Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is clinging to life, according to the country's vice president.
"The commander is fighting for his health, for his life," Nicolas Madura said on national TVThursday.
The statement comes 10 days after Chavez returned to Venezuela from Cuba where he had received two months of treatment for his most recent bout with cancer. It was the clearest public indication to date of the severity of the president's condition.
What a shock.
A little common sense goes a long way here. Why would Cuba have sent chavez back to Venezuela? Two choices: either he improved enough not to need treatment - which would certainly make him presentable for the cameras - or there was nothing left that they could do for him, his condition would continue to worsen and he would die.
The fact that, with the exception of one (not very pretty) picture, he has not been seen or heard from for the past two months tells us it was the latter, not the former.
Maxine Waters. That's pretty much all you have to know, to understand how this could be the quote of the day:
"We don't need to be having something like sequestration that's going to cause these jobs losses, over 170 million jobs that could be lost"
Over 170 million jobs could be lost?
Actually that is GREAT news. Why? Because, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US workforce, as of January, was 143,322,000. That means, in order for sequester to cause over 170 million job losses, we must have gained a minimum of 26,678.000 jobs in February. I'll bet that's a new record!!!! Damn, the "stimulus package" really did work.
Or....Ms. Waters may have overstated this just a tad.
Upon serious reflection, I think I'll go with door #2.
Thank you Ms. Waters, for the quote of the day. And let me say that we expect similar, er, intelligence from you in the future, as we have so often gotten it from you in the past.
Forget politics for a moment, and watch/listen to gorgeous music.
Click here and you will experience the amazingly great jazz pianist Oscar Peterson, accompanied by the magnificent Lorne Lofsky on guitar, performing "There Will Never Be Another You". You won't believe your ears.
And, as you listen, keep in mind that this was recorded in 1994 - the year after Mr. Peterson's debilitating stroke, which weakened his left hand to the point that he barely even used it here.
"There Will Never Be Another You". What a perfect name for a song played by Oscar Peterson. No, there never will be another you, sir, and the world misses your genius every day.
You cannot find a more loyal Democrat than Lanny Davis. So when he comes forward and tells us that, like Bob Woodward, he too has been threatened - through a threat to his editor - by the Obama administration, we have to listen.
A day after Woodward's claim that a senior White House official had told him he would "regret" writing a column criticizing President Obama's stance on the sequester, Lanny Davis, a longtime close advisor to President Bill Clinton, told WMAL's Mornings on the Mall Thursday he had received similar threats for newspaper columns he had written about Obama in the Washington Times.
Davis told WMAL that his editor, John Solomon, "received a phone call from a senior Obama White House official who didn't like some of my columns, even though I'm a supporter of Obama. I couldn't imagine why this call was made." Davis says the Obama aide told Solomon, "that if he continued to run my columns, he would lose, or his reporters would lose their White House credentials."
Woodward - the guy who, with Carl Bernstein, took down Nixon. Now Lanny Davis, apologist extraordinaire for everything Clinton.
How many others, do you think? It is hard to believe these are the only two. And if this is how they threaten Woodward and Davis, try to imagine what they say to Republicans/conservatives.
What does it tell you about the Obama administration? Sad to say, the answer is probably nothing you didn't already know.
And only four more years to deal with it. Lucky us.
You can't make this stuff up. You wouldn't even dare.
Did you know that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to give even bigger tax breaks to Hollywood production companies for shooting films in the state than the state already gives them? Well he does. Here is his explanation:
"We spend a lot of money in the state bringing movie production here, post-production here, so obviously we would want to facilitate that", said Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who wants to expand the film and TV tax credit.
And here is Mr. Cuomo's rationale for exempting Hollywood production companies from New York's newly passed, post-Newtown Connecticut gun control laws, even stricter than the ones already on the books: laws which are supposed to prevent the adam lanzas of the world from committing mass murders (even though the adam lanzas of the world ignore gun control laws when they go on their killing sprees):
"There's no reason not to make a change like that to give an industry comfort, especially when it's an industry we want to do business in the state"
Notice any problems here? Try these on for size:
-How many times has Andrew Cuomo's Democrat Party demanded that rich people pay their "fair share"? How many Hollywood intellectuals (the definition of Hollywood intellectual seemingly being anyone, regardless of intelligence level, who has made a hit movie in the past ten years) demand it? But when a movie is being made and there are tax credits to be had - which would put millions of taxpayers' dollars in these people's pockets? Damn the "fair share", and full speed ahead! WE'RE GETTIN' OURS!!
-New gun control laws notwithstanding, if Hollywood wants to spend all that money in New York (minus the tax credits of course) to make movies with gratuitous violence, including gun violence, more power to 'em. Hey, just because a Governor gets in front of cameras and decries gun violence doesn't mean he can't rake in a pile of do-re-mi from it.
-And the fact that movies with gratuitous violence are watched by young people, who - in conjunction with even more graphic video games (which Governor Cuomo has proposed no new laws for) - may be desensitized to the point where they see graphically sickening mass killing as nothing more than an amusing little pastime? Who cares! We're rakin' in the dough! I get to hang out with movie stars! Wow, whee, whoopee!! Let the shooting begin!! Cameras and guns!!!
Congratulations Governor Cuomo. You have most assuredly provided us with a new understanding of what it is to be against violence and killing.
Just last December one of its sportscasters, Rob Parker, was suspended - then his contract was not renewed in January (translation: he was fired) for attacking a Black NFL quarterback for not thinking the way Parker apparently believes all Black people should think.
Well, now we have Michael Wilbon, a former Washington Post sportswriter, who, these days (at least as of this moment) is an ESPN TV and radio commentator. Here is what Wilbon had to say about Seth Macfarlane hosting the Oscars this past Sunday:
"They got tired of famous Black people, so they've got to go get a White guy? Affirmative action Academy Awards host? Is that what this is about? Really?"
Let's start with wha I think is an obvious question: what in God's name is that comment supposed to mean? That if the Oscar show is hosted by a White person it is racist?
No, Mr. Wilbon. The Oscars are not racist for being hosted by a White person. YOU are racist for suggesting that the only reason it happened is because "they got tired of famous Black people", as if only Black people should be asked to do the show.
And YOU are a racist for suggesting that Macfarlane was inferior because he was White - which is what that comment about "Affirmative action Academy Awards host" specifically means.
Oh, by the way, your implicit suggestion that Seth Macfarlane somehow is a break in the string of Black hosts, is not only wrong, it is spectacularly wrong. In the past 25 years, 5 Oscar shows have been hosted by Black people: 4 by Whoopi Goldberg and one by Chris Rock. And there has not been a Black host since 2004. Therefore, you are not just a stone cold racist, you are an ignoramus as well.
Look, I don't work for ESPN, and nobody over there is asking my opinion. But it seems to me that two courses of action are in order. One is to suspend this racist fool, and the other is to be one helluva lot more careful about who is hired.
Real racism. It comes in all forms, from all sources. No group is immune to it, or from it. Certainly not an ignorant racist with a big mouth - and a big platform from which he can use that big mouth to spew his racism.
Bob Woodward called a senior White House official last week to tell him that in a piece in that weekend's Washington Post, he was going to question President Barack Obama's account of how sequestration came about - and got a major-league brushback. The Obama aide "yelled at me for about a half-hour," Woodward told us in an hourlong interview yesterday around the Georgetown dining room table where so many generations of Washington's powerful have spilled their secrets.
Digging into one of his famous folders, Woodward said the tirade was followed by a page-long email from the aide, one of the four or five administration officials most closely involved in the fiscal negotiations with the Hill. "I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today," the official typed. "You're focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. ... I think you will regret staking out that claim."
Woodward repeated the last sentence, making clear he saw it as a veiled threat. " 'You'll regret.' Come on," he said. "I think if Obama himself saw the way they're dealing with some of this, he would say, 'Whoa, we don't tell any reporter 'you're going to regret challenging us.'"
I disagree with Mr. Woodward on two things:
1) This is not a veiled threat. This is an overt threat.
2) If "Obama himself" had any real intention of kiboshing this threat, he'd have done so by now. It is true that he might do it today - only because, for once, the public has gotten a good look at the underbelly of the Chicago political machine adjunct he is running in Washington DC and he is embarrassed by it. But not because he disagrees with the threat, only because he does not want to be associated with it.
Please remember that, just yesterday, an official at homeland security was dumped over the release of hundreds, maybe thousands (the reports differ widely) of incarcerated illegal aliens into our population, on the fraudulent premise that the sequester would not allow us to keep them locked up.
Does anyone in his or her right mind think this decision was made by some middle-level wonk? Of course not. It is obvious that a scapegoat has been invented, so the real culprits can skate.
Sadly, as Operation Fast and Furious, the Benghazi massacre, and other Obama scandals have shown us, this is hardly an isolated occurrence. And why not? Why should it be if most mainstream media decline to either expose the scandals or attack Obama & Co. when they pull this kind of stunt?
Simply stated, a media partisan enough to celebrate Hillary Clinton for banging her hand on the table and hurling "what's the difference" why the Benghazi massacre took place, is a media partisan enough to do anything for this administration.
Understanding this, the Obama administration demands complete obedience from its Accomplice Media. Departures from that obedience, especially by a reporter like Bob Woodward who cannot be smeared as some right winger people shouldn't listen to, are unacceptable; they will not be tolerated.
And by making a threat like this to someone as high up the food chain as Woodward, an even stronger threat is inherently made to everyone below his rarefied status. Screw with us, and will screw you worse. Don't doubt this for even one second.
Maybe - albeit too late to rescue the country from another four years of Obama - this will be the tipping point at which some members of the Accomplice Media who have spent the last four years as little more than Obama fart-catchers, will finally start doing what it says on their job descriptions: acting like real journalists.
I admit that it is a long shot. But we can hope, can't we?
Van Cliburn, the great concert pianist who, after winning the 1958 Tchaikovsky competition in Russia (a virtual impossibility for an American) became an improbable rock star, rivalling even Elvis Presley in popularity, has passed away at the age of 78. The cause was bone cancer.
I was only 12 years old when Mr. Cliburn (full name: Harvey Lavan Cliburn) won that competition and I still remember what a big deal it was that a 23 year old pianist from Texas had played Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto #1 so brilliantly that he eclipsed the efforts of even Tchaikovsky's fellow Russians. His album, which, not surprisingly, included this work, was the first classical album to sell over 1 million copies.
Mr. Cliburn remained a huge international star for many years and continued to perform, though less and less frequently, right up until the last few months.
A true superstar has left us. He certainly will be missed.
EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE SEQUESTER....
....is right here, from Vince Coglianese of dailycaller.com:
President Barack Obama will wait until the sequester hits to have his first sequester-related face-to-face meeting with congressional leaders on Friday, according to a report by ABC News's Jonathan Karl:
"A congressional source with direct knowledge of the plans tells me the top four congressional leaders - John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell - will meet with President Obama at the White HouseFriday to attempt to negotiate a way to avoid the spending cuts that both sides have said should be avoided," Karl reported Wednesday.
Karl reported that the White House arranged the meeting late Tuesday.
Simply stated, Obama wants it to happen, but only for a day or two - so he can pretend he came riding in on his white horse to save the day from those Republicans, who, he will say, were just fine with countless thousands of workers being laid off, homeland security being compromised and 4 hour (or was it 4 day) waits on airport lines.
See, that way the sequester takes place, so Republicans can be blamed for everything. But it is stopped immediately, so that the "everything" doesn't actually happen, and all that remains is the blame for a phantom horror show which never took place.
This is right up there with Obama's four year BS-a-thon about rescuing us from the worst economic situation since the great depression.
Will mainstream media - aka the Obama Accomplice Media - back him up on this charade? Obviously the President thinks so, or he would never try to pull it off. And, in fairness, mainstream media's track record during the Obama years gives him every reason to take the shot.
Does this man - and the people around him - ever do anything but lie?
And do most mainstream media ever do anything but lie down for him?
This latest example, however, is a bit different than what NBC has done in the past. This time, the network did not doctor a tape to make fools of its viewers, it used someone else's doctored tape to do so.
Video of Sen. John McCain speaking to the mother of an Aurora shooting victim was edited in a way that made him appear to be insensitive to the tragedy, the Arizona lawmaker's office charges.
"“[The video] had been selectively edited by a TV station in Phoenix to make McCain look insensitive to her," Brian Rogers, the veteran senator's Communications Director, told Newsmax.
"And then [MSNBC's] Rachel Maddow and several other liberal outlets attacked McCain for it."
In the video, McCain is seen in conversation with Caren Teves, whose 24-year-old son Alex was shot dead in the Aurora movie theater massacre last year.
Speaking about assault weapons in the video, Teves tells McCain, "These weapons don't belong on our streets."
The video shows McCain responding, "I can tell you right now you need some straight talk. That assault weapons' ban will not pass the congress of the United States."
But it turns out his response was heavily edited and excluded his heartfelt condolences to Teves.
When Maddow ran a piece on the meeting, she aired the heavily-edited KTVK segment.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, Maddow admitted, "Obviously there was an edit between the end of the woman's question and the part where John McCain sneers the straight talk line at her. So maybe that edit was cut in a way that's not fair to John McCain.
"Maybe he wasn't in real time so insensitive and abrasive, to a woman who probably deserves some sensitivity when she is talked to about these matters."
But Rogers said there was no excuse for MSNBC and others to go with the edited version.
