce when it mandated that individuals engage in commerce by purchasing health insurance.
Recently, for example, Vermont’s Pat Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, delivered a Senate speech defending the constitutionality of what he calls the “personal responsibility requirement.” (This is his Orwellian appellation for the mandate, whereby government coercion nullifies personal choice regarding insurance.) After 37 years in the Senate, Leahy probably no longer knows when he sounds insufferably patronizing, as he did when he said that during oral argument he thought that Roberts “seemed well aware of the significance of [the Obamacare] decision.”
Public approval of the court is above 50 percent, that of Congress below 20 percent.
Leahy tutored Roberts about “appropriate deference” to “the elected branch,” vacuously admonished him to be “a chief justice for all of us” and absurdly asserted that the mandate is “consistent with the understanding of the Constitution” that “the American people have had for the better part of a century.”Jeffrey Rosen of George Washington Law School, writing in the New Republic, topped Leahy’s rhetorical extravagance by saying this is Roberts’s “moment of truth” because, if the court overturns Obamacare 5 to 4, Roberts’s “stated goal of presiding over a less divisive court will be viewed as an irredeemable failure.”
Why, exactly, would it be less “divisive” for the court to uphold the broadly disliked Obamacare 5 to 4 than to overturn it 5 to 4? But whether Obamacare is liked or detested is entirely irrelevant. The public’s durable deference toward the Supreme Court derives from the public’s recognition that the court is deferential not to Congress but to the Constitution.
Concerning which, it is cheeky of Rosen, a liberal, to lecture Roberts about jurisprudential conservatism, which Rosen says requires “restraint,” meaning deference to congressional liberalism. Such clumsy attempts to bend the chief justice are apt to reveal his spine of steel.
I don't know much about Jeffrey Rosen. But I do know about Patrick Leahy. He is a disgrace, and has been for many years.
The Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare is coming next month. Until then, we can only guess what other attempts Leahy, Rosen, and their likeminded pals will make to talk one or more justices into acceding to Democrats' demands, rather than basing their decisions on what the constitution of the United States says in plain language.
Most people, certainly me among them, feel that health care has major flaws which must be addressed, and addressed quickly. But wanting significant health care reform is a world apart from demanding that it be nationalized, thus run by the same bureaucracy which manages to eff up absolutely everything else that it touches.
No thanks. Let the constitution prevail. And, for the record, it would be nice to see one or two of the more leftist Supreme Court justices joining in and voting the same way - if, for no other reason, in solidarity with and respect for the court itself.
This is an old joke - a funny one, but an old one - which apparently has been updated quite a bit. Our pal Toy Insurance Bob just sent it to me, and I'm passing it along. Enjoy:
COSTCO MEDICAL SERVICES
One day, in line at the company cafeteria, Joe says to Mike, "My elbow hurts like hell. I guess I'd better see a doctor."
"Listen, you don't have to spend that kind of money," Mike replies.
"There's a diagnostic computer down at Costco. Just give it a urine sample and the computer will tell you what's wrong and what to do about it. It takes ten seconds and costs ten dollars. A lot cheaper than a doctor."
So, Joe deposits a urine sample in a small jar and takes it to Costco.
He deposits ten dollars and the computer lights up and asks for the urine sample. He pours the sample into the slot and waits.
Ten seconds later, the computer ejects a printout:
"You have tennis elbow. Soak your arm in warm water and avoid heavy activity. It will improve in two weeks. Thank you for shopping at Costco."
That evening, while thinking how amazing this new technology was, Joe began wondering if the computer could be fooled.
He mixed some tap water, a stool sample from his dog, urine samples from his wife and daughter, and a sperm sample from himself for good measure.
Joe hurries back to Costco, eager to check the results. He deposits ten dollars, pours in his concoction, and awaits the results.
The computer prints the following:
1. Your tap water is too hard. Get a water softener. (Aisle 9)
2. Your dog has ringworm. Bathe him with anti-fungal shampoo. (Aisle 7)
3. Your daughter has a cocaine habit. Get her into rehab.
4. Your wife is pregnant. Twins. They aren't yours. Get a lawyer
lawyer.
5. If you don't stop playing with yourself, your elbow will never get better.
We know that President Obama is not going to get many Republican votes. We know he has major problems with independents.
But how much trouble is Barack Obama in with Democrats?
Well, let's look at the following table, which shows his vote totals in every primary in which Democrat voters had a choice between Mr. Obama and one or more alternatives:
Date
State
Obama
Other
Jan 3
Iowa
98.9
1.1
Jan 10
New Hampshire
82.0
18.0
Jan 21
Nevada
98.3
1.7
Feb 7
Minnesota
98.1
1.9
Feb 7
Missouri
88.3
11.7
Feb 28
Michigan
89.4
10.6
March 6
Oklahoma
57.1
42.9
March 6
Massachusetts
88.8
11.2
March 6
Tennessee
88.5
11.5
March 6
Vermont
98.1
1.9
March 13
Alabama
80.8
19.2
March 24
Louisiana
76.5
23.5
April 3
WashingtonDC
98.1
1.9
April 3
Maryland
88.4
11.6
April 3
Wisconsin
98.2
1.8
April 24
Rhode Island
83.4
16.6
May 8
North Carolina
79.2
20.8
May 8
West Virginia
59.4
40.6
May 15
Oregon
94.7
5.3
May 22
Arkansas
58.4
41.6
May 22
Kentucky
57.9
42.1
Wow.
Remember, President Obama does not have even one major opponent for his nomination, or anything close. For Democrats, an alternative vote is either for an absolute nobody, a convicted felon (West Virginia) or no one at all (e.g. the "uncommitted" vote in Kentucky).
Yet, despite this, Mr. Obama has lost 15% or more of the Democrat primary vote in 9 out of the 21 primaries in which he was opposed -- including 5 of the last 6, which suggests the problem is intensifying, not improving.
And he has lost over 40% of the vote in four states, including 3 of the last 4.
So; is Mr. Obama in trouble with Democrat voters? You tell me.
And while we're on the subject, would you also tell me how come there is almost no coverage of these incredible vote totals in our mainstream media? Think about it: where, besides here, have you either seen a similar chart or read a similar analysis?
Not for nothing do I call them Barack Obama's Accomplice Media.
Do you believe that 8.1% unemployment figure- the one being touted by the Obama administration as showing an economic "recovery"?
-Let's forget for a moment (and only a moment) we were at 8.1% unemployment when Mr. Obama signed the so-called "stimulus package" which, he promised, would stop unemployment in its tracks and send it on its way down to 6%..
-Let's forget for a moment that what happened instead was that unemployment jumped over 10%, and averaged over 9% throughout the Obama presidency.
-Let's also forget for a moment that the only reason unemployment is anywhere near 8.1% is that, because the economy has been so bad for so long under Mr. Obama, millions of people have given up looking for work, so they are no longer counted in the calculation.
-And let's forget for a moment that, if we add them back in, real unemployment is something like 11 - 12%.
Let's just talk about the simplest, easiest-to-understand of statistics: What percentage of the population is employed.
For that, we look at the latest data - not from a partisan web site, but straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here they are:
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Series Id: LNS12300000 Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio Labor force status: Employment-population ratio Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2002
62.7
63.0
62.8
62.7
62.9
62.7
62.7
62.7
63.0
62.7
62.5
62.4
2003
62.5
62.5
62.4
62.4
62.3
62.3
62.1
62.1
62.0
62.1
62.3
62.2
2004
62.3
62.3
62.2
62.3
62.3
62.4
62.5
62.4
62.3
62.3
62.5
62.4
2005
62.4
62.4
62.4
62.7
62.8
62.7
62.8
62.9
62.8
62.8
62.7
62.8
2006
62.9
63.0
63.1
63.0
63.1
63.1
63.0
63.1
63.1
63.3
63.3
63.4
2007
63.3
63.3
63.3
63.0
63.0
63.0
62.9
62.7
62.9
62.7
62.9
62.7
2008
62.9
62.8
62.7
62.7
62.5
62.4
62.2
62.0
61.9
61.7
61.4
61.0
2009
60.6
60.3
59.9
59.8
59.6
59.4
59.3
59.1
58.7
58.5
58.5
58.2
2010
58.5
58.5
58.5
58.7
58.7
58.5
58.5
58.5
58.5
58.3
58.2
58.3
2011
58.4
58.4
58.5
58.4
58.4
58.2
58.2
58.3
58.4
58.4
58.5
58.5
2012
58.5
58.6
58.5
58.4
What do we see? We see that President Obama was correct in saying he took over an economy on the downswing. No doubt about it.
Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, however, we also see that his three years of impossibly high, trillion-dollar-plus deficits, which were supposed to turn things around, have done exactly nothing to make this economy any better.
Barack Obama took office in January, 2009. Employment-wise, that was the single best month of his presidency. Every other month has been lower.
It is now almost 3 1/2 years into the Obama administration. We are over 5 trillion dollars more in debt. And the result is.....less employment, by plenty, than when it started.
We know who President Obama wants us to blame this on. He wants us to blame it on his predecessor, George Bush. We know this because he has relentlessly made Mr. Bush his major excuse for the failed economy since he became President.
The question is: do you believe him? Do you believe that, 3 1/2 years into Barack Obama's presidency, 3 1/2 years since the "stimulus package" was enacted, he still is not responsible for the condition of our economy?
If so, I suggest you vote for Mr. Obama in November, and give him the four more years he says he needs to "finish the job".
A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.
Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.
Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.
That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.
A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.
Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent.
Women working for Senate Democrats in 2011 pulled in an average salary of $60,877. Men made about $6,500 more.
While the gap is significant, it is slightly smaller than that of the White House, which pays men about $10,000, or 13 percent, more on average, according to a previous Free Beaconanalysis.
Other notable Senators whose “gender pay gap” was larger than 23 percent:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.)—47.6 percent
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.)—40 percent
Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.)—34.2 percent
Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.)—31.5 percent
Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.)—30.4 percent
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.)–29.7 percent
Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.)–29.2 percent
Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.)—26.5 percent
Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore)—26.4 percent
Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa)—23.2 percent
When it comes to prosecuting instances of gender pay discrimination, however, the Obama administration has been far less active than that of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush. Under Obama, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed six gender-based wage discrimination lawsuits. That number is down from 18 lawsuits filed during Bush’s second term.
I have a question - one that I find myself asking over and over again: If this information is so readily available, and it so clearly demonstrates that Democrats - up to and including the President himself - are major offenders on an issue they have attacked Republicans for, why am I reading about it at freebeacon.com, and not, say, the New York Times? Or the Washington Post? Why am I not seeing features about it on the networks' nightly news? Or on their morning shows?
The answer, I am sorry to say, is almost certainly the same as the answer to why, during the 2008 election, these same venues did not report the deep ties between Barack Obama and terrorist william ayers, which were available to any reporter capable of using Google on a computer for 30 seconds.
Simply stated, there is one reason that Democrats, so many of whose major officeholders clearly have no problem underpaying women on their staffs, can get away with hypocritically pointing their fingers at Republicans. It is because, by not reporting the kind information shown above, so many in the mainstream media are their willing accomplices.
These are the people whose job it is to inform us? To give us the news in an impartial manner?
You're kidding, right?
How do they call themselves journalists? How do they even face themselves in the mirror.
Here, excerpted from an Associated Press article posted at dailycaller.com, is the latest horrific news from Syria, where "president" bashar al-assad continues a campaign of mass murder against his own citizens while the world fecklessly stands by and watches:
Gruesome video Saturday showed rows of dead Syrian children lying in a mosque in bloody shorts and T-shirts with gaping head wounds, haunting images of what activists called one of the deadliest regime attacks yet in Syria’s 14-month-old uprising.
The shelling attack on Houla, a group of villages northwest of the central city of Homs, killed more than 90 people, including at least 32 children under the age of 10, the head of the U.N. observer team in Syria said.
The attacks sparked outrage from U.S. and other international leaders, and large protests in the suburbs of Syria’s capital of Damascus and its largest city, Aleppo. It also renewed fears of the relevance of a month-old international peace plan that has not stopped almost daily violence.
The U.N. denounced the attacks in a statement that appeared to hold President Bashar Assad’s regime responsible, and the White House called the violence acts of “unspeakable and inhuman brutality.”
Over the years, I, and many others, have often blogged about the uselessness of the United Nations. It would be hard to find a clearer example of why we feel this way than what is happening in Syria.
For well over a year bashar al-assad has been killing Syrians by the thousands upon thousands. And the United Nations' latest response is to denounce the attacks in a way that "appeared" to hold assad responsible? Who the hell does it think is responsible other than assad?
As is obvious , UN forces are not going to be sent to Syria any time soon. If this farcical, discredited world body cannot even figure out that assad is doing the killing, how long do you think it will take for it to deploy troops to prevent the carnage? Try the 12th of never.
And don't expect Barack Obama to involve US troops either. After the foreign policy disiasters in Egypt (which is about to become a fundamentalist Islamic state) and Libya (where we bombed qadaffi out of existence so he could be replace with al-qaeda) I doubt that Mr. Obama has the stomach for a third debacle - this one during an election year.
So the world will continue to watch, as the mass murdering assad continues to butcher Syrian civilians without a care in the world.
How sad. How pathetic. How inhumane. How inexcusable.
How badly did Newark Mayor Cory Booker damage himself by going on Meet The Press last Sunday and (gasp!) telling host David Gregory the truth as he saw it: i.e. some advertising, by Democrats as well as Republicans is "nauseating", and - most egregiously - that equity capital is a good thing which drives the economy?
It only took 15 seconds on “Meet the Press” to turn
Cory Booker’s gold-plated political brand into an imperiled commodity.
Booker has cemented a reputation as a rising Democratic star with crossover appeal, whose open secret is his desire to become either senator or governor.
But the Newark mayor may have done himself serious damage before he gets the chance to act on his long-held ambitions, thanks to his pointed criticism of the Obama campaign’s assault on Mitt Romney’s private-equity tenure, which he equated with the GOP using the Rev. Jeremiah Wright against Obama. Booker’s words, combined with his painful, videotaped walk-back hours later, may have done the Democrat more harm than good.
“It is absolutely crazy to go and blast the president,” said one Democratic operative who knows Booker well, and asked not to be identified. “And he could have gotten away with it. He could have bemoaned negative campaigning. That would have been fine and that would have been great. (But) he compared the Bain attack to Jeremiah Wright. That’s crazy.”
Booker, who has fundraised heavily from the financial-services sector and is a player in the private-equity-financed, education reform movement, has been eyeing statewide office for years. He is believed to most covet the governor’s office, although he would never challenge Gov. Chris Christie, who’s been a political friend and has deftly moved to co-opt the Newark mayor, unless the Republican was truly vulnerable.
A potential Lautenberg challenge is seen as likelier — and it’s a fact of which that the senator is keenly aware. Following Booker’s comments, the 88-year-old senator went on a media tour to rub salt in the wounds after the mayor’s walk-back, which was made after national Democrats contacted him.
“Now we have a different record,” Lautenberg cheerily told Roll Call of the difference between himself and Booker, accusing Booker of “sabotage” against the president.
I cannot tell you how badly I feel for Mayor Booker. But, the truth is, he has brought this on himself.
Here is what I wrote earlier in the week - and it holds 100% true now:
It took cajones of steel for Cory Booker to make this statement, because it was guaranteed to bring the entire house of Obama down on him.
Which it did.
And that is why, in a matter of hours, those cajones of steel wound up more like whiffle balls.
But, with the kind of pressure Booker must be getting from Obama & Co., you can bet that he will be, let us say, encouraged, to make that criticism more and more strident in the near future.
Too bad.
Look, I don't blame Cory Booker for caving in to the Obama forces. He is a Democrat, Barack Obama is running for re-election and he is supporting Mr. Obama, not Romney. In politics, you sometimes do what you have to do.
But the tragedy here is that this was a shining opportunity for him to seize the opportunity and blast away from the partisan politics which chokes this country. By sticking to his guns, Cory Booker could have shown that he really means what he says, regardless of party considerations. He could have put himself above the usual political BS and become not just a rising star, but a genuine presence in this country.
That is why it hurts so much to have seen him back down this way.
There is a lesson here for Democrats with a sense of honesty and integrity. In the present climate, you either toe the line or get kicked down. Hard.
DO NOT think for yourself.
DO NOT express your own personal opinion.
DO NOT buck the Obama juggernaut.
Here's something I would love to have happen - even though I have zero expectation that it will. I would love to have Cory Booker get back on national TV and say something like:
"This past Sunday, on Meet The Press, I made a number of comments about political advertising and the value of equity capital.
At that time I gave my honest opinion, which I wish to God I had stuck to.
But the pressure put on me to change my opinion was enormous, and I spent several days trying to coat it over in a way that would unruffle the feathers of President Obama and the people around him.
I regret doing that. Politics being what it is these days, I convinced myself to "play ball" and say the politically expedient thing instead of the Cory Booker thing.
I cannot undo those words. But I can take them back, and assure you that what I said on Sunday was my true opinion. That is what I am doing now.
And if it costs me something politically - maybe a great deal - to be true to myself, that is the way it has to be"
In those few words, Mr. Booker could regain his honor, his integrity, and be a hero to most people, very much including most Democrats. All he has to do is be himself.
Now that the better part of a week has gone by, and the news that 43 different Catholic organizations are suing the government over ObamaCare coercing them to offer abortion and contraceptive services in contradiction of the religion's beliefs remains largely unreported by our wonderful "neutral" mainstream media....
....I thought you might be interested in the following exchange on this morning's edition of Fox & Friends, between host Alisyn Camerota and Fox host/former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee:
CAMEROTA: 43 Catholic entities are now suing the Obama administration because of that healthcare mandate that stipulates that they have to provide contraception coverage. That seems like a big story, yet the, most of the media outlets have not covered this massive lawsuit. Why not?
HUCKABEE: It’s like not covering the “I Have a Dream” speech by Martin Luther King in 1963. It’s like missing the Roe v. Wade decision and not thinking that’s significant. It’s like somehow missing Brown versus Board of Education.
This is one of the most significant historic lawsuits in the past 100 years because what you have are the major diocese and the most significant parts of the largest Christian body in the world suing the President of the United States. That is not small potatoes
And let’s remember, the Catholics are not historically a Republican organization, even right-leaning. Typically I think Catholics tend to vote more Democratic than Republican. So you can’t say this is some partisan effort to embarrass this president. This is the last resort by people of conviction and faith who realize that this is a government that has grossly overstepped its Constitutional authority, and it’s done exactly what the first amendment prohibited it from doing.
As of 2010 the Catholic population of the United States stood at just under 60 million. That is almost 20% of the total population, and 150% the size of the entire Black population.
Would it not stand to reason that a lawsuit on behalf of those 60 million people's religion of record against the Obama administration's signature legislation - the fate of which is currently being decided by the Supreme Court of the United States - might warrant a mention or two in the news?
But, on the other hand, the lawsuits are horribly embarrassing, and politically explosive, to the Obama administration. Is that why most mainstream media's reaction has been "nothing to see here, sheeple, just move along, move along...."?
You should. Because Dr. Afridi - possibly unknowingly - was instrumental in helping the CIA (not Barack Obama personally, the CIA) find osama bin laden.
That would make him a hero, right? He made the world a better place, didn't he?
Well, not to Pakistan. He was just sentenced to 33 years in jail for it. The charge? Treason.
The good news (not for Shakil Afridi, but for the USA) is that this has spawned a rare show of bipartisanship in the Senate. By a vote of 30 - 0, the Appropriations Committee has voted to reduce aid to Pakistan by $33,000,000 - one million dollars for each year Dr. Alfridi will be jailed.
The bad news, however, is that, compared to the billions we give Pakistan each year, that is not even pocket change. Pakistan's leaders will laugh about it.
Who is Dr. Shakil Afridi and what was his role in the bin Laden raid? The top medic in the Kyber tribal region, Afridi was recruited by the CIA to run a fake Hepatitis-B vaccination program in Abbottabad in order to acquire a DNA sample from one of bin Laden’s children in the compound where he was hiding. An investigation by the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, concluded that Afridi probably didn’t know he was helping the CIA find bin Laden specifically. Brig. General Shaukat Qadir, who conducted the investigation, wrote in a report obtained by the BBC that, “He was merely paid to follow instructions.”
The mystery is why Afridi, who was arrested less than 3 weeks after bin Laden was killed, stuck around after the raid. It may be that Afridi believed his assistance to the CIA in killing bin Laden would please the Pakistani government. It is even possible that Afridi didn’t know he was working for the CIA. Regardless, the Obama administration apparently did little to persuade the doctor to leave Pakistan.
Former intelligence analyst Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation told Fox News, “You probably wouldn’t want to have tipped him off ahead of time, but maybe the day right afterward you would have wanted to have helped him leave Pakistan — and the same with anybody else who was working with us.”
But former military intelligence officer Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer told Fox News, “From what I’m hearing, we did pretty much nothing,” he said. “We did nothing diplomatically at all, didn’t raise a finger. … From what my sources tell me, we did nothing to try and help this guy.”
How in the world could we let Shakil Afridi hang out to dry that way? What is going on? Who is responsible?
And where is President Obama in this? Why has he not issued an angry, blunt statement denouncing the sentence, complete with a threat - either implied or specific - about how we would react to it?
Is Barack Obama too busy completing his victory dance over osama bin laden's assassination - which would never have happened if he had been President when the information which smoked bin laden out was gathered - to bother with a trifle like protecting Shakil Afridi - without whom it would not have happened?
The State Department (far from my favorite arm of government) says Mr. Obama has "regularly" brought this up to Pakistan. Obviously, either that is untrue, or his efforts were so weak that they were ignored.
And is the US Senate so indifferent to Pakistan's vendetta against Dr. Afridi that it ascribes what, in aid terms is a penny-ante punishment for it?
I'll follow this story as best I can, and provide more information if/when it becomes available.
The CBS 3 I-Team has learned that a Catholic priest who was removed from the ministry over sex abuse allegations now holds a sensitive security post at Philadelphia International Airport.
The security checkpoint between Terminals D and E is a busy place where thousands of people – including lots of kids – pass through every day. But you might not believe who the I-Team observed working as a TSA supervisor at that checkpoint this week: Thomas Harkins.
Until 2002, Harkins was a Catholic priest working at churches across South Jersey. But the Diocese of Camden removed him from ministry because it found he sexually abused two young girls. Now, in a new lawsuit, a third woman is claiming she also is one of Harkins’ victims.
The I-Team asked Harkins about the suit as he was leaving his shift at the airport.
“I have nothing to say,” was Harkins’ reply.
“They should know who they’re hiring,” said Karen Polesir, a Philadelphia spokeswoman with the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). She believes Harkins’ TSA job is inappropriate.
“As the public, we are screened to our underwear getting on a plane, and yet they hire a man like that.”
The TSA says all its employees go through a criminal background check before they’re hired, but because these cases are so old, criminal charges were not filed. A spokesman says the Camden Diocese settled the first two lawsuits with Harkins’ accusers–it has not seen this suit just yet.
Based on the last paragraph of the article, I might buy that the TSA was legitimately unaware of Harkins' past.
Well, it is now. What is going to be done about it?
And how many others with pasts like Harkins are in a position to get a look at passengers through those machines?
Wisconsin's recall nightmare is soon coming to an end. Just 10 more days to go, and 16 months of hatred, thuggery, intimidation and general incivility will be over.....at least for now.
Stephen Hayes has written a terrific article about this for weeklystandard.com, which brings home just how ugly this has been - not only for Governor Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans, but for Wisconsin citizens in general. You should read every word of. But, in the meanwhile, here are just the first three paragraphs:
This is what democracy looks like.” That was the boast of protesters occupying the Wisconsin state capitol 16 months ago as they blocked Republican lawmakers from entering the legislature and celebrated Democratic state senators who had fled the state to avoid a vote on Governor Scott Walker’s budget reforms. So in some respects it’s fitting that a process launched in the intellectual incoherence of those early days will end with an election to recall an official whose offense is doing as governor the things he promised as a candidate he’d do. This is not, of course, what democracy looks like—at least not what it ought to look like.
The Wisconsin recall is a farce—a childish, union-sponsored tantrum that will cost the state’s taxpayers an estimated $18 million. Perhaps the greatest irony is that Democrats rarely discuss its ostensible cause: collective bargaining. Tom Barrett, the mayor of Milwaukee who is seeking to replace Walker, did not use the phrase in the speech he gave celebrating his victory in the Democratic primary earlier this month. Graeme Zielinski, spokesman for the Wisconsin Democratic party, told Mother Jones: “Collective bargaining is not moving people.” A recent poll of Wisconsin Democrats found that just 12 percent of those surveyed said “restoring collective bargaining rights of public employees” was the most important reason to remove Walker, well behind three other choices.
There’s a reason the governor’s reforms have gone from being the center of the anti-Walker movement to a talking point to be avoided. They’ve worked. Walker took office with a projected deficit of $3.6 billion, and in two years he’s erased it. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue projected last month that the state will have a budget surplus of $154 million by the summer of 2013.
Assuming Governor Walker wins (there are no guarantees in politics, but right now it looks highly likely), the big question will be what this means to Wisconsin voters - and voters in other states who, having watched the goings-on in Wisconsin, have seen how far public sector unions are willing to go - what they are capable of - to reverse the will of the people.
Will they consider the unions' actions a necessary, moral response to the reversal of decades of progress for public sector workers? There is an argument to be made that this is exactly what happened, and I have no doubt some will see it that way.
Or will they see it as the beginning of a move back towards sanity? A move towards public sector employees being compensated fairly for work performed, and union big shots getting a richly earned cutting-down-to-size that hey have had coming for years?
We'll certainly find out in November, since there is little doubt that Governor Walker and Mitt Romney will spend the next half year comparing the sudden, dramatic fiscal turnaround in Wisconsin to the disastrous, and getting even more disastrous by the day, situation in neighboring Illinois (say, isn't that President Obama's home state?) They will be talking about how quickly and decisively a state's fiscal health and general welfare can improve if leaders are serious about cutting spending and instituting desperately needed reforms.
Will this resonate with voters in those two states - and other states as well? See me the day after the election, and let's talk about it.
AN IDIOT JUDGE WHO SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH
Ken Berwitz
Question: What kind of judge would fine, and jail, a 17 year old girl - one of three children abandoned by their parents, who is working at two jobs to support her siblings while still managing to be an honor student - for missing too many classes?
Answer: An absolute idiot.
This is not a hypothetical either. From CBS News - Houston:
A 17-year-old high school honor student who works two jobs and financially supports her two siblings is heading into summer on a sour note after spending a night in jail for being too tired to attend school.
Diane Tran was arrested in open court and sentenced to 24 hours in jail Wednesday after being repeatedly truant due to exhaustion. KHOU reports that Tran, a junior at Willis High School, was warned by Judge Lanny Moriarty last month to stop missing school. When she missed classes again this month, Moriarty wanted to make an example of Tran.
“If you let one (truant student) run loose, what are you gonna’ do with the rest of ‘em? Let them go too?” Moriarty asked, according to KHOU.
Tran told KHOU that in addition to taking advanced and honors classes, she works full-time and part-time jobs in an effort to try to support her older brother at Texas A&M and a younger sister in the Houston area. After Tran’s parents divorced, they both moved away from the honor student and her two siblings.
Tran was also fined $100.
I wish I could say what you just read is nothing more than a tasteless sick joke. It certainly is tasteless. It certainly is sick. And, in ironic terms, it certainly is a joke.
Incredibly, however, it is all too real.
This idiot has decided that a teenager taking on an impossible burden on behalf of her family - and still managing to stay an honor student - is running loose and has to be made an example of.
If there is a judge in Houston who has a brain - lanny moriarty obviously excluded - he/she should be trying to find out how to get the parents of these children to start supporting their family. At the very least they should be sending money to them (if I were one of those children, I'd never want to physically see my parents again -- what kind of mother and father would divorce, then abandon their family?)
Fortunately, there is at least somewhat of a happy side to the story:
-Also according to this article, now that Diane's situation has become known to the public, many offers of help are pouring in. That is very decent as well.
But I have a request. When those decent people are finished helping the Tran children, maybe they can sign a petition to remove lanny moriarty from the bench. If ever a "man" was less suited to being a judge, this idiot is the one.
Isn't golf generally seen as a game for the well-to-do?
Well, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who is keeping track, President Obama has just played his 97th round of golf since taking office. That comes to about 2 1/2 rounds of golf each month. And, believe me, he isn't playing on a public course.
What would our wonderful "neutral" media have said about a Republican President who played golf 2 - 3 times every month, while two wars were being fought for most of his term of office, and the economy was in a shambles with millions and millions out of work or underemployed? What would they have said about his elitism? His insensitivity to the country? Wouldn't they be calculating how much it costs in security alone, and multiplying the amount by those 97rounds? Wouldn't they be telling us how many teachers, or firemen, or sanitation workers that could have paid for?
Keep waiting. They'll say the same thing about President Obama.......any day now. Annnnnnnnnnny day......
Why do I call them the Accomplice Media? Maybe this has something to do with it.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S BUDGET-BUSTING DEFICIT SPENDING: THE REAL STORY
Ken Berwitz
There is fantasy and there is reality.
Fantasy was Rex Nutting's piece at MarketWatch, which, to the delight of the left, suggested that Barack Obama is as tight with a taxpayer dollar as Ebenezer Scrooge.
The claim, of course, was preposterous. And many venues - this one included - have already debunked Nutting's made-for-Democrats analysis. But Investors Business Daily's editorial takedown goes a step further by providing information no one else offered, so I am posting this link for you to read it.
Here are a few excerpts:
Nutting...made two significant mistakes that have the effect of hiding Obama's huge spending spree, mistakes that even Nutting's conservative critics missed.
The first is that Nutting apparently failed to understand how the government accounted for TARP in the federal budget.
Because Nutting didn't factor this in, he ends up greatly exaggerating spending under Bush in 2009 — which Nutting counts as Bush's last budget since the first four months were on Bush's watch — and undercounting Obama's real spending hikes in 2010. (We asked Nutting by email if he was aware of this oversight and have not heard back.)
In addition, Nutting failed to account for the fact that the government was also busy bailing out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, with the bulk of the bailout money going out in 2009, and then quickly tapering off in 2010 and 2011. That, too, artificially boosted spending levels in 2009.
Just how much of a difference does this make?
Nutting says spending under Bush shot up 17.9% between 2008 and 2009.
But when you subtract the effects of TARP, the Fannie/Freddie bailouts as well as the $115 billion in stimulus money Obama added in 2009, that figure drops to 6%.
And while Nutting claims Obama cut spending 1.8% between 2009 and 2010, when you fix Nutting's mistakes, it turns out that Obama jacked up spending 12% in 2010.
That sure looks like a "spending binge" to us.
Of course, much of the confusion about who's a big spender is easily resolved by looking at government spending as a share of GDP, which is the most reliable calculus since it measures government's claim on the entire economy.
In Obama's first term, federal spending will average 23.8% of GDP, according to the CBO.
For those keeping score, that's higher than it's ever been since World War II. And it's more than twice as high as it ever got during the Great Depression.
It's bad enough that we have to deal with Obama's constant efforts to distort his own dismal record. It's far worse when members of the mainstream press do his dirty work for him.
Remember, these are only excerpts. I strongly urge you to read the entire piece so you can fully understand just how egregiously wrong Nutting was, and how egregious a spendthrift Barack Obama was, is, and almost certainly will be if we inflict him on ourselves for another four years.
In a previous blog I mentioned that I do not know Rex Nutting's political leanings. But, somehow, I doubt that he will be a delegate to the 2012 Republican National Convention.......
Levi Johnston had his 15 minutes of fame -- and about $1 million of fortune -- but now he's reportedly penniless and living with his mother in Alaska.
According to a source, Johnston, 22, squandered all of the money he made from his Playboy spread, his public appearances and his tell-all memoirDeer in the Headlights: My Life in Sarah Palin's Crosshairs (which he released last fall).
"Levi made more than $1 million and squandered it on guns, boats and four-wheelers," the source tells Us Weekly.
After spending his money, Levi has apparently had little leftover to help ex Bristol Palin, 21, support their 3-year-old son, Tripp.
"Levi hasn't paid childsupport in nearly two years," says another insider. "And he has little contact with Tripp."
The article goes on to note that johnston's 20 year old girlfriend is expecting their child - and thinks "He's an awesome dad" (ok, maybe "thinks" is too strong a word).
Well, at least we know one thing johnston seems to be proficient at. Too bad it is so hard to find any others....
I will not excerpt either article, because you have to read every word of both, so you will know chapter and verse of what these three "men" are doing and what they are capable of.
Now where the HELL is the eric holder-led Department of Justice? When does it get involved? Before or after someone is killed?
And where the HELL are our mainstream media? Is there not one investigative reporter out there willing to look into these accounts by Ms. Malkin and Patterico? Did they not supply enough evidence to warrant these three being looked into?
Is it that you are scared? Or is it that you are so sympathetic to kimberlin, rauhauser and brynaert that you're ok with it?
Asking again: when does the Department of Justice take action? Ever?
And when do the supposedly journalistic mainstream media start talking about this? They sure as hell had no problem talking about a 47 year old boyhood prank of Mitt Romney's, did they? I guess domestic terrorism, currently in progress, is less important to them.
You don't hear much about the formerly vaunted "Arab Spring" anymore, do you?
Maybe that is because instead of being a great foreign policy triumph for President Obama, it has turned into a disaster.
As you probably remember, Mr. Obama was front and center in facilitating the end of Hosni Mubarak's regime in Egypt. He assured us that the forces of freedom and democracy - you know, those well-bred, well-fed twitter and facebook aficionados who were marching around Cairo's Tahrir Square - would take over, run the show, and turn the country, relatively speaking, into heaven on earth. Except....
...the latest news from Egypt is that, after round 1 of the presidential election process, Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim brotherhood candidate, has won a spot in the run-off election, to be held June 16 - 17. There is an excellent chance he will be elected Egypt's new President - to fit neatly with the 3/4 majority Islamists have won in Egypt's parliament.
You may recall that the Muslim brotherhood said they would not be running a candidate for President. Well, they did. And I'm betting he'll win.
Why would anyone expect otherwise? Egypt is a country that, other than Cairo and a couple of other cities, is predominantly rural, destitute, illiterate and immersed in shari'a law. Fundamentalist Islam is all they know and, obviously therefore, what they vote for.
Mr. Obama did know that, didn't he? Well? Didn't he?
The most likely outcome of Egypt's experiment in democracy will be its transformation from a quasi-democratic state run by Hosni Mubarak which - albeit tenuously - kept a peace treaty with Israel for over 30 years, to an Islamist state with the commensurate freedoms for women and non-Muslims (i.e. virtually none at all) and the emphatic end to the peace treaty - and all other involvement with Israel, including trade, tourism, etc.
Thank you, Mister President, for being so instrumental in facilitating this wonderful exemplar of the "Arab Spring". Great foreign policy job.
If Pulitzer created a category for "Talk show hosts who can dish it out, but can't take it", Chris Matthews would be in for the lifetime achievement award.
Matthews, as you probably know, is a man whose signature "attribute" (if you want to call it that) on MSNBC is viciously, offensively, personally insulting people he disagrees with - virtually always conservatives, of course - on a daily basis. But what happens when Matthews is asked a simple question about a comment he himself made, which he now finds embarrassing?
To explore this question, we first go back to February 12, 2008. Then-Senator Barack Obama had just won the Democrat primaries in Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland, and made a victory speech. Chris Matthews, who - then and now as well - is fond of claiming that he is "absolutley nonpartisan" (despite his long career working for Democrats such as Tip O'Neill and jimmy carter), had this to say about it:
"I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."
Barack Obama gave Chris Matthews a thrill going up his leg? You don't hear that kind of political assessment every day. Not surprisingly, it has become a memorable indicator of Mr. Matthews' strong preference for Barack Obama.
Ok, now let's fast-forward to Tuesday, when Matthews was part of a panel at the National Television & Cable Communications convention. One of the attendees, C-Span's Senior Executive Producer/Political Editor/Sunday show host, Steve Scully, asked Matthews if he still felt that way.
Here is a verbatim account of what happened. The bold print is mine:
STEVE SCULLY: I’m going to read this as a quote so I get this right. I’m going to ask you a yes or no question. Chris Matthews, just yes or no, good luck, quote from 2008: “I have to tell you it’s part of reporting this election the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech, my I felt this thrill going up my leg, I mean I don’t have that too often.” Is the thrill still there today?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, I had, actually if you had done your reporting over at C-SPAN, you would have checked that I said the exact same thing in 2004 after I heard his address up here in Boston.
SCULLY: This is 2012.
MATTHEWS: No, I said this in 2004.
SCULLY: No, but is it there today?
MATTHEWS: I know, I want to help you with your reporting first. I also said, thereafter in 2004, which you didn’t pick up, when I said – four years ahead of time – we’ve just heard the first African-American President, which is on the tape as well, which you failed to mention, which makes me look a little sharper. But you didn’t offer that...
And when he talks about it the way he did, that’s my definition of American exceptionalism. I’m thrilled as I speak about it now. I think this is the great country and I’m thrilled by it and I’m willing to say this, and I meant to say as part of my reporting because I felt it. A guy like Tom Brokaw wouldn’t have said it. I’m an un-traditional person, but I have traditional values and I love the country and I said so. Perhaps I shouldn’t have said so because I’ve given a lot of jackasses a chance to talk about it.
SCULLY: Thank you, Chris.
MATTHEWS: So I hope you feel satisfied that you raised the most obvious question that is raised by every horse’s ass right winger I ever bump into. And usually they say tingle, which tells me about their orientation, but that’s alright.
Nasty. Arrogant. Self-congratulatory. Viciously insulting. All the MSNBC food groups.
And how did you like that sneering reference to the "orientation" of anyone who would dare ask a yes-no question of The Great And Powerful Matthews? What would he have said if Mitt Romney, or any other Republican, ever made a similarly homophobic crack?
You may gather from this that I don't have much regard for Chris Matthews. If so you would be right.
At one time I admired Matthews as a very smart guy who was excellent at turning a phrase. Now he is just a nasty, vituperative joke.
Why? Because she will not admit her native American heritage is a fantasy, so media keep asking her for some - any - proof of it. And she has no proof to offer.