"The full video was available when Maddow and [the others] did their stories," Rogers told Newsmax.
"They were apparently just too lazy to check for it, or they didn't want the context. Really outrageous."
Nice job, Rachel.Very well done.I especially like that faux-sincerity touch, where - only after showing the doctored version to get full negative reaction from your viewers - you allow as how, gee golly gosh, this was edited.
Bottom Line: NBC is not a news venue anymore.MSNBC never was.And, hard though it might be to believe, as bad as they have been in the past, they are getting worse still.
Oh, one more thing: Is it just a coincidence that Maddow ran the doctored tape during the same week as the anniversary of Trayvon Martin being shot to death by George Zimmerman?
As you may remember, after the shooting NBC intentionally edited an audio tape of Zimmerman to make it sound as if he based his suspicions about Martin on the fact that he was Black - when the truth, as plainly heard in the undoctored version, was that Zimmerman was responding to the dispatcher's specific question about what Martin looked like.
Who knows, maybe over at what is left of NBC they think of that as an anniversary event worth celebrating.
Today's quote comes to us from Bob Woodward, who, with Carl Bernstein, made his name by nailing Richard Nixon - and then writing a succession of hugely best-selling books about politics.
Here is what he had to say about President Obama's absolutely fraudulent fear-mongering over sequestration, on today's "Morning Joe":
"President Obama came out and acknowledged that we're not sending the aircraft carrier Truman to the Persian Guf because of this budget agreement...
"...Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?' Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq 'cause I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?' Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' as he did when clinton was president, because of some budget document?
"Under the constitution the President is commander in chief and employs the force.And so we now have the President going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement.I can't do what I need to do to protect the country?
"That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."
My only dispute with Mr. Woodward's comment is his use of the word "madness". This is not madness, this is a deliberate, premeditated strategy, based on a) absolute lies and b) an assumption - lamentably a correct one - that mainstream media will largely go along with the absolute lies.
And please remember that Mr. Woodward is no fan of Republicans in general, or Mr. Reagan or Mr. Bush in particular. His problem is that he cannot abide the lies spewing from President Obama and his acolytes.
As for the rest of our wonderful "neutral' media? They are still deep down in the Obama tank, aiding, abetting, protecting and defending their lord and savior, Barack Obama. Calling him on lies is not in the program.
So thank you, Mr. Woodward, for showing the basic integrity we should expect as a matter of course from any professional journalist, but barely ever can find anymore in the Obama era. How I wish more of your colleagues rediscovered it...before the next Republican is elected President, that is.
Our search is over. We've found a school district that really cares.
About what? Well, it cares about circumventing laws and making the teachers' union its God.
Did you think I was going to write that it cared about its students? The children it is supposed to be educating? Well, sorry. If you want that, then you'll have to find another district.
Excerpted from Tom Gantert's article (one of a series - Mr. Gantert is doing some very important work here) at michigancapitalconfidential.com:
On Dec. 11, the Taylor School District closed because so many of its teachers skipped school to go to Lansing to protest right-to-work legislation. As a result, about 7,500 students in Taylor were forced to miss classes that day.
For organizing that "sick out" protest, the American Federation of Teachers-Michigan gave Taylor teachers' union president Linda Moore an award for "outstanding organizing."
Public Act 112 in Michigan makes public school employees strikes and/or lockouts illegal.
In a Jan. 28 announcement posted on Facebook, AFT Michigan boasted that so many union members took Dec. 11 off "that Taylor schools shut down."
Not only did the teachers play hooky, she said, but the union also negotiated for and received a 10-year "security cause agreement" that skirted the state's recently signed right-to-work law.
That security clause agreement, which expires July 1, 2023, forces school employees to pay money to the union as a condition of employment. Taylor Public Schools became the first district to approve such contractual language when it was approved by the Taylor School Board and ratified by the Taylor Federation of Teachers AFT Local 1085 AFL-CIO members.
As of 2011, the Taylor School District paid for the local union head to spend most of his time working exclusively on union business and not teaching in the classroom. Former local union head Jeffrey Woodford made $96,419 in total compensation to spend 75 percent of his time on union business while only 25 percent of his time teaching. Current local union president Linda Moore made $88,016 to spend half her time teaching and half her time on union business.
The district has a $6 million deficit it is trying to eliminate.
Read those excerpts closely. Then use the link I've provided and read Tom Gantert's entire article. What do you see?
You see a school district which screwed its children on behalf of the union, then proudly accepted an award from the union for doing so. You also see a school district which figured out a way to circumvent the right to work legislation designed to free teachers and other school employees from being coerced to pay union dues whether or not they wanted to be in the union (I have little doubt this will be challenged in the courts).
But do you see a school district that gives a damn about anything relating to the students it is supposed to be educating, or the freedom of its teachers and other employees? Me neither.
So I offer my congratulations to Michigan's Taylor school district. You really do care.
Too bad your caring has everything to do with keeping a teachers' union fat and happy, but nothing to do with either the teachers or the schoolchildren entrusted to you.
I wonder how Taylor's parents feel about this.....
Robin Kelly routed Debbie Halvorson in yesterday's Democrat primary (which, based on voting patterns, is more or less the general election too) for 2nd congressional district seat vacated by jail-bound Jesse Jackson Jr. The last returns I saw (which are either final or close to it) show 52% for Ms. Kelly to 25% for Ms. Halvorson and 11% for Alderman Anthony Beale with a number of lesser candidates splitting the rest.
Many media venues - some barely able to contain their glee - are touting this as a great victory against the National Rifle Association (NRA), because it strongly preferred Halvorson over Kelly.
They are wrong.
I'll make this as short and to the point as possible:
-Robin Kelly is Black and liberal-left, while Debbie Halvorson is White and, though far from a right wing conservative, is certainly less liberal/left than Kelly.
-The 2nd district is almost 2/3 Black, and most of the Whites there are reliably liberal/left. Since, with rare exceptions (Steve Cohen's mostly-Black district in Memphis is the only current one I'm aware of), the vast majority of Black voters tend to vote by skin color, and since most White voters of this particular district vote leftward, OF COURSE Kelly predominated.
-The only reason Halvorson had any kind of a chance was that, at one point, it was thought that the Black candidates potentially could split their vote enough for Ms. Halvorson to win with a good deal less than 50%, but more than any other individual opponent. Obviously, however, that did not happen. When Ms. Kelly emerged as the favorite among Black candidates, this race was over.
Knowing this, can you, or anyone else, seriously think the NRA was the difference here? Not a chance. In fact, the NRA barely involved itself in the race. According to the Chicago Tribune:
(New York Mayor Michael) Bloomberg, an Emanuel ally in the fight for tougher gun restrictions, called Kelly's win "an important victory for common sense leadership on gun violence" as well as sign that voters "are demanding change" in a Congress that has refused to enact tougher gun restrictions, fearing the influence of the NRA.
But as much as Bloomberg sought to portray the Kelly win as a victory over the influential NRA, the national organization stayed out of the contest completely while the state rifle association sent out one late mailer for Halvorson.
Speaking of Bloomberg, one other point should be made: Just in case the near impossible obstacles described above were not enough to sink Debbie Halvorson, Bloomberg's anti-NRA PAC ran between $2 and 2.5 million dollars of ads supporting Ms. Kelly. Halvorson, by contrast, had next to no money to work with.
Looking at it from that perspective, it is less an accomplishment for Robin Kelly to have gotten 52% of the vote than it is for Debbie Halvorson to have gotten 25%.
I don't watch Sean Hannity's show very much. But I watched it just now, and I'm glad I did. Because it was quite a spectacle.
Mr. Hannity made the mistake of asking keith ellison (D-MI) on to offer his views and answer questions.
But that didn't happen.
ellison was rude. Obnoxious. Insulting. Ignorant. Dishonest. He refused to answer anything. And finally - not in anger, but because it had become such a complete farce there was no point in continuing, Hannity thanked ellison - with tongue in cheek I assure you - and ended the exchange (discussion in no way can be used here).
I strongly suspect ellison wowed the hard-leftists over at sites like dailykos.com and crooksandliars.com (though maybe even they are embarrassed by what a sorry spectacle he made of himself). In my opinion, however, most people would conclude that he is a complete idiot and that Hannity was far, far too accommodating to him, by bending over backwards to try to engage him, even after it became obvious ellison had no interest in being anything but an obnoxious, loudmouthed boor.
keith idiot. If the name fits, wear it. And this name fits like a glove.
Oh, one othe rthing: Hannity issued a statement afterwards about ellison's behavior. Here it is:
I invited Ellison on to discuss sequestration, the President's rhetoric and fear mongering, and also the morality of Obama accumulating 6 trillion dollars in debt since he has become President.
Ellison became totally unhinged. It is clear Liberals like him and the President are losing it, and frankly I am happy the American people got to see it. Watching him implode was actually funny to watch. It just shows how reckless, radical, and extreme the modern day Democratic Party has become.
As Americans continue to see the President's policies fail, I suspect it will dawn on them Obama and the Democrats have nothing but empty rhetoric, scare tactics, false promises, and they deserve to be fired.
I mark this night as the beginning of the end for the Obama Democrats.
Is he correct? Well, read the transcript and/or watch the video. You decide.
CHUCK HAGEL CONFIRMED: THE TRANSFORMATION CONTINUES
The transformation continues:
- John Kerry has been confirmed as Secretary of State. He is currently on an international trip which will include stops to Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. But not Israel.
- James Clapper remains Director of National Intelligence. Last year he said that the Muslim brotherhood, which the State Department designates as a terrorist organization, is "In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam". The current President of Egypt, mohamed morsi, has been found on tape to call Jews the descendants of apes and pigs, and to call for the hatred of all Jews.
- John Brennan has been nominated as head of the CIA. He is staunchly sympathetic to Islam and has been for decades. During a speech at NYU's Islamic Center in 2010 he referred to Israel's capital not as Jerusalem but as Al Quds and of "Palestine" as if it were a state, which it is not and has never been.
- And now Chuck Hagel, who has a problem with Jews and a major problem with Israel, has been confirmed as Secretary of Defense. The vote was almost completely along party lines, with only 4 Republicans voting in favor. Fifteen Republicans had demanded that the nomination be withdrawn, but that wasn't about to happen.
If this is as obvious as you can plainly see that it is, I can't be the only one seeing it.
Where are our media? Can they possibly be so completely in the tank that they intend to look the other way as it is happening?
When do they talk about what is in front of their eyes?
Never one to let a crisis go to waste, President Obama is using impending budget cuts to justify releasing "waves" of illegal immigrants from detention centers throughout the country.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed the secret liberation program, but wouldn't say how many illegal immigrants were let go or what facilities they came from.
The move comes at a time when the president has embarked on a major campaign to convince the nation that impeding budget cuts will harm national security, specifically border protection and the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Ironically, releasing incarcerated illegal immigrants into the general population can certainly threaten the security of the communities where they are freed.
Just a few months ago the administration used another crisis, a hurricane, as an excuse to assist illegal immigrants who have flouted U.S. law. The president actually created a special storm amnesty to justify waiving immigration laws, including for violators of student visas like the 9/11 hijackers who murdered thousands of Americans.
Among the "benefits or relief" offered under the plan is "expedited adjudication of off-campus employment authorization applications for F-1 students experiencing economic hardship."
Let's understand what is happening here:
-President Obama comes up with the idea of a "sequester". Not Republicans, not Tea Partiers, but President Obama.
-President Obama doubles down on the sequester, by emphatically reaffirming the idea and threatening to veto any legislation which would prevent it from taking place.
-But as the sequester date grows near, President Obama, helped by his fellow Democrats and a shamelessly corrupt Accomplice Media, proclaims that it is Republicans who are forcing us into a sequester situation.
-President Obama - again helped by his fellow Democrats and a shamelessly corrupt Accomplice Media - predicts dire, horrific consequences to every facet of our lives if the sequester kicks in -- as if being forced to spend 2.3% less than the hugely bloated allocations would do any such thing.
-Now, using the fraudulently-created gravity of this non-existent situation as a basis, President Obama is, in effect, emptying the jails of illegals who not only are here illegally, but have committed crimes while being here.
-The illegals, of course, will be happy to show their appreciation for being given a free pass that few, if any, legal citizens would get, the minute they are allowed to vote legally (the ones who vote illegally have, presumably, already done so).
This is not a random act of kindness. It is a deliberate, predetermined strategy with a clear end goal.
If we, the people, allow this to happen, we have no one to blame but ourselves. And, so far, we have done little other than allow it to happen.
Not much of a challenge to debunk this BS, is it? All anyone has to do is put up the Congressional Budget Office's own data, which is easily available on its web site, and there is the proof that the horrors we are being told will engulf and devour* us if the sequester kicks in....ain't there.
Or, put another way, The New York Times, long a key component of Barack Obama's Accomplice Media, seems to be in a competition with Mr. Obama and many (not all) of his fellow Democrats to see who can lie most egregiously about what will happen if there is a sequester and (gasp!) agencies have to reduce spending by 2% of our impossibly bloated budget - which, in reality, is to spend less of the increase that already is in there (another little something the Times somehow forgets to bring up in its daily paeans to the paper's lord and savior, Barack Obama.
So far, I'd call it a tie. But both sides are working very hard to pull ahead.
How proud the winner will be!
*Engulf & Devour was the name of a greedy, dishonest conglomerate in Mel Brooks' hilarious "Silent Movie". Believe me, though, Mr. Brooks could not possibly write anything more absurd than what President Obama, his party, and his Accomplice Media are trying to foist on us about the sequester.
By the way, apropos of absolutely nothing, my late Uncle Carl once employed Mel Brooks' father, Isaac Kaminsky (Kaminsky is Brooks' real name) as a tailor in his East New York dry cleaning store (the name doesn't suggest it, but East New York is a section of south Brooklyn).
Mel, if you happen to read this, be assured that your father was very, very proud of "my son Melvin who is in show business".....and only toward the end of his relatively brief stay at my uncle's store, mentioned offhandedly that you did not use the name Kaminsky. Until then, Uncle Carl thought you probably were an accountant in a back room somewhere.
According to a new report by the Government Accountability Institute, Quentin Tarantino's controversial spaghetti Western, Django Unchained, featuring Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio has applied to receive an estimated $8.4 million in film tax credits from the State of Louisiana. Actor-director Ben Affleck and producer George Clooney's film, Argo, received $6.21 million in tax credits from the California Film Commission. Steven Spielberg's Lincoln, featuring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, and Tommy Lee Jones, hauled in $3.5 million in tax-free film credits. Silver Linings Playbook bagged a cool $5.6 million.
So why are taxpayers giving away over a billion-and-a-half dollars a year in Hollywood welfare handouts, especially at a time when public schools and local governments are slashing budgets and going broke?Hollywood executives and state-level politicians claim that film subsidies boost job creation and state tourism.
But tax and policy analysts who have studied film tax credit programs say industry claims of job creation are vastly overstated. Worse, say critics, they drain vital state resources from things like education and healthcare.
In other words, the same holier-than-thou Hollywood hotshots who demand those rich bastards pay every thin dime they can be squeezed for.....have no problem at all squeezing every thin dime of taxpayer money possible, so they can live in even bigger mansions, wear even glitzier clothes and drive even more expensive cars.
Evidently, in Hollywood, the definition of "fair share" is that we pay, and they get.
There it is, folks: Hollywood hypocrisy at its finest. Please do not even try to pretend you're surprised.
Scott Johnson of powerlineblog.com has written a very angry, very powerful, entirely accurate analysis of what the so-called "sequester" is really about, and how disgracefully complicit Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media are in their coverage (I hesitate to use the term "news coverage" here) - especially NBC's smirking, obnoxious Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd.
Do yourself a favor and click here for Mr. Johnson's entire piece. See how much worthwhile material he packs into so few words. Tell you what: let me whet your appetite by posting the first paragraph:
President Obama's transparent mendacity about his responsibility for the sequester is revealing. The obtuse Chuck Todd doesn't think it's a story; he characterizes it as a traditionally sterile argument about who is to blame for the unpleasantness (which is the way the New York Times treats the issue it when it deigns to touch it). Todd can't be that stupid, can he?
To answer Scott's question: no, Chuck Todd is not that stupid. He is that blindingly partisan.
Today's quote - and it truly is a remarkable one - comes from the President of the United States, Barack Obama.
Yesterday Mr. Obama spoke before an annual meeting of state Governors, and had this to say about resolving the possibility of a "sequester", kicking in later this week:
"All of us are concerned about our politics, both in our own party as well as the other party. But at some point we've got to do some governing."
Uh who said that? President Obama? The man who has exactly no meetings scheduled with congress, but has spent the last week (his entire political career, actually) barnstorming from campaign speech to campaign speech rather than rolling up his sleeves and doing something?
If this is not the ultimate classic example of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.
Great advice, Mr. President. Thank you for it. Now here's a bit of my advice to you: take the advice you're tossing out to everyone else.
Stop campaigning, stop politicking....and, if at all possible (I'm not sure it is anymore) stop lying to us about who is responsible for the impending sequester and what it will actually mean to the country.
If nothing else, it will be a refreshing change of pace.
From our pal Public Relations Ann, comes this interesting little story:
An attractive blonde from Cork, Ireland arrived at the casino. She seemed a little intoxicated and bet twenty thousand dollars in a single roll of the dice.
She said, "I hope you don't mind, but I feel much luckier when I'm completely nude." with that, she stripped from the neck down, rolled the dice and with an Irish brogue yelled, "Come on, baby, Mama needs new clothes!"
As the dice came to a stop, she jumped up and down and squealed... "Yes! Yes! I won, I won!" She hugged each of the dealers, picked up her winnings and her clothes and quickly parted.
The dealers stared at each other, dumbfounded.
Finally, one of them asked "What did she roll"?The other answered "I don't know.I thought you were watching"
MORAL OF THE STORY:
Not all Irish are drunks, not all blondes are dumb...
But all men...are men!
I have no idea why the young woman in the story has to be Irish. But it's fine with me....plus, we can tell if she's a real blonde, can't we?
Not much to blog here; it pretty much speaks for itself.
Here is Chris Matthews, during a discussion with similarly "neutral" Howard Fineman and Joan Walsh, making an on-air statement to Hillary Clinton, regarding her possible presidential run in 2016:
"If you're watching, Madam Secretary, all three of us have brilliant ideas. All of us have great ideas. And I especially put myself in that group with Joan and David. We know how to do this, we’ll get you in there."
In reading this, please keep in mind that Matthews has characterized himself as being "absolutely nonpartisan".
Not for nothing do I call him Chrazy Chris.
Although.....now that I think of it, if the basis for his assessment is a comparison to the other "talent" at MSNBC, Matthews may have a point.
Steve Stockman is a Republican congressperson from Texas.
According to Mr. Stockman, after President Obama called on people to tweet their congresspeople in favor of more gun control, he received 16 twitter responses. But he has a problem with those responses.
"Obama's anti-gun campaign is a fraud. Obama's supporters are panicking and willing to do anything to create the appearance of popular support, even if it means trying to defraud Congress. I call upon the president to denounce this phony spam campaign."
Stockman said that in response to Obama's call for people to tweet their congressman in support of gun control legislation, he received just 16 tweets. But he said all of these messages were identical, and that a closer look at them revealed that only six were from real people.
(Of the 16 tweets I got, 6 are real). "The other 10 are fake, computer-generated spambots.," his office said in a press release. As evidence, he said these 10 tweets use default graphics and names, and have not engaged in any interaction with other people. Two of the tweets were sent at nearly the same time, and both follow just one person: Brad Schenck, Obama's former digital strategist.
"If you are a real person who contacted us about your support for the president's anti-gun campaign, we are listening," Stockman said. "We do not agree with you, but we appreciate your sincere opinions and encourage you to continue to contact us.
"But the vast majority of the president's supporters have no feelings because they fake profiles from spammers."
Is it true? Is President Obama a Twitter Bullshitter? Well, there is what Mr. Stockman has to say, and where he claims to have traced the tweets. You decide.
Maybe Mr. Stockman is right about President Obama, and maybe he is wrong. But the most frightening parts, to me, are 1) that I would not put it past him and 2) that I do not expect his Accomplice Media to investigate the allegations.
These are not good times for ethics. And they certainly are not good times for journalistic integrity.
According to Ian Deitch's article for the Associated Press, Israel - in conjunction with the USA, but it's Israel system - has successfully tested its new-generation Arrow 3 missile defense system, designed to protect Israel from Iran and other enemies, but just as useful to protect the USA from a similar attack should it ever occur.
-According to Israel's defense ministry, "The Arrow 3 interceptor was successfully launched and flew an exo-atmospheric trajectory through space, in accordance with the test plan. The successful test is a major milestone in the development of the Arrow 3 weapon system and provides further confidence in future Israeli defense capabilities to defeat the developing ballistic missile threat."
-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu added "Israel's hand is always extended for peace, but we are always prepared for other options as well".
We give Israel a lot of money in aid. In return, we are privvy to this kind of defensive technology, which is invaluable to the safety and well-being of our people.
Do you think we get this kind of benefit from Israel's neighbors? The ones which vote 90% of the time against the USA at the United Nations? The ones which are so determined to obliterate Israel from the face of the earth?
Is our relationship with Israel worth it? You tell me.
And after you do, please try telling the current occupant of the White House, because he seems to have a very bad memory about this.
It is becoming more and more clear how Robert Menendez, the "menendacious" senator from New Jersey, will be forced to resign.
For a short while I deluded myself into thinking that the exposure (good word to use here) about Menendez's dealings with his completely unsavory benefactor, salomon melgen, in usually Democrat-friendly publications such as the New York Times and Washington Post, would lead to his downfall. But I gave them too much credit (when it comes to nailing Democrats, that's not hard to do). So far they have given it the two-day-and-out treatment.
Just like they would do for any Republican (if you were drinking while you read that, let me give you a minute or two to clean the beverage off your computer monitor).
So how will Menendez be nailed? It seems to me that this will happen...
...but mostly because of what I would bet anything are the large number of free flights, I'm betting that Menendez took on melgen's private plane, from New Jersey's Teterboro Airport - flights which must, by law, be reported and paid for with Menendez's own money.
As you may recall, when the story connecting Menendez and melgen broke, Menendez suddenly recalled he took such flights, and that he owed something like $58,000 for the costs of flying on that private jet which had not been paid. Bada bing, bada boom, this magically memory blip was followed in short order by a check for that amount.
But, as Ms. Sarnoff and Mr. Martosko point out in their article:
Through his stable of more than a half-dozen companies, Melgen has owned two different aircraft since 2003. TheDC has obtained detailed flight records for both private planes.
Combined, records show that the jets have landed more than 200 times in the Dominican Republic. They have also taken off at least 39 times from Teterboro airport in northern New Jersey, less than 25 miles from Union City - Menendez's home town.
According to those records, the two private jets have also made at least 29 stops at Washington Dulles International Airport, near the nation's capital.
There were 39 flights from Teterboro to the Dominican Republic? On one or another of melgen's private planes? And Melgen's business (which, let us never forget, he owes over $11 million dollars in back taxes on) is not in New Jersey?
So who was he transporting? The Jersey Devil? The Ghost of Thomas Edison?
Nope, my money is on the prospect that most of those flights were shuttling the "menendacious" one to his beloved prostitutes - you know "the youngest and freshest' of them, as stated by one of the young ladies Menendez allegedly consorted with.
I don't know if there are logs of who got on those planes at Teterboro. But I have little doubt there are surveillance cameras which would show whether Menendez was in or near the airport at those times.
All it will take is to show that he took a couple more of those flights - this time they could not be described as accidentally unreported, it would just be that he lied about them - and even a compicit media will not be able to save him.
Tick tock, tick tock. How much longer before Governor Christie is picking a new Senator?
UPDATE ON THIS UPDATE: Here's a shock for you: Menendez is now reduced to claiming that his problems are due to.........discrimination. It isn't his dishonest, unethical behavior or his dissolute pay-for-play sex life, or the favors he seems so willing to take from a dirtbag who owes the government over $11 million dollars in back taxes and may wind up in the next cell over. Nope, it is that he is Latino.
In an appearance late Sunday afternoon at a predominantly black church in Trenton, embattled U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez drew broad parallels between himself and other minority leaders such as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
"I have felt the sting of discrimination," he said, to cheers from the crowd, which included many members of the state Legislature and U.S. Rep. Donald M. Payne Jr., D-Essex. "It has never been easy."
"Now we face anonymous, faceless, nameless individuals ... seeking to destroy a lifetime of work," he said. "In the end, I believe that justice will overcome the forces of darkness."
Could this "man" be more of a phony? More of a dirtbag?
Today's quote is from Nikki Finke, a really good writer whose current medium is entertainment news. Ms. Finke live-blogged the oscar show - finding it as tedious. mostly unfunny, unengaging and offensive as I did by the way.
Her entire commentary is well worth reading (use the link I've provided and see) - but outdid herself at the end, after an appearance by jane fonda was quickly followed by a borderline-obese Jack Nicholson, with his cheshire cat "I am king of the world" smirk, handing the "best picture" announcement off to Michelle Obama. That's right, Michelle Obama.
Here is what Ms. Finke had to say:
As if Hanoi Jane wasn't fuel enough. Oh My God - the Academy actually fans the fire by drafting First Lady Michelle Obama to help present Best Picture from presumably the White House? So unnecessary and inappropriate to inject so much politics into the Oscars yet again. Hollywood will get pilloried by conservative pundits for arranging this payoff for all the campaign donations it gave the President's reelection campaign. I don't understand this very obvious attempt to infuriate right-leaning audiences. Clearly the studios only want to sell their movies to only half of America.
In the immortal words of Jim Carey in the (mostly forgettable) "Bruce Almighty"....Bingo! Yahtzee!
UPDATE: It turns out that the Jewish stereotype - made by "Ted the bear" might not have been the most tasteless comment of the evening: there's actually competition for that "honor".
You can make a very good case that the most tasteless comment - also during the "Ted the bear" segment - was that there would be an orgy at Jack Nicholson's house afterwards. In case you are unaware, it was at Jack Nicholson's house that, during an orgy, roman polanski raped a 13 year old girl.
If Hollywood had any shame, it would issue an apology for the show in general and this segment in particular - maybe accompanied by a promise to cut down on the gratuitously violent pig slop it continues to pass off as "entertainment" - pig slop which may well have influenced some of the mass murderers whose love of violent "entertainment" has been chronicled over the past few years.
But since Hollywood has so little shame, or scruples, or morality, don't expect it to happen.