The latest explanation for maintaining her claim to Cherokee (or is it Delaware) indian heritage? Mommy said so. I kid you not, that is what she said.
An exasperated Elizabeth Warren told reporters Thursday that she’s certain about her Native American roots “because my mother told me so.”
Surrounded by a group of reporters, the Democratic Massachusetts Senate candidate was repeatedly questioned about why she hasn’t produced documentation to prove that she is part Native American. After several minutes of grilling, Warren said, “I am proud of my family and I am proud of my heritage.”
“And does it include Indian background?” one reporter asked, according to the first report by masslive.com that was aired on several local Boston TV stations..
“Yes! Yes!” Warren said.
“How do you know that?”
Warren answered, “Because my mother told me so. This is how I live. My mother, my grandmother, my family. This is my family. Scott Brown has launched attacks on my family. I am not backing off from my family.”
Why is Elizabeth Warren so angry? Why is she making war on the media? What is the reason that, without any documentation of a native American background whatsoever, she keeps claiming one anyway, and hoping against hope that media will stop asking about it?
Is there more to this than just perpetuating family lore? You bet there is.
For decades, Ms. Warren has used her phony native American background to claim minority status. And within the academic world's bizarre, self-contradictory policy of "we are against racial discrimination, but if you are a minority we move you to the front of the line", that status has moved her along faster than if she were just some White teacher from Oklahoma.
It has also enabled the schools Ms. Warren has taught at, most notably Harvard University, to proudly make claims about the diversity of their faculty.
If Elizabeth Warren's native American heritage does not exist, therefore, it means Harvard's use of Ms. Warren to show the diversity of its law school faculty has been a fraud. How do you suppose the powers that be at Harvard would react to being made fools off all these years? What do you think that would do for Elizabeth Warren's longevity as a professor there?
See, there is a lot at stake in perpetuating this lie. And, evidently, Ms. Warren apparently thinks she is in too deep to admit the truth.
Morally, she is dead wrong....though, politically, she does have a point (who ever associated morality with politics anyway?).
Sir Walter Scott said "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive". Professor Elizabeth Warren might want to mention that to her mother the next time they chat.
And, as suggested in previous blogs, Ms. Warren might also want to think about how to do her Democrat cohorts a big favor, and withdraw her candidacy for the senate.
President Obama, Executive in Chief of criticizing the cruelties of private equity, is more than happy to plead for donations from people who make their money in the industry. During daylight hours, he’s America’s “Robin Hood.” By night, though, he can be found schmoozing people at firms such as Blackstone — a major player in private equity.
But here’s where it gets better. Obama is speaking at TPI Composites (a producer of blades for wind turbines) in Newton, Iowa later today. Expect to see him promote clean energy tax credits — and laud himself for pushing public funds to help get these companies get off the ground.
It turns out that the bulk of financing ($68 million) for TPI (like most non-Obama affiliated companies in America) has come from private equity. (Source, Source, Source.)
[A]s Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out,” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion.
So, President Obama, we’re left scratching our heads and wondering: What’s the truth about your feelings? Is private equity the monster you’re making it out to be, or is it just another part of a healthy capitalist system.
So what do we have here? Hypocrisy, fraudulent, self-congraulatory claims, and the spewing of billions upon billions of dollars towards companies which just happen to be run by very rich people who give tons of $$$ to the Obama campaign.
In other words, just another day at the office for our President.
Oh, by the way, did I mention that one of Barak Obama's national co-chairs, former Denver Mayor Frederico Pena, is an equity fund manager (just like Mitt Romney was), at Vestar Capital Partners (just like Bain Capital)? Evidently, Mr. Pena's association with those terrible equity fund people is no problem at all --- as long as he is working on behalf of Mr. Obama, that is.
Leftward bloggers are dancing in the streets and rightward bloggers are fulminating over an analysis by MarketWatch's Rex Nutting, which purports to show that President Obama, far from being a profligate spender, is in actuality a fiscal conservative and model of budgetary restraint.
Here is the beginning of Mr. Nutting's commentary. See if you think it holds any water:
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
First off, please note that Mr. Nutting ascribes 2009, in totality, to President Bush, not President Obama. This is obviously untrue chronologically: President Obama took office on January 20th, 2009. Nutting's point is that the fiscal year starts in fourth quarter - October 1st - so since 9 months of the year was on Bush's budget, it is Bush's year.
That sounds great, except for the fact that the so-called "stimulus" package", all $800 billion-plus of it - was signed into law on February 17, 2009.
Let me remind you that the "stimulus package" was written 100% by Democrats, not one Republican in the house voted for it, virtually no Republican senators voted for it, and it was signed into law by President Obama. But using Nutting's "analysis", it counts 100% against President Bush.
That one component, in and of itself, makes Nutting's entire analysis, including the chart, worthless.
Forget everything else (for the moment) and think only of the "stimulus package". If we move that to the Obama part of the ledger, what happens?
-Suddenly the 2009 "Bush deficit" drops like a rock.
-And just as suddenly, the annualized growth of federal spending under Obama jumps skyward, because it is now compared only to what was in the Bush budget, instead of a) Bush's budget being inflated by Obama's "stimulus package", and b) the subsequent Obama budgets looking better because they are being compared to that inflated Bush budget.
But wait. There is more.
Earlier, I told you to forget everything but the so-called "stimulus" package". Now let's un-forget it and see what else there is. For this, I will excerpt from John Hinderaker's excellent blog at powerlineblog.com. The bold print is mine:
Nutting implies that Bush was somehow responsible for the FY 2009 budget and the spending that eventually occurred, months after he left office. But this is incorrect. Bush never saw a FY 2009 budget. The Democratic Congress waited until Obama had been sworn in to pass a budget, and he signed the FY 2009 budget on March 12 of that year. Bush had nothing to do with it. The stimulus funds were added on top of the regular appropriations for FY 2009; Bush had nothing to do with that, either. Altogether, Congress spent more than $400 billion more in FY 2009 than Bush had asked to be appropriated in his budget proposal, which the Democrats ignored.
Did you know that? Did you know that, in addition to the so-called "stimulus package", Democrats added $400 billion dollars more to the 2009 budget after President Bush was out of office?
Take that $400 billion out of the Bush side of the ledger (with the "stimulus package", we're up to $1.2 trillion dollars, aren't we?) and put it on the Obama side. What do you think of Nutting's analysis now?
Look, I don't know what Rex Nutting's political leanings are. But I have to say, this is exactly the kind of crap I would expect from an Obama supporter more interested in protecting his guy than providing an honest analysis.
And it is exactly the kind of crap I expect throughout the 2012 campaign.
What, if any, is the fallout from Cory Booker's honest assessment of the Obama campaign's attacks on Bain Capital - which, in reality, are attacks on capitalism itself?
Just over a month ago, Newark Mayor Cory Booker was hailed as a hero for saving a woman from a raging house fire. Now, after a slight critique of Barack Obama's re-election strategy, he's become the devil incarnate. Who says liberals don't eat their own?
To really go over the top, however, one of our crazed libtalk friends must be temporarily released from the rubber room. This time, the honor goes to MSNBC talking head / RFK Jr associate Mike Papantonio, who labeled Booker (who, like "Pap", is an attorney) "a parasite" during yesterday's edition of the Ed Schultz Show:
MIKE PAPANTONIO (10:05):[Newark Mayor Cory] Booker's trying to get on the radar here. Well, he's on my radar. And I'd like to tell him the same thing I tell lawyers in my firm. I tell a lawyer that a lawyer who's unwilling to aggressively work for positive social engineering is nothing more than a social parasite. That's all they are.
Memo to other "progressives": as with many other crime families, one deviation from the script is all it takes to see a career flushed down the toilet, no matter how loyal one has been in the past. Cory Booker is now a man without a movement.
When Mayor Booker - who, as regular readers know, I have a great deal of regard for - quickly tried to backtrack from his statements on Meet The Press, I blogged about what a lost opportunity it was. My exact words:
Look, I don't blame Cory Booker for caving in to the Obama forces. He is a Democrat, Barack Obama is running for re-election and he is supporting Mr. Obama, not Romney. In politics, you sometimes do what you have to do.
But the tragedy here is that this was a shining opportunity for him to seize the opportunity and blast away from the partisan politics which chokes this country. By sticking to his guns, Cory Booker could have shown that he really means what he says, regardless of party considerations. He could have put himself above the usual political BS and become not just a rising star, but a genuine presence in this country.
That is why it hurts so much to have seen him back down this way.
Sad to say, I had it right then, and Brian Mahoney has it right now. Until Cory Booker makes amends, he is in the penalty box. And given the state of the Democrat party these days, God only knows what kind of amends they will have to be.
BREACHING NATIONAL SECURITY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES?
Ken Berwitz
Would you put it past President Obama to compromise national security so that a film company - headed by a big-time Obama supporter - could get special access to confidential information and then use it to make a film that would glorify him as Commander In Chief?
Judicial Watch...announced today that it has obtained records from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) regarding meetings and communications between government agencies and Kathryn Bigelow, Academy Award-winning director of The Hurt Locker, and screenwriter Mark Boal. According to the records, the Obama Defense Department granted Bigelow and Boal access to a “planner, Operator and Commander of SEAL Team Six,” which was responsible for the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, to assist Bigelow prepare her upcoming feature film.
Judicial Watch launched its investigation of Bigelow’s meetings with the Obama administration following press reports suggesting that the Obama administration may have leaked classified information to the director as source material for Bigelow’s film.
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the information leak was designed to help the Obama 2012 presidential reelection campaign: “The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.”
“These documents, which took nine months and a federal lawsuit to disgorge from the Obama administration, show that politically-connected film makers were giving extraordinary and secret access to bin Laden raid information, including the identity of a Seal Team Six leader,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is both ironic and hypocritical that the Obama administration stonewalled Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden death photos, citing national security concerns, yet seemed willing to share intimate details regarding the raid to help Hollywood filmmakers release a movie ‘perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost’ to the Obama campaign.”
Never forget that Barack Obama and his inner circle are straight out of the Chicago political machine.
What does that mean? It means, do not ever put anything past them.
I certainly hope - and expect that - the the Romney campaign is taking note and understanding just how far this bunch is willing to go. Because it is what they will be dealing with from now until November.
There are some things we can just count on, because they will always happen. The sun rising in the east, the clock striking 12 at midnight, the Cubs not winning the world series......and any negative associated with Barack Obama being blamed by some on racism.
That certainly is happening in the aftermath of Tuesday's stunningly embarrassing Democrat primaries, where President Obama wound up with less than 60% of the vote versus a political nonentity in Arkansas, and nobody at all (i.e. "uncommitted" votes) in Kentucky.
I looked to see if anyone in mainstream media was talking about Tuesday's results in more reasoned terms. And, so far, the best analysis I have seen is from Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake's article at the Washington Post. Here are a few key excerpts:
One easy explanation — and the one regularly espoused by some Democrats — for Obama’s struggles in Appalachia and portions of the South is simply that some white voters will not vote for an African American for president.
But although no one doubts that race may be a factor, exit polling suggests that the opposition to Obama goes beyond it.
And seasoned political observers who have studied the politics of these areas say race may be less of a problem for Obama than the broader cultural disconnect that many of these voters feel with the Democratic Party.
“Race is definitely a factor for some Texans but not the majority,” said former congressman Charles W. Stenholm (D-Tex.). “The most significant factor is the perception/reality that the Obama administration has leaned toward the ultra-left viewpoint on almost all issues.”
In Appalachia, many people are angry at the Environmental Protection Agency’s approach to mining, arguing that the Obama administration has made it more difficult for people in coal country to make ends meet.
“In states like West Virginia and Oklahoma, it’s just that voters are down on national Democrats generally, and I don’t believe it is due to race,” noted former congressman Martin Frost (D-Tex.).
Regardless of the reasoning, it’s clear that there is a bloc of Democratic voters in every state who want to register their opposition to Obama.
This will be a very difficult election for Barack Obama. And the more difficult it gets, the more I suspect that "racism" will be tossed around as a reason - which is more than just low-down political exploitation, it is a tragedy.
Racism is a word that describes ugly, unfair, damaging behavior. It should really mean something. And, at one time, it did.
But over the years, the Democrat party and, more generally, the left, has overused and trivialized the word so completely that it currently has little meaning and even less impact anymore.
I have no doubt some people look at Barack Obama and see nothing more than a skin color they hate. But he won the presidency with that exact same skin color in 2008.
The predominant reason for Mr. Obama's problems in 2012 is his performance as President, not his skin color.
I would ask if Democrats would just stow the gratuitous "If you don't like Barack you must be a racist" garbage this time around. But I won't, since there is no doubt in my mind that it will be invoked no matter what I or anyone else says.
To my knowledge, the major networks did little, if any, reporting on South Carolina's President of the AFL-CIO, donna dewitt(less), who thought it would be fun to put (Republican conservative) Governor Nikki Haley's face on a piñata, and bash it with a baseball bat.
That being the case, I thought you might be interested in what Sarah Palin - no stranger to being bashed as a conservative woman - had to say about dewitt(less)'s behavior:
"This story about the South Carolina AFL-CIO President Donna DeWitt beating a piñata with Governor Nikki Haley’s face on it is disgusting. It’s a perfect example of union boss thuggery. To all the good South Carolina cops and teachers and other good union members out there: this is your union dues at work. Are you comfortable with this? Please, good South Carolina union brothers and sisters, demand your union dues be returned to you; demand an apology; quit your disrespectful union if you believe actions like this don’t represent who you really are. Stiffen your spine because you’re better than this. Respectful union members across this great nation: will you condemn or condone this union “leadership” as they give you one helluva name?"
There it is. straight, blunt and absolutely on target.
Now: will this shame the networks into mentioning what dewitt(less) did? Will we see the story on tonight's news shows?
Personally, I doubt it. Sarah Palin is about the last person in the world they would allow to shame them into doing the right thing.
No, I expect the networks will ignore the story again, thus making sure their viewers know exactly what they want them to - and not what they don't want them to.
As always, their motto is: "Keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em".
-In Arkansas, over 40% of the voters rejected their own incumbent President, Barack Obama, in favor of unknown Tennesse Lawyer John Wolfe, Jr.;
-In Kentucky, over 40% of the voters rejected Mr. Obama in favor of "uncommitted" (i.e. no one at all);
And these astonishing results come on the heels of the May 8th primary in West Virginia, when over 40% of the voters rejected Mr. Obama in favor of keith garrett judd, a convicted felon currently serving a 17.5 year term at Beaumont (Texas) Federal Correctional Institution.
This morning I wrote an angry blog which pointed out that this incredible story - an amazing, hugely embarrassing rejection of President Obama - was not covered on The Today Show. Not one word was reported about it.
I apologize for doing so.
Please note, however, that my apology is not because what I wrote was untrue. It was.
My apology is because I made it seem as though NBC was the only one. It wasn't.
That's right. The incumbent President of the United States lost over 40% of the primary vote in one state to an unknown and in another state to, in essence, an "anyone but Obama" alternative -- two weeks after losing a third state to a convicted felon who thought it would be fun to get himself on the ballot. And not one of the three major networks have reported it. Zero.
So I again apologize to the folks at NBC -- for making it seem as though they are any deeper in the tank for Barack Obama than the other networks. ABC and CBS are right there with you.
The apparent mottos of all three? "Keep 'em ignorant, and you own 'em", and "Go Barack go".
Former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan once told Jeremy Paxman how to access voicemail messages, the Leveson Inquiry heard today.
Newsnight anchorman Mr Paxman said he attended a lunch at Mirror headquarters in Canary Wharf in September 2002 where Mr Morgan teased Ulrika Jonsson about her relationship with former England football manager Sven-Goran Eriksson, saying he knew about a conversation they had.
Mr Paxman said Mr Morgan explained to him how to access people's phone messages after teasing the Swedish television presenter about the conversation.
Morgan knew about their conversation because he was proficient at hacking into phones? Fascinating.
Hey, I have a great idea. Why doesn't Morgan invite Paxman on his CNN show to discuss his apparently useful talent. It might even draw in some viewership: what a refreshing change that would be.
L. Brent Bozell, who heads the Media Research Center, is a political conservative and a devout Catholic.
He, along with yours truly and plenty of others in the blogosphere, has noticed - with a combination of disgust and outrage - that the remarkable, unprecedented lawsuit by 43 different Catholic entities against ObamaCare, because it mandates that contraception and abortion services be offered even by religious groups which forbid such practices and consider them a sin, has been buried by the so-called mainstream news media.
Mr. Bozell's group monitored the network news shows when the suit was filed. And here, from his latest column, is what he found (the bold print is mine):
On May 21, 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations sued the Obama administration over its ridiculously narrow idea of how a “religious institution” can be defined under their ObamaCare law. Never has the Catholic Church – or any order, for that matter – undertaken something of this magnitude. It’s truly jaw-dropping that ABC and NBC completely ignored this action on their evening newscasts, while “CBS Evening News” devoted just 19 seconds to this historic event.
No, let’s be blunt: They spiked the news.
This is the worst example of shameless bias by omission I have seen in the quarter-century history of the Media Research Center. We recall the Chinese communists withholding from its citizenry for 20 years the news that the U.S. had landed on the moon, because it reflected poorly on their government. Never, never would the U.S. “news” media behave thusly.
They just did.
This is not an honest mistake. It was not an editorial oversight by the broadcast networks. It did not occur too late for the evening deadline. This was a deliberate and insidious withholding of national news to protect the “Chosen One” who ABC, CBS and NBC have worked so hard to elect and for whom they are now abusing their journalistic influence. Even when CBS mentioned the suit ever-so-briefly, like so many others, they deliberately distorted the issue by framing it as a contraception lawsuit when it is much broader, a religious freedom issue – and they know it.
In 1977's Saturday Night Fever, John Travolta (via the Bee Gees' great song) asks the girl he covets, "How deep is your love?". He finds out that "you're the light in my deepest, darkest hour, you're my savior when I fall".
In 2012, Barack Obama asks the so-called mainstream media he covets, "How deep is your Obama love?". He finds out the same thing.
I have, for quite a while now, called them Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media. This is why.
The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is out, and Mitt Romney, who was behind by 6% last month (49% - 43%) is now behind by 4% (47% - 43%).
That sounds like virtually no change - or, if you are an optimistic Republican, slightly good news for Mr. Romney.
Except for one thing.
Here is a chart which shows respondents' political leanings for each of the two months. See if you notice a difference:
April 13–17May 16-20
Strong Democrat21%21%
Not very strong Democrat98
Independent/lean Democrat1315
Strictly Independent1416
Independent/lean Republican1514
Not very strong Republican9 7
Strong Republican1515
Other/not sure44
Hmmmmm.
Add them up and you find that 43% of the April sample was comprised of Democrats, compared to 44% in May. Do both numbers sound high to you? Well, they should, because the percentage of Democrats significantly exceeds exit polling data from both of the last two national elections.
And that's not all.
Republicans, in April, totaled 39% of the sample and were down to 36% in May.
Which means, therefore, that Mitt Romney gained 2% in the face of a 4% sampling difference in Barack Obama's favor (1% more Democrats, 3% fewer Republicans). That puts things in a much different light, wouldn't you say?
But let's not stop there. Let's continue by looking at the actual exit poll data from the last two national elections:
If we average the two elections out (which gives Democrats a nice break, since their percentage fell and the Republican percentage rose from 2008 to 2010), we come to 37% for Democrats and 33.5% for Republicans - a 3.5% edge for Democrats. However, in the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, Democrats comprise 44% of the sample and Republicans comprise 36% - an 8% edge for Democrats.
Both percentages are overly high compared to independents, which obviously are significantly underrepresented in the poll. That, in and of itself, is a serious problem - and a benefit to Mr. Obama, since independents are trending toward Romney.
But the biggest problem is that Democrats comprise 8% more of the sample instead of 3.5% (44% vs. 36%).
Why? What possible reason would there be for polling that is so distorted in favor of Democrats? I'll leave it for you to decide.
I promise that, as long as we keep finding data like these, there will be more "Poll Cooking" blogs to come.
Which means there is roughly a 100% probability of more "Poll Cooking" blogs to come.
-In the Arkansas primary, with much less than half the votes cast (the Arkansas Sec. of State's site is very confusing to read), President Obama is leading unknown John Wolfe by 63% - 37%. .
-And in the Kentucky primary, with just about all the votes cast, President Obama has 58% of the vote, versus 42% for "Uncommitted".
Translation: Counting West Virginia, this is three different state primaries in which President Obama is losing about 4 in 10 votes to...........nobody.
Holy excrement.
=============================================
UPDATE: It is about 7:30 AM Eastern time. Arkansas' web site - which was last updated at 2:43 AM, with 67 of 75 counties accounted for, shows Obama with 58% to Wolfe's 42%. (FURTHER UPDATE: With all but four of the 2,370 precincts counted, it remains 58% - 42%.)
And the Today Show, which reported Romney's wins in Kentucky and Arkansas, did not report that Mr. Obama lost over 40% of the vote in both states. Not one word about it.
How deep in the tank is NBC for Obama? That's how deep.
Nikki Haley is the Governor of South Carolina. She is also a conservative woman, which means that it is always open season on her.
Here is the latest example: a video of donna dewitt, President of South Carolina's AFL-CIO, taking a baseball bat and bashing a piñata with Ms. Haley's face on it - while the people she is with (quite possibly fellow union members) enthuiastically cheer her on:
Do you think our wonderful "neutral' media will be talking about this? Maybe speculating on what message it might send to a looney-tune with a bat who decides it would be fun to use it on the real Ms. Haley?
I doubt it. As noted at the beginning of this blog, it is always open season on conservative women. And the media which look the other way at sick behavior like this, aid and abet the donna dewitts of the world every step of the way.
Today is a big primary day for Barack Obama. I mean this very seriously.
It's not because he is going to upended as the Democrat candidate for President. That is not going to happen.
It is because today is the Arkansas primary, Mr. Obama is being challenged by a Tennessee lawyer named John Wolfe, Jr., and given that Mr. Wolfe was within 7% of Mr. Obama in the one county where polling took place, he actually has a small chance to win the primary outright.
Remember that earlier this month, Keith Garrett Judd, a prisoner in the Beaumont (Texas) Federal Corrections Institute, got 42% of the West Virginia primary vote over Mr. Obama. At that time, our wonderful "neutral" media mostly laughed it off as an aberration. (Would they have done the same if, in 2004, a jailbird got 42% of a state primary vote versus incumbent President George Bush? Think about it.)
Well, now we have another state primary where it appears that Mr. Obama may have a real fight on his hands versus an absolute political unknown. If it happens, will the media laugh that off too? Or will they talk about what an amazing embarrassment it is for an incumbent President?
I'll have more to say about this when the results come in.
Oh, did I mention that Mr. Wolfe is on the Texas primary ballot next week?
Sometimes you just don’t believe the words can come out of his mouth.But there they are.Again and again and again.
Joe Biden, yesterday, speaking about Mitt Romney’s qualifications for President at a rally in New Hampshire:
“Your job as president is to promote the common good. That doesn’t mean the private-equity guys are bad. They’re not. But that no more qualifies you to be president than to be a plumber.”
That’s nice, Joe.Now please go back into the attic until the company leaves. We're begging.
Look, I have great regard for plumbers.Plumbing is a skilled profession, it requires both physical and mental capabilities, and is deserving of our respect.
But I doubt there is a plumber in the United States who feels his/her work experience is more of a qualification for the presidency than successfully managing a multi-billion dollar business.
And that, of course, is before we get to the fact that, in addition to successfully managing Bain Capital, Mitt Romney was hugely successful at running the Olympics, and was Governor of the state of Massachusetts.
Want to compare that to Barack Obama's qualifications in 2008? Or, for that matter, in 2012 as well, given the mess he has put us in since taking office?
Personally, I think Joe Biden needs a plumber. Someone needs to repair the pipe that goes from his brain to his mouth. Apparently there has been a blockage there for years, and it desperately needs attention.
Your kitchen and bathroom pipes sometimes need Dran-O. But is there a product for Joe Biden called Brain-O?If so, get him a case. I promise I'll pay for it.
king samir shabazz is the "Field Marshal" (whatever that means - I know what he thinks it means) of the new Black panther party.
He hates White people. And Jews. And gays. And the United States of AmeriKKKa (as he calls it). He advocates race violence.
shabazz is one of the "men" who stood, armed, in front of a Philadelphia polling location during the 2008 presidential election, intimidating people from voting. Not surprisingly, they were charged with violations of the Voting Rights Act - and they did not even bother to contest the charges.
Because of this, shabazz was convicted and put in jai........whoops, that didn't happen. The eric holder-led "Department of Justice" vacated the conviction against shabazz and his pal. They didn't go to jail or sustain any penalty at all.
Why? You tell me.
More recently, king samir shabazz along with malik zulu shabazz, the head of the new Black panther party, has threatened George Zimmernan's life - and literally put a bounty on his head.
Because of this, king samir shabazz and malik zulu shabazz have been charged with.....whoops, that didn't happen at all. The eric holder-led "Department of Justice" has filed no charges against any member of the new Black panther party for their "pay to slay" threat.
Why? You tell me.
And, most recently, we have this diatribe from king samir shabazz, on his national radio show (yes, he is on radio). Please note that a) this is verbatim, and b) it is only a part of the hatred he spewed at that time:
“I love black people, andI hate the god damn white man, woman, and child, grandma, aunt, uncle, Pappa Billy Bob, and whoever else. Redneck Tom and Blueneck Robert, and whoever else you wanna name.
I hate the white man. I hate the very look of white people. I hate the sound of white people. God damn it, I hate the smell of white people. I hate the oppression of white people, I hate the murder and the rape and the torture and the, the, the, the, taking away of our names, our culture, our God, our music and damn, I hatethis cracker for everything he has done to us.”
So don't tell me I'm, I'm, I'm like the Black KKK, fool, because there is no such thing as a Black KKK. Because you should be thankful we’re not running around here hanging crackers by nooses and all that kind of stuff, yet....yet.....yet.” You should be very thankful.
And most of us, some of us, some of y’all– are even scared to have a wet dream about killing the god damn cracker.”
“We’re raising men and women in this army, we don’t have time for punks. We don’t allow faggots and and and lesbians in this army.Sorry, wrong army. This is for Black liberation, not rainbow liberation.”
Could those words be more hateful? Could they more clearly advocate racial violence ("we're not...hanging crackers by nooses....yet...yet...yet")? Could they be more homophobic?
Well, what is the eric holder-led "Department of Justice" going to do about it? Anything? Will holder even make a statement condemning this sick, vile hater? Will his boss President Obama say a word about it?
How deserving of deference and favoritism king samir shabazz must be to them.
(As long as he doesn't call sandra fluke a slut, that is.)
It's the last couple of weeks before a recall election. You want to unseat the Governor of your state. And you've got this great strategy for doing so - to attack based on an investigation of the Governor's supporters doing his campaign work during the workday - i.e. on the taxpayers' dime.
The chief investigator in the high-profile John Doe investigation into former Milwaukee County employees who worked for now-Governor Scott Walker has a Walker recall yard sign in his front lawn, and a pro-labor “Blue Fist” icon poster on the front door of his home. The news could call into question the present impartiality of the probe at a time when Democrat gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett and his allies have begun to use the issue as a top talking point.
David Budde's residence, address plate blurred
David Budde is the Chief Investigator in Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm’s office, press accounts have repeatedly noted his central role in the John Doe investigation. His name appears throughout various documents relating to the probe.
Budde’s anti-Walker sentiments are quite strong. He has given small campaign contributions to John Chisholm in the past, and his wife, also a county employee (as of February) but not employed in the District Attorney’s office, signed the Walker recall petition.
The section of the DA’s office conducting the John Doe investigation, the Public Integrity Unit, had its secretary, Janet Oelstrom, sign a recall Walker petition.
Does anyone in his/her right mind believe this is an honest and fair investigation? You might as well have jon corzine as lead prosecutor in the MF-Global scandal.
Governor Walker appeared to be opening up a relatively safe lead versus the Democrat candidate, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, before this information. Aside from the job Mr. Walker is doing for Wisconsin, a key reason might have been a backlash over the embarrassing fact that, as mediatrackers.org noted earlier this month, dozens of lawyers in the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office had signed "recall Walker" petitions.
And now we find out that the chief investigator against Governor Walker's people also is a hardline anti-Walker partisan.
How do you suppose this will sit with the citizens of Wisconsin? We'll find out on June 5th, two weeks from today, when the election is held, won't we?
What do you do when you support a candidate for President and want to protect him from looking bad as he sinks in the polls?
You cook the polls, that's what.
The latest Washington Post/ABC News (WP/ABC) poll has Barack Obama ahead of Mitt Romney by 49% - 46%. That is far from any runaway, and indicates Mr. Obama's re-election chances are in considerable jeopardy.
But wait: how did the poll come up with that number? Did it accurately sample the voting public?
Uh.....nope. Not even close. By party, the poll sample was...Democrats: 32%. Republicans: 22%. Independents: 38%.
Does that in any way look accurate to you? I hope for your sake the answer is no. Because here, based on exit polling, are the actual voting patterns of the last two national elections:
In other words, the 2008 election, during which President Obama was presented as an iconic, larger-than-life figure running against tired, old John McCain, showed Democrats with 7% more voters than Republicans. Then, after 2 years of Mr. Iconic, Republicans and Democrats were dead even.
But now, in 2012, the WP/ABC poll hands Democrats a 10% edge. WHY?
Take away that edge - take away even half that edge - and see if Mr. Obama is still ahead.
Look, for a variety of reasons, both professional and personal, I have very little faith in political polls. But if they're going to be done, is it too much to ask that at least the pretense of fairness be implemented?
Earlier this morning, the lead article at msnbc.com, written by Michael O'Brien, was "Decision 2012: the myth of the 'Catholic vote'" (it is still there now, though less prominently positioned). The beginning of the article establishes its premise with unmistakable clarity:
The most misunderstood voting bloc in the 2012 election is the Catholic vote.
Why?
Because there isn’t one.
The religious assemblage, which has evolved over the past century from a strong Democratic constituency into a national election bellwether, is no longer discernible from most other voter groups. As the community has become less homogenous and more assimilated into mainstream culture, so has its voting habits – sending many politicians on a fool’s errand in pursuit of the “Catholic vote.”
Is that true? Is there no such thing as a "Catholic vote" anymore?
Forty-three Catholic dioceses and organizations across the country have announced religious liberty lawsuits against the federal government to challenge the Obama administration’s contraception mandate.
The announcement was applauded by Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, who called it “a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty.”
“We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress – and we’ll keep at it – but there's still no fix,” said Cardinal Dolan, who is the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
“Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now,” he explained in a May 21 statement.
Cardinal Dolan praised the “courageous action” as “a great show of the diversity of the Church's ministries that serve the common good and that are jeopardized by the mandate.”
The mandate has drawn heavy criticism from bishops in every diocese in the U.S. They warned that the regulation could force Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable agencies around the nation to close down.
At least 11 previous lawsuits have already been filed against the mandate by states, colleges, private employers and organizations throughout the U.S.
Now, 12 new lawsuits are being filed by 43 dioceses, hospitals, schools and church agencies in a dozen different jurisdictions across the country.
Notre Dame president Fr. John Jenkins, C.S.C., said the lawsuit was filed “neither lightly nor gladly, but with sober determination.”
“We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others,” he explained in an email to Notre Dame employees.
Rather, he explained, “we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings.”
If Mr. O'Brien and msnbc.com are correct, these lawsuits will not amount to a thing. They should not worry President Obama at all, nor should they be of any concern to the politicians who support his decision that Catholic institutions must provide oral contraceptive services, even though it is against the religion.
Catholic voters will react to them no differently than anyone else, therefore they will have zero effect on the election outcomes in states with large Catholic populations - such as Massachusetts (42%, according to 2008 data), New Jersey (41%), Wisconsin (30%) and Pennsylvania (28%).
I'll tell you one thing, though: if Obama & Co. suddenly change the oral contraceptive decision before election day, it will be a pretty good indication that they have determined it is a tad more than mythology.
I wonder if major political polls will address this issue.
I would I'd love to see a series in which respondents are asked their religious background (what religion were you born into, do you still practice it, do you consider yourself very/somewhat/not very/not at all religious), their awareness level of the lawsuits, reaction to them, what effect if any the lawsuits have on their vote and what effect if any the Obama policy has on their vote - not just for President but for the house and (where applicable) the senate.
Over the past year or so I have written several blogs about Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker, all of which extol his performance as Mayor and suggest that he might be a strong candidate against Chris Christie in the next Governor's race. I have found Mr. Booker to be smart, innovative and candid enough to go beyond partisan politics and emerge as a true statesman and leader. My kind of guy for sure.
Yesterday, on Meet The Press he outdid himself....................unfortunately, for just a few hours.
Speaking of Obama attack ads against Bain Capital, the company Mitt Romney ran so successfully in the 1990's, and the Romney camp's response to those ads, Mayor Booker first said "This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides". He then told David Gregory:
"I have to just say, from a very personal level, I'm not about to sit here and indict private equity. . . . Especially that I know I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record, they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses."
Not only is this apostasy of the first order for a high profile Democrat, but it flies directly in the face of what appears to be President Obama's campaign strategy - i.e. if you can't run on your terrible record, tear down your opponent's stellar record.
It took cajones of steel for Cory Booker to make this statement, because it was guaranteed to bring the entire house of Obama down on him.
Which it did.
And that is why, in a matter of hours, those cajones of steel wound up more like whiffle balls.
Suddenly we had Mayor Booker back in front of the cameras, but this time "clarifying" his remarks. He couldn't just reverse field and contradict his comments on Meet The Press; that would make him look ridiculous beyond belief. So he did it this way:
"Mitt Romney has made his business record a centerpiece of his campaign," Booker said in the video. "He's talked about himself as a job creator. And therefore, it is reasonable, and in fact I encourage it, for the Obama campaign to examine that record and to discuss it. In fact, I believe that Mitt Romney, in many ways, is not being completely honest with his role and his record."
Whoops. A mild-to-moderate version of presto-change-o, right before your eyes.
But, with the kind of pressure Booker must be getting from Obama & Co., you can bet that he will be, let us say, encouraged, to make that criticism more and more strident in the near future.
Too bad.
Look, I don't blame Cory Booker for caving in to the Obama forces. He is a Democrat, Barack Obama is running for re-election and he is supporting Mr. Obama, not Romney. In politics, you sometimes do what you have to do.
But the tragedy here is that this was a shining opportunity for him to seize the opportunity and blast away from the partisan politics which chokes this country. By sticking to his guns, Cory Booker could have shown that he really means what he says, regardless of party considerations. He could have put himself above the usual political BS and become not just a rising star, but a genuine presence in this country.
That is why it hurts so much to have seen him back down this way.
abdel baset al-megrahi, the one and only subhuman terrorist convicted for blowing up Pan Am #103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 and killing 270 innocent people - 189 of them from the US, including a large number of college students - has finally died of cancer.
His death could not come soon enough. That is something I something I would not be saying if al-megrahi were incarcerated for life - preferably in a cold rat-ridden cell, in solitary confinement.
But that is not how it was.
Scotland released al-megrahi on the grounds of "humanitarian compassion" because, we were told, he was imminently dying of cancer. Forgetting for just one second that he deserved no humanitarian consideration whatsoever, that was an obvious lie. The release was in 2009, almost three years ago, and al-megrahi just died today.
The real reason was pretty clearly a vile, cynical backroom deal, in which British Petroleum got sweetheart oil contracts from al-megrahi's fellow subhuman, moammar qaddafi, in return for selling its soul and freeing this mass murdering scumbag.
To the utter revulsion of every decent human being, al-megrahi, on qaddafi's personal plane and accompanied by his son, was flown back to Tripoli and given a huge, highly publicized hero's welcome when he got there.
Well, now he is dead. And, as noted above, his death could not have come soon enough.
May Scotland and Britain forever be shamed for what they did.
And may abdel baset al-megrahi - along with qadaffi and his son - rot in hell.
THE STATE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION: SPENCER, NC DIVISION
Ken Berwitz
Want to see a story about the state of public education these days? Here's one from Spencer, North Carolina, that will blow you away.
Click below, and listen to a teacher at North Rowan High School go absolutely ballistic last week when, during a discussion of Mitt Romney's "bullying" of a fellow student many years ago, one or two students attempt to discuss the bullying that President Obama did in his youth - which he himself described in his book "Dreams From My Father". The incident starts at about the 1:08 mark:
.
And what initially happened when the school was made aware of this incident? As reported in Sarah Campbell's article for The the Salisbury Post:
SPENCER — After reviewing a video in which a North Rowan High School teacher tells a student he can be arrested for speaking ill of President Barack Obama, the Rowan-Salisbury School System said it can be a learning experience.
A learning experience? A learning experience? That's it? After a teacher screams like a lunatic at the students, shuts them up for the "crime" of disagreeing with her personal political beliefs, and actually threatens them that to criticize Barack Obama is a criminal offense?
Unbelievable.
There is somewhat of a happy ending, though. Just in the last few minutes it has been reported that the teacher is suspended. All it took was for the school to be embarrassed into doing something more declaring it a "learning experience", while obviously hoping the whole thing would somehow just go away.
That, folks, is a story about the state of public education. I assume it is the exception rather than the rule.
UPDATE: I just learned that the teacher - her name is Tanya Dixon-Neely - was suspended with pay. Yep, that's right. Her punishment is, in reality, a paid vacation.
Here is the latest update for members of the "Lost Tribe" - i.e. people, most especially Jews, who support Israel but still think that the Democrat Party is a comfortable home for them.
It comes in two parts.
The first is excerpted from Reza Kahlili's article at dailycaller.com (the bold print is mine):
Iran is dedicated to annihilating Israel, the Islamic regime’s military chief of staff declared Sunday.
“The Iranian nation is standing for its cause and that is the full annihilation of Israel,” Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi said in a speech to a defense gathering Sunday in Tehran.
His remarks came on the day International Atomic Energy Agency director Yukiya Amano flew to Tehran to negotiate for inspections of Iran’s nuclear program. They were reported by the Fars News Agency, the media outlet of the Revolutionary Guards Corps.
A preliminary count of votes for Egyptians living abroad has put Islamist candidate Abdul-Moneim Aboul-Fotouh in the lead, followed by left-leaning Hamdeen Sabahi. The online statement by the State Information Service (SIS) on Saturday added that the figures "confirmed a sharp competition" for third between Amr Moussa and Mohamed Mursi.
The 58-year-old Sabahi has moved more into the limelight as of late, offering to many an acceptable trade-off by being neither associated with the former regime, nor linked to any Islamist movements. He has also been among the most outspoken critics of ties with Israel, a popular talking point among candidates and voters alike.
President Obama, with hearty concurrence by the vast majority of his fellow democrats, has spend the last three and a half years either looking the other way on behalf of the Irani regime, or putting on a dog and pony show by pushing sanctions which, as you can see, have about as much impact on the murderous Jew-hating thugs who run Iran as a wine cork would have on a crack in the Hoover Dam.
And President Obama, also with hearty concurrence by the vast majority of his fellow democrats, is the man who facilitated Hosni Mubarak's overthrow - which is now virtually guaranteed to result in the end of over 30 years of peace with Egypt (a cold, tenuous one, but peace nonetheless) and quite probably the resumption of hostilities -- thus putting enormous pressure on Jordan, which then would be Israel's only peace partner in the region, to follow suit.
Add in the Obama administration's policy of cueing Iran on how and when Israel might act against its threats, along with the icy-cold relationship Mr. Obama created between himself and Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, and what do you have? How much clearer can this be?
What does it take for the Lost Tribe to see the reality which is right in front of their eyes? Will this finally be their wake-up call?
Sadly, I doubt it. Some will need even more wake-up calls. And some will never wake up.
Last night, I was allowed to tag along when our three children (counting, of course, our beautiful daughter in law) took my wife for a very special dinner to celebrate a significant birthday of hers. (I won't say which one, but it definitely caught social security's interest).
The restaurant, which was absolutely great in every way (and priced accordingly)? Jean Georges; flagship destination of the Jean-George Vongerichten dynasty.
Jean Georges is snugly ensconced on the first floor of 1 Central Park West, in the Trump International Hotel & Tower, right on Columbus Circle (not “Square” as I originally, brain-fartedly wrote – thanks zeke) and across the street from TimeWarnerCenter. Hardly what you'd call the low rent district.
So, for one evening, my wife and I were treated to a taste of the super-elite lifestyle - a lifestyle we certainly don't spend much time in.
Which leads me to MSNBC's Ed Schultz.
These days, Ed Schultz is a hard-left, very angry, very loud component of MSNBC's prime time lineup and radio talk show host (as opposed to his pre-MSNBC period, when he was a conservative radio talk show host. Funny how that changed...). Mr. Schultz is on weeknights at 8:00PM, when he goes head to head against Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (and loses decisively: O'Reilly generally gets almost three times as many viewers, just as he did when his MSNBC competition was keith "who did he burn bridges with this week?" olbermann).
In recent times, Schultz has worked very hard to position himself as a hero of the working class - especially union workers, and very especially public sector union workers.This is evidenced by his extensive, fawning coverage of the Wisconsin recall elections and his promotional ads for MSNBC where he sits in a blue collar diner sounding off as if he were one of them and knew just how/what they were feeling.
So how come Ed Schultz was at Jean Georges last night, in a suit jacket, sipping one of their expensive cocktails at the bar -- and comporting himself in a way that suggested he was not in the least unfamiliar with the surroundings?
I walked past Schultz a couple of times, heading to and from the men's room (thank you Jean-Georges for having individual bathrooms without an attendant who wants money to hand you a towel). I did not/would not/had no urge to walk over, introduce myself and suggest he read this blog - possibly fending off a frontal attack if it turned out that he does read it and knows some of the things I have written about him.
As a general rule of thumb, if I happen to bump into celebrities I leave them alone - they are entitled to their private lives too.
But the incongruity of blue-collar Ed, wearing an expensive-looking jacket - probably custom made, since he is a very large man (former professional football player), probably is hard to fit, and, quality-wise, this baby didn't look like it came off the rack - sipping a cocktail which costs enough to get a beer-drinking union guy through a complete Super Sunday, from pre-game festivities to post-game analysis, was fascinating to me.
And let's also remember that this was taking place in a super-expensive high-rise, built and owned by none other than "King 1%" himself, Donald Trump.
In fairness, I do not know how often Mr. Schultz frequents Jean-Georges. Hey, maybe this was his first time there too. Maybe the people he was with (when I walked by there were two) had taken him out for his significant birthday.
But I sure wish I had a picture of him to show to the union rank and file who were sent out to raise a ruckus in Wisconsin; the ones he was hanging around with as if they all lived in the same neighborhood and shopped at the same stores. I have a feeling some of them might want to ask Ed a few pretty saltily-worded questions about which side he really is on, whether his former conservative talk show persona is the true Ed Schultz, and what lifestyle he is most comfortable with.
Maybe we'll find out one day. Meanwhile, if I happen to bump into Ed at a diner, or getting lunch at a hot dog, gyro or falafel stand, I'll let you know.
There's no truth whatever to Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren's claim to Indian ancestry. She's been proved a fraud. Time for her to fess up and end this charade.
Unless Warren can offer proof, she should quit her post at Harvard Law, which has touted her as its "first woman of color." She plainly wasn't hired on merit.
Warren should also withdraw from her race against Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass. Such dishonesty isn't worthy of any office, let alone one of the nation's highest.
She also owes Native Americans an apology. They're justifiably outraged over a white leftist gaming the racial spoils system (that white leftists created), and enjoying an affirmative-action leg-up at their expense.
Of course, this would be the decent thing to do. Given Warren's sleazy Wall Street-bashing, we're not holding our breath she'll take the high road.
"I'm proud of my Native American heritage," Warren brazenly told CNN last week.
Her story isn't just suspect; it's been proven a lie, thanks to New Media bloggers doing the job the Democrats' shills in the Old Media refuse to do.
How many more demands will it take before Ms. Warren gets the hint?
Tell you what: if I were a Republican, I would want the answer to be infinity. I would want her to hang on until the bitter end.
Which is why I expect Democrats are already hoping, praying, and applying pressure, to get her to shut it down. And the sooner the better.
We hear a lot from Democrats and the left (is there any difference anymore?) about the Republican "War On Women" - which includes such outrages as expecting elite Georgetown law school students to pay for their own contraceptives (oh, the humanity!).
But here is a war that Democrats have no problem waging, against a Republican woman (and she is not the only Republican woman they are waging war against by a long shot): Ann Romney.
Ms. Romney's crimes appear to be that she is married to Mitt Romney, raised five children, and that the Romneys are wealthy.
Are those actionable offenses? To this crowd, the answer, apparently, is yes:
-We have had Democrat insider and frequent White House visitor Hilary Rosen attack Ms. Romney on the grounds that "she never worked a day in her life".
-We have had michelle goldberg, a Democrat-supporting left wing writer inform us that Ann Romney is "insufferable", then compare Ms. Romney's written celebration of motherhood to something hitler and stalin would say.
-We have had hard-left NOW president Terry O'Neill ask is if "Mrs. Romney (has) the kind of life experience and if not, the imagination, to really understand what most American families are going through right now?" (evidently she feels Mr. and Mrs. Obama - multi-millionaires who lived in a mansion before entering the White House, are right down the the common folk).
Delightful. But we're not through yet.
Now we have Betsey Stevenson, former economist for the Obama administration, who, this morning, told hard-left MSNBC'er (is there any other variety) Chris Hayes that Mitt Romney is a gay-basher - based on a 47 year old high school prank that quite likely had nothing to do with sexual orientation - and that, based on her family's wealth, Ann Romney has "no empathy for people".
This, folks, is a sampling of Democrats who, presumably, are loving, tolerant, understanding and deferential to womanhood.
And if you think the attack on Ann Romney is bad, consider what Democrats/the left have said about Michelle Malkin. And Michelle Bachmann, and especially Sarah Palin. Comparatively speaking, Ms. Romney is the lucky one.
See, to people like these four, all of whom are female as you probably noticed, women are to be treasured, cherished and respected - unless they happen to be politically conservative, in which case it is open season, there are no rules, and nothing is too vile or too disgusting to say.
If the polls are to be believed, the Democrats' "war on women" is not working very well. Maybe the kinds of comments made by this sorry bunch of haters has something to do with that.
Where is the body of osama bin laden? If you believe the Obama administration (always an issue) within 24 hours of his being killed, bin laden was tossed into the ocean. All that is left is Barack Obama's insufferable preening over the kill - which was accomplished by Navy SEALs, via information gained using methods Mr. Obama would never, ever have approved.
And that, more or less is the fate of this week's revelation that Barack Obama's own biography, from his own literary agent, which he must either have written or approved, stated definitively that he was born in Kenya. The biography stood, as written, for 16 years, until it was removed in April of 2007 - just about the time Mr. Obama started a serious run for the White House (what fortuitous timing; what an amazing coincidence):
How is it possible that this could be ignored by almost all mainstream media?
I'll answer with a question: How is it possible that almost all mainstream media ignored the fact that Mr. Obama's long form birth certificate, which suddenly materialized out of nowhere last year, was an obvious fake? Literally dozens of different tech people showed, step-by-step, how it was "layered" into existence using Adobe Illustrator, and not one expert I know of from any mainstream media source provided evidence that it was real **--- nor was any expert I know of from any mainstream source even asked to do so.
Is this the way mainstream media operates for other Presidents? Well, let's see.
Just a week or two ago, Dan Rather was back in our faces - again - assuring us his "exposé" that George Bush missed part of his National Guard responsibilities in the early 1970's was true. Rather, and others, put untold resources into the effort to prove that over 30 years ago, apropos of absolutely nothing, George W. Bush did not fully complete his National Guard service.
That was important enough for countless media people to pursue to the ends of the earth, and for Dan Rather to go to the wall and get fired for. But to pursue hard evidence that Barack Obama himself agreed he was born in Kenya - the evidence being his own written and published biography from his own literary agent? To investigate the issue of whether he is constitutionally able to hold the office of President? Nothing to see here, sheeple, just move along, move along.
The saddest part? Based on years of watching so-called "journalists" and "investigative reporters" roll over for Barack Obama, I fully expected this would happen - and wrote as much when the apparently damning evidence came out.
Why do I call them the Accomplice Media? This is why.
THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL-SENTINEL & GOVERNOR WALKER'S RECALL
Ken Berwitz
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is a generally liberal newspaper servicing the largest city in Wisconsin.
During the last year's recall battle, waged against Republican state senators by Democrats and their angry, often thuggish and intimidating, public sector union cohorts, I complimented the Journal-Sentinel for doing what a newspaper should always do - presenting both sides of the story. (How sad that journalism has degenerated to the point where this should be complimented rather than expected).
Today I find myself doing the same. The Journal-Sentinel has published an editorial commentary about the recall effort directed against Governor Scott Walker, in which it does not so much endorse Mr. Walker (with whom the paper has major problems), but denounces the attempt at recalling him for performing his elected duties as he sees fit (and - this is Ken talking - as the voters knew he would, since Mr. Walker is pursuing the same agenda he campaigned on).
Here is a shortened version - which, I hope, encourages you to use the link I've provided and read every word:
No governor in recent memory has been so controversial. No governor in America is so polarizing. Everyone has an opinion about Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
Here's ours: We see no reason to remove Walker from office. We recommend him in the June 5 recall election.
Walker's rematch with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was prompted by one issue: Walker's tough stance with the state's public-employee unions. It's inconceivable that the recall election would be occurring absent that. And a disagreement over a single policy is simply not enough to justify a vote against the governor.
Walker brought some of this animosity on himself. He chose an in-your-face style from the start. To his credit, the governor now acknowledges that he did a poor job of building support for his policies. "The one thing if I could go back in time is I would try to spend a little bit more time building the case," he told the Editorial Board earlier this year.
Walker came to office promising that 250,000 new private-sector jobs would be created on his watch. But even considering the more favorable statistics released by the Walker administration last week, job creation has been sluggish.
There are several possible reasons for this: 1) Walker overpromised, forgetting that there is only so much that any one politician can do to promote private-sector job growth; 2) the political turmoil in the state is inhibiting job creation (Walker's argument); or 3) Walker's policies are killing job growth (Democrats' argument).
We think choices 1 and 2 are the most likely reasons.
To his credit, Walker has helped to right the state's finances with a minimum of gimmicks - the governor reported recently that the state may be able to book a $154 million surplus next year. This good news has been lost in the clutter surrounding an unnecessary recall election that will cost as much as $18 million just to stage, according to the Government Accountability Board.
The governor also has made a good-faith attempt to shore up the state's economic development efforts through the creation of a public-private entity to head up those efforts, through reform of the state's tort laws, through a series of business tax breaks and by improving Wisconsin's image with business leaders outside the state.
And while we think Act 10 - the law that clipped the wings of most public-employee unions in the state - was an overreach of political power, we understand and supported the need to rein in the state's labor costs. Municipalities and school districts as well as the state needed more control over their budgets, which Act 10 provided.
Even if you disagree with Walker's policies, does that justify cutting short his term as governor? And if so, where does such logic lead? To more recall elections? More turmoil?
It's time to end the bickering and get back to the business of the state. We've had our differences with the governor, but he deserves a chance to complete his term. We recommended him in 2010. We see no reason to change that recommendation. We urge voters to support Walker in the June 5 recall election.
My thanks to the Journal-Sentinel editorial staff for its honesty and integrity - especially in the face of the kind of retribution it risks from unions which, based on their actions over the past year, seem to think they are exempt from basic civility of any kind, and often the law itself.
Having just read what seems like the 23,937th media piece attacking Mitt Romney for the crime of being wealthy - added to the 14,972 reports on network and cable news shows - I thought it might be interesting to see what information I could find out about the salaries and/or net worth of the media people doing the attacking.
Here is a quickly put together list:
Network news anchors:
-CBS Anchor Scott Pelley earns $4 million a year, and has an estimated net worth of about $15 million. I think most people would see him as rich - even part of the despised 1% (though Elizabeth Warren and Debbie Wasserman Schultz might disagree). Compared to his competition, however, Pelley shouldn't even bother getting out of bed and going to work - especially since his predecessor, Katie Carwrec..er, Couric, was paid $15 million a year to improve CBS's weak #3 rating, but left it in exactly the same condition..
-NBC's Brian Williams pulls in a gaudy $13 million a year and has an estimated net worth of $30 million. Keep telling us about how privileged an existence Mitt Romney has, Brian.
-ABC's Diane Sawyer doesn't quite get to Mr. Williams or Ms. Couric's compensation level - she rakes in a paltry $12 million - but with a net worth of $40 million I have a feeling she's not going to be handing the waiter at Le Bernardin food stamps any time soon.
-Then we have Matt Lauer of the Today Show, who stumbles from paycheck to paycheck with a yearly compensation of $17 million and net worth of about $45 million.
-And bringing up the rear are those ever-leftward folks at MSNBC, such as Chris Matthews (estimated worth: $15 million), Rachel Maddow (estimated worth: $12.5 million), Ed Schultz (estimated worth: $11.5 million). How do they get by?
-It should also be pointed out that there are folks at Fox News Channel who do even better. A lot better. But , then again, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. are not the ones attacking Mitt Romney's success at earning money, are they?
Ok, there's a little taste for you. Something to remember as you hear/see story after story after story from these folks condemning the contemptibly rich life of Mitt Romney.
Oh, wait. There is one more person to mention.
Barack Obama, the fellow Mitt Romney is trying to unseat as President? He has a net worth of $10.5 million dollars - and that, of course, is before we add in all the times he and his family fly off on taxpayer-funded Air Force 1 (sometimes the family uses two different planes) to - what is it now - uh, 17 different vacation spots in the past 3 1/2 years.
No wonder the left loves Mr. Obama so much. I'll just bet that the minute he leaves 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (if we're lucky, that will be January 20th of next year), they'll be throwing rent parties for him every month.
WHY IS BARACK OBAMA NOT INVITED TO BARNEY FRANK'S WEDDING?
Ken Berwitz
Barney Frank has a wedding date. He is marrying his partner, Jim Ready, in July.
Barack Obama - a hero to Mr. Frank and a President he agrees with on just about everything, is not invited to the wedding.
Frank says that this is only because the secret service presence and security measures necessary for Mr. Obama to be there would disrupt his guests.
I suspect it is more that Mr. Obama will lose votes if there are pictures of him smiling happily when Mr. Frank and Mr. Ready are wed. He is in much safer political territory talking a good game about same sex marriage than he is actually indicating he is serious about it.
If it were me - a true proponent of gay marriage rights - I would want to be there. And if the President said as much to Mr. Frank, there is no way he would be refused.
Bottom line: is Barney Frank - as political a man as there is in the country - really worried about secret service disruption, or is he not inviting President Obama as a political favor?
Did you know that crab with tomato mayonnaise dressing is an old favorite of the Oklahoma Cherokee tribe?
You probably didn't, since mayonnaise was unknown to the Cherokee tribe and crabs were a bit hard to come by in Oklahoma, which is many moons from the ocean.
This might cause you to need a little reassurance regarding the authenticity of the dish as a traditional Cherokee favorite. If so, my advice to you would be, ask Elizabeth Warren - currently, Harvard and the Democrat Party's most famous daughter of the Cherokee nation. It seems that she inserted the recipé for crab with tomato mayonnaise dressing into a book of native American cooking, called "Pow Wow Chow", which was published in 1984 (what an appropriateyear that was!).
Unfortunately, there are a few problems:
-One of them is that Elizabeth Warren is about as much a Cherokee as Chief Takatoka was a colonial settler;
-Another is that crabmeat with tomato mayonnaise dressing is about as much a staple of the Cherokee tribe as hominy is to The Four Seasons;
-And a third - maybe the most significant of all - is that the recipé itself apparently was plagiarized. And it wasn't the only one.
The credibility of Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren took another hit today as Boston radio talk show host Howie Carr released evidence that appears to confirm Ms. Warren may have plagiarized at least three of the five recipes she submitted to the 1984 Pow Wow Chow cookbook edited by her cousin Candy Rowsey.
Two of the possibly plagiarized recipes, said in the Pow Wow Chow cookbook to have been passed down through generations of Oklahoma Native American members of the Cherokee tribe, are described in a New York Times News Service story as originating at Le Pavilion**, a fabulously expensive French restaurant in Manhattan. The dishes were said to be particular favorites of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Cole Porter.
The two recipes, "Cold Omelets with Crab Meat" and "Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing," appear in an article titled “Cold Omelets with Crab Meat,” written by Pierre Franey of the New York Times News Service that was published in the August 22, 1979 edition of the Virgin Islands Daily News, a copy of which can be seen here.
Ms. Warren’s 1984 recipe for Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing is a word-for-word copy of Mr. Franey’s 1979 recipe.
Elizabeth Warren started as an attractive Democrat alternative to Republican incumbent Scott Brown. Then:
-Most media allowed Ms. Warren to slide by her presumptuous claim that she was the intellectual foundation behind the "Occupy" movement (which no one seems eager to take credit for anymore).
-They also largely let Ms. Warren slide on the preposterous claim that she was not rich, when her filings showed a net worth of as much as 14.5 million dollars.
-She achieved major problem status when questions arose about her claims to native American ancestry.
-Her problems became far worse when it became clear that a) she doesn't have any such ancestry, but b) apparently used the bogus claim to achieve minority status, which furthered her academic career.
-And now we find out she's a plagiarist too.
I do not know how Elizabeth Warren can continue her candidacy for the US Senate. I have to believe party operatives are talking to her about withdrawing. And, if so, they are right. Let someone without a thoroughly trashed reputation run in her place.
If I were Ms. Warren, I'd be less worried about a senate run, and more worred about Harvard, in a desperate (and probably futile) effort to save face, dumping her as a professor.
**FYI: If you happen to be in Manhattan, don't go looking for Le Pavilion. It closed in 1971. You will have about as much of a chance to dine there as Elizabeth Warren has of being taken seriously anymore.
Usually I laugh at the content of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) ads I am shown. But this latest one, from Executive Director Guy Cecil, shows so much panic, and such blatant dishonesty, that I am not laughing at all.
Here it is:
(Recipient),
Yesterday, The New York Times exposed a massive Republican campaign full of race-baiting, fear-mongering, and outright lying against President Obama.
It’s disgusting, vile and a few other words I can’t print. I’m itching to fight back, hard.
Republicans have to learn that coded racism is out of bounds. Stand with us to show they can’t get away with it.
The reference is to a front-page story in Thursday's New York Times. Here are the first three paragraphs of the story, verbatim, so you'll know exactly what it was talking about:
WASHINGTON — A group of high-profile Republican strategists is working with a conservative billionaire on a proposal to mount one of the most provocative campaigns of the “super PAC” era and attack President Obama in ways that Republicans have so far shied away from.
Timed to upend the Democratic National Convention in September, the plan would “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do,” the strategists wrote.
The plan, which is awaiting approval, calls for running commercials linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose race-related sermons made him a highly charged figure in the 2008 campaign.
Wait a minute. That's it? That is the race-baiting, fear-mongering, lying, disgusting, vile, coded, despicable racism? Running ads tying Barack Obama to a self-professed Black liberation theologist Mr. Obama called his "spiritual mentor", and in whose church he proactively stayed for almost two decades?
OF COURSE Barack Obama can be tied to jeremiah wright. Barack Obama tied HIMSELF to jeremiah wright. As I have mentioned in many blogs, including yesterday's, where I took apart the Times' editorial on this subject, Barack Obama:
-Chose jeremiah wright's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, over every one of the countless Churches in south Chicago;
-Was married in the church by wright;
-Had his children baptized by wright;
-Even named his book, "The Audacity of Hope" after a line from one of wright's sermons.
And Guy Cecil is apoplectic over an ad campaign that would have tied Barack Obama to jeremiah wright? These two couldn't be more closely tied together if they tried.
Look, I appreciate the politics of the situation. Barack Obama's umbilical association with jeremiah wright is more than just embarrassing, it can easily be seen as an explanation for much of the Obama agenda - and of the execrable selection of racist eric holder as Attorney General. So there is a need to "get in front" of the situation in some way.
But look at how Cecil did it. By vicious, dishonest name-calling - and, as per usual, screaming "racism at the drop of a hat, thus further trivializing a term that used to, and should still, mean something.
As I have noted in previous blogs, I think this kind of advertising is a mistake.
Not because it is unfair - it is 100% fair.
Not because it is untrue - it is 100% true.
Because, after 3 1/2 years as President, voters will be much more receptive to judging Barack Obama on his record in office, rather than his long-time association with jeremiah wright. Mitt Romney, in my opinion, would do very well to stay on the economy, jobs, gas prices, and the debt and not be sucked into what, fairly or unfairly, would wind up a diversionary sideshow.
But as for the point behind this potential advertising? Simply stated, it is not racist to advertise that Barack Obama was closely tied to a racist. No matter how completely Guy Cecil and the DSCC panic over it.
Was President Obama embarrassed in West Virginia, when a primary opponent named Keith Garrett Judd - born in California and currently serving 17 1/2 years in the Beaumont (Texas) Federal Correctional Institution, got on the ballot - and got 42% of the Democrat vote?
Well, yes. But very little, because Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media gave it one-day-and-out treatment so the sheeple would forget about it as soon as possible.
But what if there were a second, even more egregious embarrassment in a state primary - this time from a real candidate? Not good. Which leads us straight to John Wolfe, Jr.
John Wolfe, Jr. is an attorney from Tennessee. He is on the presidential primary ballot in Arkansas, which will be held next Tuesday, May 22 - and in Texas's May 29th primary as well.
This, in and of itself, wouldn't mean very much. Fringe candidates are lurking around in every presidential election.
Except....
....a Hendrix College-Talk Business poll was just conducted in Arkansas' fourth congressional district, and shows Mr. Wolfe with 38% of the vote, to 45% for Mr. Obama. That puts him in striking range for this district
In fairness, Arkansas' Fourth is hardly Obama territory: John McCain won it 58% - 39% in 2008. On the other hand, its congressperson, Mike Ross, is a Democrat.
I have seen no other polling for Arkansas, so I don't know if Mr. Wolfe's popularity (or, more exactly Mr.Obama's unpopularity) extends to the rest of the state. But if it does, this is going to be another huge embarrassment.
And if Wolfe does well in Arkansas, how many votes, even if they are no more than protest votes, will he accumulate against President Obama in Texas?
At some point even Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media are going to have to make something of this.
Stay tuned. I guarantee both the Obama and Romney camps will.
What would you do if you were working outdoors and came upon a gun? Would you not, as a civic-minded person, bring it to the police? That is certainly what I would do.
With this in mind, please read the following excerpts from Taryn Asher's article for WJBK Fox-Detroit, and tell me if you can come up with a more jaw-dropping demonstration of bureaucratic idiocy at work:
John Chevilott found a gun, secured it, brought it back to the road yard in Westland, which is Wayne County property, before he turned it into police.
Hidden in weeds in Detroit's Brightmoor area, Chevilott and his Wayne County crew discovered a loaded, snubnosed revolver as they were mowing the lawn mid-morning on May 3.
Detroit police never did drive by, so Chevilott finished his work day, drove the gun home and later that same evening turned it into his local police department in Garden City.
He says the cops ran the gun and discovered the weapon had been stolen from St. Clair Shores in 2005.
"They said I did the right thing getting it off the street."
However, Chevilott's superiors at the Department of Public Services had a much different opinion. His foreman, who had knowledge of the situation, was suspended for 30 days, and after 23 years on the job, Chevilott was fired for violating department policies.
According to a Wayne County spokeswoman and the rules, employees aren't allowed to possess a weapon on work property.
"They did a good thing. They took a gun off the streets and they're being punished," said Local 101 President Thomas Richards.
Chevilott also was let go for insubordination and unauthorized access to the road yard.
Richards says he's fighting all three accusations that are over the top and without merit.
The union has filed a grievance. Chevilott does want to get his job back. He was just two years shy of retirement.
John Chevilott is being fired for this? What the @#!$ did the Department of Public Services want him to do? Leave the gun there so someone else, maybe a child, could pick it up and try it out?
This is bureaucratic idiocy so classic that they should publish the names of the geniuses who did this, and use them as proof that it is possible for people to make decisions without using even 1% of their brain function - assuming they have any to begin with.
I have often argued that the value of unions today is exactly what it was in prior times: the leverage they afford employees against the power of management. And if ever we should be rooting for a union to succeed, we should be rooting for Local 101 and its President Thomas Richards.
I would suggest that Mr. Richards try to pound some sense into the heads of the people who suspended the foreman and fired Mr. Chevilott - a 23 year employee within 2 years of his retirement to boot. But, under the circumstances, it is hard to imagine they are capable of absorbing any. So I'll settle for just getting them to reverse their idiotic decisions.
Mitt Romney has just put out his first TV ad "What would a Romney Presidency be like?". Here it is:
As you can see, it is a predominantly positive message that talks about job creation/tax relief, and the removal of ObamaCare. In my mind, exactly what Mr. Romney should be talking about. Not the phony war against women, or the phony war against Black people, or jeremiah wright.
As tempting as it is do debunk the BS that is being tossed in buckets by Obama & Co., the avenue to defeating Barack Obama is pointing out that he has a record, the record is abysmal, and a Romney presidency will clean up his mess.
Dan Abrams - lawyer, legal analyst, son of famed constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams - certainly should be expected to understand the most rudimentary principle in US law - innocent until proved guilty.
So how could he possibly have said this, on last night's ABC Nightline show, about newly released documents relating to the Trayvon Martin killing?
"There's a lot in these documents that seems to help George Zimmerman’s defense team. But let's remember: Trayvon Martin was still shot and killed by George Zimmerman. And so even if Zimmerman was on his back, even if he was losing a fight, he still has a lot of explaining to do and is going to have to prove that Trayvon Martin was the initial aggressor."
With all due respect to Mr. Abrams, whom I usually have great respect for, what the hell is he talking about?
George Zimmerman does not have to prove a thing. The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin within Florida's definition of second degree murder - which is what prosecutor, Angela Corey, has inexplicably charged him with.
To remind you, Florida's definition of second degree murder is "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".
Can Dan Abrams, or anyone else on planet Earth, show me how the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was George Zimmerman's state of mind when he shot Trayvon Martin?
-Virtually every newly released piece of evidence supports Zimmerman's account, including, most significantly, pictorial proof that he was beaten exactly as he said he was. The only person near him was Trayvon Martin, so who do you suppose administered the beating?;
-At least one eyewitness says that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him "MMA" (mixed martial arts) style;
-And this is before we get to the common sense factor that if you are about to kill someone with depraved indifference to human life you probably will make an attempt to force the victim out of clear sight on the street where anyone might see it happen, and you probably will not call 911 first to clue them in about it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If Angela Corey had gone after George Zimmerman on, say, manslaughter, which, in this case, would define either as "an act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person", or "engaging in "culpably negligent" conduct that resulted in the death of another person" she might - might - have had a shot at a conviction.
It would be quite a stretch, since, as shown above, this case reeks of reasonable doubt. But given the racially charged climate created by hustlers like sharpton, farrakhan, the new Black panther party - and Rep. Frederica Wilson, whom I have been remiss in not mentioning as a first-tier race hustler in previous blogs - it was at least somewhat feasible.
But second degree murder? Other to kiss the rings of the racists - always a wild card when lowlifes like the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph are involved - there is no way.
If Dan Abrams happens to read this, I welcome him to tell me where I'm wrong. Because I can't see it.
The New York Times has a ridiculous editorial this morning.
I admit that is hardly anything new. But this one is about a subject I blogged on yesterday - jeremiah wright - so I thought I would put it up and show you what I think they got wrong (which is plenty).
First off, here was my take on whether wright should be an issue in this year's presidential election:
My take on this is that, in 2008, attacking Barack Obama's association with wright would have been a terrific strategy, because it would have defined him to voters. Now, in 2012, it is poor strategy because Mr. Obama's awful record on the economy is far more important to voters.
Please note that at no time did I suggest there was anything improper or unfair about Mitt Romney's campaign using the 18 years Barack Obama spent in jeremiah wright's church. My only point was that, 3 1/2 years into his presidency, Mr. Obama is better defined by his record as President than his association with wright and since his record is awful, that is what Mitt Romney should attacking him on.
Now let's get to the Times. Here is its editorial, in rust, with my comments in blue. Please read it through and decide for yourself who is making more sense:
Editorial
Racial Politics, 2012-StyleNice.Before readers see a word of the editorial they already “know” it is about racism – and the word “Republicans” immediately follows, of course. So it starts.
For many Republicans, the belief has never died that President Obama is a secret revolutionary nurtured on black liberationist theology. Mr. Obama spent 18 years in the church of a proudly self-described Black liberation theologist.What do you think he was nurtured on? Right-wing Web sites are littered with this nonsense how is it nonsense when the head of the church, jeremiah wright, defines himself as a Black liberation theologist? , and the Fox News host Sean Hannity regularly tries to tie Mr. Obama to the clearly racist views of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Er, excuse me.If even you guys are admitting that jeremiah wright is clearly a racist, and Barack Obama spent 18 years in his church, was married in it, had his children baptized in it, contributed countless thousands to it, and called wright his “spiritual mentor”, OF COURSE the two were tied together.Is there something wrong with you?Even Mitt Romney suggested in February, on Mr. Hannity’s radio show, that Mr. Obama listened too much to Mr. Wright. You think he didn’t?You think staying in a racist church through almost two decades of racist sermonizing wasn’t too much?How much racism is ok with you? 30 years? 40 years?Give us your best estimate.
In 2008, Senator John McCain refused to make this divisive tactic part of his campaign against Mr. Obama. But, in a more coarsened political atmosphere, the rise of unlimited money has made it possible for a wealthy person to broadcast any attack while keeping a distance from it. McCain should have done it.As Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg reported in The Times on Thursday, Joe Ricketts, the billionaire founder of TD Ameritrade, worked with Republican strategists to prepare a $10 million ad campaign suggesting the president’s governing philosophy came directly from Mr. Wright. Ricketts denies it was anything but a proposal.But, for the sake of discussion, suppose you are right and he was going to do it.Why would it not be reasonable to connect Mr. Obama’s governing philosophy with the philosophy of his “spiritual mentor”? (There’s a question I’ll never get an answer to.)
After the plan was disclosed, Mr. Ricketts said he was not interested in socially divisive tactics and the ads would never run. (Mr. Romney also repudiated the proposed attack.) That suggests Rickets reconsidered only after the plan was disclosed.In fact, he said he never agreed to it in the first place.But Mr. Ricketts is quoted in the proposal as saying that if the nation had seen an ad featuring Mr. Wright, “they’d never have elected Barack Obama.” The proposal suggests Mr. Ricketts gave his preliminary approval. I agree that suggests he would have been amenable to the campaign.But a) we still don’t know for sure one way or the other, and b) in any event that is not what he said, it is what you are saying.
The proposal was prepared by Fred Davis, who made and paid for a Wright ad in 2008 but couldn’t persuade Mr. McCain to run it. “The good Reverend and his inflammatory influence have never been packaged in the proper attention-arresting way with sufficient resources to truly drill it into America’s consciousness,” his proposal said. I agree completely that wright’s inflammatory influence has never been presented in an effective way – i.e. a way that might overcome mainstream media’s herculean effort to protect Barack Obama from having to answer for his association with this racist.
To do that, Mr. Davis proposed showing a clip of Mr. Wright saying “God Damn America,” then saying the nation should have known that Mr. Obama would come up with terrible ideas like the stimulus and health care reform because of notions drilled into him by his old pastor. To defuse the inevitable attack that the ad is racist, the proposal suggests hiring “an extremely literate, conservative African-American” as spokesman and narrator. That’s what I would have done too.Advertising campaigns, political and non-political both, use reassuring spokespeople all the time.Democrats do the same all the time – as they should, for the same reason.
It’s hard to imagine why the plan’s authors believed it would change opinions about Mr. Obama. Americans know him well and most know he is not a left-wing radical. But that’s the kind of drivel money buys these days. Barack Obama is in political trouble today in large part because his agenda is left wing radical.I do acknowledge, however, that this may be hard to understand among an editorial staff which appears to think of left wing as middle of the road.
Since 1976, individuals have been able to spend without limit on independent ads, but rarely did so because their names would have had to have been attached. By setting up a super PAC under the post-Citizens United rules, Mr. Ricketts avoids having most viewers make the connection to him and his businesses, including the Chicago Cubs. This ad may never appear, but the dozens of super PACs can be counted on to find other ways to pollute the campaign. Sometimes it is pollution.Other times it is information voters should be considering before casting their ballots.You don’t seem to distinguish between the two – not surprising, since it is in your interest to have the final word on what voters do and do not find out and PAC advertising is horning.
Time Magazine, which used to be an extremely important news weekly, instead of the nearly irrelevant news weakly it has devolved into, is running a story on Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel in its latest issue.
Written by managing editor Richard Stengel, it is another in Time's series on what the Jewish state is doing wrong, which is causing all its problems with those nice, peaceful folks in Gaza, Judea and Samaria (the west bank): you know, the ones who are on record as wanting to vaporize Israel and kill every Jew there. Stengel apparently has difficulty understanding why Mr. Netanyahu has trouble making peace under such halcyon conditions.
John Hinderaker of powerlineblog.com, however, has no such difficulty. He has written a superb blog which dissects, deconstructs and debunks Stengel's mindless mantra.
Normally I would post a few key excerpts. But in this case I think it is so important that you read every word, I'm just providing a link to John's blog.
Today, in a matter of hours, a rumor swirled that a billionaire Romney supporter was going to give $10,000,000 to a Super-PAC for an advertising campaign reminding voters of President Obama's association with jeremiah wright - which was denied by the billionaire Romney supporter, and seems to be going away as fast as it materialized.
Mitt Romney quickly repudiated the idea, saying that it was the "wrong course" and that he would concentrate on Mr. Obama's failures with the economy instead. Maybe that is why it was dropped so quickly.
My take on this is that, in 2008, attacking Barack Obama's association with wright would have been a terrific strategy, because it would have defined him to voters. Now, in 2012, it is poor strategy because Mr. Obama's awful record on the economy is far more important to voters.
Or, as cartoonist Bob Gorell reminds us:
Very funny, Bob. And right on target. Romney is smart not to be diverted from the biggest issue of the campaign, which also happens to be President Obama's greatest weakness.
Let's start with the fact that we know less about Barack Obama than any other President in this country's history - in no small part because our wonderful "neutral" media have made a concerted an effort to avoid learning about his past - and to ignore entire parts of what they did learn.
Now, however, we have a situation even Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media may not be able to duck.
It seems that in 1991, young Barack decided to write a book, "Journeys In Black and White". The project was eventually abandoned. But while it was in the works, a biography was written about him - which he either wrote himself or would have authorized. The biography was used in a promotional booklet by his then-literary agent, Acton & Dystel (Jane Dystel, now part of Dystel & Goderich, still lists him as a client, by the way).
Breitbart.com has uncovered the existence of this promotional booklet, and has a copy (along with a lot more information that you should click onthis link to find out about).
Would you like to see what it says about Mr. Obama? Ok, no problem. Here it is:
SAY WHAT? "Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."???
Now why would it say that?
Tell you what: If Barack Obama can produce any evidence at all that this booklet is a fake, or a forgery, or that he disputed its description of his birthplace at that time, I will consider the possibility that this is meaningless.
But if he cannot, I will not. And neither should you or anyone else.
Now: let's see if this is on the news shows tonight. Let's see who wants to go even further in the tank for Barack Obama.
UPDATE: Miriam Goderich, one of Mr. Obama's current literary agents, has responded to the uncovering of this biography. She claims it was nothing more than a "fact-checking error". Her verbatim statement:
“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
A fact-checking error in the first sentence of the biography that no one ever caught and no one ever changed? From a literary agent???That doesn't even meet the laugh-out-loud test.
But wait, there is even more. Ben Shapiro of breitbart.com has checked with archive.org, which caches web sites, and found that this Obama biography was not some one-time "fact-checking error" by "an agency assistant". It remained in use by Dystel and Goderich until at least April 3, 2007 (when the "agency assistant" had become a partner).
So what do we have here? We have a definitive statement that Barack Obama was born in Kenya which Miriam Goderich now claims he neither wrote nor approved, which stayed as-is for 16 years, and changed just about the time Mr. Obama started his run for the presidency.