Today's quote of the day comes from veteran CBS newsman Bill Plante, while a guest on CNN's Reliable Sources. When host Howard Kurtz asked if he found today's White House "a little self-involved, a little whiney", Here is what Plante had to say:
"...here's the nub of it, Howie: this administration has the tools to reach people on their own. They don't need us as much. And to the extent that they're able to do that, they're undercutting the First Amendment, which guarantees a free press through many voices. If they put out their own material, it's state-run media."
Tell me, Mr. Plante, what do you call it when most of the so-called "free press" decides to act as Barack Obama's accomplice media, by continually fawning over him, looking the other way during scandal after scandal, and essentially giving him a free pass through four years and two election cycles? Would you call that state-run media? The voluntary kind?
I guess not, because I've never heard you complain about it at all. Not one word. When media were forgoing any vestige of journalistic professionalism and integrity to prop up Mr. Obama, that was okey-dokey
But now, when even the lopsidedly favorable coverage isn't enough and the administration is moving it closer to 100% by shutting you and your Obama-adoring pals out, we finally hear from you?. Not because one-sided coverage is unfair, but because Obama & Co. are rendering you less and less relevant, so your ego is bruised?
You'll pardon me if I'm not especially sympathetic. But I do offer my thanks for a comment that (with a tip of the hat to "Howie") is self-involved and whiney enough to be our quote of the day.
The first phantom absentee ballot request hit the Miami-Dade elections website at 9:11 p.m. Saturday, July 7.
The next one came at 9:14. Then 9:17. 9:22. 9:24. 9:25.
Within 2½ weeks, 2,552 online requests arrived from voters who had not applied for absentee ballots. They streamed in much too quickly for real people to be filling them out. They originated from only a handful of Internet Protocol addresses. And they were not random.
It had all the appearances of a political dirty trick, a high-tech effort by an unknown hacker to sway three key Aug. 14 primary elections, a Miami Herald investigation has found.
The plot failed. The elections department's software flagged the requests as suspicious. The ballots weren't sent out.
But who was behind it? And next time, would a more skilled hacker be able to rig an election?
This is the kind of stuff that drives me bats.
NO, Ms. Mazzei, that is the WRONG QUESTION.
The question isn't whether, next time, a more skilled hacker might be able to rig an election. The question is how many times skilled hackers already have rigged elections, that have not been flagged. And how many voter frauds will be unflagged, thus successful, in the future.
And while we're on the subject of questions that should have been asked but weren't, how many different ways of committing voter fraud, unrelated to this kind of attempt, have been perpetrated? How many of those have been successful?
Anyone who says that voter fraud in the USA is virtually nonexistent, is either ignorant, nuts, or in on it.
A 9 year old boy kills himself because of racial bullying?
Apparently that is what happened to young Aaron Dugmore. Read the following excerpts from Andrew Parker and Felix Allen's article in the UK's Daily Sun, and see for yourself:
Aaron Dugmore - thought to be one of Britain's youngest suicides after bullying - was found in his bedroom after months of jibes at school, they claim.
His family say that Aaron was threatened with a plastic KNIFE by one Asian pupil who warned him: "Next time it will be a real one."
But despite complaints to the school, where 75 per cent of pupils come from ethnic backgrounds, they claim nothing was done to stop the bullying.
Aaron joined Erdington Hall primary in Birmingham last September after the family moved nearby. But Kelly-Marie, 30, and stepdad Paul Jones, 43, noticed a change in him from his first day.
Paul said: "He became argumentative with his brothers and sisters, which wasn't like him at all. Eventually he told us that he was being bullied by a group of Asian children at school and had to hide from them in the playground at lunchtime. He said one kid even said to him, 'My dad says all the white people should be dead'."
"I went to see head Martin Collin a few times, but he only said, 'You didn't have to come to this school, you chose to come here'."
A child being threatened and bullied every day, and when the headmaster is informed of it his response is, in essence, that it's the child's fault for showing up?
Nothing can bring Aaron Dugmore back. But there is a legal system in the UK (or, at any rate, there used to be one) which should be making damn sure this mindless, heartless criminally imbecilic headmaster is punished to the fullest extent of the law. Is it being done?
And there are legal authorities who should immediately assess the bullying going on in this school, as well as other area schools, before there is another tragedy. Is this being done?
Real racism. It comes in all forms, from all sources. No group is immune to it, or from it. Certainly not a vulnerable young 9 year old, set upon by hate-filled bullies who are aided and abetted by a headmaster, who should be in charge of a jail cell, not a school.
Here's a story I found at townhall.com, which I guarantee you will not read about in any mainstream media.
Did you ever hear of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE)? Probably not. Did you know that it had a conference on Friday in which Black speaker after Black speaker came out against more restrictive gun control? Probably not.
A number of African-American leaders joined together Friday to challenge the gun control proposals currently being considered on Capitol Hill, claiming gun control laws are inherently racist."There's a direct correlation between gun control and black people control," Stacy Swimp, president and CFO of the Frederick Douglass Society, said at the event at the press conference sponsored by the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (C.U.R.E).
"The first gun laws were put into place to register black folks, to make sure that they would know who we were - that we could not defend ourselves," Swimp said.
Niger Ennis, President of CORE, Congress for Racial Equality, one of the oldest civil rights organizations in the country, agreed that “"un control has ultimately been about people control."
"It sprouts from racist soil," Ennis said.
Speakers of the event praised the National Rifle association, explaining the organizations contribution to Civil Rights.
"The National Rifle Association was founded by religious leaders who wanted to protect freed slaves from the Ku Klux Klan" said Harry Alford, the president of the Black Chamber of Commerce. "They would raise money, buy arms, show the free slaves how to use those arms and protect their families. Many of us probably wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for the NRA." (NOTE: I cannot find evidence to support Mr. Alford's claim).
"What's going on is a mind game, this is a diversion to keep you off the thought of the poor economy, which generates crime," said Alford. "This is about crime and trying to divert your attention away from it because they can't create jobs. Public officials can put more cops on the beat, have tougher sentencing laws but there are limits how much is can do. A bad labor market has a profound impact on the crime rates."
Is any of this a surprise to you?
If you rely entirely on mainstream media for your news, it's a pretty good bet that all of it is.
And let's remember, law-abiding Black people (which, despite the mouthings of ignorant people and racists among us, comprise the great majority of Blacks) are the most vulnerable to crime, because they are disproportionately likely to live in higher-crime areas - areas in which illegal ownership of guns is uncontrolled and appparently uncontrollable. Is it really a great idea to make them vulnerable to the predators in their own neighborhoods?
There are many good, logical reasons for strict gun control laws. But there is a line, beyond which they cause more harm than good.
Maybe, just maybe, our wonderful "neutral" mainstream media might talk about that line someday.
ABOUT THE PUBLIC'S DESIRE TO SPEND MONEY WE DON'T HAVE.....
The New York Times' Charles Blow has a column in today's paper, assuring us (here's a surprise) that Barack Obama's plan for averting sequestration is much better than anything Republicans are offering.
This is hardly a surprise, since Mr. Blow has managed to figure out a rationale for over 6 trillion dollars of new debt in Mr. Obama's first term.
But I was intrigued by the following table which accompanied Mr. Blow's column, and purports to show that the public is decidedly on the side of spending still more on just about everything. Here it is:
If all you know is what you see on this table, it would be impossible to disagree with Mr. Blow's point.
The problem is, this table is a setup. It is shown in a way that cannot but help the Obama/Democrat side.
Here are two reasons why:
1. The poll data lump "increase and "stay the same" together. But the intention of this administration is to increase spending in every area shown on the table. Therefore, to hold spending exactly at current levels is, in fact, a decrease in what Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats want.
What do you suppose the data would show if "stay the same" were, instead, lumped with "decrease"? Do you think you'd get the same kind of results?
Oh, what's that? Some readers dispute my point about staying the same being equivalent to a decrease? Ok, then how about if the data were split into three parts: increase, stay the same, and decrease. How do you think they would turn out then? How many of these areas would show more people wanting a decrease in spending than an increase?
By showing its data this way, this information is being kept from you. Why do you suppose?
Pew is a reputable outfit, and I assume the organization did not do this. Which leaves the Times. Did it intentionally lump "increase" and "the same" together to mold public opinion? That wouldn't surprise me a bit.
2. Then we have the question itself. Please note that it is entirely generic: i.e. do you want to increase or decrease spending for a series of mostly positive reasons. When put that way, of course a great many people would say they want the government to spend more. But that is not the same as, for example, citing how much is currently spent, and asking if respondents think that amount is more than enough, enough, or less than enough to operate with. Or asking respondents which areas they would want the country to go further into debt for.
When no specific amounts are mentioned, the question is entirely abstract - and you get what marketing research people sometimes call a "blue sky" response, which is to say a response apropos of nothing real. It is like asking a family if it wants to spend more on a variety of personal and philanthropic activities, like giving to charities, taking more vacations, etc - without asking where the money is coming from. Sure, spend more on everything . Spend spend spend.
Is this kind of garbage what we should expect from the New York Times? Nope, The Times is supposed to be a newspaper.
Is it what we have come to expect from the New York Times? Yep. The Times, whatever it is supposed to be, is now a propaganda sheet for the left.
Too bad. A real newspaper once lived on those pages.
UPDATE: I checked that table with Pew Research Center. And, as I suspected, this is not the way Pew put it together, it is the way the Times did.
Pew, to its credit, showed all three components - increase, stay the same and decrease - separately.
But, just for fun, I thought I would turn the tables on the Times, and lump "stay the same" with "decrease". Here is what we get then:
Increase spendingStay the same/Decrease spending
Aid to the world's needy21%76%
Aid to needy in U.S.2768
Roads and infrastructure3860
Food and drug inspection3364
Natural Disaster relief3462
Look a little different now?
As you can see, the only things which come out on the "spend more" side are Veterans' benefits, and education (which, in reality is state and local, not federal). In other words, veterans and pretty much nothing else.
MAURICE TAYLOR - MY NOMINATION FOR CEO OF THE YEAR
God I love this man.
Remember Maurice Taylor, the CEO of Titan International? On Wednesday, I wrote a blog about Taylor's letter to Arnaud Montebourg, France's Minister for Industrial Renewal, in which he declined to purchase a money-losing tire plant Goodyear had finally bitten the bullet and was pulling away from.
Among Mr. Taylor's more earthy explanations for his decision:
I have visited that factory a couple of times.The French workforce gets paid high wages but works only three hours.They get one hour for breaks and lunch, talk for three hours and work for three.I told this to the French union workers to their faces.They told me that's the French way!
The Chinese are shipping tires into France - really all over Europe - and yet you do nothing.In five years Michelin won't be able to produce tires in France.
Sir, your letter states that you want Titan to start a discussion.How stupid do you think we are?Titan is the one with the money and talent to produce tires.What does the crazy union have?It has the French government.The French farmer wants tires.He does not care if the tires are from China or India and these governments are subsidizing them.Your government doesn't care either. "We're French!"
If you like straight talk, this should put you in orgasmic bliss. But it didn't put Minister Montebourg in orgasmic bliss. His response, in part?
"Your ideas are as extremist as they are insulting, while showing a perfect ignorance of our country."
Now, for most people things would have ended right there. Taylor told Montebourg why he made the decision, Montebourg expressed strong disapproval, finis.
But this is Maurice Taylor we're talking about. He sent a second letter.
"You letter shows the extent to which your political class is out of touch with [real] world problems".
"You call me an extremist, but most businessmen would agree that I must be nuts to have the idea to spend millions of US dollars to buy a tire factory in France paying some of the highest wages in the world."
"Your letter did not mention why the French government has not stepped in to rescue this Goodyear tire factory."
"The extremists are in your government, who have no idea how to build a business."
"Your government let the wackos of the communist union destroy the highest paying jobs"
"At no time did Titan ask for lower wages; we asked only if you want seven hours pay, you work at least six."
"France does have beautiful women and great wine. PS: My grandmother named my father after French entertainer Maurice Chevalier, and I inherited the name."
"I have visited Normandy with my wife. I know what we did for France."
But, as they say in the infomercials, wait! That's not all!
According to an article at London's Daily MailIn online:
Mr Taylor then let rip again on France's Europe 1 radio yesterday morning, telling the presenter: "Is Montebourg stupid, or what?
"You want to talk about the Goodyear factory, so why are you talking to me? You should be talking to that imbecile."
Holy camembert. This is still escalating. Where it will eventually wind up? Sacre bleu, who knows?
But you gotta love this guy, don't you?
Oh, one last thing. Also in the Daily Mail article:
A report by Swiss bank UBS found the French graft for just 1,480 hours a year, with 27 days annual holiday - meaning they have more free time than any other nation on the planet.
Britons work 1,782 hours a year - 301 more than the French - and have 20 days' holiday a year, making us the world's 36th most lazy nation, it was found.
Britain is the 36th most lazy nation, and France works, on average, almost 6 hours a week less than Britons do?
Does that support Maurice Taylor's point, or what?
Today's quote of the day comes to us from Democrat strategist Robert Zimmerman who, on CNN yesterday, was talking about the epidemic of violence and murder in Chicago.
Who does Zimmerman blame it on? In his own words:
"And let's be very clear about what's happening in Washington today and why it's undermining the city of Chicago, because there's a mindset now in our government, in Washington, from the Republican members of Congress, that sequestration is an acceptable way of doing business, that we can in fact engage in these massive irresponsible cuts that no one thinks is a logical approach to budgeting.