Yeah, okay, sure. And the cow jumped over the moon.
Incidentally, I monitored both NBC and ABC news tonight. Neither of them mentioned this story. I can't tell you how shocked I am.
I mean that literally. I can't tell you how shocked I am because I am not shocked in the least.
Imagine the emotional insecurities of a grown man who would have henchman find and gratuitously insert even the faintest link between this 44th president and almost every president back to Calvin Coolidge --"On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people.....President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls."
Franklin D. Roosevelt -- "On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama Administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations."
For President John F. Kennedy the insert notes that he began the Peace Corps while "President Obama celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps with a Presidential Proclamation." (Wow, an entire proclamation!)
President Ronald Reagan -- "President Reagan designated Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday; today the Obama Administration honors this tradition, with the First and Second Families participating in service projects on this day."
President Harry Truman -- "...President Truman wrote that government has 'an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected.'....Today the Obama Administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens, repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- He founded the President's Council on Youth Fitness. "Today the Council is still going strong—with Olympians and professional athletes on board—working in conjunction with the First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move initiative to help promote healthier lifestyles."
Is there something wrong with this man?
Can he really have taken the White House biographies and, in as clumsy and offensive a way as possible, turned them into campaign documents? Can he be more shameless? More embarrassing to this country?
If Mitt Romney unseats Barack Obama as President, there are a lot of actions I would hope he quickly takes to undo the damage of the last four years.
Let us hope that one of them will be the removal of Mr. Obama's disgusting me-myself-and-I insertions from the White House biographies.
Is there a more boring, predictably left wing "interviewer" on cable news than Piers Morgan?
What was CNN thinking when they gave him Larry King's 9PM spot?
Last night was the flaming limit. According to the data from media bistro.com's TV Newser, Morgan got a whopping total of 284,000 viewers, compared to 839,000 for the snarky, but at least somewhat interesting Rachel Maddow and 1,767,000 for perennial leader Sean Hannity. That's pretty ugly, wouldn't you say?
But let's be fair: maybe Mr, Morgan did better with the key 25 - 54 year old demo.
Uhhhh....nope. He did worse. Much worse. Morgan pulled in an infinitesimal 39,000 viewers, compared to 315,000 for Maddow and 334,000 for Hannity.
What is Morgan's problem? I can't say for sure. But my guess is that if viewers are given a choice of a boring far leftist like Morgan, or a more dynamic far leftist like Maddow, they will take the more dynamic alternative. Which leaves Piers Morgan......nowhere.
Does CNN need a mid-evening programming change? That's like asking if a 6 month old baby needs a first-thing-in-the-morning diaper change.
Hey, I have a great idea. Maybe CNN can dump Morgan and replace him with Elizabeth Warren doing a series on native American ancestr.....er, never mind.
Mitt Romney is campaigning with a backdrop that is sure to keep a major element of Barack Obama's failed economic policies front and center in everyone's mind: a debt clock.
Here he is, yesterday, at a campaign stop in Florida:
To his credit, Mr. Romney acknowledges that both parties have contributed to the godawful deficit on that clock. But his point - and it is a terrific one - is that the deficit has accelerated hugely during President Obama's 3+ years in office:
"[President Obama] was very critical of his predecessor because the predecessor put together $4 trillion of debt over eight years," Romney continued. "This president however - oh by the way, he said that doing that was unpatriotic, irresponsible and unpatriotic. And he said he would cut the debt in half if he became president. Instead he doubled it..."
Actually, Mr. Romney is being too kind. Doubling the deficit would mean that it rose the same amount in Mr. Obama's first (only?) term of office as it did in Mr. Bush's two terms. But it has risen far more than Mr. Bush's total (5.5 - 6 trillion already) and there is more than half a year to go before we get to the end of Mr. Obama's first term.
Not surprisingly, Democrats have quickly tried to answer this charge. Here is the response, from Lis Smith, who has the title, so help me, of "Director of Rapid Response" for the Obama campaign. Read it carefully and see if you can find the part where it actually speaks to what Mr. Romney said about the debt:
“In Florida today, Mitt Romney continued to make dishonest claims- both about President Obama’s record and his own. While President Obama has put forward a plan to reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion by making responsible spending cuts and asking every American to pay their share, Mitt Romney refuses to say what spending cuts or tax increases he’d make to cover the cost of giving $5 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. Mitt Romney simply wants to return to the same policies that caused the economic crisis and weakened the middle class."
Er, where is the dishonesty Lis? You didn't specify any at all.
Are you saying the debt numbers are dishonest? I hope not, because they are dead-on accurate.
And the rest of your statement is a campaign stump speech that does not in any way address what Mr. Romney said.
If this is the best that Obama & Co. can come up with to counter Romney's debt clock, I suggest he put it up at every campaign stop.
After writing dozens and dozens of blogs on this subject, I am delighted to see Jay Schalin's article at americanthinker.com, which says, as I have, that racism includes prejudice and hatred directed at any race, not exclusively the Black race.
Here are a few key excerpts:
Attorney General Eric Holder should have been more careful about what to ask for. When he first took office, he called for a national dialogue on race, calling us "a nation of cowards" for not facing the subject honestly.
It may be that he's getting what he asked for, but it is not taking the direction he expected. There's perhaps a little too much courage and honesty going on for his tastes.
Until very recently, white people in the public eye carefully avoided any comments that fell outside narrow politically correct boundaries; to do so was to volunteer to be the defendant in a media show trial, with a loss of reputation and career the likely result. Even Bill Cosby, who had achieved a universal father-figure status among African-Americans and was arguably the nation's most popular black person, had his ears pinned back with a firestorm of criticism in 2004 when he suggested that problems in the black community originated in that community rather than with white racism.
But the Trayvon Martin case seems to have lifted the lid off the forbidden box, and, despite attempts to put the lid back on, politically incorrect spirits are escaping into the mainstream. Subsequent events show that a real dialogue may be taking place -- with conservatives hitting back instead of submitting to expectations of ideological perp walks and mea culpas.
(Thomas) Sowell's, (Naomi Schafer) Riley's, and (John) Derbyshire's refusal to submit to the politically correct line -- and Sowell's and Riley's ability to put their opinions on the matter into top national publications -- is hardly what Holder had in mind when he raised the issue of race relations in America. Most likely, more critics of the politically correct status quo will speak out as time goes on. Perhaps the attorney general would now prefer that we had remained a nation of cowards.
Is there racism directed against Blacks? You bet there is, and plenty of it.
Is there racism directed against Whites? Asians? You bet there is, and plenty of it.
Is the United States a racist country? Yes - in that this is a racist world, and the United States is part of the world (albeit a part with more legal redress for racism than just about any other country).
Is Attorney General eric holder running the Department of Justice as a political arm of President Obama's agenda - very much including a view that racism against Blacks is paramount and racism against non-Blacks is not worth bothering about? So it seems.
Thank you Mr. Schalin - and every other person determined to see racism in all its forms, not just one. May this trend continue, and grow. And may the next Presidential election result in the appointment of an Attorney General who is part of that trend.
As you probably noticed, with one early morning exception I did not blog at all yesterday.
The reason? On Monday I had a lithotripsy procedure - the use of shock waves to break up a kidney stone. Monday and Tuesday I was fine. Yesterday, however, I was in extreme discomfort (that is a very nice way of putting it, I assure you).
But finally, last night and early this morning, I passed enough of the kidney stone remnants so that the pain stopped --- not to come back again, I hope, since it put me flat on my back all yesterday and I have not eaten any food for 36 hours.
At this moment I feel no pain, a good deal of hunger, and an eagerness to catch up on blogging, since there is plenty to blog about.
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) called it "awesome" Tuesday that favoring same-sex marriage could be viewed as politically expedient, saying it shows advancement in people's perspective on the issue.
"As someone that represents one of the largest LGBT communities in the country, I think it's actually awesome that we've come so far in advancing the rights of the LGBT community that people would question that it's a good thing politically for the president of the United States to come out for marriage equality," said Wasserman Schultz on MSNBC.
A CBS News/New York Times poll released Monday found that most Americans believe President Obama publicly endorsed same-sex marriage for political reasons. Twenty-four percent of those surveyed thought Obama came forward because he felt it was the right thing to do, while 67 percent thought he was politically motivated.
The Florida congresswoman told MSNBC that although she thinks the poll represents progress in society, she argued that Obama made his announcement for personal reasons.
"This is the civil-rights issue of our generation. President Obama came out for marriage equality because he believes in it personally. He believes that no one should be discriminated against and that the laws of our country should reflect an opportunity for equality for all Americans," she said.
Obama became the first U.S. president to support marriages between same-sex couples, making his announcement in an ABC News interview Wednesday. Vice President Biden's remarks last Sunday that he was comfortable with same-sex marriage put political pressure on the president to explain his previously stated "evolving" views.
Yes, that is really what she said.
As you can see above, the poll indicates that by 67% to 24%, voters believe President Obama's new-found stance in favor of gay marriage "evolved" for political reasons, not because he really believed it was the right thing to do.
And that's not all:
-The same poll shows that, among independents, the "it's for political reasons" percentage jumps to 70%.
-It also shows that, among people who indicate Mr. Obama's position on gay marriage will affect their vote, 26% say it will make them less likely to vote for him, versus 16% saying it will make them more likely to do so.
But Dim Bulb Debbie is trying to sell you that this news is so positive, it is "awesome".
I'm starting to think that my characterization of Ms. Wasserman Schultz as Dim Bulb Debbie is giving her too much credit.
A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.
Zimmerman faces a second degree murder charge for the Feb. 26 shooting that left the unarmed 17-year-old high school junior dead. Zimmerman has claimed self defense in what he described as a life and death struggle that Martin initiated by accosting him, punching him in the face, then repeatedly bashing his head into the pavement.
The morning after the shooting, on Feb. 27, Zimmerman sought treatment at the offices of a general physician at a family practice near Sanford, Fla. The doctor notes Zimmerman sought an appointment to get legal clearance to return to work. The record shows that Zimmerman also suffered bruising in the upper lip and cheek and lower back pain. The two lacerations on the back of his head, one of them nearly an inch long, the other about a quarter-inch long, were first revealed in photos obtained exclusively by ABC News last month.
A neighbor told ABC News that the day after the shooting he saw Zimmerman as he spoke to officers outside his home. He too recalled seeing black eyes and significant swelling -- as well as a bandage over his nose.
Moments after the shooting Zimmerman told eyewitnesses he shot Martin in self defense. He later told officers his head was being pounded into the pavement and that he feared for his life, but that it was only when Martin seemed to reach for the gun wedges in his waistband that Zimmerman drew his weapon and fired directly into Martin's chest -- killing him.
WFTV has confirmed that autopsy results show 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles when he died.
The information could support George Zimmerman's claim that Martin beat him up before Zimmerman shot and killed him.
Now: can someone explain to me how it is possible not to have reasonable doubt about the charge that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin? I'm not talking exclusively about second degree murder either; I'm talking about any charge of murder - even the manslaughter charge that the ridiculously overzealous prosecutor, Angela Corey, should never have gone beyond?
One other question: Do you wonder what al sharpton and louis farrakhan and spike lee and Jessie Jackson, and roseanne barr, or the racist haters of the new Black panther party, or the eric holder-led Department of Justice which ignored the Black panther death threats, and all of the other geniuses who have already tried and convicted Mr. Zimmerman will say about this?
If so, that's your business and you're welcome to it. Personally I don't give a damn about what any of them think.
I have written many blogs over the years about the gap between media coverage of interracial crime - specifically how much there is for White on Black criminality and how little there is for (the far more frequent occurrence of) Black on White criminality.
But when the great Thomas Sowell writes about it, as he has for nationalreview.com today, I stop and take notice -especially when the conclusion Mr. Sowell makes is so on-target and so important.
Here are some key excerpts. I have intentionally put two of the most salient paragraphs in bold print:
When two white newspaper reporters for the Virginian-Pilot were driving through Norfolk, and were set upon and beaten by a mob of young blacks — beaten so badly that they had to take a week off from work — that might sound like news that should have been reported, at least by their own newspaper. But it wasn’t.
Similar episodes of unprovoked violence by young black gangs against white people chosen at random on beaches, in shopping malls, or in other public places have occurred in Philadelphia, New York, Denver, Chicago, Cleveland, Washington, Los Angeles, and other places across the country. Both the authorities and the media tend to try to sweep these episodes under the rug.
A wave of such attacks in Chicago were reported, but not the race of the attackers or victims. Media outlets that do not report the race of people committing crimes nevertheless report racial disparities in imprisonment and write heated editorials blaming the criminal-justice system.
What the authorities and the media seem determined to suppress is that the hoodlum elements in many ghettoes launch coordinated attacks on whites in public places. If there is anything worse than a one-sided race war, it is a two-sided race war, especially when one of the races outnumbers the other several times over.
(there are) not only race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson but also lesser-known people in the media, in educational institutions, and elsewhere who hype grievances and make all the problems of blacks the fault of whites. Some of these people may think that they are doing blacks a favor. But it is no favor to anyone who lags behind to turn their energies from the task of improving and advancing themselves to the task of lashing out at others.
These others extend beyond whites. Asian-American schoolchildren in New York and Philadelphia have for years been beaten up by their black classmates. But people in the mainstream media who go ballistic if some kid says something unkind on the Internet about a homosexual classmate nevertheless hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil when Asian-American youngsters are victims of violence.
Those who automatically say that the social pathology of the ghetto is due to poverty, discrimination, and the like cannot explain why such pathology was far less prevalentin the 1950s, when poverty and discrimination were worse. But there were not nearly as many grievance mongers and race hustlers then.
Thhose two bold print paragraphs alone, pack more intelligence and insight about race than entire books I have read.
How tragic it is that these kinds of behaviors are exhibited by some young Blacks (thankfully nowhere near all, as I'm sure Thomas Sowell would agree).
And how tragic it is that they so often are either glossed over, or ignored completely, by most mainstream media - the same mainstream media which barely ever have a bad word to say about the people who look the other way, and/or rationalize, and/or justify such behaviors. These sometimes (not always) well meaning people are more responsible for the destruction of young Black lives than even the most rabid White supremacists - because, instead of being easily identifiable as race haters, they are presented as role models.
Please spare the Black community - and every other community from "role models" like them.
The liberal tilt of America’s top colleges and universities has gone off the charts with the ratio of liberal-to-conservative commencement speakers reaching 7-1, an all-time high, according to a new survey of graduation ceremonies at the top 100 schools.
“It was particularly awful this year,” said Ron Meyer of the Young America’s Foundation, which conducted the survey. “The ratio has never been this bad.”
According to the conservative youth group, of the top 100 universities in the latest U.S. News rankings, 71 featured liberal speakers while 10 hosted conservatives. And of the top 35 schools, only one asked a conservative to speak. EmoryCollege, ranked 20th in the nation, had Obamacare foe Benjamin Carson give the commencementAny questions?
Maybe it isn't because James O'Keefe is especially clever. Maybe it is because voter fraud is especially easy.
His latest demonstration of how effortlessly voter fraud can be committed occurred in North Carolina, where Mr. O'Keefe and his Project Veritas showed - as they have in other states, that there is absolutely nothing to it.
In fact, when the Project Veritas plants were offered ballots, and tried to leave without illegally voting by saying they would be more comfortable if they could go out and get their passports, the election people literally tried to prevent them from leaving, assuring them that their passports were not necessary, just go ahead and vote without them.
Project Veritas also managed to tape a Durham County election judge named michael williams, who said "I mostly support" the North Carolina constitution. Then, speaking of conservative US Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas, williams said that "we need somebody to run over Scalia...you should get him and Thomas at the same time..."
If michael williams is still a judge after the authorities get wind of these comments, North Carolina is hopeless. He shouldn't be a judge, he should be standing before a judge.
Voter fraud without a problem in the world? An election judge who decides which part of the North Carolina constitution he does/does not support, and wishes for US Supreme Court justices to be run over?
It's all there. And plenty more -- I haven't even mentioned what O'Keefe's people uncovered at the University of North Carolina. Just click hereto watch the video and see/hear for yourself.
Then be sure to reference it every time some gullible soul tells you that the Brennan Center for Social Justice says voter fraud is virtually nonexistent.
Do we need voters to provide a valid ID before casting their ballots? You tell me.
Just how far does the Boston Globe intend to go in an effort to save Elizabeth Warren's Senate campaign? You have to wonder, after the nearly anonymous retraction it just made regarding Ms. Warren's thoroughly bogus claim to being a native American.
Here are the particulars.
As you no doubt remember, Elizabeth Warren first claimed to be part Cherokee and part Delaware. Then, when challenged, Ms. Warren could produce no documentation for her claim, so she retreated to the position that it was "family lore".
How convenient: if there is no way to check "family lore", there is no way to debunk it -- a little like not requiring any valid ID to vote, and then claiming you can't find any invalid voters (NOTE: that will be the subject of another blog today).
If Elizabeth Warren had done nothing other than claim an ancestry that could not be validated, it might have been laughed off as a silly nothing-with-nothing embellishment. But the problem is, Ms. Warren used that claim to achieve minority status at Harvard - which, as anyone who follows the ludicrous, racist systems of many colleges and universities knows, established her as an oppressed minority, and almost certainly fast-tracked her career.
When it became known that Ms. Warren had no documentation to prove native American ancestry, but was listed by Harvard as a minority faculty member, she countered by claiming she didn't realize Harvard had done so. But that became an obvious lie when it was found out that a) she was listed the same way in her previous position at the University of Pennsylvania and b) for a full decade she identified herself as having minority status in the Association of American Law Schools desk book.
Things were looking pretty bleak in Elizabethwarrenville. But then the Boston Globe decided it would come to the rescue.
On April 30th, The Globe published a story by Noah Bierman which indicated that an 1894 document had been dredged up by one Chris Child, "a genealogist at the New England Historic and Genealogy Society", which indicated Warren's great great great grandmother was a Cherokee Indian, thus making her 1/32nd (3%) native American.
Was that an impressive résumé for someone claiming to be native American? Convincing in any way?
Nope, it was laughably lame. But at least it was better than nothing.
However, since Mr. Bierman's article was published, the idea that this somehow validates Elizabeth Warren's claim to native American status has become more and more of a joke. Many web sites have pointed out that, apart from the fact that 3% is a ridiculous basis to claim native American ancestry per se, no one, including Mr. Child, has produced any actual documentation even for the 3% claim.
And now Chris Child has owned up and admitted he doesn't have any. Child acknowledges that he got his information from amateur genealogist Lynda Smith, and Smith admits she made the claim without any authentication whatsoever.
So what has the Boston Globe done about this? Published a front-page story debunking the Elizabeth Warren native American claim, right? That certainly would be the thing to do, wouldn't it?
Uh....nope.
Today's Boston Globe does not have a first page story, or any story at all. All it has is a blip in its "For The Record" errata list - in which the retraction is buried at the #3 position. In other words, its retraction is roughly as anonymous as the abominable snowman.
Evidently, the Globe hopes this both covers its exceedingly exposed backside, and ends the issue for Ms. Warren.
Note to those nice folks at the Boston Globe: It does neither. You are busted. And so is Ms. Warren.
By trying to bury the news this way, the Globe makes itself look not like a newspaper, but as a propaganda purveyor for the Warren campaign - which ain't what you'd call far off the mark, is it?
And it again brings home the fact that Elizabeth Warren lied about her ancestry for years and years in a way that would advance her academic career.
It is time for the Boston Globe to offer a serious retraction - maybe even an apology to its readers - for the paper's ridiculous attempt to save Elizabeth Warren's Senate candidacy.
And it is over-time for Ms. Warren to apologize to her students, her party and the citizens of Massachusetts - then withdraw her candidacy so that another Democrat, with a clean record, can take her place.
Oh, did I mention that the Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times - the same paper which buried its own presidential poll today because the news was bad for Barack Obama?
"For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind": Hosea 8:7
I start with that iconic line from the New Testament because it so aptly fits how the radical left, and their kindred spirits - such as the "Occupy" remnants - are saying thank-you to the Democrat Party in Chicago this week.
Dozens of demonstrators dashed into the Loop building housing President Barack Obama's campaign headquarters this morning, slipping past security guards and running up escalators as they kicked off what they called a "Week Without Capitalism."
Eight protesters were led out in handcuffs about half an hour later after they refused to clear the lobby. They were cheered by other demonstrators who began dancing and singing folk and gospel songs.
After about 30 minutes marching and singing outside the building, the group tried to enter the building and reach Obama’s campaign offices around 8:30 a.m.
Guards locked the revolving doors, but protesters slipped through unlocked doors off to the sides. Some pushed past a security guard who tried to block their entry but quickly gave up as protesters poured through the doorway.
About a dozen uniformed Chicago police officers entered the lobby and stood quietly at the back of the protest group as a demonstrator on the second floor read a statement, echoed by the few dozen demonstrators in the lobby below.
A handful of protesters remained inside near the elevator banks to the upper floors and refused to leave when asked by the building manager and police. They were handcuffed and escorted out a side door, singing “This Little Light of Mine.”
As they were led to a police van, a throng of protestors standing behind a wall of officers with bicycles sang "Ain't Going to Study War No More" and cheered and thanked those who were arrested.
The protesters regrouped for a moment of silence outside 130 East Randolph in support of those arrested. Then one demonstrator began strumming an acoustic guitar and the group started singing "Let There Be Peace On Earth" as they marched down Randolph toward the CTA Blue Line.
Amazing, isn't it? No matter how far left the Democrat Party lurches, it will never be enough for these lunatics.
Wasn't it President Obama who spoke in support of the anti-capitalist "Occupy" movement? Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi who said "God bless them"? Well this bunch is espousing exactly the same political philosophy. And the "Occupy" remnants almost certainly will join them throughout Chicago's NATO summit.
But don't expect to hear too many hosannas from Democrats this time.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Even to an old-testament guy like me, that's a pretty good analysis.
This comes under the heading "It's silly, I know, but I have to blog about it".
For years, Chris Matthews has viciously insulted Sarah Palin, calling her, among many other things, "profoundly stupid".
And in the course of his serial insults, Matthews has - according to Noel Sheppard of newsbusters.org - speculated on how poorly she would do on the show "Jeopardy". Four different times.
Well, yesterday Matthews himself was on Jeopardy.
Not only did he finish dead last, but he made a fool of himself by flubbing one easy answer after another.
My two favorites are:
-When asked what U.S.D.C. stood for, he answered "U.S. Attorney" (do you see an "A" in U.S.D.C.?);
-When asked a question about "6 Letter World Capitals", he answered "Istanbul". (Hmmmm, maybe if the capital was Istanb, he'd have a shot...)
Let me remind you, again, that this is the man who called Sarah Palin "profoundly stupid".
You can read more of the questions Matthews blew, and then the four Jeopardy-related personal insults he made about Sarah Palin, by clicking on the link I've provided above. It is worth doing so just for the belly laughs.
Y'know, maybe it's not that Sarah Palin is profoundly stupid. Maybe it's that Chris Matthews is profoundly vicious, arrogant......and profoundly stupid.
No wonder MSNBC has kept him on for so many years.....
This morning's New York Times is reporting the result of its latest national poll on the presidential race. Sort of.
I say "sort of" because, instead of running it as a front page article, the results are buried way back on page A17 - at the bottom of the page.
Why do you suppose?
What's that? You are cynical enough to think it must be because Mitt Romney did extremely well in the poll so they want to bury it as much as they can? Well, all I can say is..... Yep.
The first datum most people would want to see in a poll like this is: who's winning? But that isn't what the Times' story leads with. And it isn't among the first findings it shows.
How far back does the Times bury this information? The article is 19 paragraphs long, and you have to go to the 15th paragraph to find it.
Is the reason because Mitt Romney, who was behind Mr. Obama by 6% in this poll's April wave, is now ahead 46% to 43%? You tell me.
Then there is the gender gap - which The Times, and most mainstream media love to bring up because it usually shows women more in favor of Democrats than Republicans.
This is obviously an important issue under almost any circumstances. But in this poll it is enormous. The reason? Starting with the sandra fluke circus, Democrats have spent two solid months pumping out the message that Republicans are waging a "war against women". Therefore, the gender data in this poll is a definer of how well, or poorly, this message is working with voters.
Maybe that's why it is not mentioned in the article at all. Not one word about it in the print edition. Astonishing, but true.
But do not fear. I went straight to the poll data- which I got from the CBS site because I could not find it on the Times' site (either it was not there, or was made especially hard to find). And here is what I found:
One month ago President Obama led Mitt Romney among women by 49% - 43%. But now Mitt Romney leads President Obama among women by 46% to 44%. Use the link I've provided above, go to page 2, and see it for yourself.
In other words, the months-long assault on Republicans as the party of women-haters not only has not worked, it has backfired. Big-time.
Is that why The Times buried its new poll on page A17, and declined to mention how President Obama was doing with women?
The bottom line: despite the Accomplice Media's best efforts to preserve and protect him, President Obama is in trouble. A ton of it.
That said, be assured that, during the almost six months between now and the election, they will do their level best to reverse this situation.
And also be assured that I will do my best to chronicle their attempts....even when they are as clumsy as the Times' coverage of their own poll data this morning.
Since the previous blog discussed what amounts to a lie by Barack Obama, let's hit the daily double and identify two of them today.
According to breitbart.com's Mike Flynn, the Obama campaign has just put out a two minute ad which attacks Mitt Romney for layoffs sustained at GST Steel. The company was purchased by Bain Capital in 1993, when it was run by Mr. Romney, and went bankrupt in 2001, with about 750 jobs lost.
Is this an honest attack on Mitt Romney or another Obama lie?
Here is your answer. Forgetting for a moment that the bankruptcy was in no small part due to a downturn in the steel industry:
-There is this little matter of the fact that Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in 1999 - two years before the bankruptcy occurred, and
GAY MARRIAGE: OBAMA AND ROMNEY HAVE IDENTICAL POSITIONS
Ken Berwitz
Yes, you read that title correctly. It is not a typo. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have exactly the same position on gay marriage. And, no, neither has changed his position since President Obama's $ucce$$ful "evolution".
How can I say this? It's easy. Here's why:
-President Obama, who has been on both sides of this issue issue over the years, now claims to be in favor of gay marriage. However, he also favors each individual state making its own decision on the issue;
-Mitt Romney, who has been on both sides of this issue over the years, now claims to be opposed to gay marriage. However, he also favors each individual state making its own decision on the issue.
As you can see, while Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney are currently at odds with each other in their personal opinions about gay marriage, as President both would do exactly the same thing. There is not one iota of difference between them.
So if you distinguish between the two on their personal opinions, they could not be more different. But if you distinguish between the two on the one and only criterion that should matter to a voter - what they would do as President? There is 0% difference between them.
One other point should be made here. And for supporters of gay marriage (like me) it is a huge one.
If Barack Obama truly feels that gay marriage is an issue of human rights, why is he defining it as a states' rights issue? Why is he not proposing federal legislation that would define it as a civil right, beyond the purview of individual states?
If Mr. Obama truly meant it when he said that gay marriage is a human right, that is what what he would do. And that is what he is not doing.
In other words Barack Obama, based on his actions regarding this issue, is lying to gay people.
Well, at least in that regard, you can't say he treats gay people different than the rest of the population.....
You don't often come across an article so intelligent and perceptive that it takes an issue most people - even many very smart people - have trouble comprehending, and makes it completely understandable.
I will tease you with a couple of short excerpts below. But you would do yourself a great disservice not to use the link I've provided, and read every word:
Yes, friends, it’s once again time for that exciting game of Spin the Polls by the Pew Foundation. Here are the rules:
Rule 1: Pew does a good job on the poll.
Rule 2: The Pew analysis ignores or misunderstands the implications of the poll.
Rule 3: The Western media and government misread the poll, often misinterpreting the results into the exact opposite of what they actually mean. They then adopt the wrong policies.
Rule 4: If correctly interpreted the polls are a gold mine that can help us comprehend the present and predict the future.
The poll concludes that Egyptians still want the same type of relationship with the United States. But what does this mean other than continuing to take US aid money? Using America as a scapegoat – as Middle Eastern dictatorships have done now for more than a half-century – it won’t be long before hate- America rallies, demagogic anti-American speeches, a lack of cooperation on issues, and violence-inciting broadcasts or articles become routine.
You won’t be surprised to hear that two-thirds of Egyptians want to throw out the peace treaty with Israel. The US Congress has properly determined that this would lead to an end of US aid. So what will the next Egyptian government do? Simple, don’t throw out the treaty formally but just break it in every way possible.
Why then do 53 percent (albeit 65%) believe the country is headed in the right direction? The answer is that they are happy with the political direction – toward radical Islamism – but do not think it will improve their material lives.
When asked whether they preferred to model Egypt on Saudi Arabia or Turkey regarding religion’s role in government, thy chose Saudi Arabia by a 61% to 17% margin.
WHEN ASKED if Egypt’s laws should strictly adhere to the Koran, 60% said yes while another 32% said it should follow the values and principles of Islam more generally.
Pew makes much of supposed moderation by pointing out that two-thirds of those who endorsed the Saudi model also said democracy is their preferred form of government; 64% want a free press; 61% want free speech.
And what does democracy mean to them? A landslide victory for the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists! Thus, when they think about, “This is what democracy looks like,” that means eternal Islamist victories.
As for a free press and free speech, that means diversity, though we should remember that proportionately newspaper reading in Egypt is .
The reality of post-Mubarak Egypt seems to elude a great many people. And, sadly, it causes a great many others, who do have an idea of what is going on, to duck, shuck, rationalize, and pretend they don't see it.
Israel, however, does not have the luxury of engaging in such denial. Egypt, you see, has about 12 times as many people as Israel does, a strong military, and sits on Israel's border. This, of course, is before we get to the fact that if Egypt decides to act against Israel, it is virtually certain to have the political and military support of every other Arab country on Israel's border. It will be 1967 all over again.
And why should we care about this? Here are just a few reasons:
-Because Israel is one of the most loyal - arguably the most loyal - of our allies?
-Because Israel votes with the USA about 90% of the time in the UN - and Egypt, which is happy to take our billions in aid, votes against the USA about 90% of the time.
- Because Israel provides us with massive military intelligence and military equipment technology.
Does President Obama, who has made a point of chilling the USA's relationship with Israel, understand this? Or, worse, is it that he does understand this....but is ok with it?
Want to know what happens when a Chicago machine politician like Barack Obama, with a hatchet man like David Axelrod, decides to create an "enemies list"?
Businessman Frank Vandersloot, the CEO of Melaleuca, has been targeted by the Obama campaign after donating money to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. "Three weeks ago, an Obama campaign website, 'Keeping GOP Honest,' took the extraordinary step of publicly naming and assailing eight private citizens backing Mr. Romney," Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal reported. "Titled 'Behind the curtain: a brief history of Romney's donors,' the post accused the eight of being 'wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.' Mr. VanderSloot was one of the eight, smeared particularly as being 'litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement.'"
"Those people that I know well weren't affected by this [attack]," said Vandersloot. "But for people who didn't know me, who are members of our business or customers, and they were reading this, then we got a barrage of phone calls of people cancelling their customer memberships with us."
Mr VanderSloot claims to have lost hundreds of customers due to this thuggish campaign of intimidation by Obama & Co.
Now, grow old waiting for virtually any mainstream media to condemn the campaign for engaging in this despicable activity, or conducting their own investigations on the Obama "enemies list".
No, no, no. That's not going to happen. Not if it will hurt re-election prospects for their lord and savior, Barack Obama.
Over the weekend, a story broke that jeremiah wright, Barack Obama's long-time "spiritual mentor" (his words, not mine) who also happens to be a Black supremacist racist and Israel hater of the first order, was offered a $150,000 bribe to lay low and not give speeches during the 2008 presidential campaign.
The source of this stunning revelation? jeremiah wright, in an interview with author Edward Klein.
So I watched most of the Today show's first hour this morning to see where it would place this story and how much time it would be given.
But guess what: the Today Show did not report this story at all. Not one word of it.
The President of the United States is accused of indirectly trying to bribe his own spiritual leader to clam up so voters would not know what was influencing him for almost 20 years. And Today decided it was not important enough to tell the viewers who rely on it for news.
Today did, however, do a feature on a teenage high schooler who put his version of a song called "I'm So Sexy" on youtube. (In case you're wondering, "Im So Sexy" was song by a group called LMFAO, which is internet shorthand for "Laughing My F#(king Ass Off"). That was important enough to inform viewers about.
Then they wonder why people like me (and countless others) call them biased...........
Democrats tried to burnish their anti-Wall Street claims by promising in February 2011 that the $37 million convention wouldn’t accept corporate dollars.
But the convention’s host committee has been quietly soliciting corporate money to pay for convention-related activities.
The stealthy reversal was highlighted by the Wall Street Journal, which exposed a fund-raising group dubbed the New American City fund.
Money raised by the fund will be used to “defray administrative expenses incurred by the host committee organizations themselves, such as salaries, rent, travel and insurance,” according to a document filed with the Federal Election Commission.
The fund plans to raise at least $10 million. It is already getting money from Bank of America and Duke Energy, both of which are based in Charlotte. According to the Wall Street Journal, the third largest donor is Wells Fargo bank, which recently bought a Charlotte-based bank, Wachovia Corp.
Democrats defended the financial maneuvers.
“The [convention] host committee is not accepting corporate money for the convention,” Suzi Emmerling, a spokeswoman for the host committee, told the Wall Street Journal. “But if the host committee does things to promote Charlotte, the rules don’t apply.”
In 2008, corporations funded two-thirds of the Democratic convention, which cost $60 million.
The 2008 GOP convention was mostly funded by companies. It cost $57 million. The GOP’s 2012 convention in Tampa, Fla., will also rely heavily on corporate funding. The funding allows lobbyists to meet and mingle with office-holders.
Let's see: We have the Republican Party which, in 2008, happily accepted corporate contributions to its convention. I have no reason to believe it will not do the same in 2012.
Damn those Republicans and their sucking up to those filthy corporate interests!!!
And we have the Democrat Party which, in 2008, happily accepted corporate contributions to its convention. And it is doing exactly the same thing in 2012. But, to make fools of its left wing base - a genuine talent of the Democrat Party - it is raking in the corporate contributions through something called the New American City Fund (is there any doubt this entity was given a neutral name, to throw the hardline base off?).
Damn those Democrats and their sucking up to tho....oh, er, never mind.
So, again, we see that Democrats rail against Republicans for something that they themselves do -and make fools of their (extra-large) left wing contingent in the process.
But, other than the Wall Street Journal, how many of our wonderful "neutral" media will help Democrats along by declining to report this information so that the people who rely on them for news will know what is actually going on?
Pathetic.
Oh, and let's remember that Charlotte is in North Carolina, which, among other things:
-just voted overwhelmingly against same sex marriage - and equal-rights civil unions as well,
-has a Democrat Governor, Bev Perdue, who is so unpopular she can't run for re-election,
-has a Democrat State Party Executive Director, Jay Parmley, involved in sex scandals with a male stafferwho claims he was fired after complaining that Parmley sexually harrassed him and a former girlfriend who claims Parmley gave her the HIV virus and then attempted to to bribe her to shut up by offering to get the Democratic National Committee to pay for her health coverage,
-and, as an extra-added attraction, is the home state of disgraced former Democrat US Senator, Vice Presidential candidate and Presidential nominee john edwards who is currently on trial for allegedly misusing campaign contributions to keep his mistress quiet about the child he fathered with her while his wife was dying of cancer.
Is it just me, or does this convention seem a tad star-crossed?
PLUMBING THE DEPTHS OF MSNBC: MICHELLE GOLDBERG DIVISION
Ken Berwitz
michelle goldberg is a writer for Newsweek, dailybeast.com, and is a guest on MSNBC shows.
In other words, she is a hard leftist who rarely is put in a position of having to explain herself to anyone with a different point of view.
Today, goldberg decided to provide her special brand of commentary about presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's wife, Ann. What set goldberg off was Ms. Romney's piece, which appeared in USA Today earlier this week, in which she talked lovingly about her mother, about being a mother and grandmother, then finished with this passage:
Cherish your mothers. The ones who wiped your tears, who were at every ball game or ballet recital. The ones who believed in you, even when nobody else did, even when maybe you didn't believe in yourself.
Women wear many hats in their lives. Daughter, sister, student, breadwinner. But no matter where we are or what we're doing, one hat that moms never take off is the crown of motherhood.
There is no crown more glorious.
I may be wrong, but I suspect most people would find that a sweet, poignant sentiment which celebrates women in general and mothers in particular.
Not michelle goldberg. Here is what she said about Ms. Romney, and her words about motherhood, on (equally left wing) Chris Hayes's MSNBC show this morning:
"It can't only be me that maybe initially saw Ann Romney as maybe a sympathetic or neutral figure but who is increasingly seeing her as someone who is kind of insufferable because of the way she's milking this thing."
"You know, yes, motherhood is beautiful.I found that phrase 'the crown of motherhood' really kind of creepy, not just because of its, like, somewhat you know, I mean, it’s kind of usually really authoritarian societies that give out like The Cross of Motherhood, that give awards for big families. You know, Stalin did it, Hitler did it."
"the other part of it is that it plays into this where what we, y'know we have this kind of compact in the United States where what we deny women in social support or status or kind of economic security we make up for in sort of insipid, condescending praise"...
FYI, when goldberg tossed out the "insipid condescending praise" line, Hayes, and other guest, Eve Ensler (who wrote The Vagina Monologues) both giggled out loud. Evidently, goldberg's words were clever and amusing to them.
In fairness to Hayes and Ensler, though, neither seemed to find goldberg's comparison of Ann Romney to stalin and hitler funny by itself. In order to achieve funny, goldberg had to add insipid and condescending. Then it was funny.
Personally, I'm not quite as taken with michelle goldberg's analysis as Mr. Hayes and Ms. Ensler. In fact, several words crossed my mind as I read it: vile, moron, idiot, cretin and hater were among the more printable of them.
Can this pathetic person really equate Ann Romney's paean to women and motherhood with stalin and hitler? Well, yes she can. And does. The fact that she is featured in Newsweek, dailybeast.com and - especially - on MSNBC, should tell you just about everything you need to know about these three media venues.
I have no doubt that they all are just pleased as punch to have so illustrious an analyst as michelle goldberg. How proud they must be of her thoughtful, intelligent commentary.
Now, what do they have in mind for an encore? New Black panther party chairman, malik zulu shabazz commenting on last month's Passover services at the wailing wall?
DID CANDIDATE OBAMA BRIBE REVEREND WRIGHT TO SHUT UP?
Ken Berwitz
What a remarkable story this is.
According to jeremiah wright, the racist Black liberation theologist, in 2008 then-candidate Barack Obama tried, through an intermediary, offered him a $150,000 bribe to shut up until after the presidential election.
Sound astonishing? Well, remember that we're talking about Barack Obama - and, no doubt, his Chicago Machine pal David Axelrod.
But since knowing that might not be enough for some people, here are the key excerpts from wright's interview with author Edward Klein, which was published in the New York Post:
WRIGHT: "Man, the media ate me alive. After the media went ballistic on me, I received an e-mail offering me money not to preach at all until the November presidential election.”
“It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”
KLEIN: “He offered you money?”
WRIGHT: “Not directly. He sent the offer to one of the members of the church, who sent it to me.”
KLEIN: “How much money did he offer you?”
WRIGHT: “One hundred and fifty thousand dollars,” Wright said.
KLEIN: “Did Obama himself ever make an effort to see you?”
WRIGHT: “Yes. Barack said he wanted to meet me in secret, in a secure place. And I said, ‘You’re used to coming to my home, you’ve been here countless times, so what’s wrong with coming to my home?’ So we met in the living room of the parsonage of Trinity United Church of Christ, at South Pleasant Avenue right off 95th Street, just Barack and me. I don’t know if he had a wire on him. His security was outside somewhere.
“And one of the first things Barack said was, ‘I really wish you wouldn’t do any more public speaking until after the November election.’ He knew I had some speaking engagements lined up, and he said, ‘I wish you wouldn’t speak. It’s gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.’
KLEIN: “And what did you say?”
WRIGHT: “I said, ‘I don’t see it that way. And anyway, how am I supposed to support my family?’ And he said, ‘Well, I wish you wouldn’t speak in public. The press is gonna eat you alive.’
“Barack said, ‘I’m sorry you don’t see it the way I do. Do you know what your problem is?’ And I said, ‘No, what’s my problem?’ And he said, ‘You have to tell the truth.’ I said, ‘That’s a good problem to have. That’s a good problem for all preachers to have. That’s why I could never be a politician.’
“And he said, ‘It’s going to get worse if you go out there and speak. It’s really going to get worse.’
“And he was so right.”
Is this true? Well, we have Edward Klein's word for it - and the fact that Barack Obama is, and always will be, a Chicago Machine Politician.
Make of it what you will. But remember: if it is ok to judge Mitt Romney based on a credibility-challenged Washington Post story alleging that he forcibly cut a fellow high school student's hair 47 years ago, wouldn't it be ok to judge Barack Obama on an alleged bribe he offered just four years ago - especially when the source is jeremiah wright, who, for almost 20 years, was Mr. Obama's "spiritual mentor"?
Just curious: do you think the Obama campaign, which was initially euphoric over the Washington Post story (look at how fast his surrogates attacked Romney for it), now has second thoughts about opening the door to past behaviors?
Are you kidding? That's like asking an old english sheepdog if it regrets rolling around in a tar pit.
We're off to visit parents, then sons, daughter-in-law and grandchildren. I will try to blog later on today,but don't know when.
But, then again, if you are lucky enough to still have your mother, or someone you care about who does, why would you be reading this anyway? Go spend some time with her!!
Let me start with a simple disclosure (which will not be news to anyone who reads this blog regularly): I fully support gay rights, including gay marriage or gay civil unions with rights equal to marriage.
That said, President Obama's very public efforts to fundraise on his magical, mystical evolution to the position I have held for many years, is a political disaster.
First off, I doubt that anybody believes Mr. Obama's position on gay marriage:
-His position was not credible when he was on record as being against gay marriage but refusing to enforce the Defense Of Marriage Act,
-It is not credible now, when he professes to support gay marriage but then defines it not as a civil rights issue but as a states' rights issue for each individual state to decide - knowing that every statewide referendum ever held on gay marriage - and there have been over 30 of them - has seen it go down to defeat.
I think most people understand that Barack Obama's positions are tailored to whatever he thinks will get him the most votes. Period, end of story.
This strongly suggests that the only reason gay and gay-supporting groups will rally around Mr. Obama's "evolutionary" position is that, despite its dubious credibility, it is still ahead of Mitt Romney's rejection of gay marriage. In baseball terms, they see Barack Obama as a .235 hitter, versus Mitt Romney at .078 (he gets that much for his honesty).
But what does all this mean in a general election?
Well, let me remind you again that over 30 states have had referenda in which voters could accept or reject gay marriage. And in every state - including the uber-liberal California - it went down to defeat.
But, you might ask, what about all those polls that show the country is very evenly divided on this issue? The answer - keeping in mind that this is over 40 years of conducting focus groups talking: when people are asked questions about their social attitudes, they often say the "right thing" - i.e. what they think they are supposed to say - rather than what they really feel inside.
Think of it as a form of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard): Ask people if they feel there should be halfway houses for drug addicts, and you'll probably get a large majority saying yes. But would they be ok with one in their own neighborhood? Down the block from where they live? Nope. Similarly, many people who say that they're perfectly ok with gay men and women will avoid them like the plague, think of them as aberrations, and never ever vote to give them the same rights as "normal" people.
Based on his conveniently-timed claim of support for gay marriage, Barack Obama collected upwards of $15,000,000 in campaign contributions - $6 million during his bash at George Clooney's mansion, where attendance was at $40,000 a person (boy does he consort with a lot of the 1% crowd!!) and another $9 million online. Now, according to an article at thehill.com, Mr. Obama will be back to LA on June 6, at a fundraiser hosted by Glee creator Ryan Murphy and his fiance, David Miller. Count on it being another multi-million dollar haul.
Now let's talk about the consequences.
My take is that every time Mr. Obama attends one of these events, three things happen:
1) He rakes in a fortune. That is the good part.
2) He solidifies his hold on most gay voters. That is the break-even part since, in a contest against Mitt Romney, he would win almost all of those votes anyway.
3) He reminds voters that gay marriage is on the Obama agenda in a second term, when he does not have to worry about re-election anymore. That is the disaster part.
Bottom line? President Obama is raking in a lot of money and losing a lot of votes - not only for him personally, but for Democrat candidates who support him.
Which do you think will be more important on election day?
Personally, I wish it were otherwise. I wish this position gained rather than lost Barack Obama votes - not because I want him to win re-election but because I wish that people accept the sexual orientation of others, even if it is different from their own.
But that is not the way of things. And it seems clear to me that Mr. Obama's position on gay rights is an impending electoral disaster for him.
Let me end with one more thought. Suppose Mr. Obama comes to the same conclusion as I have - and decides to back off his presumed commitment to gay marriage in an effort to retrieve some of those lost votes. What do you think the gay activists, and the major contributors based on his position regarding gay marriage, will say about it?
Paul Begala, long-time Democrat hatchet man (and a very effective one at that) has written a column for dailybeast.com in which, after quickly getting past the requisite "if it's true" line, he tells us what a sack of excrement Mitt Romney is, based on the allegations that he cut another student's hair against his will (which has major credibility problems) and that he intentionally walked a nearly blind teacher, whom Begala claims was derisively called "the bat", into a closed door (did you hear that one until now? I didn't.**)
Begala starts his attack this way:
Paul Begala on Romney: Once a Bully, Always a Bully
Romney would be able to dismiss the bullying story as ancient history if it didn’t confirm what we already suspected about him—that he’s a serial abuser of power.
Then, having put up the caveat about the hair-cutting incident he gives us this.
It is a good general principle that we ought not hold teenage wrongdoing against middle-aged people. Mitt Romney has run a business, run the Olympics, run a state, run for the Senate, and run for president. Surely we can and should judge him on his performance of those public duties.
But what if childhood conduct helps shed a light on adult behavior? Romney's teenage bullying hurts him because it is consonant with his adult record. Voters may well conclude: once a bully, always a bully; once a privileged abuser of power, always a privileged abuser of power.
Finally we have Begala's commentary about the visually impaired teacher, whom he has no problem identifying by the derisive name he is attacking Mr. Romney for:
Romney and a pal walked The Bat up to a door. Romney beckoned The Bat to walk through first, making a sweeping motion toward the door as if it were open, but it wasn't. The Bat walked into the closed door as Mitt collapsed in fits of sadistic laughter.
As I said, when it comes to doing a political hatchet job, Begala is as good as it gets.
But I have a question for Mr. Begala. It is based on the following two childhood events:
-In his book, Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama has told us what he spent his time doing throughout his last two high school years:
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classed sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically.
-And, bully wise, he told us that, presumably in grade school, he gained the acceptance of his White classmates, who were teasing him about his "girl friend", Coretta - the only other Black student there, by shoving her and accepting their laughing approval as, humiliated, she ran away:
“I’m not her boyfriend!” I shouted. I ran up to Coretta and gave her a slight shove; she staggered back and looked up at me, but still said nothing. “Leave me alone!” I shouted again. And suddenly Coretta was running, faster and faster, until she disappeared from sight. Appreciative laughs rose around me. Then the bell rang, and the teachers appeared to round us back to class.
My question is: What if childhood conduct helps shed a light on adult behavior - i.e. Obama's non-existence as a student, his beer drinking and enthusiastic drug use, and his racist attack on the only Black girl in the school (it must have been racist, since he is half White, and did it to please White students)? Voters may well conclude: once a disengaged drunk, drug user, abuser of girls and racist, always a disengaged drunk, druge user, abuser of girls and racist.
I'll await a response. But I don't hold out much hope of getting one.
** I just realized that the story of the teacher with impaired vision - whose name was Carl C. Wonnberger by the way - is further into the Washington Post story than I had gotten (the ridiculousness of this much effort to nail Romney on what he did as a teenage student had already turned me off). But, in the interests of disclosure, here is the article's verbatim description of what happened:
As an underclassman, Romney accompanied Wonnberger and Pierce Getsinger, another student, from the second floor of the main academic building to the library to retrieve a book the two boys needed. According to Getsinger, Romney opened a first set of doors for Wonnberger, but then at the next set, with other students around, he swept his hand forward, bidding the teacher into a closed door. Wonnberger walked right into it and Getsinger said Romney giggled hysterically as the teacher shrugged it off as another of life's indignities.
Begala tells us "Mitt collapsed in fits of hysterical laughter". As you can plainly see, Begala is lying. And, of course, he neglects to mention that the prank was so inconsequential to Mr. Wonnberger that, according to the article, he just "shrugged it off".
Last night I watched a little of Sean Hannity's show on Fox News. And during the few minutes I watched (there was a Yankee game on, you see), Hannity asked a very interesting question: How did Barack Obama get into the Ivy League?
Here's why the question is so interesting.
Barack Obama attended three institutes of higher learning: Occidental College (which is one of the top 40 liberal arts colleges in the USA according to US News' latest ratings), then Columbia University and Harvard University - both Ivy League schools.
Now let's see how young Barry (as he was called then) made out during his junior and senior years in high school - the years when students usually accumulate the credentials colleges consider when accepting or rejecting their applications.
From Mr. Obama's own book, "Dreams of My Father", we have this:
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classed sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically. I discovered that it didn't make any difference if you smoked reefer in the white class mates sparkling new van, or in the dorm room with some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl."
Remember: these are not the ad hominem insinuations of some anti-Obama blog, or a Republican operative, or a disgruntled former campaign worker. These are Barack Obama's own words.
How could a student who, by his own admission, was out to lunch for his junior and senior years in high school manage to be accepted to a high-ranking college, and then to two Ivy League universities?
Is it because he was given special consideration based on some connection to a foreign country? Did the doors open for that reason? Did any foreign country provide financial aid for him as well?
Unfortunately, I do not know the answer to any of those questions. And neither do you. The reason is that President Obama and his people have zealously hidden everything about his college years. We have never seen any transcripts of his grades, or any disclosures about how these three high-tuition schools were financed. We can barely find anyone who even remembers him from those schools. Why not?
I ask these questions for two reasons.
-One reason is because it is astonishing that a US Senator, then presidential candidate, then President, would be able to successfully withhold so much basic information about so many years in his life from the public. Even John Kerry, an immensely rich man who tried to do the same during the 2004 presidential election, had his college transcripts smoked out - though not by mainstream media. (FYI: after spending an entire campaign sarcastically attacking President Bush for his grades at Yale, it turned out that Kerry's were lower than Bush's).
-The other reason is because, just days ago, the Washington Post put out a hit piece on presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, involving a schoolboy prank he participated in almost 50 years ago. The Post claims to have worked on this "story", if you want to call it that, for weeks.
How is it possible that this could be important enough for a major news venue to put this kind of investigative energy into a half-century-old anecdote about Mitt Romney, and not even try to find the entire academic background of Barack Obama?
How is it possible that virtually all other mainstream media have been just as uninterested in how Mr. Obama was able to do next to nothing in his junior and senior years in high school, but then be accepted by Occidental, Columbia and Harvard?
I call them Barack Obama's Accomplice Media. This is why.
The slender thread upon which Elizabeth Warren’s claim that she is 1/32 Cherokee rests—a purported 1894 marriage license application—has been exposed as non-existent. Based on a review of the original marriage records found in the files of the Logan County, Oklahoma Court Clerk’s office in Guthrie, Oklahoma, and the statements of ReJeania Zmek, the Court Clerk of Logan County, Oklahoma, it is likely that the ephemeral 1894 marriage license application never existed.
“In modern times we keep marriage license applications,” she said. “The way they’re issued now, you do the application, then you do the license. We currently do keep records of marriage license applications,” she said, explaining that this practice didn’t begin until around 1950.
When asked specifically if marriage license application documents were created in LoganCounty in 1894, she said she is almost certain they were not. She added that, when looking at the records of marriages in Logan County, Oklahoma in the 1890s, “if there’s a license and then a certificate I would think the license would be the application as well. That would be my thought. I’m thinking they came in, got a license, got married.”
Ms. Zmek also confirmed that no other news organization had contacted her to date on any national topic or to inquire about the validity of this purported 1894 Logan County, Oklahoma marriage license application or anything related to the 1894 marriage of William J. Crawford.
Further on in Mr. Leahy's piece - which I urge you to read in its entirety - there is a copy of the original marriage license. On it, neither Ms. Warren's great great great grandfather or her great great great grandmother lists their ancestry. The spaces are blank.
So now we have gone from 3% native American - which is to say not native American at all - to 0%.
Why is this important? Because for decades Elizabeth Warren, and the schools she has taught at, including the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, have used her apparently fraudulent ancestral status to their benefit. The schools used it to show how "diverse" their faculty was, and Elizabeth Warren reaped the benefits bestowed upon members of minorities.
In my last post about this scandal I suggested that Ms. Warren, for the benefit of her party, should consider dropping out of this race. Now it is becoming less a good thing to do and more a necessity.
One other thing: "Ms. Zmek also confirmed that no other news organization had contacted her to date...to inquire about the validity..." of the marriage license? What does that tell you about our wonderful "neutral" media.
These, of course are the same wonderful "neutral" media which declined to check President Obama's lies about how peripherally he was connected to william ayers, and which has never tried to ascertain President Obama's transcripts from any of the schools he attended.
How can they call themselves journalists? How can they even face themselves in the mirror?
Don't look now, but President Obama's chances for re-election in Florida - and Democrat Senator Bill Nelson's as well - may have just ended.
This is not meant to be ironic and it is not a joke. This is for real.
According to Gary Fineout's article for the Associated Press, Florida may have almost 200,000 residents on the voter roles who have no legal right to be there. And the state seems intent on doing something about it.
Even if they can't catch them all, it would almost certainly knock tens of thousands off the voter rolls - and probably scare many more thousands of illegal voters into playing it safe and staying home on election day.
Here are a few key excerpts:
Florida officials are now saying that nearly 200,000 registered voters may not be U.S. citizens.
The Department of State is asking county election officials to verify the information. Election supervisors are contacting voters and if someone is not a citizen, their name will be dropped from the voter rolls.
But an initial list drawn up by the state — and not widely released — shows that a comparison of voter lists and driver's license information turned up a list of nearly 182,000 people who may not be U.S. citizens.
"The Department of State has a duty under both state and federal laws to ensure that the voter registration rolls are current and accurate," said Chris Cate, a department spokesman.
State officials said they did not know yet if any of the people on the list voted illegally in past elections.
Cate said the list of 182,000 people was drawn up by checking first and last names, date of birth and either a driver's license number, a Social Security number or an address. Most of the matches had identical driver's license numbers, names and birthdates. A state document shows that out of the nearly 182,000 identified that more than 172,000 were active voters, meaning they had cast ballots in recent elections or registered recently.
Don't you love that last part? State officials don't know if any of the people voted illegally.....but over 172,000 of the 182,000 were active voters.
Where's Homer Simpson when you need him, to say....."DOH".
Elsewhere in the article the ACLU - not surprisingly - makes it pretty clear that it will try to prevent a purging of voter roles before the 2012 election. Why do you suppose the ACLU would get involved: because the preponderance of illegal votes are Republican or Democrat?
Now, let's suppose it happens. Let's uppose tens of thousands of illegal voters are knocked off the roles before November. Let's suppose it a) causes thousands of other illegal voters who were not caught to stay home on election day and b) some number of people who had not yet voted illegally but intended to this time around to stay home as well. Which party's candidates do you figure it will hurt?
Even if Democrats, either directly or through surrogates like the ACLU, successfully block the removal of these voters, it is still sure to inhibit some of them from going to the polls. Just as importantly, it will communicate directly to Floridians, and everyone else, that the party is about winning by illegal means. How do you think that will play on election day?
What Florida does, how expeditiously it is done, and who fights it, may well determine the fate of President Obama and incumbent Democrat Senator Bill Nelson.
Tamron Hall works for MSNBC. MSNBC is all left, all the time.
Ms. Hall wanted to talk exclusively about the (wholly media-created) issue of Mitt Romney's "bullying" when he was a high school teenager - even though the incident has quickly sprung major credibility issues, and the family of the person who allegedly was bullied says a) the story is inaccurate and b) in any event, should not be used for political purposes.
One of Ms. Hall's guests, Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner, dared to point out that the "bullying issue" is an absurd distraction from the real story of this election - i.e. Barack Obama's performance as President, especially his performance regarding the economy.
Well, Ms. Hall was not going to take that. No siree. Mutiny! Mutiny!
So she told Carney off on-air in an arrogant, condescending, dismissive tone, broke in every time he tried to answer, cut him off, ignored him for the rest of the interview talking only to the other guest, then insulted him at the end and again cut him off before he was able to defend himself or respond in any way.
That, folks, is the equivalent of your average 4th grader taking all the marbles and going home.
Want to see for yourself? Then click here. All that is missing is Ms. Hall melting onto the studio floor while moaning "What a world, what a world".
In case you would instead prefer to read a transcript of her hissy-fit-on-steroids, here it is:
“You don’t want me to ‘go’ anything on you because you’re actually irritating me right now,” she said. “I’m going to be honest with you … you knew the topics we were going to discuss. You knew them. You agreed. And we are not talking or demeaning — listen, 50 years ago I was a much tougher kid probably than Mitt Romney was in high school. I’m not talking about the issue of whether he was bullying or not. He said he doesn’t remember. To be fair, I cannot say that he does.”
“What I’m asking you about is how the campaign has handled this decision, handled this situation, how he handled the Colorado reporter, how he handled same-sex marriage where he said he agrees with gay parents being able to adopt but he does not agree with same-sex marriage — just the handling of questions beyond the economy. If you’re not comfortable about that, I am A-OK, but you’re not going to come on and insult me. You won’t come on and insult the network when you knew what you were going to talk about.”
“Done. Let me talk to Jimmy. I’m done.”
Allow me to translate. What Ms. Hall really said was:
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH, YOU DON'T WANT TO SAY WHAT I WANT YOU TO SAY. IT ISN'T FAIR. THIS IS MSNBC. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, A NETWORK THAT WANTS MORE THAN ONE SIDE OF THE STORY? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NOW I WON'T LET YOU TALK, SO NO ONE CAN HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. NYAH NYAH NYAH!!!!!!!
Oh, one other thing: Regarding her comment that "50 years ago I was a much tougher kid, probably than Mitt Romney was in high school": Tamron Hall was born September 16, 1970, which means that, 50 years ago, she was about 8 1/2 years pre-birth, and counting..
I guess working for MSNBC means not having to worry about how idiotic, or obviously untrue, your comments are.
That's what happens when a network features one side and one side only.
RUSH LIMBAUGH'S IMPROVEMENT ON THE TIME MAGAZINE COVER
Ken Berwitz
Before I take that shower....
Time Magazine, in a desperate attempt to sell its increasingly irrelevant product, has decided to try the shock route by featuring this picture on the cover of its latest issue:
Rush Limbaugh, via "Michaele", rushlimbaugh.com's art director, has come up with a more accurate version:
I just put in several different varieties of tomatoes, red peppers, bush beans (I would have planted obama beans, but they take too long to evolve), yellow zucchini, and, of course, the basil that we use all the time, and supply most of our friends with because it comes out so good (I'm luckier with basil than just about any other vegetable or herb).
I'm sweaty. My hands have the residue of Miracle-Gro soil, Pennington pellet fertilizer, and just-cut grass clippings, which I use as mulch to hold the moisture in and inhibit weed growth.
Yesterday's Washington Examiner posted an excellent editorial, which talked about how Barack Obama's campaign is using its Accomplice Media to try and divert attention from his abysmal record on the economy to something - anything - else. It refers to the effort as a "Shiny Objects Strategy" - which is right on target, and says volumes in just three words.
You can read the entire editorial by clicking here. And, believe me, it is well worth doing so. Meanwhile, let me give you a few key excerpts:
What issues are most important to voters this presidential election year? If you said the economy, jobs and the budget deficit, congratulations, you are like the rest of America. But if you said gay marriage, birth control and pranks Mitt Romney pulled in high school in 1965, then you either already are, or may have a future in the liberal media.
Do Americans care about any of this? Not according to the PewResearchCenter. They presented Americans with a list of 18 issues and asked them to identify which ones were important to their vote. The top three? The economy, jobs and the budget deficit. The least important issue of the 18? Gay marriage.
If voters decide the 2012 election based on Obama's economic record, he will lose. And so the liberal media, as in love with him as ever, is helping him parade shiny objects to distract voters from that record. The wall-to-wall coverage of Obama's sudden evolution in his personal position on same-sex marriage follows in the tradition of the Republican War on Women; the Buffett Rule; tax breaks for private jets; Romney's supposed soft-spot for Osama bin Laden; a student loan bill that would save the average borrower all of $7 per month; and endless 30-year-old stories about Romney's dog.
If he wishes to be president, Romney must not take the bait. This is not the ground he should fight on. He should keep talking about the economy and other issues that actually affect Americans' lives. Eventually, they will hear him through all this sound and fury.
Absolutely correct. And - as regular readers certainly know - I say that as a proponent of gay marriage and/or equal-rights civil unions.
The economy is paramount among voters. Unemployment remains high, job creation is anemic, and we have an administration far more invested in allowing illegal aliens across the border to take jobs from legal citizens, than in doing what is necessary (i.e. less oppressive regulations, more aggressive oil exploration policy, etc.) to jump start the economy.
If Mitt Romney - whose single greatest strength is his managerial success in business - can stay on message, he can win. If Mitt Romney allows Barack Obama - in cahoots with his Accomplice Media - to redirect the discussion to other issues, he can just as easily lose.
We'll soon find out if this lesson is, or is not, lost on him.
WILL THE WASHINGTON POST RETRACT ITS ROMNEY-BULLY STORY?
Ken Berwitz
The Washington Post's "exposé" - conveniently published one day after President Obama's statement in support of gay marriage - that, 47 years ago, Mitt Romney, along with a half dozen or so other boys, cut off some of a fellow student's hair because - according to the story - they thought it was too long and that me might have been a homosexual, is blowing up in the paper's face.
The older sister of Mitt Romney’s former high school classmate said she has no knowledge of any bullying incident involving her brother and the GOP presidential candidate.
Christine Lauber, who is a few years older than John Lauber, was at college when the alleged incident happened, and said the brother and sister were “doing our own thing” at the time.
When ABC News showed her the story, Christine Lauber’s eyes welled up with tears and she became agitated.
She also corrected the story, saying her brother was a boarder, not a day student.
She described her brother as a “very unusual person.”
“He didn’t care about running with the peer group,” Christine Lauber said. “What’s wrong with that?”
Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber’s three sisters, spoke with ABC News Tuesday night regarding the accuracy of the story.
“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said.
Let's add this to the fact that Stu White, one of the students who, according to the Post's original story, had "long been bothered" by the incident - told ABC News that, actually a) he wasn't there to see it, and b) he didn't even know it happened until the Post contacted him about it.
And, while we're at it, let's also note that, as the result of White's embarrassing take-down, the Post changed the story's wording on line to reflect Stu White's actual recollection....without telling readers that the story had been revised. After all, why inform readers that the original version was BS if you can get away with pretending it never happened?
Here's a question for the Washington Post: at what point do you just retract this idiotic, irrelevant, and apparently filled-with-holes story about a dumb kid's prank from almost a half century ago? At what point is it enough of an embarrassment for you to just chuck it and own up?
Heck, if the Post calls off the dogs on "haircutgate", maybe it will leave a few extra seconds to investigate Barack Obama's BS "birth certificate" that every IT analyst seems to know is a fake - like, for example, having an expert or two examine the document and report their findings.
Or maybe the paper could use the time to track down Barack Obama's transcripts from every school he ever went to, all of which have desperately been kept hidden from view, and to figure out why he is so fearful of releasing them.
I realize that none of this is anywhere near as important as what a teenage Mitt Romney did in high school. But I'll bet that somewhere, somehow, one or two trivia buffs might be interested.....
Was Joe Biden's "gaffe" in talking about how comfortable he was with same-sex marriage not a "gaffe" at all, but part of a carefully orchestrated event?
Ben Shapiro, writing for breitbart.com, seems to think so. In his words:
Biden’s comments on Sunday were clearly orchestrated; the notion that they were unplanned neglects the tape of the interview, which shows David Gregory consulting his notes as he asked a completely out-of-the-blue question on same-sex marriage. The very next day, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan endorsed same-sex marriage. The following day, Obama himself did so. That’s not an accident. That’s a roll-out.
Is Shapiro right? Well, he points out that President Obama went public with his "evolved" position on gay marriage just one day before showing up at a monster fundraiser (does this man ever do anything else?) at the home of leftward Hollywood celebrity (pardon my redundancy) George Clooney, where invites went for $40,000 a pop. Mr. Obama raked in about $6 million dollars - plus about $9 million more from "online donations based on the dinner".
Remember that old saying, "there are no coincidences"? It should be on this President's letterhead.
Please excuse the original poetry. I couldn't resist. Because, instead of going away, the Elizabeth Warren ancestry scandal continues to deepen. And, unlike some scandals regarding left wing candidates, this one is being played out in the mainstream media.
A second law school, the University of Pennsylvania, has touted Elizabeth Warren as a minority faculty member in an official school publication, according to an online document obtained by the Globe.
The University of Pennsylvania, where Warren taught at the law school from 1987 through 1995, listed her as a minority in a “Minority Equity Report” posted on its website. The report, published in 2005, well after her departure, included her as the winner of a faculty award in 1994. Her name was highlighted in bold, the designation used for minorities in the report.
A spokesman for the law school did not immediately return a phone message today.
The reference offers another piece of evidence that Warren was identified as a Native American as part of her professional career. Warren has said she was unaware that Harvard University, her current employer, had described her as a Native American when it was under fire for a lack of diversity on its law school faculty.
Meanwhile, the Globe has also obtained a portion of Warren’s 1973 application to Rutgers, where she attended law school. That document specifically asks: “Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?” Warren answered “no.”
In addition, a newly unearthed University of Texas personnel document shows that Warren listed herself as “white” when she taught at the law school there from 1981 to 1991.
The undated document, obtained by the Globe through a public records request, supports Warren’s statement that she did not present herself as a Native American when hired for the job. But it leaves open the question of why she later listed herself as a minority in a legal directory that is often consulted by hiring deans.
Well, well, well.
Until now Ms. Warren was claiming that she did not know about, and had nothing to do with, Harvard identifying her as a minority. Is she now going to claim that the University of Pennsylvania did the same thing and she didn't know about /had nothing to do with that as well?
It took a huge leap of faith to believe her story about Harvard. But, after finding out that the same thing happened at the U. of Penn? You would have to be a world class spud to believe her story any more.
What does this tell us about Elizabeth Warren? A couple of things:
-It tells us that the story about her supposed native American heritage is, at best, an exaggeration and, at worst, a pile of manure. If there were any family stories about this at all, they obviously were not convincing enough for her to claim native American ancestry at Rutgers or the University of Texas, which covers an 18 year period.
-And it tells us - or at least makes it very likely - that, at some point along the way Ms. Warren decided it would be a great career move to become a native American, thus a minority, thus be put on a career fast-track. So she magically became one, and may well have reaped the benefits of this imbecilic racial preference system ever since.
As I have said for weeks: the longer this story is on the front pages, the more Elizabeth Warren's credibility is damaged - not just among people who don't like her and wouldn't have voted for her anyway, but among people who might have voted for her and now will not.
Scott Brown won't like me saying this. But, for the good of the Democrat Party, Elizabeth Warren has to think about dropping out of this race.
Yesterday I put up a blog which referenced Allan Goldstein's piece for slate.com, about the Trayvon Martin shooting. The premise of what I wrote was that Goldstein, apparently with benevolent intentions and without malicious intent, was talking as a racist.
Today we have this, from CNN's legal analyst, Mark Nejame - which I excerpted from CNN's Piers Morgan blog:
Joining Piers Morgan for a live interview, the CNN legal analyst shared an exclusive photograph which suggests Zimmerman has black heritage:
"The man in the middle is apparently George Zimmerman's great-grandfather. The woman above him, is in fact his grandmother who is half black," explained Nejame. "And the little child in the gentleman's lap, is his mother. So we see that he really has signifcant multiracial, multicultural roots."
In a case ripe with racial undertones, Nejame suggests that Thursday's photo may help the Zimmerman camp refute theories that Martin's death was a result of profiling and bigotry:
I have a question; a very simple, one word question. Why?
Why would the fact that George Zimmerman's ancestry is in some part Black exempt him from being a racist? Why could he not hate Blacks with a passion? Where is it written that if your grandmother on one side is half-some ethnicity, this eliminates the prospect for you to be prejudiced against that ethnicity?
I am not saying that George Zimmerman is a racist. I have blogged numbers of times that his personal behavior over the years suggests the exact opposite. But to say that his grandmother's racial ancestry is an acceptable definer of his personal attitudes is ludicrous to the nth degree.
And if I did think Zimmerman was a racist, a decades-old family photo like the one produced by Mark Nejame on the Piers Morgan show (click the link I've provided to see it) would not suddenly make me think otherwise. He did what he did, no matter who his grandmother was.
People who think this way; who see racial ancestry as a trump card which can supersede all other considerations, are racists. Maybe they don't realize it. Maybe they do not think of themselves that way. But they are racists nonetheless.
Let me ask you this: If George Zimmerman's ancestry were 100% White, and the same incident occurred with Trayvon Martin - i.e. he said the same words to the dispatcher and did the same things before Trayvon Martin was shot - would you seem him in a different light than you do knowing that a percentage of his lineage is Black? I hope not.
I frequently refer to President Obama's "Accomplice Media", who seem hell bent on protecting Mr. Obama from any and all facts which might hurt his standing with voters.
Well, here is the latest example. And it is amazing, even by "Accomplice Media" standards.
As you know, after years of ducking and dancing around the issue, President Obama was finally forced to take a stand on gay marriage. He came out in favor of it---but also in favor of individual states voting it up or down, which means he does not see it as a basic human right (which would give it federal government status), and can weasel out of his supposed endorsement at will. Not very impressive.
But last night and this morning, mainstream media have been celebrating this as some kind of take-no-prisoners principled stand. Which it is not.
That, in and of itself, was fully expected. That is what an Accomplice Media would do; gloss over the years Mr. Obama being on record as against gay marriage, and gloss over the wordsmithing of his statement, which gives Mr. Obama an end-around he can use to duck away from having to comment on individual states' actions - like North Carolina's for example.
But then we have the Washington Post. Not satisfied with with stopping there, it decided to go further.
Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.
“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.
Mitt Romney, responding to a Washington Post article, said he was sorry for high school pranks that “might have gone too far.”
A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.
The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another.
“It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” said Buford, the school’s wrestling champion, who said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber. Buford subsequently apologized to Lauber, who was “terrified,” he said. “What a senseless, stupid, idiotic thing to do.”
“It was a hack job,” recalled Maxwell, a childhood friend of Romney who was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. “It was vicious.”
“He was just easy pickins,” said Friedemann, then the student prefect, or student authority leader of Stevens Hall, expressing remorse about his failure to stop it.
Romney is now the presumed Republican presidential nominee. In a radio interview Thursday morning, Romney said he didn’t remember the incident but apologized for pranks he helped orchestrate that he said “might have gone too far.”
After the incident, Lauber seemed to disappear. He returned days later with his shortened hair back to its natural brown. He finished the year, but ultimately left the school before graduation — thrown out for smoking a cigarette.
Sometime in the mid-1990s, David Seed noticed a familiar face at the end of a bar at Chicago O’Hare International Airport.
“Hey, you’re John Lauber,” Seed recalled saying at the start of a brief conversation. Seed, also among those who witnessed the Romney-led incident, had gone on to a career as a teacher and principal. Now he had something to get off his chest.
“I’m sorry that I didn’t do more to help in the situation,” he said.
Lauber paused, then responded, “It was horrible.” He went on to explain how frightened he was during the incident, and acknowledged to Seed, “It’s something I have thought about a lot since then.”
Lauber died in 2004, according to his three sisters.
There you go. A day after President Obama "proves" his liberality and tolerance regarding gays, the Washington Post "proves" that Mitt Romney is a hate-filled, violent homophobic sack of excrement, he terrorized a defenseless gay boy, the boy then dropped out of school, had the incident affect him throughout his life, and died prematurely.
And it took all of one day flat for the Post to ferret out and publish this story; complete with five witnesses. What a great investigative team it must take to be able to get this much this quickly!***
But I have some questions:
- First and foremost: this was a school prank which occured almost 50 years ago - one which Romney says he doesn't even remember. What in hell does it have to do with anything?
-Next: if the Post cannot even say for sure that Lauber was known to be gay at that time, what basis is there for any assumption that - even if Romney did what he is accused of - it had anything to do with Lauber's sexual orientation?
-Does the Post have any problem with the accuracy of Matthew Friedemann, who claims to remember a verbatim comment of Mitt Romney's from 47 years ago, about what, at that time, was a meaningless dumb prank? How many important comments, relative to significant events, would someone remember verbatim after 47 years?
-And what is the point of writing the entire article, other than to take a stupid kid's prank which Romney may or may not have participated in almost a half century ago and turn it into something to be used against him in the 2012 presidential campaign? Does the Post accept at face value that Lauber's alleged hair-clipping incident somehow ruined his life? And why did it gratuitously toss in the fact that Lauber died in 2004, which has nothing to do with anything - unless the Post has five witnesses who say he committed suicide over the hair-clipping, that is.
Think I'm through yet? Forget it. I'm just getting started,
Now let's juxtapose the Washington Post's handling of an incident which may or may not have occurred during Mitt Romney's teen years, to the way they have handled Barack Obama's past - both long ago and not so long ago:
-Despite repeated requests, then demands, President Obama, until last year, had never produced his original birth certificate. Did the Washington Post ever demand that he produce it, or make any effort to obtain it, either from Hawaii's Department of Health or some other way? The answer almost certainly is no, because if they had and were unsuccessful it stands to reason the Post would have published an article detailing why.
-Last year, out of nowhere, President Obama suddenly came up with what he claimed to be his original birth certificate. I have seen literally dozens of analyses of this document, many of them extremely detailed. Every one of them comes to the identical conclusion that it is an obvious, easy-to-debunk phony. Has the Washington Post ever challenged this supposed birth certificate? Or asked why, if it was available, he did not simply issue it years ago instead of spending millions of dollars in legal fees to prevent it from seeing the light of day? Did the Post ever have any expert examine the birth certificate and report on why he/she believes it to be authentic or fraudulent? Obviously not, since the Post would have reported the expert's findings. Why did the Post do none of these things?
-President Obama has never produced any documents of any kind from the years he spent at Occidental, then Columbia, then Harvard. Nothing at all. Has the Washington Post ever demanded that he make these documents public? Or made any effort to obtain them from a source other than Mr. Obama? The answer must almost certainly be "no", because if the paper had done so, there is little doubt the fact that it would have reported about the effort and why it wasn't successful. Why didn't the Post do this?
Now, the biggest question of all. What does this tell us about the Washington Post?
It tells us that:
-When the person of interest is Barack Obama? Despite the controversy swirling around him, the Post has declined to make any attempt at uncovering a thing about his past.
-But when the person of interest is Barack Obama's presumptive opponent, Mitt Romney? Just one day after Mr. Obama makes a politically self-serving declaration of support for gay marriage, the Post has already put in the effort to dig up copious information about some half-assed incident which may or may not have occurred 47 years ago, and which can be used as a negative comparison to Romney on the gay issue.
If there are any readers left who still wonder why I use the term "Accomplice Media", this should end their wonderment for once and for all.
UPDATE: Here is an interesting little tidbit from ABC News:
(stu) White, in an interview with ABC News, said that he is “still debating” whether he will help the (Romney) campaign, remarking, “It’s been a long time since we’ve been pals.” While the Post reports White as having “long been bothered” by the haircutting incident,” he told ABC News he was not present for the prank, in which Romney is said to have forcefully cut a student’s long hair and was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post.
Let's see: The Post says Stu White has "long been bothered" by this incident. White tells ABC that a) he wasn't there, and b) didn't even know it happened until the Post contacted him.
So tell me: how does the Washington Post come out looking on this now? Think about a newspaper with egg all over its front page and you'll have your answer.