"And that undermines law enforcement in our cities; it undermines so many education opportunities for our younger people and it does in fact -- in fact create an impoverished class of our society that leads to abuse, leads to violence and leads to more Chicagos."
Got that? Republicans think sequestration is an acceptable way of doing business. That, you see, is why violence and murder in Chicago has blown sky-high.
Let's forget for just a moment that Barack Obama was the one who floated the idea of sequestration, and that Barack Obama specifically said he would veto any attempt to get rid of sequestration. In other words, for just a moment let's forget that Zimmerman is lying through his teeth about where sequestration comes from.
Let's instead talk about the fact that wanting spending cuts - which don't even exist yet (they would kick in on March 1st if things stay as they are), have about as much relevance to the years-long jump in Chicago's murder rate as the AFLAC duck has to do with moon phases.
But here's something that might be relevant - something which Zimmerman somehow overlooked in his trenchmouthed...er, trenchant analysis. As noted by Mike Bates of newsbusters.org, "Chicago hasn't had a Republican mayor in over 80 years. Democrats have controlled the Illinois governor's mansion and both houses of the legislature for more than a decade, with Democrats ruling the Illinois House for 28 of the last 30 years".
Could that have something to do with it? Could the fact - and, unlike zimmerman's BS, this is a fact - that the state of Illinois in general, and the city of Chicago in particular, have been run as a one-party feifdom for all this time - be meaningful here?
If we're talking about the real world, not the media-abetted fantasy world, Republicans barely have had a sniff of government in Chicago or Illinois through the entire time this has happened in Chicago, and long before it happened as well.
Oh, one other thing: Did CNN's Carol Costello challenge Zimmerman on this bald-faced lie, made to her face and the faces of every viewer? Did she show any journalistic integrity at all by pressing him to explain how his allegation could possibly make any sense?
Why am I asking questions we both already know the answer to?
As Chuck Hagel moves closer to confirmation as our new Secretary of Defense, I thought you might be interested in learning that, as many anti-Jewish, anti-Israel incidents I have posted here, there are a good many more.
If you've got the stomach for it (or if you feel the same way about Jews that Hagel does, in which case your stomach won't be affected at all), then click hereand read an additional compilation, put together by columnist Deroy Murdock.
Then remember: we could have rid ourselves of the man who appointed Hagel last November. And, according to exit polls, about 70% of the Jews in this country made sure he stayed in office for another four years.
Great going, guys. Brillliant move. Consider Hagel one of the fringe benefits.
In the immortal words of Pete Seeger who, I assure you, voted for Obama too), when will they ever learn, when will they e-ver learn?
What kind of candidate for the City Council would you think a teachers' union would endorse? Let me give you two choices:
-You might think it would be someone dedicated to the teaching profession, who wants excellent teachers and educated students.
-Or you might think it would be a racist, anti-semitic USA hater who advocates - demands - the end of capitalism and the end of the USA?
Well, which of the two is it?
Well, here's your answer. The Los Angeles Teachers' Union has endorsed ron gochez for the City Council. And here he is, in his own words (a tiny sampling, I assure you), courtesy of Daniel Greenberg's article at frontpagemag.com:
In 2002, he published a Letter to the Editor, at SDSU's Daily Aztec, entitled "The Jewish-owned media continue to blind the masses with propaganda to keep them in fear."
At a UCLA rally, Gochez said, "Why is that these people... these frail, racist white people want to keep us out of this country? It's not simply because the color of our skin, it's not simply that they just want to exploit us, let me tell you why: because on this planet right now, six billion people... at the forefront of the movement is La Raza (the race)..."
Totally sounds nothing like Hitler. The Aztec removed Ron Gochez's original rant and then deleted the responses to it. But here they are again.
"Either you are with us or against us" is what Bush tells us. Our civil rights are under attack by this fascist and Nazi-like Bush administration. All people of color have been/are victims of racial profiling at the hands of the border, police, military, Republican and Democratic pigs. The post Sept. 11 disappearances of our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters are proof of that. As Chicanos/Mexicanos living in occupied Mexico/Aztlan, we are treated like foreigners on our own land. Our civil rights are violated 24/7. Don't believe me? Research Operation Gatekeeper and the 800 people who have been murdered under the rule of the "Republicrat" dictatorship. When we try to educate ourselves by passing out "Know Your Rights" fliers, we are beaten, arrested and made political prisoners like Ben Prado.
A Whole Foods supermarket in New York has removed a sign that used a drawing of President Barack Obama to advertise a sale on chicken after complaints that the ad was offensive.
The sign outside the supermarket on Manhattan's Upper West Side, featuring an apparent caricature of Obama advertising an upcoming sale on whole organic chickens, outraged neighbor Woody Henderson.
"There are certain things that have been used to put down black people — watermelon, fried chicken," he said.
Jason Nunez of the Bronx said, "Even if he's not the president, you're going to have an African-American promoting the sale of chicken? They can do better than that."
During the Obama presidency, we have been told that a ton of different words and phrases have racial overtones. Some of them have ranged from far-fetched, to borderline insane (mentioning that he was from Chicago would certainly fit the latter category). I have been second to none in pointing them out as objects of the ridicule they deserve.
But some words and phrases are exactly as racial as described. And, as the article's Mr. Henderson points out, if there are two foods which have relentlessly been used to negatively stereotype Black people, they are watermelon and chicken - usually fried chicken, but not in any way restricted to that one type of preparation.
How could Whole Foods have been so obtuse - especially a Whole Foods location in the uber-leftward Upper West Side of Manhattan, where it would be sure to cause a firestorm?
What will the store do for an encore? Advertise its ATM machine with a picture of a big-nosed orthodox Jew, grinning and counting his money?
In case you are not aware, here is the result of the plea deals cut by former U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., and his wife, former Chicago Alderman Sandra Jackson:
-Him: Prosecutors have recommended a sentence of 46 - 57 months in prison for felony fraud, which he has accepted. Jackson Jr.'s exact words: "Guilty, Your Honor. I misled the American people,"
-Her: Prosecutors are seeking a sentence of 18 to 24 months in prison for filing false tax statements, presumably covering up her husband's felony misuse of campaign money (about $750,000 worth). She, too, has pled guilty.
The reason I ask whether you are aware of the fact that this highest-of-high-profile US Representative and his Alderman wife pled guilty? Because, it seems to me that these guilty pleas received less coverage and fewer mentions in the cable news shows than the fact that Marco Rubio took a swig of spring water during his response to President Obama's State of the Union address.
Obviously, two Democrats copping jail-time pleas for felonious behavior is less important than the fact that a Republican drinks water.
And, yes, these are the same "journalists" who squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.
BRITISH NATIONAL HEALTH CARE: THE "ART" OF THE STATE
Here is the first paragraph of John Hinderaker's latest blog, concerning a subject we have discussed from time to time in here: the condition of Britain's socialized health care:
For a surprisingly long time, the British were proud of their system of socialized medicine, apparently because it was considered egalitarian. Now, however, a series of scandals in the National Health Service has focused attention on how low-quality government medicine is. The National Health Service has been rocked by one report after another of appallingly bad care, with many Britons demanding that NHS officials be criminally prosecuted.
Want to read more? I don't blame you. Click here and you'll find the entire sordid, unsettling story. Then think about these facts:
-Government rarely, if ever, runs anything competently or efficiently. Even the simplest of things.
-Administering health care is immensely complex.
-This is what British health care has fallen to since it was taken over by the government.
-Our government is in the process of taking over our health care.
If this is enough to make you sick, I suggest you have your sickness fast - before ObamaCare completely kicks in.
Did we really vote to put this man back in office for another four years? What's wrong with us?
Today's quote comes from christine amanpour: a "journalist" who has been presenting her biased BS for decades - with barely any problems about it from the same mainstream media which is so happy to go after Fox News every day.
Here is amanpour's happy birthday wish to......robert mugabe, the mass murdering thug who has turned Zimbabwe from one of the more prosperous African states into a hellhole beyond belief, with just about everything that worked taken over by his government and handed over to his incompetent suckups who have run it into the ground, leaving little other than destitution and starvation for Zimbabwe's people..
"Imagine a world leader four years older than the Pope who's been in power for 33 years and shows no sign of calling it quits. Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, is 89 today, and celebrated modestly by his standards - with a cake and a gift of 89 cows, we're told. But a lavish birthday party is planned for next month, complete with a soccer match and an all-night concert, at an estimated cost of $600,000, which is a hefty price tag for a country whose finance minister said just last month that it had only $217 left in the national bank. A $30 million infusion followed."
Yes, amanpour did mention, afterwards, that "Zimbabwe is still a blighted landscape for the economy and for human rights". Nice of her. But she did so only after her kissy-face birthday wishes, and that "good news" about the economy (where the $30 million came from, she did not say).
Under mugabe, Zimbabwe has become the North Korea of Africa. But christine amanpour is wishes you a happy birthday, robert. Enjoy your cake and cows.
I promise the next quote of the day, even if it is not a happy one, will be less sickening than today's. How could it not be?
ED SCHULTZ: A STUDY IN CIVILITY AND RACIAL TOLERANCE
Here, pulled from Jack Coleman's piece at newsbusters.org is a bit of quintessential Ed Schultz - as transcribed from his radio talk show on Tuesday (asides, and bold print are supplied by Mr. Coleman):
You know, if you're totally secure financially, you see the world a little bit differently. If you have a job or if you have two jobs or if you make good money, you feel a little better in life about what your next day is going to be like. Simpson-Bowles is a fraud! These are two secure wealthy white guys telling middle classers how they have to bite the bullet and, oh by the way, we're the problem that the budget isn't worth a damn! We're the problem that we're in the craphole financially! And oh we gotta (Schultz grunts weirdly) , we gotta bite the bullet a little bit more! We have a, middle classers, we haven't done enough, c'mon! So, my question to Alan Simpson, the conservative from Wyoming who I'm not trusting whatsoever -- Mr. Simpson, what are you willing to give up? You're asking Americans to bite the bullet. What are you willing to give? Are you willing to give up some of that Senate pension? You willing to give up some of that Senate health care?! What are you willing to give up there, Mr. Simpson?! Don't you look down your ugly old nose at me and tell me what middle classers have gotta do! (Schultz pronouncing "do" as "doe"), because you see, the middle classers won the last election. And the last thing we need to do is listen to some old crusty old white farts out there telling us how wealthy and secure they are and about how we have to give it up! No, they gotta gi'd it up! They're the ones that gotta give it up! (voice breaking from strain of derangement).
FYI: According to celebritynetworth.com, Ed Schultz is worth an estimated $11.5 million dollars - which, I think you will agree, makes him secure and wealthy. And, the last time I checked, he was just as White as Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles.
So, in addition to being viciously insulting and racist, Schultz is also a world-class hypocrite.
Oh, one other thing: Suppose Rush Limbaugh used exactly the same insults and racial references in talking about two political figures he disagreed with. Would our wonderful "neutral" media ignore it the way they are ignoring the garbage which spews from the mouth of Limousine Liberal Ed Schultz?
I just read an excellent summary of the Democrats' formula for demonizing Republicans on key issues.
It is in Andrew Stiles' latest piece at nationalreview.com, which you can read in its entirety by clicking here. But, with apologize to Mr. Stiles, the formula is so on-target, so accurate, that I do not want to take the chance you won't click on the link I've provided.
Here it is:
Democrats have nearly perfected the following exercise in cynical electioneering: 1) introduce legislation; 2) title it something that appeals to the vast majority of Americans who have no interest in learning what is actually in the bill, e.g., the "Violence Against Women Act"; 3) make sure it is sufficiently noxious to the GOP that few Republicans will support it; 4) vote, and await headlines such as "[GOP Lawmaker] Votes No On Violence Against Women Act"; 5) clip and use headline in 30-second campaign ad; and 6) repeat.
Could that have been said any better? Could it be more accurate?
I just read an email which, according to Mike Adams' blog at townhall.com, was sent by a "sociology instructor" (I'm not sure of what that means) at Eastern Carolina University, named Summer Wisdom, .
Here, according to Mr. Adams, is what it says:
This spring the LGBT Resource Office (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) is hosting a program called 'Gay? Fine By Me' and we would love for you and your department to share in this opportunity. The LGBTRO will be ordering shirts that say 'gay? fine by me' and distributing them to faculty, staff and students to promote an atmosphere of support on campus. This simple message helps to combat homophobia by publically (sic) affirming our LGBT community and creating an inclusive environment where all students can feel safe to express who they are. The shirts will be distributed free of charge, though the LGBTRO welcomes donations to the project.
Everyone will be encouraged to wear the shirts on campus and to participate in a campus wide ally project where we will create a Human Rainbow during the annual Barefoot on the Mall celebration. Photos of this massive showing of LGBT support will be publicized on the LGBTRO's website and social media accounts.
The LGBTRO would also like to create an internal marketing campaign by taking pictures of ECU faculty, staff, administrators, student leaders and student groups wearing the shirts. This is where you come in. If you, your department or office, or the student group you advise would like to participate, you can reserve the correct number of shirts on the org sync order form below. Shirts will be distributed March 18th - 20th on WrightPlaza, at the LGBTRO ... times and location for the photo shoot will be e-mailed to everyone who reserves shirts or picks one up at WrightPlaza.
The picture will be yours for your own marketing materials but will also be part of a campus wide poster campaign of Pirate Allies. We are also willing to bring a photographer to you if you are part of a large group or department and would like the photo to take place in your own building or during a pre-arranged meeting instead of walking everyone over to our photo shoot. Please communicate with my (sic) directly if you would like to set up something like this. This is a wonderful opportunity to be a part of something great while showcasing support for positive change on ECU's campus.