And while I'm still typing, let me also mention something I should have in the original blog. According to Barack Obama's own book, "Dreams From My Father", he used both marijuana and cocaine in high school and college. This isn't some allegation from someone else, this is Mr. Obama in his own words.
Now explain to me why Barack Obama's druggie years were not important enough for the Post to write a feature on (google it, see for yourself), but Mitt Romney's 47 year old prank, which a) he doesn't remember and b) at least one of the Post's supposed sources says the paper is full of crap about, was.
Accomplice Media, anyone?
=================================================
***NOTE: I have since read that this story wasn't concocted in one day, it has been worked on by the Washington Post "for weeks".
We are therefore supposed to believe that the Post, concidentally finished, and reported, the story one day after President Obama's announcement.
We are also supposed to believe that an alleged prank by Mitt Romney, which would have occurred almost a half century ago, was so important to the Washington Post that it worked for weeks on a story about it.
And we are also supposed to believe that President Obama's high school years, which, by his own admission, were laden far more with basketball and drugs than academic pursuits, were not worthy of a similar story.
If you want to believe this, it is a free country and you are welcome to do so. (But for those who do.....please be aware that I am selling shares in the Sea Algae Energy Corporation. Cheap.)
I think Mr. Goldstein's heart is in the right place. But rarely have I seen someone try so hard to say it right and get it so wrong - in no small part because he is so unaware of how much of the problem he himself is.
Let me show you what I mean, by posting excerpts of Mr. Goldstein's piece in rust, with my comments in blue:
Eighteen. That’s how many black people are murdered per day in America.. If you don’t have the misfortune to live near one of those eighteen, you didn’t hear about any of them.You forgot to mention that, on average, 16 – 17 are murdered by other Blacks.
There are nearly 7,000 African American homicides a year, but only one has grabbed us by our eyeballs and won’t let go. The Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman killing has propelled itself to the front of our national consciousness, while the others go virtually unnoticed.It hasn’t propelled itself.It has been propelled by race hustlers like al sharpton, louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and assorted others.
When a gangbanger bangs one out, it’s a simple, common crime. But when a sort-of-white wannabe cop and neighborhood bully kills a black teenager, a couple of strange, powerful things happen.Neighborhood bully?What is your basis for saying that?I notice you didn’t call Trayvon Martin a “black gangsta thug wannabe”, though – which I can certainly give you a basis for from his own twitter account.Funny how some people write accusatorially about racism and don’t see their own.
First, the victim becomes a choirboy by popular acclimation. It’s as if the populace couldn’t understand the narrative if the kid had a pot bust in junior high.I agree – but I must add that Trayvon Martin had a lot more on his record than a pot bust.
And second, the killer becomes a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.Agree again. Zimmerman's couple of minor scuffles with the law - and no criminal record - hardly makes him an ogre; especially when you add in his personal efforts on behalf of Black people over the years.
…even an interracial school slaughter like Virginia Tech, where one person killed 32, has less impact on the nation than the Zimmerman case. I’m willing to bet not ten percent of my readers can bring the name Seung-Hui Cho to mind when thinking about Virginia Tech. I know I had to Google it.
But George Zimmerman’s name will be remembered in four years; those of us still alive will remember it in forty. Whether he’s guilty or not.Yep.
My wife pointed it out; whenever they talk about this case it’s always Trayvon and Zimmerman. We know the victim, affectionately, by his first name, the killer by his last. Why? Because we take this case personally. Otherwise the wall-to-wall coverage wouldn’t be there.Your wife is right.But you are not.It isn’t that we take the case personally, it is that our media have unrelentingly presented it this way.
Race has unique, terrible power over America’s moral conscience and with good reason. When a white man kills a black man it’s something more than a crime in our eyes, it’s something unspeakably worse. Which is why we must speak about it.WI strongly suspect you are wrong about this. I can't prove it, but I suspect it is less than race is deep in our moral conscience, and more that media wield enormous influence over our thought process.
White people may not want to see it that way. In our hearts we may think, we are not racist, we elected a black president, we hate not. And all that is probably true for most white Americans.We?You use that term a lot when you talk about race -- which is to say you generalize a lot when you talk about race.Again we see a commentator who no doubt thinks he has good intentions, writing as a racist – and, apparently, is completely unaware that he is doing so.
I hope justice is done to Mr. Zimmerman. If his version of that tragedy is the truth, I hope he doesn’t suffer for it any more than he has already. If he’s lying and killed that kid on purpose I hope they throw the book at him.Me too.
But either way, I know that justice is being served by all the saturating, 24/7 coverage and conversation. I know we need to work this out slowly, one painful step at a time.Absolutely untrue. How can justice be served when the preponderance of coverage has rested on the premise that Zimmerman was guilty and Martin was a sweet, innocent little victim? Illustratively, media have continuously shown a cherubic, angelic picture of Trayvon Martin, which obviously was taken years ago. But how many times have you seen his twitter pictures - the ones that show him the way he looked recently? The ones that show him not as a cute little tween, but as a 6 foot-plus athlete, who was proud of his "grille", and happy to show us his tattooed arm while giving us the finger. That was the Trayvon Martin that George Zimmerman saw.
Because, to white America, this is a case, a killing, a mystery, maybe even an annoyance. But to black America it’s one six-millionth of a genocide.Wow, you go out with one last racial generalization. With all due respect Mr. Goldstein, if you want to see a racist -albeit one who doesn't think of himself that way, I suggest you find the nearest mirror.
How I wish Allen Goldstein (and so many others like him), would stop taking the easy way out by writing cliché after cliché, and do some real, introspective thinking. If he did, I'll bet this piece would have come out a lot differently...and I'd have a lot less to disagree with.
Until now I have never had any advertising on this blog. But after roughly the 3,784th time a friend or relative as told me I should, I've finally given in.
You may notice a rectangular box below the masthead, which promotes an organization or business. That, currently, is the extent of the advertising - though there might be more at some point in the future. I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on how this stuff works. (Heck, there are plenty of people who don't think I'm knowledgeable even on what I write about......)
Please keep in mind that some advertising may be for entities that seem to have a political agenda - maybe even an agenda I do not subscribe to. Let me say that this is perfectly ok with yours truly. I have always promised to open the blog to all sides of the issues, and I take that promise very seriously.
All I ask is that you support the advertisers you see here - not by "doing me any favors" and clicking on them a lot of times to "help me out", but by checking out the ones you are seriously interested in.
As you know if you read this blog, or CBS News, or the Los Angeles Times -and as you don't know if you rely on ABC, NBC or a great many other mainstream media for your news - Brian Terry was a US border agent killed by members of a Mexican drug cartel. The weapons used to kill Agent Terry were sold to the cartel by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), under the direction of the eric holder-led Department of Justice (DOJ), in a harebrained scheme called Operation Fast and Furious.
The weapons ATF supplied to Mexican drug cartels were almost certainly responsible for the death of US Customs Agent Jaime Zapata as well.
And, according to Mexican authorities, the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens. And countlesss other criminal acts of a fatal and non-fatal nature over the two-plus years since it was implemented.
Two days ago, the Senate unanimously passed the Brian A. Terry Memorial Act, which names the Border Patrol station in Bisbee, Arizona in his honor. The House of Representatives had already passed this act in December of last year, also unanimously. (You may wonder why it took the Democrat-controlled Senate almost a half a year to pass it. So do I).
As for President Obama - who may well have signed off on Operation Fast and Furious - and his disgraceful toady of a sock-puppet eric holder - who was neck deep in this operation, and lied about what he knew and when he knew about it in sworn congressional testimony? Not one word out of either of them. Not one word commending this act, or regretting Agent Terry and Agent Zapata's deaths. Nothing.
President Obama and, especially Attorney General holder, have done a lot of appalling things over the past three-plus years. But none more egregious than their serial ignoring of these deaths - which are almost certainly being ignored because to call attention to them would hurt Mr. Obama politically.
This isn’t the first time the Obama administration has acted disrespectfully toward the Terry family. Holder didn’t apologize to them for Terry’s murder for almost a year after he was killed. When Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn confronted him on not apologizing in November 2011, Holder said, “I have not apologized to them, but I certainly regret what happened.”
Holder also said that he had not talked to Terry’s family since Terry’s murder.
After political pressure built on Holder shortly after that hearing, he sent Terry’s family a letter apologizing for Brian’s murder. Before Terry’s mother even got a chance to read it, though, Holder or a member of his staff leaked it to Politico. Allegations that Holder would leak the letter publicly before the family received it prompted Terry’s friend, Lana Domino, to call Holder “cold-hearted,” adding that Holder has had a history of disregard for the family.
[Holder] never went to a memorial — there are numerous memorials that he could’ve went to,” Domino said. “He never went to the funeral in Michigan.”
Terry’s mother has had harsh words for Holder too: “THIS IS FOR YOU SON,” Mrs. Terry posted on Facebook in early February 2012 when Holder was testifying before the House Oversight Committee about Fast and Furious. “Mr. Holder. How come you can never say my sons name. You never have. All i ever hear you say is ‘i didnt find out or I cant say’ Im actually tired of hearing your double talk in answering questions. What a joke you are. You know my son was a real AMERICAN, a WARRIOR, and a HERO, who was also protecting COWARD POLITICANS like you.”
Every day that eric holder is Attorney General is a day that shames this country. And his vile, repulsive behavior regarding Brian Terry, Jaime Zapata, and more generally Operation Fast and Furious, is far from the only reason I say this.
There is no doubt at all that if Mitt Romney is elected President the era of eric holder comes to an end. It cannot happen fast enough.
A quick note, regarding President Obama's military reference, during his BS "evolution" interview, which included this passage: "when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf..."
A lot is being made of the President's wording by anti-Obama sites, suggesting that it shows Mr. Obama t be an arrogant man who thinks the military is not fighting for us - i.e. the country - but for him - i.e. Barack Obama personally.
As someone who certainly has no problem criticizing President Obama, let me say that this is ridiculous.
I don't know who is reading this, but I bet you talk in the same kinds of first-person terms all the time (e.g. "I'll see you the next time you fly to my city", "I've been with my company for 5 years", "There's my old school", etc. etc. etc).
There is plenty to say about Barack Obama and his administration (Actually, it's our administration, not his personally. See, I just did it myself.). Let's not be petty enough to invent issues which don't exist. Ok?
Do you believe that President Obama's sudden support of gay marriage is the culmination of a personal evolution? That he has agonized over this decision on moral and ethical grounds and May 8th, 2012 happened to be the day he finally "evolved" to a position of supporting it?
I hope not. Because that is not what happened. Not even 1%.
The debate over same sex “marriage” has engaged the heartfelt feelings and convictions of millions of Americans. Then there is Barack Obama.
In his ABC interview, the president pretended that his much touted “evolution” had now led him, ineluctably, to speak out now, today; he simply could longer stay silent. ABC let him off the hook, but this is not a credible account. In March, the Washington Post was reporting the debate among his advisers on whether the issue would help or hurt the reelection campaign and what, therefore, Obama should say: “Obama’s top political advisers have held serious discussions with leading Democrats about the upsides and downsides of coming out for gay marriage before the fall election.”
In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.
Reality check: I do not know how President Obama personally feels about gay marriage. I did not know before yesterday's pronouncement and I do not know now, the day after.
What I do know is that a combination of Jackass Joe Biden's big mouth (with characteristic lack of political acumen, Biden forgot a Vice President's job includes deference to the President, and conversationally offered his support this past weekend), along with the overwhelmingly anti-gay marriage vote in North Carolina (where the Democrats' national convention is scheduled to be held) forced him to stop playing games, decide which of two politically dangerous positions would be more beneficial to him as a Democrat, and immediately put it out there.
And even in doing so, Mr. Obama is playing a cynical political game. His position, if you can call it one, is that he personally favors gay marriage, but that it is a states' rights issue so every state is free to do what it pleases on the issue.
Er, I can't find any part of the constitution which defines health care as a province of federal government. Isn't that a states' rights issue too? Ditto for abortion, and - despite how many people who have never read the first amendment think otherwise - ditto for separation of church and state. How convenient to invoke it here.
Mr. Obama also invoked Jesus - so help me you-know-who - in his evolution to support of gay marriage. Two points: 1) I admit not being very knowledgeable about the New Testament, but I don't recall anyone ever citing chapter and verse of Jesus's statement in support of gay marriage, and 2) this is another of the many, many times President Obama uses religion as a prop for his political strategies, and I never remember our wonderful "neutra:" media - the media that ridiculed President Bush's obviously sincere religious beliefs - for doing so. Why do you suppose.....
Ok, now that I've brought in media, let's talk about that part of it a bit more.
Elliott Abrams alluded to the fact that ABC "let him off the hook" by not questioning either Mr. Obama's zig-zagging on gay marriage over the years or the timing of his current change of position. But ABC is not the only one.
Last night I watched the late news on NBC's New York station. Not surprisingly, it did a feature on President Obama's gay marriage statement. NBC did not deal with Mr. Obama's various "evolutions" over the years any more than ABC did. However, the report was done from The Stonewall Inn, which is generally thought of as where the gay movement started over 40 years ago. The reporter indicated that reaction to Mr. Obama's revelation was "tepid". That seemed very logical to me, given the conflict between gay people wanting Mr. Obama to support this cause, but understanding that it was little more than a political ploy.
This morning, however, I watched the early news on NBC. And, just as the night before, it reported from the Stonewall Inn. But this time the reporter assured me that reaction to Mr. Obama was "enthusiastic".
How did "tepid" become "enthusiastic" in a matter of hours? Maybe NBC rehired the producer and editor who doctored the Trayvon Martin tape....
I'm confident that you will find most other mainstream venues also falling into line and downplaying, or not at all mentioning, how obviously political Barack Obama's "evolution" is.
Not for nothing do I call them his Accomplice Media.
How many millions - maybe tens of millions - of dollars have unions poured into Wisconsin - first, to recall enough Republican state senators for Democrats to take back the majority it used to enjoy and then, to replace Governor Scott Walker with a Democrat who would restore the collective bargaining system which did so much to financially ravage the state? How many confrontational demonstrations have the unions run, complete with screaming, drum beating, rhythmic chanting and physical acts clearly designed to intimidate anyone who disagreed with their position? God only knows.
But here's something that we do know. Democrats did not win the senate majority - it is still Republican. And the union's hand-picked Democrat candidate to unseat Governor Walker went down to major-league defeat.
Yesterday's Democrat Gubernatorial primary was between the unions' willing sock puppe...er, excuse me, the union's fearless independent-minded choice, Kathleen Falk, and former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Falk ran on a platform of restoring the collective bargaining power Walker and his fellow Republicans took away from the public sector unions. Barrett ran on a platform that downplayed collective bargaining (go to his web site, click on "issues" and you will find it at the bottom of the list). The result? Barrett 58%, Falk 34%.
And to make matters even worse, Governor Walker - who ran virtually unopposed so there was no special reason for Republicans to turn out for him - got over 7,000 more primary votes (626,538) than Falk and Barrett combined (619,049). If Walker can generate this much support when it doesn't count, there is certainly a good chance that he can generate plenty of it on June 5th, when it does count.
So what will the rank and file have gotten for all those millions in union dues spent by the suits who head their unions? Nothing in the senate recalls, and quite possibly nothing again on June 5th.
But don't expect too many of the workers to question what was done or how the money was spent. Why not? C'mon, you already know the answer to that one.
Rush Limbaugh, apparently tied of the National Organization of Women's attempts to boycott advertisers and get him bounced off the air, has decided to launch his own version of the organization. He calls it Rush Babes for America, AKA The National Organization of Rush Babes.
That by itself would be funny enough. But, even funnier, he put it up as a facebook page....and, in its first 24 hours the page has generated more "likes" (33,800) than NOW has gotten since it launched its own facebook page in June of 2008.
But wait. That's not the funniest of all. The funniest of all is that NOW's President, Terry O'Neill has immediately gone into whine mode and is crying that....well, here are her own words:
“I don’t think conservative women want to associate themselves with his hate. I don’t think they would want to associate themselves with his bullying. I don't think conservative women would want to associate themselves with his vitriolic attacks.”
Let me get this straight, Ms. O'Neill. For years NOW has made it plain that it hates Limbaugh's guts. It currently is partnered with the soros-funded mediamatters.org in an effort to intimidate Limbaugh's advertisers into leaving the show, for the purpose of removing him from the air, so his voice will be silenced and nobody will hear what he has to say - even people who agree with him. And you're callling Limbaugh a bully?
In case anyone reading this blog is having difficulty understanding the meaning of your reaction, allow me to translate. In plain English, it is:
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH, HE'S MAKING US LOOK BAD. IT'S NOT FAIR. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH"
No need to thank me for that translation. I have a feeling most readers understood it perfectly without my help.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. NOW may have a name that suggests it is a women's group. But that is not how I see it. I see NOW as a left wing group that only cares about women who share its left wing agenda, and women who can to some degree be manipulated into voting that way. As for the rest of womanhood? NOW couldn't care less.
Well, we have our answer to where President Obama stands on same sex marriage. Sort of.
President Obama has come out in favor - though, I suspect, in a way that may not satisfy gay people.
To see the key swatch of his interview with Robin Roberts, which will air in part on ABC's World News Tonight and, more fully, on ABC's Good Morning America show tomorrow, please click here.
Would you be happy with that statement if you were against gay marriage? No you would not.
Would you be happy with that statement if you were supported gay marriage? Maybe you would. Except.......
......according to according to ABC's Rick Klein, "The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own".
That artful little twist leaves the door open for Mr. Obama to fully accept anti-gay marriage votes such as the one in North Carolina yesterday. In other words, President Obama is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
It remains to be seen how proponents of gay marriage will react to this posture. I truly do not have any sense of where they will wind up, and will be more than a little interested in watching it unfold.
And we still don't know if Mr. Obama will come out in favor of moving the Democrats' national convention out of Charlotte, North Carolina . That, I strongly suspect, will be seen as a litmus test of his seriousness on the gay marriage issue. If Obama says Charlotte is still okey-dokey with him, will gay people believe he sincerely supports their marital rights? Can they believe it?
Keep your eye on this one. I doubt we'll have to wait very long to find out where it moves.
Yesterday, after six terms as a very popular senator, Richard Lugar lost the Republican Primary to Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock by a landslide of 61% - 39%.
He could have gone out graciously, or in a bitter, ungracious snit. Sadly, Mr. Lugar chose the latter.
I would like to comment on the Senate race just concluded and the direction of American politics and the Republican Party.
The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy. One does not highlight such headwinds publically when one is waging a campaign. But I knew that I would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following a recession. I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were overhyped. I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators.
If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.
This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.
Essentially, Senator Lugar is saying that he supports Mourdock because he is a Republican, even though he also is a doctrinaire right wing jerk and a half. That is not a gracious way to go out, and it makes a pretty big man look very small. I hope for Mr. Lugar's sake that he already regrets doing so.
Elsewhere in the letter, Lugar defends his votes on a number of major issues when he sided with Democrats. Personally, I assume he did so out of good conscience and very much respect those votes. But - basic common sense here - he had to have known that the more times he crossed the aisle, the less appealing he would be to the party faithful - especially in a time when there are almost no Democrats doing the same.
One other point of note: Mr. Lugar seems to make it 100% clear that he will not run as an independent:
From time to time during the last two years I heard from well-meaning individuals who suggested that I ought to consider running as an independent. My response was always the same: I am a Republican now and always have been. I have no desire to run as anything else.
That statement makes me about 75% sure that he means it. Richard Mourdock better hope the other 25% doesn't come in....
GAY MARRIAGE AND THE DEMOCRATS' NATIONAL CONVENTION
Ken Berwitz
Barack, we have a problem.
The good news for Democrats is that their national convention is to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina, which is a beautiful town with great historic significance (the civil war started there with the firing on Fort Sumter) and loads of trachelospermum jasminoides (known to peasants like me as star jasmine) to keep things smelling sweet.
But the bad news for Democrats is that, yesterday, North Carolina overwhelmingly passed Amendment 1, which specifically defines marriage as one man-one woman, and bans both gay marriages and gay civil unions as well. The final vote was 61% - 39%.
And since most support for gay marriage resides within the Democrat Party, holding its convention in North Carolina is a potential disaster and a half.
How bad might this be? Here's a hint: The activist group, Gay Marriage USA, immediately started a petition to move the convention to another location. And in a matter of hours - before most people probably even knew the petition existed - it got over 15,000 signees.
But as bad as it is for Democrats in general, it is even worse for President Obama in particular.
Despite the fact that Mr. Obama is currently on record as being against gay marriage, gay groups have largely given him a free pass - presumably because they believe he took this position purely for political reasons and doesn't really feel that way.
Well, now he cannot duck the issue anymore. He has to go on record as either being, or not being, okay with the convention taking place in Charlotte.
-What if he says it is ok? He will enrage the gay community, most of whom tend to vote Democrat, along with many leftward groups which already have a problem with what they perceive as his lack of dedication to their agenda.
-What if he says the convention must be moved? The gay community will be placated, but he can kiss North Carolina goodbye - and probably lose his chance at a couple of other southern states as well - very much including Florida (think about how a pro-gay marriage stand would play in, for example, the panhandle).
As you can see, either way this is a nightmare - which, of course, is why the President has tried, however clumsily, to stay on the fence regarding gay marriage.
But that is no longer the case. North Carolina's vote has forced his hand. And the decision he makes could literally decide this eletion.
I don't know about you, but I can't wait to find out what it is.
WEST VIRGINIA & THE FLIGHT OF THE BLUE COLLAR DEMOCRAT
Ken Berwitz
I hope President Obama is not counting on West Virginia this year.
Not only have Senator Manchin and Governor Tomblin declined to endorse Mr. Obama so far, but -this is for real, folks. So help me -a convicted felon, currently serving time in a West Virginia prison, decided to run against him in the primary, and got over 40% of the vote.!!
Keith Russell Judd, a native Californian, serving a 17.5 year term in Beaumont Federal Correctional Institute - yes, that is in Beaumont, Texas - somehow got his name on the West Virginia ballot. And he walked away (well, maybe he was led away) with 41% of the Democrat primary vote to Barack Obama's 59%.
It is hard to see how that result could be more embarrassing for Mr. Obama. And even harder to see how Mr. Obama is going to win West Virginia this year.
But it is very easy to see how the same reasons blue collar Democrats turned away from Mr. Obama in enough numbers for this to have happened in West Virginia, might turn away from him in other states as well. Think, for example, about the coal mining areas of western Pennsylvania: I assure you the Obama campaign is. And that is far from the only place it could happen.
Put another way, anyone who thinks Barack Obama is going to sail into a second term had better think again.
One other thing: there is no truth to the rumor that the President saw Judd's prisoner number, 11593-051, and said "Wow, can I use that as my next social security number?"
The Chronicle of Higher Education is a publication, and web site, which provides news about - not surprisingly - higher education.
Naomi Schaefer Riley was a blogger at The Chronicle's web site for about a year...until this week. She has been fired.
The reason for her firing was a blog about what Ms. Riley perceives as the low quality of dissertations which are deemed acceptable in Black Studies programs, and the monolithic mindset indicated by the content of those dissertations.
Let's stop there for a moment. Is it reasonable for someone to feel that there are low standards for Black Studies dissertations? Sure. It is an opinion. The last time I checked, expressing opinions is what blogging is all about. It certainly is in my blog.
Did Ms. Riley accuse Black people, as a group, of being deficient? Did she make disparaging comments about the race itself? If she had, I would understand why a reputable publication would not want her on its staff. But she did not.
To the contrary, Ms. Riley made a point of stating that "...there are legitimate debates about the problems that plague the black community from high incarceration rates to low graduation rates to high out-of-wedlock birth rates. But it’s clear that they’re not happening in black-studies departments." In other words, she does not dismiss the issues raised by these dissertations, her problem is with the quality of the dissertations themselves.
But don't take my word for it. You can read Ms. Riley's entire blog by clicking here, and see for yourself.
So why was Naomi Schaefer Riley fired? Here's your answer, via these excerpts from Jonathan Last's blog at weeklystandard.com:
Chronicle readers were outraged. Not that a graduate student was earning a doctorate by claiming that Sowell, Thomas, and McWhorter are threats to civil rights. Oh, no. They were outraged because Naomi would dare poke fun at such insanity. Because, you know, that’s racist.
Eight days and 497 comments later, the Chronicle’s Liz McMillen fired Naomi. Here’s how she explained her decision:
[S]everal thousand of you spoke out in outrage and disappointment that The Chronicle had published an article that did not conform to the journalistic standards and civil tone that you expect from us.
We’ve heard you, and we have taken to heart what you said.
We now agree that Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles. . . .
[M]y Editor’s Note last week inviting you to debate the posting also seemed to elevate it to the level of informed opinion, which it was not. I also realize that, as the controversy unfolded last week, our response on Twitter did not accurately convey The Chronicle’s message. I sincerely apologize for the distress these incidents have caused our readers and appreciate that so many of you have made your sentiments known to us.
The great irony, of course, is that the whining and gnashing of teeth from the “Black Studies” crowd only reinforces Naomi’s point about the “discipline.” You’d never see chemists or physicists or mathematicians worked into a hysterical mob by a critical blog post. Because they study actual fields of knowledge—and don't simply tend the garden of their own feelings.
Ms. McMillen's rationale: Criticizing Black studies does not meet "...The Chronicle's basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness...".
What actually seems to have happened: By daring to criticize a part of "Black education", Ms. Schaefer signed her own death warrant at The Chronicle. Editor Liz McMillen saw angry comments - fully expected for any blog with a strong opinion - and, because the blog involved race, she caved in like a sand castle at high tide.
Would Ms. McMillen have done the same if Ms. Riley were criticizing what she saw as low standards for English or Social Studies dissertations? Not in a million years. The one and only reason for this is race.
Tell me again: is The Chronicle supposedly providing its readers with serious commentary about higher education??? Sure...just the way Iranian publications provide "news". It's all there; except what we don't want you to read and think about, which we then censor so you won't be able to.
As you certainly are aware, Naomi Schaefer Riley has my sympathy in this matter, 100%. Commentary is just that; commentary. That is what she wrote, just like every blogger does.
And Liz McMillen is a disgrace to journalism. I wonder when, if ever, she will come to the realization that the racism is hers, not Ms. Riley's.
It is as plain as the nose on her face. How sad that she doesn't see it already.
Just a quick speculation (not a prediction) about the Indiana primary.
Six term incumbent Richard Lugar is probably going to lose the Republican senatorial primary to state treasurer Richard Mourdock.
If that happens, I would put it at 50-50 that Mr. Lugar decides to run independent. What does he have to lose? At 80 years old he certainly isn't worried about hurting his prospects for higher office, is he?
And since Mr. Lugar remains very popular among lots of non-tea party Republicans,along with a good number of Democrats, it is not at all unlikely that he could win.
A New York City health department inspector bizarrely slapped a Brooklyn bagel shop with $1,650 in fines -- because sesame and poppy seeds fell to the floor while the bagels were being made during working hours.
The owner of B&B Empire Bagel Cafe -- who appealed the violations and lost at two separate hearings -- said the inspectors must have holes in their heads.
"It is impossible to clean up after each and every bagel," according to Alex Gormakh, 59, who owns the shop.
Fellow bagel-makers agreed.
"No matter how much you sweep during the daytime, there's always going to be seeds on the floor," according to A.J. Tawfik, at Brooklyn Bagel, an A-graded shop in Chelsea.
Now, Gormakh and his son, Max, 34, have invested close to $900,000 in larger stainless steel preparation tables -- in hopes of containing seed fallout -- and an expensive water-filter vacuum to suck up the seeds from the floor.
"It is still not profitable, but it is close," according to Gormakh, who moved his family from Russia in 1995 and opened his store last June. "If you want to work, you have to pay. In Russia, they call it corruption. Here, they call it something else. Either way, you have to pay."
Unbelievable, but true.
Why are they doing this? I don't know for certain. But I wonder if it is because, after years of entitlement expansion, economic contraction, and raising taxes to a point where they are beyond high compared to just about everywhere else, NYC has to come up with more and more ridiculous ways of generating revenue.
What a fabulous idea! Find some half-baked way of declaring a food store unsanitary, and nail it with a stiff fine. I'll just bet this will encourage a tidal wave of food store entrepreneurs to come streaming into town.
Point of order: If dropping a few bits and pieces during food preparation is a finable event, I'm betting that every single restaurant and food store in NYC, not to mention everywhere else, should be fined every day. And every kitchen in every house and apartment should be fined as well.
My wife remembers watching a Julia Childs show where she accidentally dropped an ingredient on the floor, quickly picked it up, used it in her recipé, and said with a smile "remember, you're usually alone in the kitchen". We both found that funny. But if Ms. Childs were alive today and the show was taped in New York, they'd probably have to suspend production and maybe her next episode would be in a prison mess hall.
If stupid is as stupid does, this is a classic case of stupid does. Disincenting hard working people is not the way to rebuild an economic base.
I hope I have made myself plain...not to mention poppy, sesame, egg, a couple of bialys on the side....and don't forget a quarter of lox and a shmear too (make mine with chives).
Charles and David Koch are conservative Republicans, and highly successful industrialists. The Democrat Party has spent at least a year trying in every way possible to turn them into bogeymen who must be hated and destroyed. This blog alone has put up so many DSCC emails with angry, often vile attacks on the Koch brothers that I have lost count.
richard trumka is a violent career thug, a radical left winger, and President of the AFL-CIO. Despite his long, ugly history, I have never seen a bad word about him in any Democrat email - nor, with very few exceptions, have I ever seen a bad word about him in our wonderful "neutral" mainstream media. Imagine that.....
Here is trumka's latest commentary, from his appearance on Sunday's "Newsmakers" show on C-Span, in which he speaks about the upcoming recall election battle being waged against Wisconsin's Republican Governor Scott Walker, which the AFL-CIO and other unions have spent tens of millions of dollars in union dues on so far:
"Would you like to take this fight on? A year after you were in office, would you like to be in the fight of your life, spending $25-30 million to hold onto a seat that you were supposed to have for four years . . . would that embolden you? Not if you're sane and rational it wouldn't."
I have a question: What if Charles and David Koch spent tens of millions of dollars to oust a Democrat Governor, then bragged about how intimidating it would be to any other elected officeholder who dared to disagree with them?
Do you think Democrats would be condemning it in their ads and emails? Do you think our wonderful "neutral" mainstream media would be railing about it and attacking the Kochs as thinly disguised fascist thugs, and worse?
Well, as noted above, trumka's diatribe aired on Sunday. Did you catch any network news reports condemning trumka's comments? How about a feature or two on the morning news shows? (I'm not asking whether you saw any condemnations from the DSCC; that would insult your intelligence even more than the previous two questions).
I ask this question a lot, and I'll ask it again now. How do these people call themselves journalists? How do they even face themselves in the mirror?
And how does an overt thug like richard trumka wind up in charge of a major union?
Last Friday, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review decided to do a feature on bathing suits. So it came up with a clever idea: An attractive young woman in a scanty bathing suit standing knee-deep in the water, next to the words "SUIT YOURSELF" which apparently are sitting on top of the water, complete with a reflection.
But the reflection created a bit of a problem, as you can see below:
A word to the bathing suit model. That is not good advice........
And a word to the Tribune-Review editors: It might be a good idea to pay a wee bit more attention to the graphics. Because that is probably much too graphic for a newspaper.
I watched a bit of "Morning Joe" today, and happened to catch a segment during which the panel discussed Rick Santorum's endorsement of Mitt Romney for President.
All of them, including Joe Scarborough, snickered at how lukewarm Santorum's endorsement was - i.e. it came via an email to Santorum's followers, in which the actual endorsement statement was in the 13th paragraph. Scarborough even used the sarcastic (but clever) line that Santorum was saying "I'm just mild about Mitt".
Based on this, I was going to check the email, assure myself there was nothing more than what the "Morning Joe" panel said, and attack Santorum for his petulance in offering an endorsement that was so obviously grudging and strained.
Lucky I checked. Because, in actuality, the email was excellent.
Was it long? You bet it was. But its length was entirely necessary so that Mr. Santorum could fully explain to his followers why, given their obvious and significant differences, he would nonetheless support Mr. Romney.
Then, after doing so, he said this:
The primary campaign certainly made it clear that Governor Romney and I have some differences. But there are many significant areas in which we agree: the need for lower taxes, smaller government, and a reduction in out-of-control spending. We certainly agree that abortion is wrong and marriage should be between one man and one woman. I am also comfortable with Governor Romney on foreign policy matters, and we share the belief that we can never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. And while I had concerns about Governor Romney making a case as a candidate about fighting against Obamacare, I have no doubt if elected he will work with a Republican Congress to repeal it and replace it with a bottom up, patient, not government, driven system.
Above all else, we both agree that President Obama must be defeated. The task will not be easy. It will require all hands on deck if our nominee is to be victorious. Governor Romney will be that nominee and he has my endorsement and support to win this the most critical election of our lifetime.
I urge you to click here and read the entire email. You will find that it is thoughtful, intelligent, and that it provides a detailed explanation of why the endorsement was made - as it should, given the strong words which Mr. Santorum used against Mitt Romney during the primary campaign.
And please be assured that I do not say this out of any deference to Rick Santorum. Regular readers know I did not support Mr. Santorum, and was very critical of his campaign. If I found problems with his email, they most certainly would be in front of your eyes right now.
That said, I have a question for Mr. Scarborough and his derisive, snickering panel: how would you have reacted if, instead of writing the email, Mr. Santorum came out and wholeheartedly endorsed Mitt Romney for President? Is there any doubt you would have sneered that he was a consummate fraud to do so, after relentlessly attacking him for months? Of course not.
The fact that Mr. Santorum took the honest route by acknowledging they still have differences, then explaining why, despite those differences, it was important that Mr. Romney defeat Mr. Obama, accrues greatly to his credit.
And the fact that it generated nothing but derision from Scarborough & Co makes them look somewhere between small and ridiculous.
Not that you need me to tell you, but gay marriage is going to be an important issue in this year's presidential election. This being the case, it is important to know the positions being taken by Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
The first thing to point out is that neither candidate comes across as what you would call a tower of strength or consistency.
Here is a rundown of where they (sort of) stand:
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney has wavered back and forth depending on whether the election is in deep-blue Massachusetts, the much redder Republican primaries or the purple United States. His current stand is that he supports and defends the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), and believes marriage is defined as one man-one woman, but that gay couples should have all or most of the rights that male-female married couples have.
You can get a very complete chronology of Mr. Romney's journey on this issue by clicking here.
Barack Obama
Barack Obama is currently on record as being in favor of repealing the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA). But, for the two years his party had huge majorities in both houses of congress, and could have repealed it relatively easily, he did not come out in favor of repeal, or propose any legislation to that effect.
Now Mr. Obama is refusing to say what his position is in so many words, as demonstrated by Press Secretary Jay Carney's clumsy dance around the issue in yesterday's briefing. The reason for ducking a statement one way or the other, presumably is the fear that if he speaks in opposition he will lose a segment of the gay vote, and if he speaks in support, he will lose conservative Democrats in several swing states (like North Carolina), along with part of the Latino vote, a large portion of which is devoutly Catholic.
Given the fact that President Obama refused to do anything about repeal of DOMA when he could have, and won't specifically state his position now, it is more than a little amusing that he is attacking Mr. Romney's support of this legislation.
Since the Romney campaign seems about 500% more adept at handling situations like this than the campaign of Mr. Obama's previous opponent, John McCain, I look forward to the response. If nothing else, it should be great political theater.
All congratulations to the CIA, its operatives in the field, and the international organizations it partnered with, which apparently foiled a plot to blow up a US-bound airplane, using a non-metallic explosive device which would be very difficult for airport security to screen.
Obviously, President Obama's glib dismissal of al qaeda as a major threat to our security was wrong. Did he simply not know about this, or does he think the potential to blow up a plane is not a major threat?
Remember; the fact that this attempt was prevented does not mean the next one, using the same non-metallic technology, won't be successful.
Now, will we be given any idea of how the intelligence which resulted in failure for the would-be al qaeda murderers was gathered? Did it by any chance include telephone surveillance or advanced interrogations -- i.e. the things that Barack Obama has emphatically spoken out against? I, for one, would love to hear the answer to these questions. Wouldn't you?
Have you ever noticed how many children whose parents do not allow "junk food" into the house, are the most avid eaters of cake, cookies, candy, chips, etc. when they are out from under their parents' watchful eyes?
Bake sales, the calorie-laden standby cash-strapped classrooms, PTAs and booster clubs rely on, will be outlawed from public schools as of Aug. 1 as part of new no-nonsense nutrition standards, forcing fundraisers back to the blackboard to cook up alternative ways to raise money for kids.
At a minimum, the nosh clampdown targets so-called “competitive” foods — those sold or served during the school day in hallways, cafeterias, stores and vending machines outside the regular lunch program, including bake sales, holiday parties and treats dished out to reward academic achievement. But state officials are pushing schools to expand the ban 24/7 to include evening, weekend and community events such as banquets, door-to-door candy sales and football games.
The Departments of Public Health and Education contend clearing tables of even whole milk and white bread is necessary to combat an obesity epidemic affecting a third of the state’s 1.5 million students. But parents argue crudites won’t cut it when the bills come due on athletic equipment and band trips
Is it good to eat healthier foods? Sure it is. But when did it become the government's function to decide which foods are healther and then force its decision on others? When did it become acceptable for the government to mandate good habits?
It is also good to exercise a half hour a day and brush your teeth after each meal. Will the Massachusetts Departments of Public Heath and Education mandate that too?
And it is also good for teachers to give one-on-one instruction to each student, so that he/she can learn the course work better and build self-esteem. Maybe the Department of Education would like to try insisting each teacher participates fully in this beneficial endeavor as well. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that meeting with the union, wouldn't you?
The great educator, and President/Chancellor of The New School for Social Research, Robert Morrison MacIver, famously warned that you cannot legislate morality. Ok, ok, he said it a little more wordily than that...
"What then is the relation of law to morality? Law cannot prescribe morality, it can prescribe only external actions and therefore it should prescribe only those actions whose mere fulfillment, from whatever motive, the state adjudges to be conducive to welfare. What actions are these? Obviously such actions as promote the physical and social conditions requisite for the expression and development of free—or moral—personality.... Law does not and cannot cover all the ground of morality."
...but the point is that he had a point. And the morality police in Massachusetts should learn from his words. But don't count on it.
All they will succeed in doing is making it harder for school related activities to fund-raise. The children who want to eat cake, cookies, candy and chips are going to do so, with or without their mandated nanny-state nonsense.
Point of order: demographically, Chicago is about one-third Black and half female. But take a good look at that picture:
-How many Black people can you find? One-third of the total? Not even close: you can count the number of visibly Black campaign staffers on the fingers of one hand, and still have fingers left.
-How many females can you find? One-half of the campaign staff? Again, not even close. Can you come up with 10, maybe 12 out of what appears to be 50 or more people?
This leads to an interesting point.
Based on decades-long voting patterns, over 90% of all Black people tend to vote Democrat. This means that less than 10% of Chicago's one-third Black population votes Republican, which comes to maybe 2 - 3% of the total population.
Suppose a picture of Mitt Romney's Chicago campaign staff showed these exact same people; i.e. with maybe 2 or 3 Black faces among dozens and dozens of campaign workers - not at all unreasonable given the voting patterns cited above. Do you doubt for a second that media would quickly take note of what a lily-White group it was?
Well the picture is of Barack Obama's staff, not Mitt Romney's. And Neil Munro of dailycaller.com has - correctly - called the Obama campaign out on its racial and gender makeup.
Now, sit back and wait for mainstream media, which has as much access to this picture as Mr. Munro does, to follow suit.
Be sure to bring a sleeping bag, plenty of supplies.....and maybe a copy of your last will and testament.
Maybe it was a sincere attempt to force Justin Ruben, Executive Director of moveon.org, to tell the truth. Maybe it was a reaction to the awful-and-getting-worse ratings for CNN, which might be helped by more evenhandedness on the part of its show hosts. Maybe it was something else. Who know?
But Mr. Cooper absolutely reamed Mr. Ruben -- by doing nothing other than asking him if the same rules moveon.org applies to Republicans are also applicable to Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats.
Watch the video and see for yourself:
Excellent job of doggedly insisting that Mr. Ruben answer the questions.
My congratulations to Anderson Cooper. AndI urge him to hold right wing guests to the fire just as doggedly.
All I, and a great many people like me, ever ask for is a level playing field.
In the silly but curiously entertaining movie "Coneheads", Beldar, played by Dan Aykroyd, is forced to "Narfle the Garthok" - i.e. fight a huge monster which should defeat him, and consume him, in no time at all. But, against all odds, Beldar defeats the Garthok instead.
It lays motionless for a moment, then suddenly comes back to life, roars one last time, and dies.
This leads me to the French election this weekend, in which Nicolas Sarkozy was defeated by Socialist Francois Hollande.
France, understandably, is seeking to avoid the economic collapse of other countries within the Eurozone (Greece and Spain already, with Italy, Ireland and Portugal looking to be close on their heels). To that end, its Prime Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, started cutting back on France's version of the entitlement economy which got Greece, Spain, et al into the mess they currently are in.
But no more. The people have spoken, and they want their entitlements. They do not want to hear that the money is not there.
And a Socialist alternative to Sarkozy, Francois Hollande, has apparently convinced a majority of them that the economic equivalent of kissing the boo-boo, taxing the rich, will make everything all better:
Excerpted from Fraser's article for the BBC:
French socialist Francois Hollande has won a clear victory in the country's presidential election.
Analysts say the vote has wide implications for the whole eurozone. Mr Hollande has vowed to rework a deal on government debt in member countries.
Hollande: "It still takes some getting used to," said Senator Helene Conway-Mouret. "A year ago you would never have dreamed it."
A teacher and a lifelong Socialist was standing next to me as the result came in - he wept. "It's an incredible moment," he said. "Not just for the Socialist Party but for France, for Europe. "
In over 30 years in politics Mr Hollande has never served as a minister. For much of his tenure as the party's first secretary from 1997 to 2008 he was seen as a consensus manager - a listener more than a visionary. Now he must lead, making tough choices to put France on the path to recovery.
Mr Hollande - the first Socialist to win the French presidency since Francois Mitterrand in the 1980s - gave his victory speech in his stronghold of Tulle in central France.
He said he was "proud to have been capable of giving people hope again".
He said he would push ahead with his pledge to refocus EU fiscal efforts from austerity to "growth".
"Europe is watching us, austerity can no longer be the only option," he said.
The Socialist candidate has promised to raise taxes on big corporations and people earning more than 1m euros a year.
He wants to raise the minimum wage, hire 60,000 more teachers and lower the retirement age from 62 to 60 for some workers.
In his concession speech, Mr Sarkozy told supporters: "Francois Hollande is the president of France and he must be respected."
The outgoing president said he was "taking responsibility for defeat".
Does that say it all, or what? Hollande has never actually run anything, but he's a good listener.
And what is his great economic plan? As European countries continue in near free-fall due to years of more entitlements with less revenue to pay for them, his plan is to lower the retirement age, raise the minimum wage, hire 60,000 more teachers (no wonder that socialist teacher was crying with joy), and who knows what else.
How will Mr. Hollande pay for this? That's easy: he will "tax the rich". Soak the producers, the ones who create the jobs.
Why not? They've got the money, don't they?
But what about the possibility (make that the probability) of increased taxes acting as a disincentive to the job-producers? Maybe even driving some of them out of the country altogether? Uh....I'll get back to you on that.....
Think of the entitlement economy as the great Garthok. Ugly and destructive. It has already consumed Greece and Spain. But France, against all odds, seemed to have defeated it. Yet now it is suddenly back to life and roaring.
Will it roar once more and then die? Or will it live, and take down France too?
The Daily Caller has obtained a scrapped sketch critical of President Barack Obama that was intended for airing at the opening of last night’s “Saturday Night Live” on NBC.
In the skit, President Obama addresses Americans soon after the first anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden — and he makes sure to remind viewers that all credit for the raid on the terrorist leader’s compound belongs to him.
The real President Obama has faced harsh criticism in recent weeks for allegedly politicizing bin Laden’s death by taking too much credit for the operation that killed him.
Instead of the skit, NBC opted instead to air a parody of Fox News Channel’s “Fox and Friends.” That skit, which also featured Armisen, mocked Fox News personalities by portraying them as clueless partisans.
Why would Saturday Night Live do this? Why would it run away from its own material on Barack Obama's behalf.
Well, it is because there is a problem: if you criticize President Obama - or, apparently, if you make fun of him with a little biting humor - you are a racist. That is the mantra, and we have heard it over and over again - especially from some of the "talent" on NBC's (weak) sister network, MSNBC.
Little wonder, then, that SNL decided/was induced to/was coerced to back off, and instead go after Fox, which, of course, is an eminently acceptable target.
Think about it: In the four-plus years of Barack Obama's candidacy, then presidency, how many attack skits has SNL done on him? I'm not talking about the gentle "you know we love you, but..." stuff, I'm talking about the kind of frontally direct humor this show is famous for; the kind it used to nail, say, George Bush?
Let me end as I started: I hope you're not surprised by this.
But over the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban’s momentum. We’ve built strong Afghan Security Forces. We devastated al Qaeda’s leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. The goal that I set – to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild – is within reach.
...we are pursuing a negotiated peace. In coordination with the Afghan government, my Administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban – from foot soldiers to leaders – have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before them. Those who refuse to walk it will face strong Afghan Security Forces, backed by the United States and our allies.
Who said those words? Who ignored all reality and told us how completely we took down the Taliban over the last three years - i.e. since Barack Obama became President?
The answer is...........er, Barack Obama, during a surprise appearance in Afghanistan.
Well, here, from Ashley Killough's article at cnn.com, are some different words. Bipartisan words. They come from Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairs of the senate and house intelligence committees. Maybe President Obama would do well to take them into consideration:
The heads of the Senate and House intelligence committees said Sunday the Taliban was gaining ground, just days after President Barack Obama made a surprise trip to Afghanistan and touted the progress made in the war on terror.
“I think we'd both say that what we found is that the Taliban is stronger,” said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein on CNN’s “State of the Union,” while sitting with Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan
Can Barack Obama possibly believe that he has stunted the Taliban's momentum and turned them into conciliatory little pussycats? (In this regard, let me remind you that, as Mr. Obama was leaving Afghanistan, the momentum-broken, conciliatory taliban set off two explosives which killed at least 7 people, wounded who knows how many others, and then promptly and proudly took "credit" for doing so.)
The answer, of course, is no. Mr. Obama certainly knows better. He is just doing what he does so often and, sad to say, so effectively. He is lying to us. And, even sadder to say, a good many gullible souls are going to believe him.
Between Afghanistan, the budding shari'a law states in Egypt and Libya that he helped facilitate, our icy-cold relations with Israel, one of our closest allies, etc. etc. etc., Barack Obama's foreign policy record is abysmal, bordering on catastrophic.
Little wonder all he is left with is lying, and hoping that his Accomplice Media will continue to look the other way as he does and enough voters will be gullible enough to swallow his lies that he will be re-elected.
If there is one thing you learn over and over again about the Obama administration, it is not to believe a thing it tells you.
The latest example (among many, many to choose from) is Mr. Obama's claim that the GM bailout was a great success. Not only was it not a great success, it was not a success of any kind - unless you happen to be a UAW worker with one of those fat contracts which helped to put GM down the crapper in the first place, that is.
Here are a few excerpts from John R. Lott Jr,'s fact-filled analysis in today's Philadelphia Inquirer. Please read not only the segments I am posting, but the entire piece, which lays out chapter and verse of the real GM story; not the fantasy Mr. Obama and his Accomplice Media are feeding us:
If you invested more than $100 in a company, would you be happy if your shares were worth only $36? By anyone’s definition that investment would have been a terrible failure.
Yet, that is how the federal government’s investment in General Motors looks. The federal government has put in well over $100 billion into shoring up General Motors, but the entire company, not just what the government owns, was worth only $36 billion on Tuesday.
The money the government spent adds up quickly: $50 billion in TARP bailout funds, a special exemption waiving payment of $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits, an exemption for all product liability on cars sold before the bailout, and $360 million in stimulus funds. Other money of which it is harder to quantify GM’s share includes the $15.2 billion Cash for Clunkers program and the $7,500 tax credit for those who buy the Chevy Volt. And all those costs don’t even include the billions taken from GM’s bondholders by the Obama administration.
The accounting shows the trouble with claims that much of the TARP money is getting paid back. The Obama administration only compares the $50 billion in direct bailout funds with the price it will eventually be able to get for selling the GM stock it owns. But that assumes exempting GM from paying $45 billion in taxes and other subsidies don’t increase the stock price.
But the Obama administration keeps saying what a great success the auto bailout was. President Obama just bragged at the end of April in a White House speech that the bailout “saved probably a million jobs” and that “GM is now the number-one automaker again in the world.”
Even saving 20 percent of 400,000 comes at quite a cost, implying at least $780,000 per job. How many workers would have been willing to quit working for GM for a $400,000 severance payment?
The “number-one automaker” claim is no more accurate. Obama’s sales totals includes 1.2 million mostly cheap commercial vehicles built by China’s Wuling, a company in which GM owns a very small stake, and it excludes sales by vehicle makers in which Volkswagen owns a majority share. Fortune magazine lists GM as smaller than Volkswagen, Daimler, Ford, and Toyota.
The only real winners from the GM bailout were unions, who were protected from pay cuts, from losing their right to overtime pay after less than 40 hours per week, and from cuts in their extremely generous benefits. They only faced minor tweaks in their inefficient union work rules.
I ask the same question over and over: "Why would you believe anything these people say". Well, I'm asking again here.
And I'm also asking why, if these facts are out there and easily obtainable not just to John Lott but to everyone else, are so few of our wonderful "neutral' media debunking Mr. Obama's obviously bogus claims about how successful the GM bailout has been?
Oh, sorry. I apologize for asking you a question we both know the answer to.
Harvard Law School lists one lone Native American faculty member on its latest diversity census report — but school officials and campaign aides for Elizabeth Warren refused to say yesterday whether it refers to the Democratic Senate candidate.
Warren — who has been dogged by questions about whether she used her claims of Cherokee lineage to further her career — has insisted she never authorized Harvard Law to count her as a Native American in the mid-1990s, when the school was under fire for not having enough minority professors.
Prior to that, from 1986 to 1995, Warren had listed herself as a minority in a law school directory administrators then used as a tip sheet when making diversity hires. But by 1996, when Harvard Law was boasting that Warren was the faculty’s first minority female, she had stopped appearing in the law school directory.
Harvard Law’s 2011 diversity report does not indicate who the Native American professor is. And the school refused to say whether it’s Warren.
Wow. Harvard is taking the fifth. Who do they think they are over there; members of the Obama administration?
As for Ms. Warren, we have her claim that she never authorized Harvard to count her as a native American -- except she listed herself as one for the previous 10 years, which most likely got her special consideration in the schools she taught at then. And she does not claim to have asked Harvard not to list her that way when they started doing so.
That rings about as true as a carnival barker selling tickets to see The Invisible Man.
Every day this story continues is a day Elizabeth Warren loses credibility - and, I would assume, votes. If she had only come clean right at the beginning, it might have been embarrassing and damaging, but nowhere near to this degree. Now she's a joke.
Leonard Pitts Jr. is a colunnist for the Miami Herald - a Pulitzer Prize winning one at that. But his latest piece, about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, is an embarrassment.
Let me show you why. Here are key excerpts, in rust, with my comments in blue:
The pertinent fact is that Zimmerman found Trayvon suspicious because, as he told the 911 dispatcher, the boy was walking slowly and looking around. That might be the behavior of a boy who was turned around in an unfamiliar neighborhood. Or of a boy enjoying a cell phone conversation with a girl and not overly eager to return to where his sweet nothings might be overheard by his dad.Or it might be the behavior of a boy casing the neighborhood looking for a good house to rob. Ironically, the point you’re making is the point I’m making: Zimmerman did not know.Therefore it was perfectly reasonable for him to watch Martin carefully.
That no such alternate possibilities seem to have occurred to Zimmerman for even an instant suggests the degree to which we as a people have grown comfortable with the belief that black is crime and crime is black. Nor are African Americans immune to the effects of that invidious formulation. Bull.That is palpably untrue.If Zimmerman felt he knew for sure that Trayvon Martin was looking to commit a crime, his statement to the dispatcher would not have been that Martin was just acting suspiciously, it would have been that Martin was about to commit a crime. Why are you making this stuff up?
Indeed, the dirty little secret of the Martin killing is that Zimmerman could easily have been black. True, a black Zimmerman probably would not have been sent home by prosecutors who declined to press charges — whiteness still has its privileges — but otherwise, yes. It is entirely possible. I agree that a Black neighborhood watch person seeing what Zimmerman saw might have acted the same way.Now, would you please stash the “I am Black therefore I am an oppressed victim” meme long enough to think about why:Martin was an unfamiliar person in the neighborhood, walking in a rainstorm but seemingly more interested in “walking around and looking about” than getting out of the rain.Of course a neighborhood watch person would be concerned, regardless of his/her color.
Why not? Blacks watch the same TV news as anyone else. We internalize the same message. We drink the same poison.What poison is that?
Why else do you think black folk flinch when the mug shot goes up on television, hoping the face will not be brown — as if we bore some communal responsibility for the suspect’s misdeeds? For the same reason Jews flinch if the perp is a money swindler or Italians flinch if the perp is a mafiosa:because it will reinforce a stereotype some people project to the entire group. You can't seriously think this happens only to Blacks, can you?Why else do you think so much of our music is a song of violence and crime? Most of “our music” as you put it, is written, and performed by Black people.Why?Because it sells – and, sadly, because violent crime is much more prevalent among Blacks than Whites that it rings true.Who are you blaming for this?TV news?Why else, when I ask an auditorium full of black kids how frequently the individual who murders a white person is black, do they figure it at 75 percent? Why else are they shocked to hear it’s only 13?Using mathematical estimates which include same-race crime is a disingenuous game.Maybe the reason is Black students think – correctly – that Blacks killing Whites is a much more frequent occurrence than Whites killing Blacks.Incidentally, Black on White murder (8.8%) actually is almost 3 times as frequent as White on Black (3.2%)….so do they really have it that wrong?
At some subterranean level, we — African Americans — still believe the garbage of innate criminality we have so assiduously been fed, and struggle with hating ourselves, as America long ago taught us to do. Here’s the victimhood strategy trump card again. Reality check: is it the belief in “innate criminality” or the knowledge that Black neighborhoods tend to be far higher in crime than White ones?
This is why I grow impatient with those — black, white and otherwise — who think the salient social issue here is George Zimmerman’s character. It is not. Nor is it Trayvon’s.
It is, rather, that ours is a nation so obscenely comfortable in conflating black with crime that a civilian carrying no badge of authority nevertheless feels it his right to require that an American boy walking lawfully upon a public street justify his presence there. And it is the knowledge that at least some black men would have done the same.AS THEY SHOULD HAVE, for the reasons outlined earlier – i.e. an unfamiliar person walking through a rainstorm looking here and there rather than moving along the way someone would if he were trying to get out of the rain.
When do you, and the race hustlers like sharpton et al, stop working so hard at defining this as a racist event?
You can stop now.Mission accomplished.You “win”.Just about everyone sees it this as a White-Black issue – despite the fact that George Zimmerman's background makes it clear he was not anti-Black, that he defines himself as “Hispanic", and that he visibly is a light-skinned person of color, not White.
ELIZABETH WARREN: A LITTLE FUNNY AND A LITTLE SERIOUS
Ken Berwitz
First the funny:
There are many funny puns about Elizabeth Warren's obviously bogus claim to native American ancestry. Here are my three favorite.
-Sitting Bullshit,
-Pinocchiohontas, and
-Fauxcahontas.
Now the serious:
The Boston Globe's Noah Bierman and Frank Phillips have a generally fair article about Ms. Warren in today's edition. But, this being the Boston Globe, there is an ongoing attempt to also attack incumbent Scott Brown....and also to help Ms. Warren along. In this regard, it is mentioned that Charles Fried, a Solicitor General appointed by Ronald Reagan, is the law professor who recruited her to Harvard.
But that is blown away by a terrific response in the "comments" section from someone using the name "Frunkis":
Charles Fried's defense of Betsy Warren ought not to be taken at face value. Ms. Warren had a nice little career going teaching law at good, second tier law schools (U. of Houston, Rutgers, U. of Michigan, U. of Texas). Then she ticks the magic Native American box and the next thing you know, she's in the Ivy League.
She gets to Harvard and Harvard pads its diversity stats by listing Prof. Warren as native American. So, good for Prof. Warren and good for Harvard.
How many Harvard Law professors are there that didn't graduate from one of the top ten law schools, do you suppose. As it happens, only one: Prof. Warren. How many law professors teaching at the top ten law schools graduated from a less than top ten law school do you suppose there are? Two, as it happens, and Prof. Warren is one of them. Now, they teach critical thinking at Harvard Law. Is it more credible that Harvard would have hired a decent law professor from a second tier school without giving her any affirmative action credit, or is it more credible that her self-reported minority status tipped the scales in her favor? Well?
So, Charles Fried can blow smoke to give Prof. Warren cover but you'd have to be a credulous dolt to take his assurances at face value.
Ouch.
This issue is not going away. And it may already have lost enough votes for Elizabeth Warren to make it extremely difficult for her to unseat Scott Brown.
On the other hand, there is a half year to go before election day. We'll see.........
Lamentably, we have two editions of "real racism" in one day.
You've already seen the first (Jehmu Greene calling Tucker Carlson a "bow-tyin' White boy - then, seconds later, demonstrating a wall of sef-obtuseness about 40 feet thick by claiming she didn't call him a name).
Now we have this, from the execrably hate-filled bill maher on his latest edition of Real Time:
"I think the second term for Obama is more important even than the first. Obviously, it was important to get the first black president elected. But if the first black president only has one term, America reads that as a failure.
"This is what the right-wing hope and prays for more than anything else, that America looks at this one term president and goes, “Well you know what? We tried a black guy, but it just didn’t work.”
And I think Obama’s aware of that. That’s why he’s so conservative in the first term. He knows for the sake of black America, he needs the second term."
There you have it folks. Overt racism --- and, so that you can at least end by laughing out loud, a claim that Barack Obama has been a conservative President. Heck, with credentials like that, it's a wonder the Republican Party didn't come begging for him to switch.
Obviously, the reason maher pumps out idio-outrageous things like this on just about every show is to generate attention. And it usually works. I congratulate him on his "success" (you might use a different word).
But that does not change the fact that the success is achieved by spewing racism. And it stinks just as bad as when anyone else does it.
My exit question: Did Barack Obama return the $1,000,000 maher gave him? The answer to that question says a lot about both men, doesn't it?
Some years ago I was a dues-paying member of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
I joined the SPLC as part of my commitment to fight race hatred - a commitment I feel every bit as deeply today as then.
But, years ago, I left the SPLC, because I felt it had become less an anti-racism organization and more a general-purpose left wing activist group, fighting one side of the problem while ignoring - and therefore tacitly supporting - the other side.
In light of the May Day arrests of the Cuyahoga 5, the Occupy Wall Street–affiliated group of men who planned to blow up a bridge in Cleveland, Ohio, I called the Southern Poverty Law Center to find out of they had any plans to start tracking the Occupy movement. The first person I spoke to was so shocked by the question that she paused for a good 15 seconds before promising to put me in touch with a representative. This she eventually did, however, and after a game of cat-and-mouse — the person she’d found for me was busy “hosting an international conference on right-wing extremism,” natch — we managed to touch base and I to pose the question: “Do you have any plans to start tracking Occupy Wall Street after a hate group tried to blow up a bridge?”
“No, I don’t think so,” he said. “We blogged it right away when it happened.” I asked him why he thought this deserved only a blog post, and he explained that the SPLC only deals with “hatred of people based on class characteristics,” which a little more pushing revealed meant “immutable characteristics such as a person’s eye or skin color.”
“We did go after the eco-terrorists,” he told me. “But that was because they’d adopted the same tactics as the abortion activists: vilification, the use of ‘Wanted’ posters, highlighting the names and whereabouts of people’s children and spouses.” And then he went on a long speech about “anti-abortion extremists” that had very little to do with what I was asking, but no doubt made him feel good. I met this with silence, so he said that, really, the SPLC only tracks those who commit violence or who seek to destroy whole systems in the name of an ideology.
“Isn’t that exactly what happened in Cleveland?” I asked. “These five men, all linked with Occupy Wall Street, attempted to blow up a bridge as an overture to the wholesale destruction of Cleveland, Ohio, and in the name of anarchism. They also looked to blow up the Republican convention.”
“They were anarchists,” he repeated.
“Yes?”
He paused. “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”
Well, at least you can't say the answer tried to hide what SPLC is all about these days.
Still wondering why I no longer belong to this organization? I didn't think so.
Here is the latest in my series on racism: real racism, not the concocted BS so often tossed around by people like al sharpton and his pals, but the real kind..
This one comes to us from yesterday's edition of America Live on Fox News, during a debate between Tucker Carlson and Jehmu Greene.
Tucker Carlson debunks Elizabeth Warren's ludicrous ancestry claim - which she based, in part, on her stereotype of how Indians/native Americans (you decide which term to use) physically look. And Jehmu Greene tells him that “To question this woman on her qualifications is going to be something that does appeal to, to, to folks like you, voters like you, bow-tyin' white boys.” Then, when Carlson admonishes Greene for name-calling, she - incredibly - informs him that "I didn't call you a name".
I wonder what Ms. Greene would have said if a White commentator referred to, say, Trayvon Martin as a "tattoo-wearin' Black boy" - and then said he didn't call Martin a name.
Well, actually I don't wonder. I assume that Jehmu Greene would have gone nuts on the White commentator, angrily called him a racist, and the White commentator would be persona non grata on the network from then on. But I have a feeling Ms. Greene will not have any such problem.
Racist commentary is racist commentary, whether it comes from a White person or a Black person. Jehmu Greene may think a sarcastic, negative reference to Tucker Carlson's skin color is acceptable discourse. But it is clearly, obviously, racist, and demonstrates that, in Ms. Greene's case (and she is far from alone), her racism is so deeply ingrained that she doesn't even realize when she is spewing it.
I would love to say that this is the last example of real racism I will be able to blog about. But we both know that isn't true.
THE OIL SPECULATION OBAMA & CO. WON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT
Ken Berwitz
We've all heard the sayings: What goes around comes around, what goes up must come down, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, if speculators can easily raise the price of oil they can lower it just as easily.....
....well, maybe not that last one. But it is just as true as the others, isn't it?
If you doubt this, read the following excerpts from Patti Domm's article at cnbc.com:
Oil prices were in free fall Friday as worries about a weakening global economy combine with seemingly ample supplies and less fear of a confrontation with Iran.
Traders also point to new margin requirements by the CFTC, announced Thursday. However, those requirements do not go into effect until August, and the bigger factor behind the selling is concerns about a global slowdown.
West Texas crude finsished down nearly 4 percentat $98.49 per barrel, after breaking key technical levels and the psychological $100 mark. WTI has now wiped out all of its gains for the year and is down fractionally for the year and down 6 percent on the week.
...the big driver is the concern that the U.S. economy is not strong enough to withstand a weak European economy and slower growth in China. The disappointing April jobs report Friday, showing just 115,000 nonfarm payrolls were added, was the latest catalyst for a second day of heavy selling.
“We had one positive thing (U.S. ISM manufacturing data) and about 10 negative things, and now it’s all starting to come to a head,” said trader Anthony Grisanti of GRZ Energy. “You can’t just ignore what is going on in the world.”
Remember how Barack Obama and his administration were demonizing "oil speculators" when, believing that oil would be in more demand, they drove the price up? Well, what are Obama & Co. going to do now that the price is tumbling? Demand that the same speculators doing the same thing - i.e. speculating on where the oil market is going - stop in their tracks? I don't think so.
Here, sad to say, is the Democrat game under Barack Obama. And it's not very pretty.
Barring some major, as yet unknown, event, the economy will be the biggest issue of this campaign. And Barack Obama cannot run on his economic record. So it is necessary for Mr. Obama to invent bogeymen, one after the other, and attack them every way possible in the hope that voters will be convinced to worry more about the bogeymen than the economy. In this regard, it is imperative that Mr. Obama have an Accomplice Media, more than happy to join in the fun -- which, to a disquietingly large extent, he does have.
So, over the past months, we have been treated to major attacks on, among others, Karl Rove, and the Koch brothers, and Rush Limbaugh, and, more generally, the so-called "war on women", and Ann Romney's work history, and, more recently, her wardrobe. And, of course, the oil speculators.
Well, unless you're Steven Chu, Mr. Obama's energy secretary, who joins others in this administration in hoping that oil prices skyrocket, you probably are happy about what those speculators are doing this week.
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!! (OR MAYBE NOT)
Ken Berwitz
Congratulations are in order for the Obama administration. The new data have just been released, and unemployment is at 8.1%!!!
Do you realize what this means? It means that unemployment has now dropped back to exactly where it was when President Obama signed the so-called "stimulus package" into law!
Oh, wait.
Now it's coming back to me. Didn't Mr. Obama promise us that the "stimulus package" would stop unemployment in its tracks, and reduce it to 6%, while rejuvenating the economy? And didn't unemployment, instead, go up to 10.2%, then sit in the mid 9% range for over a year, before trickling down to the current 8.1%, which is where it was in the first place? And didn't the "rejuvenated" economy go over $5 trillion dollars more into debt during this period?
Hmmm, maybe congratulations aren't in order after all.
This, of course, is before we get to the fact that the only reason unemployment is anywhere near 8.1% is that the number of people looking for work has dropped to a 30 year low. See, the more people are so discouraged that they don't even bother trying to find work anymore, the smaller the work force is. So the unemployment rate drops - but not for any reason you'd want it to.
Here is the chart showing how job participation has moved over the past 30 years. Please pay special attention to how it has moved since 2009, when Barack Obama took office with his huge Democrat majorities in both houses of congress.
Like I said, may be congratulations aren't in order after all.
Or, put another way......can we move up the 2012 elections? Please?
I always pictured Mariano Rivera retiring at the end of another hugely successful season, with a "day" at Yankee Stadium and all the accolades he so richly deserves, as baseball's greatest closer of all time.
I did not picture him falling the wrong way while shagging flies in the outfield, tearing his anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), and never pitching again.
The incomparable career of New York Yankees closer Mariano Rivera may have ended Thursday night, not on a pitcher's mound but on the warning track at Kauffman Stadium before the game had even begun.
of all time, suffered a torn ACL and a torn meniscus in his right knee after he fell awkwardly to the ground while shagging a fly ball during batting practice before the Yankees' game with the Kansas City Royals.
The 12-time All-Star was lifted by manager Joe Girardi and a coach and placed on a cart, driven off the field, and needed assistance to walk into the clubhouse. Then he was whisked to a nearby hospital for an MRI, which revealed the news.
And when he was asked some four hours after the injury and minutes after the Yankees had lost 4-3 to the Royals if he thought he could come back from the injury, which is likely to require season-ending surgery, Rivera said, "At this point, I don't know. At this point, I don't know.
"Going to have to face this first. It all depends on how the rehab is going to happen, and from there, we'll see."
Is it possible the tear is not as bad as it could have been? That Mr. Rivera might come back before the end of the year - or will decide to try again in 2013? Yes it is. But it is every bit as likely that the tear is just as bad as it seems and, at the age of 42, he will decide to just hang them up.
If so, what an awful way to end a spectacular, unparalleled career . I don't wish this on anyone - especially Mariano Rivera, who, by all accounts, is as terrific a person off the field as he is a pitcher on it.
You know that old saying, "hope for the best, but expect the worst"? That's where I am right now.
A quick note on why I am not yet blogging about blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, who managed, against all odds to get to the American Embassy and may or may not have been rebuffed in an effort to escape China with his family.
Simply stated, the facts of this case, whatever they may be, are still too murky for me to draw any conclusions.
Yes, there is a possibility that, to curry favor with the rulers of this communist hell, Hillary Clinton and others at the embassy may have thrown Chen to the wolves. But we do not know this to be the case.
I certainly have no problem criticizing the Obama administration in general or Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton in particular. But, in this case, I don't yet know enough to determine whether there is anything to attack them about.
I have no doubt that more facts will emerge in the next few days, which may make things clearer. I'll wait to find out what they are before drawing any conclusions, and suggest you do the same.
Why would MSNBC be happy that President Obama gave the order to take out osama bin laden? After all, his organization certainly had good words to say about MSNBC....
Does that sound ridiculous? Well, I agree. But sometimes ridiculous is also true.
As we reported in March, Al Qaeda claimed that Fox News Channel was their least-favorite news outlet, for it “falls into the abyss … and lacks objectivity,” adding that they’d like to see the network “die in her anger.” I’m surprised Fox News hasn’t made promotional commercials based on the laudable distinction of being the terrorist organization’s most-hated network.
In a series of letters released today, an Al Qaeda author revealed himself to be an amateur media critic, saying that MSNBC was “neutral” before some controversial firings:
I used to think that MSNBC channel may be good and neutral a bit, but is has lately fired two of the most famous journalists – Keith Olbermann and Octavia Nasser the Lebanese.
If you want to read the full letter, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: Al Qaeda, media critic.
How proud this must make the folks over at MSNBC....
But wait. I have an idea.
Since MSNBC runs such a poor second to its hated nemesis, Fox News Channel, which has something like 2 1/2 - 3 times as many viewers, and MSNBC would therefore be happy to get additional viewers wherever it can, how about begging keith olbermann to return. He'll probably jump at the chance, since about the only thing left for him right now is becoming a vacation replacement on Sesame Street for Oscar the Grouch.
Then MSNBC can do a promotional campaign aimed at al-qaeda cells around the world, telling them that watching the network would be a tribute to their fallen leader.
Y'know, that idea is so crazy it just might work.........
You would think that an organization calling itself the National Organization for Women would actually give a damn about women, wouldn't you?
Yesterday I blogged again, as I have for years, about the grotesque treatment afforded countless millions of women around the world, who are under the thumb of radical shari'a law Islam. I pointed out that NOW, and other organizations like it, are left wing front groups which could not care less about these women, as demonstrated by the fact that, other than a few general CYA pronouncements every now and again, they never mobilize to do or say a thing on behalf of these women.
But this is not to say that NOW and its kindred pals do not mobilize about something. Let me show you what is important to them, via the following excerpts from Caroline May's piece at dailycaller.com:
“Start listening to Rush Limbaugh.” That was the unexpected message representatives from Media Matters for America and the National Organization for Women delivered to NOW chapter leaders in a secret, narrowly focused strategy session Wednesday night.
In audio of the NOW/MMFA strategy webinar obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, the liberal organizations plotted the best ways to get the radio giant and veritable burr in their collective saddles off the air.
The key, according to Media Matters online outreach director Jay Carmona, is to target Limbaugh at the local level — specifically advertisers in local radio markets — but with an eye on his national sponsors.
“I will say, just going by the numbers, getting local stations to drop Limbaugh is actually a hard, more long-term campaign than just looking at getting local sponsors to drop,” she explained, adding that they do not need to get the conservative talker off every local station to make an impact.
The strategy session focused on NOW chapters’ ability to focus on local advertisers, who buy time from broadcast affiliates rather than from Limbaugh’s carrier, Clear Channel, because “most local station affiliates make the bulk of their profit off of these local advertising dollars, so targeting your local advertisers really is how you get those local stations to drop Rush. And that is what you’re aiming for.”
Call participants also heard that targeting national advertisers can also be effective, but that the result won’t impact the local stations as much as Clear Channel itself.
As left wing partisans, mediamatters.org and NOW depise Rush Limbaugh. That is because he is an unrepentant conservative who exposes their actions and ridicules them - especially NOW, which he calls NAG: "the National Association of Gals".
And there is also the fact that Limbaugh used the word "slut" to describe Sandra Fluke, the 23 year old struggling law school student, barely (bad pun there) able to afford the necessary $1,000+ per year women need for contraception --who turned out to be a 30 year old career left wing activist getting a $59,000 a year education, with a rich boyfriend who takes her on international trips, claiming not to know she could buy oral contraceptives at the local Walmart for $9 a month. That made Limbaugh completely intolerable to them.
Therefore, instead of exercising their free choice and simply turning the radio dial to a different station, NOW has joined the sorosian mediamatters.org in an all-out effort to remove Limbaugh from the airwaves, so you don't have a choice.
Meanwhile, women under the thumb of radical Islam - which is to say women all over the world, very much including the United States of America - continue to be treated as nothing other than housemaids and sperm repositories, completely subjugated, beaten at will, even subject to being killed if they dare try to live their own lives, because doing so would dishonor their families. And NOW could not care less. It is too busy trying to censor Rush Limbaugh so you can't decide whether to listen to his show.
So please do not tell me that NOW, and organizations like it, care about women. They don't. They care only about left wing women, and women who can be manipulated to vote for left wing candidates and/or causes. The end.
If you are not one of those women, you don't mean a thing to them.
THE BRENNAN INSTITUTE WON'T FIND ANY ILLEGAL MONEY HERE EITHER
Ken Berwitz
It has been weeks, so I assume most of us are through laughing at the preposterous claim by the Brennan Institute for Social Justice (aka The Soros Institute for Foisting BS on the Public) that there is barely any voter fraud in the United States -- when, in reality, if voters do not have to produce a valid ID, there is no way in the world for anyone to check.
So I thought I'd keep the yuks coming, by suggesting that the Brennan Institute now verify that campaign contributions to the Obama campaign are all legal. Because, for exactly the same reason, they're going to find that virtually every penny is on the up and up.
It has been reported that the Obama campaign this year, as in 2008, has disabled or chosen not to use AVS in screening contributions made by credit card.
That doesn’t sound very important. But it’s evidence of a modus operandi that strikes me as thuggish.
AVS stands for Address Verification System. It’s the software that checks whether the name of the cardholder matches his or her address.
If a campaign doesn’t use AVS, it can wind up accepting contributions from phony names or accepting contributions from foreigners, both of which are illegal.
The 2008 Obama campaign pocketed money from “John Galt, 1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch CO 99999” and $174,000 from a woman in Missouri who told reporters she had given nothing and had never been billed. Presumably she would have noticed an extra charge of $174,000.
The Obama campaign is evidently happy to pocket the money. After all, this is the president who, according to political scientist Brendan Doherty, has appeared at more fundraisers in three and a half years than his six predecessors did in 35 years.
In the 2008 campaign cycle, he promised to take public financing for the general election. He broke that promise when it became apparent that he could raise far more money on his own.
During much of this cycle, he’s been criticizing Republican super PACs as a perversion of the political process. But when he saw that Republicans might be able to raise as much money as Democrats, he broke that promise too and authorized cabinet members to appear at fundraisers for the super PAC headed by his former deputy press secretary.
This, coupled with a propensity to make jokes about siccing the Internal Revenue Service on people, looks like an attempt to chill opposition political speech. Especially when there are reports that tea-party organizations are getting hassled by the IRS.
See what I mean? All you have to do is eliminate any means of checking the legality of contributions, and you're home free: a fact that obviously is not lost on Mr. Obama.
So I say to President Obama, good job! Well done! Have them bring on The Brennan! Get that clean bill of health!. You'll be an even bigger hero to members of the Democrat machine all over Chicago, who will be watching with amazement and admiration! (And psssst: if a few extra bucks happen to fall off the truck, don't forget to pick up a couple of those L'Wren Scott cardigans for Michelle. At $2,000+ a pop they're quite a buy...wink wink.)
THE WAR AGAINST WOMEN THAT "WOMEN'S GROUPS" WILL NOT FIGHT
Ken Berwitz
Do NOW, and other so-called "Women's Groups", actually give a damn about fighting the "war on women"?
Here's your answer: while we endure their whining complaints that if female college students have to pay for some part of their contraceptive needs, or one particular woman is expected to substantiate her supposed "native American" background, it is somehow an attack on all womanhood, we hear not one word about this - excerpted from Diana Markosian's article at the Washington Times:
ACHXOY-MARTAN, Chechnya — Chechnya's government is openly approving of families that kill female relatives who violate their sense of honor, as this Russian republic embraces a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam after decades of religious suppression under Soviet rule.