If you or your department would like to participate, the link below will take you to an order form on OrgSync where you are provided multiple options: 1. Reserve the correct number of shirts and sizes for your group, 2. Reserve your shirts AND make a donation to the project, 3. Make a donation to the project without ordering shirts. (Donations to the project of $500.00 or more will add your office or department's logo to the event publicity flyers as a sponsor).
Summer Wisdom, LGBT Resource Office, Sociology Instructor
Adams - who, I suspect (but don't know for a fact), is no fan of gay rights - has major problems with this email, and says so in his column, which I urge you to click hereand read in its entirety.
But finding problems with this email does not require that kind of attitude. Pesonally, I am about as strong a proponent for gay rights as you will ever find, very much including gay marriage. And I have major problems with it too.
I am appalled at what I consider a clear attempt to coerce ECU students and faculty, by forcing them to either "support" a party line they may not believe in, or risk being singled out and made a pariah.
Isn't being singled out and made a pariah what gay people - correctly - complain anti-gay people are doing to them?
No matter how strongly I support gay rights, I will never go along with this kind of activity. In my opinion, it will not further the cause of gay rights, it will polarize people and harden anti-gay sentiment.
How does such coercion help the gay rights movement? How does it make gay people more accepted? Make a gay person's life any easier?
If you can answer either of those questions, I would love to know what you have to say.
One of the sites I link to, freerepublic.com, has been down for two days. The folks over there are assuring readers that there is nothing sinister at all about this, just that some equipment crashed and is being replaced.
I look forward to this valuable site being available again. I may not agree with everything I see there (much of the material is well to my right), but I agree with a lot...and, in any case, it is a necessity that all voices be heard.
Best of luck guys. Please fix/repair/replace the offending equipment ASAP.
UPDATE: freerepublic.com is up and running again. Glad to see it back.
More than half of U.S. citizens believe that most or all of the country's 11 million illegal immigrants should be deported, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday that highlights the difficulties facing lawmakers trying to reform the U.S. immigration system.
The online survey shows resistance to easing immigration laws despite the biggest push for reform in Congress since 2007.
Thirty percent of those polled think that most illegal immigrants, with some exceptions, should be deported, while 23 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be deported.
Only 5 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States legally, and 31 percent want most illegal immigrants to stay.
These results are in line with other polls in recent years, suggesting that people's views on immigration have not changed dramatically since the immigration debate reignited in Congress last month, according to Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.
If these data are accurate - and, as noted, they parallel data seen in other studies as well - it is clear that legal citizens remain strongly against illegals being handed a "get out of illegality" pass.
Given how completely Democrats, their likeminded left wing groups, and the preponderance of mainstream media, have worked to change these attitudes, this is nothing short of astonishing.
And nothing short of a huge issue for Republicans, if they can figure out a way to handle it intelligently (which, based on recent history, would be about as astonishing as the findings).
I assume we can agree that obliqueness is not Maurice Taylor's long suit. But he does get his point across, doesn't he? And that is why this letter is our quote of the day.
Oh, did you want to see Montebourg's reaction to the? Wellll, he wrote a letter of his own. And, in it, he said:
"Your ideas are as extremist as they are insulting, while showing a perfect ignorance of our country."
Ooooohhhhh la la. Congratulations, Minister Montebourg!! I'll bet Mr. Taylor, properly humbled, will come running back to take that factory over immediately. Your intelligent, fact-filled response, with its strong, confidence-building assurances that the factory will be hugely successful has saved the day!!
Well, maybe not exactly.
On the other hand, look on the bright side Minister Mountebank...er, Montebourg. You can always suggest that your boss, President Francois Hollande, who just raised the income tax to a maximum of 75% which is causing the richest, most productive people in France to flee the country, should raise it again. Yep, that'll save the factory all right. And think of all the rich French people who will come streaming back to pay "their fair share".
If this is the way France conducts business, there is little wonder that it is in its current fiscal mess.
How tragic for us that President Obama, based on his economic policies, seems to be such a big fan.
Today's quote comes from Chrazy Chris Matthews on today's "Hardball" show - and provides us not just with another classic example of how low he has fallen, but another classic example of left wing "civility" as well.
Regarding Republican congressional opposition to President Obama's policies, Matthews had this to say:
"Who is the President talking to? Is it just a clique of a bunch of right-wingers who don't want to talk to anybody? Are they Hamas?"
Not that you need me to tell you, but hamas is a terrorist, Jew-hating, Jew-murdering organization. That is who Matthews equated elected Republican congresspeople with.
Very intelligent, Chris. Very "civil".
And, as usual, very sure to be ignored by the same "neutral" media which can find a reason to attack a Republican for (gasp!) taking a sip of water during a speech.
MAKING IT EASIER FOR RAPISTS IN COLORADO: TWO VIEWS
First we have this brilliance, from Colorado State Senator Joe Salazar:
"It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop ... pop around at somebody."
Wonderful. Women should not carry a weapon to protect themselves because somehow the vetting and training required to get a gun permit will roll right off of them and they'll just start shooting people indiscriminately. After all, they're just girls - right, Joe? Let's not confuse their little heads, for goodness sake. How would they know if someone is attempting to rape them?
This was so stupid that Salazar - no doubt because of how much negative reaction he got from his appallingly stupid, insulting remarks - apologized for what he said the next day.
Then there is this - or, more exactly, was this - from the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs (UCCS) web site:
Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
Kick off your shoes if you have time and can't run in them.
Don't take time to look back; just get away.
If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.
Scream, run, vomit, piss, and when all else fails passively resist (you'll have to guess what that means, I don't have a clue), and a bunch of other things. But do not carry any weapon which you might uyse to defend yourself. No no no. That's a bad idea.
This was so imbecilic - and, no doubt generated so much ridicule and sarcasm - that the school removed it...with a disclaimer that it was taken out of context. (How this could be taken out of context I do not know. Nor, I suspect do you. Nor, I am certain, does UCCS.)
Instead, UCCS has provided a ton of advice - much of it very good advice. Here are the links (please note that the misspelling of aggression is UCCS's, not mine):
But, good advice notwithstanding, you can look through those links until your eyeballs fall out, and you will not find one suggestion that having something to fight back with (not just a gun -- but anything at all) is a good idea. Apparently, you are supposed to fight the rapist - a man who is probably bigger, stronger, and inherently unconcerned about his violent behavor or your well-being - with nothing but your bare hands.
No gun, no taser, no blunt instrument, no nothing. It's a much better idea to spontanously vomit, or try to con the rapist into thinking you have your period. Yeah, that's the ticket.
I wonder if the geniuses at UCCS are cognizant of the fact that talking about vomit and menstruation just might convince a rapist to decide on anal sex - for most women, the most painful sex of all - which, if done without sufficient lubrication (will a rapist give a damn about that?) can cause horrible, lasting bodily damage to go along with the emotional trauma.
Oh, wait. Maybe potential rape victims can say they have their period, a stomach problem...and diarrhea too. That'll be very convincing, I'm sure.
This, of course, is before we get to the fact that rapists stalking UCCS students might have some idea of the things female students are told to say/do, and are going to just laugh them off.
How sad that these people are so steeped in Political Correctness that they cannot see the danger they put young women in by spouting this stuff.
And how fortuitous for rapists in Colorado that they can feel so safe while engaging in their specialty.
I'll wait for you to get a barf bag before you read this.
Ok, have one handy - opened and ready? Good. Now you can read this excerpt from Maggie Haberman's piece at politico.com, about Senator Schumer giving Chuck Hagel a "heads-up" on the amazing, heretofore unknown fact that Jews have, on occasion, been oppressed:
"He struck me as sincere, and you know, you have to be sitting there at the meeting obviously, but I also told him when he used the word Jewish lobby what it meant to Jewish people," he added.
"And I told him what a double standard is. That Jewish people throughout the centuries have suffered a double standard. Everyone could be a farmer except Jewish people. Everyone could live in Moscow except Jewish people. I said when everyone else can lobby but all of a sudden when those of us who are pro-Israel lobby, it’s a negative, that's a double standard. And I'm sure you didn't mean it, but it harkens to the old days.
"And he really, you know, he almost had tears in his eyes when he understood. So I believe he will be good."
This, readers, is Charles Schumer in full condescension mode. This is Schumer telling you he thinks you are so effing stupid that if he says Chuck Hagel had some kind of epiphany because a Jewish senator told him that, once upon a time, Jews couldn't be farmers or live in Moscow, you will believe it.
Let me assure you that, if Chuck Hagel had tears in his eyes, it was from laughing uncontrollably at the thought that anyone with an IQ above 47 would buy this utter, total, complete, unadulterated BS.
This is what Schumer thinks of his constituents. And the worst part is that, in the case of any constituent dumb and/or gullible enough to buy what Schumer is selling, he is 100% correct.
The competition is fierce, but I doubt that you can find media venues more loyal, more subservient, to Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats, than NBC and its even further leftward adjunct, MSNBC.
I wonder how they'll be reporting this news, which is excerpted from Jason Garcia's article at the Orlando Sentinel:
Universal Orlando plans to stop offering medical insurance to part-time employees beginning next year, a move the resort says has been forced by the federal government's health-care overhaul.
The giant theme-park resort, which generates more than $1 billion in annual revenue, began informing employees this month that it will offer health-insurance to part-timers "only until December 31, 2013."
The reason: Universal currently offers part-time workers a limited insurance plan that has low premiums but also caps the payout of benefits. For instance, Universal's plan costs about $18 a week for employee-only coverage but covers only a maximum of $5,000 a year toward hospital stays. There are similar caps for other services.
Those types of insurance plans - sometimes referred to as "mini-med" plans - will no longer be permitted under the federal Affordable Care Act. Beginning in 2014, the law will prohibit insurance plans that impose annual monetary limits on essential medical care such, as hospitalization, or on overall spending.
Well, well, well. "Affordable" care apparently isn't so affordable after all. So plans which offer limited coverage at a lower rate are going away.
I'll just bet that the folks over at NBC and MSNBC are up in arms about this. Imagine: "Affordable" health care which forces the actual coverage to be so unaffordable that lower end workers won't be receiving it.
I can't wait to see all those condemnatory features and panel discussions with them attacking President Obama and his fellow Dem.....oh, wait.
This is for anyone who is foolish enough to believe a word Barack Obama - or his Accomplice Media - says about who is responsible for the impending "sequester" (i.e. the automatic cuts in both domestic and military spending which will kick in if congress does not come to an agreement by March 1).
The Date is November 21, 2011. The speaker is President Barack Obama. And here is what he had to say (in case you want to get past his requisite attacks on Republicans - if, for no other reason, out of sheer boredom - start at about 2:30):
The key passage? At about 3:25 Mr. Obama says:
"Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending."
As you can plainly see, President Obama was not just on board with sequestration, he demanded it, and would use his presidential powers to prevent its removal.
Now - asking our wonderful, "neutral" media: Who's sequester is this? If it kicks in, how can you possibly have the nerve to blame it on Republicans?
Or are you so far gone, so completely in the tank, that facts are nothing more than an inconvenience to be disregarded on cue for your lord and savior Barack Obama?
How sad that the answer to that last question is so clearly obvious.
What should you do if you hear someone trying to break into your home? Pull out your shotgun and start blasting. Don't ask questions, just aim the gun...somewhere...and shoot.
If the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre ever said that in public, our media would be demanding that he be institutionalized as a menace to society.
But it wasn't Wayne LaPierre, folks. It was....you better be sitting for this.....Vice President Joe Biden. He said it yesterday, during a video town hall meeting.
Doubt me? Well, here it is - see and hear for yourself:
Mr. Biden's exact words:
"If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun, have the shells of 12 gauge shotgun, and I promise you, as I told my wife, we live in an area that's wooded and somewhat secluded.I said 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put that double barrel shot gun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you whoever is coming in is not gonna ... you don't need an AR-15, it's harder to aim, it's harder to use and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself.Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun.'"
What great advice. Perfect if you happen to live in a wooded, somewhat secluded area, I'm sure. Just try not to hit a neighbor, or a passing car.
Now, what about the 99% of gun violence that does not take place in a wooded, somewhat secluded area?
How, for example, are Black families in South Side Chicago supposed to protect themselves from the gangbangers who seem to run that part of town - gangbangers who neither Rahm Emanuel nor his useless police chief Garry McCarthy (whose idea of law enforcement is to blame everyone else), nor any of the other ivory tower politicians over there have the slightest idea of how to handle? Should they take Joe Biden's comments to heart? Should they get double barrel shotguns and start blasting too?
What we have here is the first in line to succeed Barack Obama as President, emphatically suggesting that the answer to "a problem" is to shoot first and ask questions later - while using an example (the "somewhat secluded" compound he lives in), with no relevance to almost any of the gun violence which permeates our society.
But do you seriously expect our mainstream media - AKA Obama's Accomplice Media - to ridicule and/or condemn what Vice President Biden said?
Not for nothing do I call him Jackass Joe. And not for nothing do I call the media hopelessly biased.
Finally, a major network is reporting that graphically violent video games just might have had something to do with the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre perpetrated by adam lanza.
Excerpted from Bob Orr and Pat Milton's article at cbsnews.com (the bold print is mine):
Law enforcement sources say Adam Lanza was motivated by violent video games and a strong desire to kill more people than another infamous mass murderer.