In the past five years, the bodies of dozens of young Chechen women have been found dumped in woods, abandoned in alleys and left along roads in the capital, Grozny, and neighboring villages.
Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov publicly announced that the dead women had “loose morals” and were rightfully shot by male relatives. He went on to describe women as the property of their husbands, and said their main role is to bear children.
“If a woman runs around and if a man runs around with her, both of them should be killed,” said Mr. Kadyrov, who often has stated his goal of making Chechnya “more Islamic than the Islamists.”
In today’s Chechnya, alcohol is all but banned, Islamic dress codes are enforced and polygamous marriages are supported by the government.
Though observers agree that honor killings are on the rise in Chechnya, the issue remains largely taboo among locals — making official statistics hard to come by.
“You hear about these cases almost every day,” said a local human rights defender, who asked that her name not be used out of fear for her safety. “It is hard for me to investigate this topic, yet I worked on it with [human rights activist] Natasha [Estemirova] for a while. But, I can’t anymore. I am too scared now. I’ve almost given up, really.”
Estemirova, who angered Chechen authorities with reports of torture, abductions and extrajudicial killings, was found in the woods in 2009 in the neighboring region of Ingushetia with gunshot wounds to the head and chest. Her killer or killers have not been found.
As one commenter correctly notes:
"This isn't anything new, there are 500+ million Islamic women living in bondage, under threat of their lives JUST FOR BEING WOMEN. What's despicable is organizations like NOW's complete silence on the issue, just because opposition would be viewed as supporting a conservative position. Instead, NOW prefers to savage and tear down women who stay home to raise children. The brave Islamic women like Hirsi Ali who buck the system at the threat of their lives have NO support from women's groups in the US and EU, just the opposite. These groups also attack the Ali's of the world, and defend Islam's subjugation of women as 'cultural differences'. If NOW had any credibility to begin with, it'd be a stunning abdication of their charter."
You might, at this point, be asking yourself "How come, if NOW and all those other supposed women's groups are so hot to stand up and be counted in the war against women, they do not continually attack, and picket the embassies of every Muslim country, or territory within a country, where women are treated this way?" If so, you are asking an excellent question.
How come they are not picketing the embassies of Egypt and Libya where, in no small part due to the actions of President Obama, shari'a law is taking over and women are losing even the most basic freedoms. Or Pakistan. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Iran. Or....you can recite this litany as well as I can.
If it is worth fighting a "war against women" so that Sandra Fluke can have Adam "cutey pants" Mutterperl and who knows who else screw her brains out while we pay for the condoms, maybe it would be worth fighting for women to be able to have relationships with men free of the fear that they will be killed by their own families - within the law. Or to simply be alone with a man even if there is no relationship at all - which is also cause for honor killings in some countries. Or to be able to choose their husbands. Or to be able to seek legal recourse if their husbands beat them. Or to be able to divorce their husbands. Or to simply to get an education, or drive a car, or to wear something other than a burqa, hijab and niqab, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
But that, of course is just a pipe dream. It has no basis in reality. As we all know, the "war against women" has nothing to do with any of this. Just ask those dedicated keepers of the flame at NOW or other such groups. Their interest is left wing politics. Who cares about women actually being subjugated?
So you'll pardon me if I am a bit less than taken with their whining complaints about things that would cause women under the thumb of radical Islam to unbelievingly shake their heads and roll their eyes about.
Whenever this bunch of pseudo warriors wants to do battle against the real war against women, let me know, and I'll stand with them. Until then, in the immortal words of the guys on 86th St,. in Bensonhurst, "Fuggedaboudit".
You may find this a bit hard to believe....but I assure you it is real.
The Obama-Biden campaign has decided that women will flock to their side if they promise to .... give them things.
So the campaign has created a fictional person named "Julia" and shows what government will give her (which, of course, that meanspirited Mitt Romney won't) from the age of 3 to her retirement at age 67. Not surprisingly, it is laden with positive assumptions about what will happen because of Mr. Obama and negative assumptions about what will happen because of Mr. Romney.
What you have just seen is , of course, completely absurd. Even if every assumption were correct (which is about as far into fantasyland as you will ever get), Barack Obama will be President for a maximum of 8 years. But the life of "Julia" is supposedly informed by Mr. Obama's policies from the age of 3 to the age of 67. Does anyone in his/her right mind believe what Mr. Obama proposes now will be in place for the next 64 years?
The slide show follows an apparently unparented Julia who is enrolled in Head Start, gets free contraceptives while she works as a 20-something web designer, has one child, retires around age 65 and finally volunteers in a community garden.
“That’s their dream for women?” asked Wendy Wright, a social conservative leader and acting director of the conservative Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute. “That she be alone, without family, struggling as a single parent, dependent on a government that is going broke?”
“This is not the American dream,” Wright told The Daily Caller. “It’s creepy. … It’s what China promises its people.”
“The fact that President Obama’s campaign has to create fake people to distract from how his abysmal policies have failed real people is sad and extremely pathetic,” added Ryan Williams, a spokesman for the Romney campaign.
Yep.
Hey, I just had a thought: maybe "Julia" is that composite girlfriend from Barack Obama's book, "Dreams From My Father", that he just, this week, admitted never existed.
Too bad she isn't real. If she was, maybe she could tell us about all the other things in Mr. Obama's book that were just as nonexistent. I bet she'd be talking for hours and hours......
Is this the beginning of the end for disgraceful toady and Obama sock-puppet eric holder?
We can only hope.
Excerpted from the latest article by Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News, one of the very few major media "investigative reporters" doing any investigating at all into Operation Fast and Furious - which is one of the main reason (but far from the only one) holder should have been dumped a long time ago:
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee were to take the first formal step Thursday toward contempt proceedings against Attorney General Eric Holder over the Fast and Furious "gunwalking" operation, CBS News has learned.
The case for a citation declaring Holder in contempt will be laid out in a briefing paper and 48-page draft citation distributed to Democrats and Republicans on the committee. CBS News has obtained copies of both documents. In them, Republican members use strong language to accuse Holder of obstructing the committee's investigation, which is now in its second year.
The documents allege that the Justice Department has issued, "false denials, given answers intended to misdirect investigators, sought to intimidate witnesses, unlawfully withheld subpoenaed documents, and waited to be confronted with indisputable evidence before acknowledging uncomfortable facts."
I thank Ms. Attkisson for her report -- though I must say that I resent having to do so. The reason for my resentment is that, since neither NBC nor ABC have never done even one story on Operation Fast and Furious, Ms. Attkisson's reports, instead of being one of many, stand out like Monterey, California's lone cypress**.
Maybe this contempt proceeding will finally force NBC and ABC, kicking and screaming, to tell their viewers about it.
As Mona Lisa Vito would say, "Omigod!! What a effin' nightmare!!!"
**About that "lone cypress" reference: the cynical part of me has always wondered how many other baby cypress trees in the immediate area were pulled out so that this one cypress would remain a tourist attraction (let's face it, "the bunch of cypress trees over there" just doesn't have the same cachet). Similarly, I wonder how many investigative reporters other than Sharyl Attkisson have wanted to write about the huge, horrific Operation Fast and Furious scandal, but were told to back off.
No wonder Lawrence O'Donnell has a show on MSNBC. He is a far left partisan, happy to bash Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, at every turn while looking the other way on behalf of Democrats, especially left wing Democrats.
Unemployment is stubbornly high, mountains of debt are burying the nation, and gas prices appear to be bringing the tepid economic recovery to a halt.
Yet MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Wednesday actually spent five minutes bashing Ann Romney for wearing a $990 shirt on television
"Yet another example of how out of touch the Romney family can be with how 99 percent of Americans live.”
Fortunately, guest Meghan McCain provided some sanity saying, “We have a first lady who wears $600 tennis shoes. She has custom designer clothes as well.”
Last month at the Kids’ Choice Awards, Michelle Obama wore an outfit designed by New York-based, uber-expensive designer, Wes Gordon. His clothing commands prices in the thousands of dollars and can only be found in the elite stores of the super wealthy. If you enjoy spending more than $4,000 on a pair of shorts…yes that is three zeroes after the comma…then you might like this little jacket from one of Michelle Obama’s favorite designers. It’s a steal for only $2,250.
The reality is that if the Obamas were Republicans selling the nation on the idea that they inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, the first lady would be regularly lambasted by the press for the expensive clothing and vacations she spends money on.
But because they’re beloved Democrats, they can spend whatever they want ON whatever they want in the knowledge that nobody in the press will bat an eye other than to praise Michelle's good fashion sense.
Point very well taken, Noel. But wait, there is even more.
And what about the fact that, as newsbusters.org's Tim Graham pointed out in January, O'Donnell himself has a bit of a clothing issue. Would you say his $88 socks and $525 shoes make those complaints about Ann Romney's shirt a tad hypocritical?
But none of this matters, of course. Lawrence O'Donnell bloviates for MSNBC, where far left hypocrisy not only is tolerated, it is celebrated. For all I know the on-air "talent" get bonuses for it.
If so, Mr. O'Donnell will be able to afford a lot more pairs of those socks and shoes. He's certainly earned them.
THE DEFINITIVE TRAYVON MARTIN/GEORGE ZIMMERMAN STORY
Ken Berwitz
I have just read the single best piece on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident I have ever seen. By far.
Written by Scott Swett, and posted at www.americanthinker.com., it explains chapter and verse of how this incident has intentionally been built into a defining moment in race relations by a combination of race hustlers and compliant media.
I urge you in strongest terms to use this linkand read Mr. Swett's entire commentary. It is nothing short of brilliant. But meanwhile, here is just a small part of his analysis:
Narrative
The Trayvon narrative can be summarized as follows: a black child was walking innocently through a gated community after buying some candy at a store, when a white racist stalked and murdered him for no reason but his color. The police, who are also racists, let the white man go free.
This narrative is similar to those used in previous racial disinformation campaigns:
1987 - White racists have raped a young black girl and left her in a trash bag.
1996 - White racists are burning down black churches across the South.
2005 - White racists at DukeUniversity have raped a black woman.
Like the Trayvon narrative, the earlier narratives were untrue. However, they remain widely believed as a result of the massive media coverage used to bring them to national attention.
Theme
All the racial narratives have the same underlying theme: black people are constantly oppressed and endangered by white racism, which is a central feature of American life. This claim is constantly repeated by political agitators, making use of any event that becomes available.
(Actual statistics on violent crime tell a different story: blacks in America assault and murder whites at a far higher rate than the reverse, and the overwhelming majority of violent acts against blacks -- 93% -- are committed by other blacks. These facts are rarely mentioned by the media.)
Martin was presented as a young boy who could not have posed a physical threat to Zimmerman, by showing photos taken when Martin was around 12 years old.
Martin was repeatedly described as a "model student."
Little or no mention was made of the recent wave of burglaries in the area, making it seem that Zimmerman had no legitimate reason to suspect or follow Martin.
Zimmerman was reported to outweigh Martin by 100 pounds. According to a friend, Zimmerman is 5'8" and weighs 170. Martin was about 6'2" and 160.
Zimmerman was reported as having ignored an "official order" from a police dispatcher to stop following Martin. In fact, the operator merely said, "You don't need to do that" -- after which Zimmerman replied, "Okay" and apparently returned to his truck. Even if the operator had instructed Zimmerman to stop, Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to comply.
The media emphasized that Martin had been killed in a "gated community," creating the false impression that the area was an upper-class white enclave, when the neighborhood is actually middle-class and split evenly between white and minority residents.
Zimmerman was presented as an angry racist, with no mention of his tutoring of black children or his efforts to have white police officers disciplined for beating a black man.
The media pretended that Zimmerman was white for several days and then coined the new term "white Hispanic" purely to prop up the organizers' argument that whites as a group were to blame for Martin's death. More than any other aspect of their coverage, this tactic shows the depth of the media's commitment to the disinformation campaign.
And, yes, the rest of it is just as factual and just as devastating.
Later on, Mr. Swett suggests that the race baiting lowlifes pushing this narrative do not want the case to go to trial, because, with copious help from our shameless media, their side of things has been deeply ingrained the the public's mind, and a trial would provide facts which debunk what they have been told.
This story is far from over. But, sad to say, very few people have any idea of what is really going on. Read Mr. Swett's piece and you will be one of them.
Recently the news has been full of fighting by Democrats and Republicans over things like the invented "war on women", President Obama's unseemly gloatfest over bin laden (and preposterous claim that Mitt Romney wouldn't have given the same order), etc. etc. etc.
But it is a near certainty that none of these things will be driving the 2012 election. Nope, this election is going to be won or lost on the economy.
For the past several months, when it looked like the economy was finally coming back, Barack Obama was increasingly operating from a position of strength. Never mind that the unemployment rate was coming down to where is was when Mr. Obama took office in the first place - which means that we went $5 trillion dollars more in debt and got three years of higher unemployment to show for it. Never mind that there are fewer jobs now then there were at the beginning of this administration, with millions fewer people looking for work because they can't find any. Never mind all those consecutive months with 400,000 or more new unemployment claims. The economy was getting better, wasn't it?
Well not anymore. Now we are seeing that even the weak turnaround of the past half year or so may be going away.
-Growth has regressed from 3.0% - pretty anemic given the fact that it is coming back from a big downturn - to an even more than anemic 2.2%.
-Private sector job growth for April was a minuscule 119,000 - not even enough to keep up with population growth;
-Manufacturing jobs actually dropped 5,000;
-And while the government's new unemployment figures have not yet been released, we have this from Gallup:
Applying the government's seasonal correction factor from April 2011 (+0.3 points) to the current mid-April data yields a seasonally adjusted estimate of 8.5% unemployment, up from March. This is much higher than the 7.9% seasonally adjusted monthly low for Gallup's U.S. unemployment rate, seen in January of this year. If it holds, it could also indicate a significant reversal in the recent downward trend of the government's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate.
Add in the cost of gasoline at the pump, which currently is more than double what it was when Mr. Obama took office. Sprinkle, er, liberally with the quotes from Mr. Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and other administration appointees about how wonderful higher gas prices would be,. Season further with the large, and growing, number of bankruptcies for so-called "Green" companies - which a) are being covered by taxpayer dollars and b) almost always had big Obama donors as investors and/or owners. What do you have?
You certainly don't have anything this administration can run on. Which is why Obama & Co., along with its Accomplice Media, are working so hard to divert our attention with a phony war on women, the bin laden victory dance, and anything else it can come up with.
Look I hope you join me in rooting for our economy to go uphill, not downhill. Barack Obama's defeat is less important to me than the overall well being of the productive citizens of this country. But let's keep in mind that, if we get that "double-dip" recession - which seems more likely by the day - that is the issue which most likely will decide the 2012 elections for President, and also for congress. And a bad economy will have an enormously negative impact on Barack Obama's chances.
.....today Newt Gingrich announced the suspension of the campaign he suspended last week but didn't announce the suspension of until today because no one knows why.
Like Elizabeth Warren, this is another example of a very smart person doing something very dumb.
Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, fending off questions about whether she used her Native American heritage to advance her career, said today she enrolled herself as a minority in law school directories for nearly a decade because she hoped to meet other people with tribal roots.
“I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren.
“The only one as I understand it who’s raising any question about whether or not I was qualified for my job is Scott Brown and I think I am qualified and frankly I’m a little shocked to hear anybody raise a question about whether or not I’m qualified to hold a job teaching,” she said, pushing to put Brown on defense. “What does he think it takes for a woman to be qualified?”
Note to Elizabeth Warren: Didn't your mommy ever tell you that when you're digging yourself a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging?
For the better (or, if you ask her, the worse) part of a week, Ms. Warren has been trying, unsuccessfully, to get past the apparently bogus claim that she is a "native American" (unless you consider one great-great-great grandmother's possible Cherokee roots to be a credible rationale, that is). During this time she has come across as dodgy and dishonest.
So what has Ms. Warren done about it? She has regressed to the last refuge of the female scoundrel: whining that she is being picked on because she is a woman - which has exactly zero relevance to this issue.
Is that smart? I think not.
Wouldn't the smart thing be to change the subject in a meaningful way? To tell voters that there are issues far more important than ancestry in this senate race, and that she has the solutions which would make a positive difference for the people of Massachusetts?
Well, not to Elizabeth Warren. Her brainstorm is to keep the ancestry narrative right there on the front burner by continuing to talk about it - and doubling down on the oppressed female ploy by whining that if Scott Brown dares to challenge her obviously questionable claim to native American ancestry, it is somehow an affront to all womanhood.
Is that smart?
Tell you what: I don't teach at Harvard. And, academically, I struggled to get my undergraduate degree from Queens College, City of New York. But to my educationally inferior mind, Elizabeth Warren's reaction to the native American issue is not smart at all. To me it is dumb. Dumb as excrement (a word we used in somewhat shortened form at Queens College as, I suspect they also do at Harvard).
I wonder when, if ever, this smart person will wise up.
INDIANAPOLIS - Congressman Dan Burton (R – Ind) is frustrated – very frustrated – after learning the details of an Eyewitness News investigation.
"Why in the world are we doing this?" he asked. "Are you kidding me? The cost to the American tax payer is huge!"
The veteran lawmaker is responding to what 13 Investigates discovered all across Indiana: illegal immigrants getting big tax refunds from the Internal Revenue Service thanks to a loophole in federal law.
The loophole allows undocumented workers to collect what's called an additional child tax credit. The credit – up to $1,000 per child – can be claimed even by families who pay nothing in taxes, in many cases resulting in a cash payment from the IRS. It is intended for working families with children who live in the same home.
But a local tax preparer came to Eyewitness News to blow the whistle on millions of people who, he believes, are taking advantage of the system. He says many illegal immigrants are claiming the tax credit for children who've never lived in this country, and he showed 13 Investigates dozens of redacted tax returns to prove his point.
"There is not a doubt in my mind there is huge fraud taking place here," said the whistleblower, who asked not to be identified for fear of reprisal. "I can bring out stacks and stacks. It's just so easy it's ridiculous."
An undocumented worker in southern Indiana told 13 Investigates just how easy it truly is.
He said four other illegal immigrants file tax returns using his address, even though none of them actually lives there. And he said this year, those four workers filed tax returns claiming 20 children live inside his small trailer home. As a result, the IRS sent the illegal immigrants tax refunds totaling more than $29,000.
But none of the 20 children listed as dependents on the tax returns lives in Indiana – or even in the United States.
"No, they don't live here," admitted the undocumented worker, who lives with his young daughter. "The other kids are in their country of origin, which is Mexico."
The IRS granted tax credits for the 20 children anyway, even though the agency's own policy states they are not eligible. (Children are eligible for additional child tax credits only if they are US citizens or minor resident aliens who live in the US with a tax filer for more than half of a calendar year.)
According to WTHR's whistleblower, cases like this one are commonplace because the IRS does little to verify the eligibility of both the undocumented workers filing for additional child tax credits and the dependents listed on their tax returns.
Eyewitness News obtained US Treasury Department audit reports that show illegal immigrants now get additional child tax credits totaling $4.2 billion dollars each year. The department's Inspector General for Tax Administration has repeatedly warned the IRS that undocumented workers are abusing the additional child tax credit.
Congress may be voting on a budget measure in the coming weeks, and a budget reconciliation package now being considered in the House of Representatives contains language that would limit additional child tax credits to US citizens with a valid social security number. If you feel strongly about this issue – one way or another – now is a good time to let your lawmakers know.
Can this be true? Is Uncle Sap really paying out over 4 billion dollars of taxpayer money to illegal aliens, much of it to care for children who don't even live in the United States?
If Mr. Segall has it right, this scam is outrageous beyond belief.
It is bad enough that, in this depressed economy, illegals are taking jobs from legals (anyone who thinks illegals take only "the jobs legals won't do" had better look at Alabama's unemployment rate, which dropped from 9.2% to 7.2% in one year, after the state passed tough new immigration laws). Do taxpayers have to subsidize their families where they are legal as well?
Less than two weeks ago, Mitt Romney brought in seasoned, talented Richard Grenell as his spokesperson for foreign policy issues. But now, after this choice was repeatedly attacked by some (happily not all) of the Republican Party's conservative wing, Mr. Grenell has resigned.
Here is his explanation:
"I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign as the Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman. While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign. I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team."
Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades offered this reaction:
“We are disappointed that Ric decided to resign from the campaign for his own personal reasons. We wanted him to stay because he had superior qualifications for the position he was hired to fill.”
And, according to Jennifer Rubin, who writes the Washington Post's "Right Turn" blog:
Right Turn has learned from multiple sources that the senior officials from the Romney campaign and respected Republicans not on the campaign contacted Ric Grenell over the weekend in an attempt to persuade him not to leave the campaign.
It should also be noted that a number of bloggers on both the right and the left seem to think that the real reason Grenell left is that, when the attacks came, Romney & Co. did not give him enough support.
I have no way of knowing for sure whether Mitt Romney did or did not support Mr. Grenell strongly enough - though it is hard to imagine he would let Grenell twist in the wind, given that Grenell's sexual orientation was certainly known to Romney when he was hired. But for the same reason - i.e. I have no way of knowing for sure - I can't discount it either.
I certainly hope not.
Shame and double shame on the intolerant, ignorant, mindless clowns who forced Richard Grenell out.
What do you do when, after months and months of proclaiming you are the 99%, you are ignored by 99%?
Evidently, you get angry and you lash out.
This is the "Occupy Seattle" crowd busy making friends and influencing people yesterday.
The good news is that, according to the foxnews.com article, only two dozen or so of the hundreds of protesters turned violent.
The bad news is that, in a town of over 600,000 people within a metro area of almost 3,500,000 people - noted for its leftward politics - the "Occupy" movement could dredge up just a couple of hundred protesters.
And in New York City, where the "Occupy" anarchists promised to shut everything down? With a population of over 8,000,000, within a metro area of almost 19,000,000, there were maybe a few thousand prosters, if that many. There literally were more baseball fans in the lower deck of Yankee Stadium last night than there were protesters throughout the entire city. And by plenty.
I'll tell you something else that is missing: The enthusiastic support "Occupy" protesters got from people like President Barack “The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side..." Obama, Nancy "God Bless Them" Pelosi, and their Democrat cohorts. Funny how those ringing endorsements somehow have been consigned to the nearest dumpster.
Hey, here's an idea: Maybe President Obama can send some of the thugs in the picture above to Afghanistan, to get rid of what is left of the violent taliban crowd, leaving only those friendly "conciliatory" folks Mr. Obama waxed so poetic about in yesterday's speech - before he hightailed it the #&%@ out of there just ahead of the taliban bombing that killed at least 7 people......
Do you consider the taliban a friendly group of friendly, conciliatory folks who we, as a country, should embrace, consort with and accommodate?
Or do you consider the taliban a group of fundamentalist Islamic lunatics who demand that all people adhere to their take-no-prisoners beliefs or die - not to mention being the ones who, when running Afghanistan before President Bush blew them away, enthusiastically welcomed osama bin laden to their country, considered him a valued guest, and allowed him to open and operate the al qaeda training camps which, among other things, spawned 9/11?
It was here, in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden established a safe-haven for his terrorist organization. It was here, in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda brought new recruits, trained them, and plotted acts of terror. It was here, from within these borders, that al Qaeda launched the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children.
And so, ten years ago, the United States and our allies went to war to make sure that al Qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us. Despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. In 2002, bin Laden and his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe-havens in Pakistan. America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in Iraq. And al Qaeda’s extremist allies within the Taliban have waged a brutal insurgency.
But over the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban’s momentum. We’ve built strong Afghan Security Forces. We devastated al Qaeda’s leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. The goal that I set – to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild – is within reach.
...we are pursuing a negotiated peace. In coordination with the Afghan government, my Administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban – from foot soldiers to leaders – have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before them. Those who refuse to walk it will face strong Afghan Security Forces, backed by the United States and our allies.
Amazing.
Just when you thought Mr. Obama had hit the limits of hubris, with his clumsy, roundly-criticized attempt to usurp the glory of taking out osama bin laden from the Bush administration, which implemented techniques to find him that Mr. Obama was 100% against and would never have used, and the Navy SEALs, who actually went into the compound and assassinated him.....we have this.
Please recall that President Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, and in a matter of weeks the taliban was out of power and the al qaeda training camps were a bitter memory. But, in the rarefied world of our lord and savior, Barack Obama, the tide turned just three years ago -- when he became President. Yep, that's when it happened, all right. Just ask him.
And now, three years later, it is a great idea to strike a deal with those same taliban, because, unlike before, they are "conciliatory" and willing to do all the good things we think they should do. Honest. Heck, they said they would, didn't they?
The fact that we have lost far more of our brave military men and women in the 3 years since President Obama took office than in the 7 years President Bush successfully kept the taliban at bay, and the fact that - despite his BS - the taliban is stronger now than when President Obama took office? Mere trifles, not worth discussing.
And then we have this, excerpted from an article at Reuters (and countless other sources):
Suicide bombers attacked a compound housing Westerners in Kabul on Wednesday hours after U.S. President Barack Obama signed a security pact during a short visit to a city that remains vulnerable to a resilient insurgency.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack which involved a car bomb and insurgents disguised as women on the eastern outskirts of the capital, killing seven people, a Gurkha guard and six passers-by, and wounding 17.
The Taliban said it was in response to Obama's visit and to the strategic partnership deal he signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a pact that sets out a long-term U.S. role after most foreign combat troops leave by the end of 2014.
I guess that must have been the non-conciliatory wing of the Taliban -- or, as most of us understand, the 99.99999% segment.
Other than jimmy carter, I do not recall a more naive, more bungling, more disastrous President than Barack Obama - or one who was more full-of-himself.
Earlier today, while writing about Elizabeth Warren's claim to be a native American, I made a reference to the long-form birth certificate President Obama foisted on us last year. I did not expect a comment about it, but I did get one from "Ellen", which reads as follows:
Ellen Obama showed the birth certificate of Hawaii twice, both the short form and the long form. He showed both images of the document and the actual physical copies to the press. Oh, and the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the accuracy of the facts on the birth certificate, and the fact that Obama had a birth certificate issued in 1961 is further confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers that year, which in those days were only sent to the Hawaii papers by the Hawaii DOH--and which only sent out birth notices for births IN Hawaii. IN CONTRAST, not one of the Republican candidates for president or the former Republican candidates for president, or George Bush, or his father, or Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, ever showed his birth certificate. (Eisenhower apparently did, but other presidents and most candidates did not) (05/01/12)
In fairness to Ellen, and to me, I feel this deserves a response. So here it is -- with Ellen's points in rust and mine in blue.
Ellen Obama showed the birth certificate of Hawaii twice, both the short form and the long form. The short form was a Certification of Live Birth, not a birth certificate.And the so-called long form has been debunked so many times by so many different sources on the internet that I’ve lost count.
He showed both images of the document and the actual physical copies to the press. And the press promptly accepted them unquestioningly.Tell the truth – have you ever seen even one account in major media of a network, or newspaper, or individual investigative reporter, actually having experts look the long-form certificate over and detail their findings?My bet is that, like me, all you have seen is anger and ridicule aimed at anyone who dared to point out that the document was clearly layered – which, based on what I have read from numerous sources, can be done by just about anyone conversant in PDF files without breaking a sweat.
Oh, and the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the accuracy of the facts on the birth certificate,Wrong, wrong, wrong.There were two statements by Hawaii’s Director of the Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukina.Here is the first:
"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record"
"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures"
Then, 8 months later, when it had become clear that no one was going to be allowed to scrutinize the document, Dr. Fukina had this to say:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago ... “
Notice the difference?The first statement does not in any way validate Mr. Obama’s claims, it only states that Hawaii has his original birth certificate.The second – only after waiting 8 months to be sure that no one would take a look-see – suddenly makes a seemingly definitive comment about what the birth certificate says.If that doesn’t make you suspicious, I give up.
and the fact that Obama had a birth certificate issued in 1961 is further confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers that year, which in those days were only sent to the Hawaii papers by the Hawaii DOH--and which only sent out birth notices for births IN Hawaii. At first glance that seems very convincing --- until you actually check and find out a) how those records were collected in 1961, b) how the newspapers got them and c) the thoroughly dubious claim of where Barack Obama’s parents lived at the time.This is far too long to put up on my blog, so I will reference Jerome R. Corsi’s devastating essay on this subject, which makes absolute mincemeat of the Obama claims. You can read it by clicking here.Please, please do so, and satisfy yourself.
IN CONTRAST, not one of the Republican candidates for president or the former Republican candidates for president, or George Bush, or his father, or Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, ever showed his birth certificate. (Eisenhower apparently did, but other presidents and most candidates did not).If they didn’t (I'll take your word for it), the reason would most likely have been that they had been public figures for many years and their roots were already well known. But when questions arose about John McCain's citizenship status, every nook and cranny was checked thoroughly. Let's put it this way: if any of these Presidents had been asked for proof of their birth and refused to provide it – as Barack Obama did for years and at great legal expense, until coming up with this patently fraudulent “long-form” farce - you’d have a point. But that did not happen.
Ellen, let me leave you with something I wrote about the birth certificate issue last year (April 27, 2011), just after Dr. Fukina’s second statement:
Based on this new statement, I no longer believe there is any value to seeing Barack Obama's original birth certificate. Because as sure as you stand there, the document Dr. Fukino produces will say exactly what she is now claiming.
Having seen the “long form” certificate Obama’s people produced….I rest my case.
Ben Shapiro, writing for www.breitbart.com, just put up the following blog, which obviously is too short to excerpt (sorry Ben, feel free to lift anything from me you care to).
Take a look and get a sense of just how self-important Barack Obama really is:
Last night, President Obama’s campaign Twitter feed posted the following tweet:
In other words, there are no red or blue states … just the Obama States. You have to love the narcissism of a president who posts a picture of himself at the center of America, presenting himself as greater than the country, all of which is united under his hopey-changey administration.
This is 1984-type stuff. This is the most polarizing president in American history, and he's busy telling us that we're all united under his auspices. War is peace. Poverty is wealth. Polarization is unity. United States is Barack States.
Add to this the "Ta-da, I killed osama bin laden, aren't I great" ad, which takes about 99.999% of the glory for assassinating bin laden and leaves the rest for the Navy SEALs who actually went into the compound and did it. Then remember back to his acceptance speech at the Democrat convention in Denver, with that unbelievably gaudy backdrop of phony Greek columns, and you have the measure of the man.
I wonder how much credit Barack Obama takes for creating the world --- or is it just that God did it, but not that well, and Mr. Obama could have finished the job in 4 or 5 days.....
SAY AAARRRGGGHHHH THAT HURTS!!!!!!!! OK, NOW RINSE
Ken Berwitz
Here, friends, is a "you can't make this stuff up" classic, straight from Poland - where men are men, and angry female dentists are....well, read the following excerpts from Eric Pfeiffer's story at yahoo.com and find out for yourself:
A Polish woman is facing three years in prison after she removed all of her ex-boyfriend's teeth during dental surgery just days after their breakup.
"I tried to be professional and detach myself from my emotions," Anna Mackowiak, 34, told the Austrian Times. "But when I saw him lying there I just thought, 'What a bastard' and decided to take all his teeth out."
Marek Olszewski, 45, reportedly showed up at Mackowiak's dental office complaining of toothache just days after he broke up with her. She then allegedly gave him a "heavy dose" of anesthetic, locked the door and began removing all of his teeth one at a time.
"I knew something was wrong because when I woke up I couldn't feel any teeth and my jaw was strapped up with bandages," Olszewski said.
Adding to his trauma, Olszewski said his new girlfriend has already left him over his now toothless appearance.
Important: There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that, before taking up with Olszewski, Ms. Mackowiak was dating Barney Frank.
I usually put up more than one bad joke after an entry in the "you can't make this stuff up" file, but in this case, that will be quite enough. Next one is yours.
Here's a very slightly edited quote from a famous person. Please read it and decide for yourself if it has any relevance to some of the more visible spokespeople associated with the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case:
"There is another class of (Black) people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the (Black) race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the (Black) to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."
So? What do you think?
Does it sound like the author of that quote was talking about al sharpton? Jessie Jackson? louis farrakhan?
Well, he was. He just did not know it at the time.
The author of that quote was Booker T. Washington, a great Black historian, educator, and President of the Tuskegee Institute for 35 years. Mr. Washington wrote those words in his book "My Larger Education, Being Chapters From My Experience". It was published in 1911.
Here, in the language of a century ago, is the exact quote:
"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."
That's worth remembering the next time you hear one of the three "spokespeople" mentioned above, or some of their kindred pals, bloviating about Trayvon Martin.
Just a very quick blog to point out that what is left of the so-called "Occupy" movement has vowed to protest around the globe today, with a special emphasis on shutting New York City down....
...but despite the hopeful reporting of some media venues, it is almost certain to be a bust.
So watch the news closely tonight to see how much importance today's protests are given (gauge it by where it is placed - the earlier, the more important - and how much time it is given) -- and watch the videos very closely to see if they show a lot of people, or just some well-placed camera shots to create an illusion of a lot of people.
Payback is a female dog…..and not one of those delicious pit bulls either.
President Obama, who has spent his presidency (and also for years before, if the truth were known) playing by no rules at all, has gone so far with his revolting “I killed bin laden, aren't I great, and Romney wouldn’t have") ad that he has turned off even some of his most ardent supporters.
Read the beginning of his column below, and see for yourself:
The preezy of the United Steezy is making me queasy.
I’m not troubled by President Obama’s slow jam with Jimmy Fallon, who dubbed the commander in chief “preezy” during Obama’s appearance on late-night TV. No, preezy is making me queasy because his nonstop campaigning is looking, well, sleazy — and his ad suggesting that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have killed Osama bin Laden is just the beginning of it.
In a political culture that long ago surrendered to the permanent campaign, Obama has managed to take things to a whole new level. According to statistics compiled for a book to be published this summer, the president has already set a record for total first-term fundraisers — 191 — and that’s only through March 6. Measured in terms of events that benefit his reelection bid, Obama’s total (inflated in part by relaxed fundraising rules) exceeds the combined total of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.
As you can see, Ms. Huffington and Mr. Milbank are not offering what you would call the words of willing pushovers.So if Barack Obama and his henchmen thought either of these two were going to mindlessly run interference for him on his latest foray into filthy-dirty politics, they thought wrong.
And (admittedly, I write this with what may be undo optimism) once the “spell is broken”, it liberates the Huffingtons, Milbanks, etc. to issue more of the same.The first couple of times are always the hardest; after that it gets easier to do.
But that is not the extent of payback for the bin laden ad. Not even close. Read these criticisms from former Navy SEALs - the SEALs being who actually did take bin laden down - as excerpted from Toby Harnden's article in London's Daily Mail:
A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.
‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’
Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.
‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.
‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’
Senior military figures have said that Admiral William McRaven, a former SEAL who was then head of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the decision to take bin Laden out. Tactical decisions were delegated even further down the chain of command.
Mr Kyle added: ‘He's trying to say that Romney wouldn't have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it's going to get him some pretty good mileage.’
Wow. Very strong stuff. Maybe too strong even for Mr. Obama's usually compliant Accomplice Media to hide.
But please remember that this does not necessarily mean the Obama people are learning their lesson.Let’s not forget who we’re dealing with here: the "there is no bottom" crowd personified. So when it comes to Obama & Co., I'll believe a lesson has been learned when I see the proof.
THE ELIZABETH WARREN "NATIVE AMERICAN" CLAIM: NOT GOING AWAY
Ken Berwitz
Maybe Barack Obama can get away with not providing a legitimate birth certificate, and then coming up with an obviously fake one - which his Accomplice Media somehow cannot find the time to investigate.
But not Elizabeth Warren. Her longstanding claim of being ancestrally "native American" - which has benefitted both her and Harvard in the past - had better be backed up by something more than Ms. Warren's not-very-winning smile.
A prominent Native American group says Massachusetts Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren had “better be able to defend” her past claims of being an Indian-American minority.
The Democratic candidate is facing questions about her heritage following the revelation on Friday that she described herself as a Native American minority in professional law school directories during the 1980s and ’90s.
“Once you put that down, you better be able to defend it,” Ray Ramirez of the Native American Rights Fund told The Daily Caller on Monday.
Warren, who no longer publicly refers to herself as Native American, has disputed that she claimed Indian-American minority status then to give herself a professional advantage.
Asked for evidence of her ancestry to back up the candidate’s past statements, a Warren spokeswoman told TheDC on Monday that the campaign is “working on digging up some sort of evidence to appease” inquirers.
This is right up there with Hillary Clinton's claim that she and her entourage were fired on by snipers when landing in Bosnia. It turned out that she was lying (something Ms.Clinton is certainly no stranger to doing), and it dogged her for the rest of her eventually losing campaign.
You can be sure that, unless Elizabeth Warren has concrete proof of her ancestry, the fact that she exploited the native American claim by reaping the benefits of her supposedly minority status will be a big part of incumbent Republican Scott Brown's campaign.
I can see the strategy now: "she lied about her wealth, she lied about her ancestry, what else is she lying about and how can you ever trust a thing she says?"
That's pretty powerful....even if you're running against a Massachusetts Democrat.
1) Success for Elizabeth Warren!!!!!! (er, sort of): After desperately searching back through time, Christopher Child, of the New England Historic and Genealogy Society, has come up with a document from 1894 which indicates that Elizabeth Warren's great-great-great grandmother was a Cherokee. That would make her 1/32 native American - 3% - and wouldn't count her as a minority in any way shape or form. If this is all she's got, she might as well have nothing. So the wait goes on.
2) Now Ms. Warren is whining that any doubt about her native American background is......some kind of sexist plot. So help me, this is what she is saying. Here's the quote, straight from Mindy Myers, Warren's campaign manager; see for yourself:
“If Scott Brown has questions about Elizabeth Warren’s well-known qualifications — from her high marks as a teacher to her nationally recognized work on bankruptcy and the pressures on middle class families – he ought to ask them directly instead of hiding behind the nasty insinuations of his campaign and trying to score political points. Once again, the qualifications and ability of a woman are being called into question by Scott Brown who did the same thing with the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan. It’s outrageous.”
Got that? Question Elizabeth Warren's claim to be a native American, which she and Harvard University were happy to use all these years to demonstrate that hiring her was an act of ethnic diversity, and you are a sexist pig, calling into question "the qualifications and ability of a woman".
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!!