Sources say Lanza saw himself as being in direct competition with Anders Breivik, a Norwegian man who killed 77 people in July 2011.
Breivik killed eight with a bombing in downtown Oslo. He then moved to a nearby island where hunted down and fatally shot 69 people, mostly teenagers attending a summer camp.
Two officials who have been briefed on the Newtown, Conn., investigation say Lanza wanted to top Breivik's death toll and targeted nearby Sandy Hook Elementary School because it was the "easiest target" with the "largest cluster of people."
Evidence shows that his mind, sources say, Lanza was also likely acting out the fantasies of a video game as he killed 20 first graders and six adults at the school. For Lanza, the deaths apparently amounted to some kind of "score."
Are you surprised?
You certainly aren't if you're a regular reader of this blog, where I been talking about the significance of graphic video games to mass murderers continuously for over two months.
Are you outraged? If so, I hope it is because it took over two months for one of the networks to finally connect those video games with the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, as CBS is doing here.
Are you impressed with CBS? You shouldn't be. Because the massacre took place on December 14th, and between then and now, CBS has joined NBC and ABC in:
-Putting out countless reports, features and web site articles attacking the NRA, which had nothing whatsoever to do with adam lanza's murdering spree, but next to nothing about the violence ingrained in lanza, and other mass murderers, by video games - and/or movies and/or rap and heavy metal "music" lyrics?
-Putting out countless reports, features and web site articles connecting the lanza massacre with a demand for more gun control laws - as if any laws, new or old, would have prevented this deranged lunatic from illegally obtaining the guns he used (blowing off his mother's face in the process), illegally breaking into the elementary school (shooting his way through a window), and illegally killing as many people as he could before turning the guns on himself.
The fact is, until now (with precious few exceptions), CBS has been just as guilty as its major network counterparts in reporting - selling is a better word - left wing politicians' feel-good BS, instead of dealing with the fact that our children are continuously being bombarded with "entertainment" which desensitizes them to murder, and turns it into little more than a game, in which the more you kill the higher your score is.
Could the reason just possibly be the amount of advertising $$$$$ these "entertainment" venues stuff the networks' pockets with, and the networks' fear of losing it?
What are they thinking? Is it "Hell, the NRA does little or no advertising, so let's go after them instead. Besides, if there are more mass murders by sickos who are influenced by violent "entertainment" venues, that's great, because look at how high our ratings go when we cover the bloody aftermath. It's a win-win for us!!"
So does CBS News deserve credit for this article today? Yes it does in the narrow context that, although its article is way too little and way too late, it is more than most of the other media have provided. In other words, it is better than nothing.
What a sorry, disheartening, pathetic state of affairs.
Remember when we had news organizations? With journalists who actually followed stories, rather than narrating a party line? Whatever happened to them?
Richardson told a local television station this month that she voted twice last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well.
"Yes, I voted twice," Richardson told WCPO-TV. "I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls."
Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election.
"I'll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama's right to sit as president of the United States," Richardson vowed when asked about the voter fraud investigation that is now under way.
Richardson's granddaughter, India Richardson, confirmed to Fox News that her grandmother voted for her, by submitting an absentee ballot in her name. India told Fox News that she is not angry, and gave her permission to cast her absentee ballot.
"It wasn't a big deal," she said.
Three other absentee ballots in the names of different people were submitted to the Board of Elections from Richardson's address on Nov. 1. Officials say the handwriting on those ballots is similar and that they were all received together, on the same day that Richardson's absentee ballot arrived at the office. Richardson maintains that some of the other voters live at her house.
Nope, nothing to see here. Just move along, sheeple, just move along....
I have never heard anyone credibly claim voter fraud does not exist. This very much includes the "Brennan Center For Social Justice" - a soros-funded group which media have desperately tried to convince us is nonpartisan: they lie every time they say it. I also assume people who want there to be no way of checking voter fraud are counting on it, because it will help their candidates win.
I know this is unlikely to wake any Lost Tribers up, but here are the first three paragraphs of Julian Pecquet's article at thehill.com:
John Kerry will skip Israel as part of his first trip abroad as secretary of State, the Obama administration announced Tuesday.
Kerry had been expected to visit Israel and the West Bank and push for restarting peace talks with the Palestinians ahead of President Obama's own trip to the country next month. Kerry will instead visit nine nations in Europe and the Middle East - Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar - from Feb. 24 until March 6.
"Given the fact that the government's coalition negotiations in Israel are still under way," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said, "the secretary will be traveling there with the president when he visits later in the spring in lieu of making his own separate trip in February to Jerusalem and Ramallah."
Yeah, ok. Sure. Kerry will visit:
-Egypt - which is now run by a member of a terrorist group and is rapidly turning into a shari'a law state,
-Saudi Arabia - which makes even most shari'a law states look like liberal outposts,
-Abu Dhabi - where a married couple can be arrested for kissing in the street, and
But Israel - our staunch ally, a democracy, in the same Middle East region? Nah, that'll wait.
Give it a couple of months. No hurry at all. Hey, by that time the noted Israel hater, Chuck Hagel will be Secretary of Defense and Islamist John Brennan will be running the CIA. That'll make it much better.
To the Lost Tribe: what does it take to get you to WAKE UP???????
The Forward on Climate Rally saw almost 40,000 Americans gather in solidarity to protest the Keystone XL Pipeline, which, if completed and used, scientists say, would effectively end the ability of the Earth to support human life.
I swear I have neither edited that statement nor taken it out of context. It is the entire first paragraph of Ms. Forlano's blog.
FYI: the smallest estimate I have seen is that the USA has about 55,000 miles of crude oil trunk lines, and 30,000 to 40,000 miles of (smaller) gathering lines. I have also seen an estimate that there are 180,000 miles of such pipelines. Can we agree that, whichever is closer to being accurate, the USA has one bodacious amount of oil pipelines?
And the Keystone pipeline? As presently envisioned, it is an 1,179 mile pipeline from Alberta, Canada to Steele City, Nebraska. In other words, a tiny, tiny addition to what already is in place.
This, in and of itself, is going to end human life on planet earth???? "Scientists say" so?
Which scientists would they be? Dr. Moe, Dr. Larry and Dr. Curly? Dr. Chico, Dr. Harpo and Dr. Groucho? Dr. Cheech and Dr. Chong?
How can you not conclude that these people are nuts?
North Korea threatened South Korea with "final destruction" during a debate at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament on Tuesday, saying it could take further steps after a nuclear test last week.
"As the saying goes, a new-born puppy knows no fear of a tiger. South Korea's erratic behavior would only herald its final destruction," North Korean diplomat Jon Yong Ryong told the meeting.
Jon's comments drew quick criticism from other nations, including South Korea, France, Germany and Britain, whose ambassador Joanne Adamson said such language was "completely inappropriate" and the discussion with North Korea was heading in the wrong direction.
"It cannot be allowed that we have expressions which refer to the possible destruction of U.N. member states," she said.
Spanish Ambassador Javier Gil Catalina said the comment left him stupefied and appeared to be a breach of international law.
"In the 30 years of my career I've never heard anything like it and it seems to me that we are not speaking about something that is even admissible, we are speaking about a threat of the use of force that is prohibited by Article 2.4 of the United Nations charter," Catalina said.
Before its nuclear test, North Korea was already facing growing diplomatic pressure at the United Nations.
The U.N. Human Rights Council is widely expected to order an inquiry next month into its leaders' responsibilities for crimes against humanity.
Now let me remind you of what Iran's head of stat has said about Israel over just the past 8 years. Here is a tiny sampling:
"As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."(October 26, 2005)
"Thanks to people's wishes and God's will the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is [headed] downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want. The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom." (December 11, 2006)
Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken. Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation." 2008, as Israel celebrated its 60th year)
"Any freedom lover and justice seeker in the world must do its best for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the path for the establishment of justice and freedom in the world," (July, 2012)
"The very existence of the Zionist regime is an insult to humanity…the Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor. Even if one cell of them is left in one inch of (Palestinian) land, in the future this story (of Israel's existence) will repeat."…the nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land". (August, 2012)
Did Britain's Ambassador Adamson ever call any of what ahmadinejad said "completely inappropriate"? If she did, I didn't find it during a quick look on google. Apparently she never heard it.
Did Spain's Ambassador Catalina think what ahmadinejad said wasn't like - not to mention a lot worse than - what the North Korean diplomat said? Apparently he never heard it either.
Obviously, North Korea has cured deafness.
Oh, one other thing: According to Jennifer Hanin's illuminating article, written 2 years ago (August, 2011), as of that time Israel - a democracy in which Arab Muslims have more rights and privileges than in virtually any Arab and/or Muslim country on earth -had been condemned by the UN 223 times (the total is obviously higher now). By contrast, North Korea - a country which is devoid of even the most basic human rights and literally starves its people, using the money instead to amass weaponry to fight who knows who, who knows where - had been condemned by the UN 10 times.
Did I say the UN suffered from deafness? That didn't even scratch the surface.
This is for anyone who still harbors any doubt that there is media bias out there.
While I was driving home yesterday, I put on Sean Hannity's radio show for a short period of time. During that time, Mr. Hannity made a very interesting point about Alec Baldwin's physical grabbing of a young, female New York Post reporter, his comment that "I want you to choke to death" (which apparently was caught on tape) and his allegedly viciously insulting, racist comments aimed at the Black staff photographer (a former NYC police detective) who was with her .
Have you heard about the horsemeat scandal? If you haven't yet, I can pretty much guarantee you will very soon.
It seems that, in the UK, some food companies have been making products, for human consumption, which contain varying amounts horsemeat. They include lasagna (where one brand tested with 60% horsemeat), burgers and sheperd's pie, to name a few. This food has apparently been supplied not only to supermarkets but to airlines, hotels, restaurants, etc. etc. etc.,
And this scandalous activity does not only affect consumers in the UK: apparently the affected products have also been produced in, and exported to, other European countries (at least two French companies are involved), and who knows where else - maybe even here (would you be surprised at all?).
This is no laughing matter either. Horses are given the drug phenylbutazone, which, according to the article linked above, can be harmful to humans. Therefore, consumers have not only been lied to about the contents of these foods, they may have been subjected to physical danger.
Now, of course, spokespeople for the companies are all aghast at this horrible "mistake", and vow to get to the bottom of it. But, as the article makes clear, it is extremely difficult, bordering on near-impossible, to believe the food companies were unaware that horsemeat was being used.
And the big question for US consumers: why would we assume that, if this were being done in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, it isn't being done here as well? Or, put another way, how much horsemeat is contained in the meat products being sold to us - not necessarily imported food, but domestic as well?
It seems to me the USDA had better start reassuring us fast - not with words, but with tests and provable results.
Apparently, the medical sector of Cuba has disgorged what is left of hugo chavez back to Venezuela. According to the New York Times, he arrived in the middle of the night and was immediately transported to "a military hospital in Caracas" where, according to unnamed employees, "he was installed as the only patient on the top floor of one wing".
(I wonder what they did with a floor-full of patients; whether they just released them early, crowded them into every nook and cranny they could find elsewhere in the hospital, or sent them to Cuba to fill the large area chavez no doubt had to himself there.)
Now, I will offer two obvious questions, with two obvious answers:
-Q: Why did they spirit chavez into the country when as few people as possible would know, and immediately squirrel him into seclusion at the hospital? A: Because he looks like hell and is in no condition to be seen, or heard (if he can talk at all) by anyone except his closest confidantes;
-Q: Why, if he is in this condition, was he released from the hospital in Cuba? A: Because they can't do anything more for him. If they could, he would still be there.
What does this mean? This means he has come back to Venezuela to die.
In the immortal words of The Beatles...."It won't be long, yeah, yeah, yeah..."
And when it happens, I assure you I will not be the only one singing.
It is a bit lengthy, but I do not want to be accused of selective editing, so I am showing every word.
Please read it, and then think about what would happen if Fox News ever had a group of people saying exactly the same thing:
MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY: Okay, so give me your favorite race joke or your best punch line on it.
DEAN OBEIDALLAH, comedian: Well, I mean, it's probably the more - the newest one I'm doing about - and in fact they talked about it earlier in the segment. That white people will be a minority in America by 2040. And there's some white people freaking out. And I tell them, don't. There are some benefits. First, you get a month to celebrate your heritage. Black History Month - you'll get at least "Whitey Week." And celebrations of white people, like badminton and Utah and racial profiling. And white women will finally be exotic. It'll be great. Now everyone wants to date, you know, Latino, Asian women - there'll be now like - wow, white girl, where'd you meet her? White Castle. That's where they make them. I should have known that.
HARRIS-PERRY: (Laughing) That's great. The white minority jokes. That's good. I like it.
OBEIDALLAH: Just want to make fun of white people.
LIZZ WINSTEAD, political satirist: I have two. One is a joke of mine where I was - where the joke is basically simple. It's like – it would have been kind of fun to see Herman Cain as the presidential nominee. Because there would have been mass suicides in the Klan.
WINSTEAD: One of my favorite jokes was, we did 100 years ago when I was working on the Daily Show. And it was when the Mars Corporation introduced this new ad campaign for the Three Musketeers candy bar. And they introduced a black musketeer. And it was really a success, and people were really glad they integrated the musketeers. So the joke that we did was the ad campaign was so successful, they decided to change the name of the 5th Avenue bar to Martin Luther King Boulevard.
ELON JAMES WHITE, ThisWeekInBlackness.com: Oh dear.
HARRIS-PERRY: I know.
WINSTEAD: I love it.
ELON JAMES WHITE, ThisWeekInBlackness.com: My favorite, it's maybe not - of my jokes, half of those I can't even tell here.
HARRIS-PERRY: We can get the delay button going if we need to.
WHITE: There might be a baby and, we don't want this in our lives right now. But the joke that I think about a lot when it comes to racial humor, it was a Dave Chappelle joke. He tells this joke about when he was being picked up by a limousine driver. And they brought him to the ghetto. And he wasn't prepared to go together. You have to be warned. He sits in the limo. And the guy gets a call. "What happened? Who said what? I'm on my way." And he just hangs up the phone. And he looks out the window, he says "liquor store, liquor store, gun store, liquor store. Where the hell am I?!" And I'm like, it's so hilarious because he's starting to paint this whole picture of the community. And the social, economic issues. And he looked out the window at 3 a.m. and he saw a baby. And he's like, "baby, what you doing outside?" He goes, "I'm selling weed!" And it's one of the most hilarious things. He goes, "you know you shouldn't sell weed." He goes, "I got kids to feed!" It's a baby. That's hilarious.
ANTHEA BUTLER, professor, University of Pennsylvania: Mine is two-fold. One is, we always had this joke when I was broke in grad school that if a black person said they were broke, it meant that they had negative in their bank account. And if a white person said they were broke, we never believed them because they had $500.
BUTLER: And they don't know the meaning of being broke. And so that was the first thing. The second one is - and I'm going to ask everyone to forgive me, because I do love Michael Jackson - but during the time that everybody was sort of trying to figure out (Unintelligible), I would say Michael Jackson has taught me two things. You can do whatever you want and you don't have to be black.
BUTLER: Even if you are black.
HARRIS-PERRY: Because that was always the thing. The only things you have to do is stay black and die.
BUTLER: Exactly. And you don't even have to be black anymore, because Michael Jackson fixed that for us. We don't even have to be black.
HARRIS-PERRY: All you have to do now is die. Well, there is that. So I have a joke, I don't know if I'm allowed to tell it. But it's - it's not, it's national television. But imagine - so here's my favorite race joke. It's a young Jewish man, he brings three girls home to meet his mother. And he says mom, I'm going to marry one of these three girls. And I want you to chat with them for a bit and then you predict which one I'm going to marry. And so the mom sits and she chats with the three girls, and then she says - he says, mom, which one do you think I'm going to marry? And she says this one over here on the right. And he says mom, that's right, how did you know? And she says, I don't like her.
HARRIS-PERRY: All right. That's my race joke for the day. Okay, folks, I always appreciate having the humor and the insight. Thanks for coming and joining us.
Are you expecting a tidal wave of outrage from the rest of our media, with accusations of racial and/or ethnic insensitivity, or offensiveness, or hatred? Forget it. This is MSNBC, remember?
I spent much of today visiting with my parents in Queens, then with my sister at her office, which is also in Queens.
But getting back to Jersey was an issue - partly because of that #%@*ing Verrazanno Bridge toll ($13) and partly because, once crossed, the "reward" would be getting caught in massive traffic on The Staten Island Expressway ("express"way my backside), because of all the construction.
So I took the BQE (that's the Brooklyn Queens Expressway for you non-New York types), to the Manhattan Bridge, which put me on Canal St. Canal , though always crowded, was somewhat less so because of President's Day, so I was able to zip crosstown to the Holland Tunnel in only about 10 minutes, and move through the tunnel itself in maybe another 5 (not bad at all). Then, once on the Jersey side, there was no traffic at all.
I saved about 20 - 30 minutes, and about $10. A true New York triumph!!!
This year - again - the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) has banned GOProud, a gay Republican group, from its conference.
I congratulate CPAC for acting out exactly what the left accuses it of: intolerant bigotry.
Great going, guys. You've struck a blow for universal heterosexuality, I'm sure.
Anything else you'd like to ban? How about people who don't believe in God ... or did you already do that? Heck, if you insist on only including people whose social or religious behaviors coincide with your ideas of how the entire world should act, the banning possibilities are limitless. I mean, why include people who, through their personal choices and/or innate nature, do not live the way you do? What fun is that?
Chuck Hagel, President Obama's choice for Secretary of Defense, has communicated to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that he does not recall saying that "the US State Department is an adjunct of the Israeli foreign minister's office" - and, in any event, he disavows this supposedly non-stated comment.
Senator Graham's reaction?
"Well, in fact if that's true, that would end that matter, because he's previously said, in a book that the Jewish lobby intimidates members of congress, particularly the US Senate, and pushes us to make very bad decisions. If this second statement were true, he's said that the Secretary of State's office is under the control of the Israeli foreign ministers, those two together would show an edge, and a view, of the Israeli - US relationship way out of the mainstream, so I'll just take him at his word, unless something new comes along."
That's more than fair, Senator - especially in view of what Hagel said in the book.
A pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas candidate for the Iranian presidency, a man linked to Iranian-controlled front groups, brought former Republican Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel to speak at Rutgers University in 2007, according to another professor on campus.
Iran's Guardian Council cleared Amirahmadi to run for the presidency in 2013. Approval of the regime is required before candidates' names can appear on the ballot. To be approved, candidates must be Shia, male, and committed to the Islamic revolution.
Amirahmadi's CV discloses that he has received financial support from the Alavi Foundation, a wealthy organization that the U.S. government has called "a front for the government of Iran."
"We found evidence that the government of Iran really controlled everything about the foundation," Adam Kaufmann, investigations chief at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, told the Post in 2009.
Fashid Jahedi, the Alavi foundation's former president, pleaded guilty to two felony counts of obstruction of justice for destroying documents connecting the foundation to Bank Melli Iran, the regime's terror-linked national bank, and to the ownership of a Manhattan office building.
Jahedi was sentenced to three months in prison and six months of supervised release, and fined $3,000.
Asking the estimable Senator Graham, a man I have great respect for: Does this qualify as something new coming along?
The bottom line is that Chuck Hagel has no business being anywhere near a cabinet position: very especially Secretary of Defense.
But, then again, this is the Obama Administration, which is also blessing us with:
-Islamist-supporting (there are rumors that he is an Islamic convert) John Brennan tapped to head the CIA, and
-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's jaw-droppingly ignorant characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood as "a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence..."
So why would we be surprised if this were true about Hagel?
The only thing that would surprise me here, is if Mr. Obama's appointments finally woke up a few of the (so far) hopelessly benighted Obama supporters, who still refuse to see what is in front of their eyes.
But, truth be told, if the last four years of Barack Obama didn't already wake them up, this has about as much of a chance as there is of MSNBC airing a special on how much better our economy was under George Bush.
Baldwin had first been approached by a Post reporter while walking his dogs outside his East 10th Street pad at around 10:50 a.m. He was asked for comment on a lawsuit against his wife, Hilaria, involving her work as a yoga instructor.
The "30 Rock" star grabbed the reporter, Tara Palmeri, by her arm and told her, "I want you to choke to death," Palmeri told police, for whom she played an audiotape of the conversation.
Actor Alec Baldwin allegedly called a black Post photographer a racial epithet, a "crackhead" and a "drug dealer" during a confrontation on an East Village street yesterday morning, prompting police to intervene.
He then called G.N. Miller - a decorated retired detective with the NYPD's Organized Crime Control Bureau and a staff photographer for The Post - a "coon, a drug dealer," Miller's police statement said.
At one point, Miller showed Baldwin ID to prove he's a retired NYPD cop, which Baldwin dismissed as "fake."
That's pretty ugly, isn't it?
And before you assume that this sweet, comedically gifted actor would ever say anything so nasty, I suggest you recall what he once said to his own 11 year old daughter - as taped by his ex-wife:
"You are a rude, thoughtless little pig. You don't have the brains or the decency as a human being.
"I don't give a damn that you're 12 years old, or 11 years old, or that you're a child, or that your mother is a thoughtless pain in the ass who doesn't care about what you do as far as I'm concerned.
"Once again I have made an ass of myself trying to get to a phone. You have humiliated me for the last time with this phone."
And then there was this incident, as reported just over a year ago:
Hot-head Alec Baldwin was kicked off an American Airlines flight this afternoon in Los Angeles because he was playing a game on his phone apparently past the point when passengers are supposed to have turned off their devices.
On his Twitter account, Baldwin wrote: "Flight attendant on American [Airlines] reamed me out 4 playing WORDS W FRIENDS while we sat at the gate, not moving."
Baldwin was aboard AA Flight 4, which was delayed an hour, when the "30 Rock" star was booted for not listening to the flight attendant.
Passenger Steve Weiss, who was sitting across the isle from Baldwin, described the scene.
"Apparently he said he was playing a game, but he was actually talking on the phone. She [the flight attendant] was very nice. The door was closed they just announced that they were pulling away from the gate. He got up threw his papers on the floor stormed into the bathroom slammed the door closed, beat on the wall and then came back."
"He said 'If you want to kick me off, kick me off.' He was just crazy, he just flipped out, the guy has problems."
A crew member who dealt with the hotheaded Hollywood actor said he couldn't stay on the flight.
"He was violent, abusive and aggressive. He got into the bathroom and started beating on the wall and he pounded his fists on the galley counter. Yelling, screaming, very ugly. It was unsafe to keep him on board that's why he got kicked out."
Now please think again about the incident with the Post reporter and ex-detective/staff photographer. Would you put it past him?
And please also think about the fact that this incident, even with Baldwin's ugly history of abusive behavior, and gross hypocrisy (he came out in support of the "Occupy" movement, and has spent the last year doing commercials/raking in a bundle of $$$ for Capital One Bank) will get dramatically less coverage than Marco Rubio taking a swallow of water during his speech last Tuesday.
Blacks also need to question the Congressional Black Caucus about its agenda. In its press release outlining its plan for the 113th Congress, the CBC states "For more than four decades, the Congressional Black Caucus policy agenda has promoted and advocated for legislation that supports social and economic progress . . . for African Americans."
Why is immigration reform a key item in the CBC's agenda? "Advancing legislation and policies that lead to comprehensive immigration reform" will do nothing to improve the economic situation for blacks. Allowing a flood of illegals into the country will only exacerbate the unemployment situation for blacks.
If black liberals are really angry at the lack of attention Obama is giving them, perhaps they should use this as a lesson. Instead of voting for candidates based on race or party, perhaps black Americans should try giving candidates a thorough vetting before going to the polls and hold politicians accountable to records in exchange for votes. Maybe then blacks would start getting something in return other than the status quo.
Does Ms. Wright make salient points? You bet she does.
By granting amnesty - thus the ability to compete for jobs legally - President Obama and his fellow Democrats are making job prospects worse for legal citizens in general, but dramatically worse for Black citizens in particular, since Black citizens are disproportionately more likely to compete for the same jobs.
Look, while I think it is wrong, I do understand why Black voters would vote for a Black President, regardless of his job performance - because to vote against him might be construed as putting them in the same camp as the racists who would say things like "Ok, so we tried a (pick your racial epithet) and he was inferior, just like we could have told you all along". Admittedly, if I were Black I might have voted for Mr. Obama on the basis of that reason alone.
However, the fact remains that Barack Obama, certainly from the standpoint of unemployment, has been an awful President. Not because of his skin color, but because of his policies. And he has been an especially awful President for Black citizens.
Look again at the data cited by Crystal Wright, and then consider what fast-track amnesty for illegals will do to Black employment; I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion.
I wish it were untrue. I wish I were wrong about this. I'm 100% certain Ms. Wright wishes the same. But things are as they are.
Let me close by saying that, although it is too late to undo the 2012 election, I certainly hope this reality is noted, and stored for 2014 and beyond.
BERNARD MADOFF: FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHTS OF (HIS) VICTIMS....
"I think this boy's cheese done slid off his cracker": Prison employee Bill Dodge, referring to Percy Wetmore after John Coffey relieved him of his brain function in "The Green Mile".
Poor bernard madoff. All he wants is to be recognized as the good-hearted, benevolent soul that he is, ever on the alert to protect unsuspecting investors from heartless scam artists. But that wicked court-appointed trustee, the one entrusted with retrieving billions and billions of stolen dollars, is inferring that he is not an honest man. Why it's enough to make a feller wish he hadn't pled guilty in the first place.
If you think the above paragraph is bizarre, read the first part of Scott Cohn's article at cnbc.com below (and be sure to use this link to read the rest as well). I guarantee that instead of wondering about my first paragraph, you will be wondering if madoff's cheese is still on his cracker:
Writing to me from the federal prison where he is serving a life sentence for his epic fraud, Madoff said he is not getting credit for what he calls his "instrumental" role in returning money to his victims. Madoff wrote that he is so frustrated, he is having second thoughts about having pleaded guilty four years ago.
CNBC's Scott Cohn reports on the emails Bernie Madoff has written from jail, including his feeling that he should have pleaded not guilty. As remorseful as he is, Madoff says, he is comforted by the fact that he helped his customers recover their original investment principal.
The email tirade - six e-mails in all - follows comments this week by court-appointed trustee Irving Picard, who revealed to CNBC Tuesday that he will seek court approval for another distribution of funds to Madoff victims. That would bring the total payout to more than $5 billion, out of more than $9 billion recovered so far. But Picard said his success is no thanks to Madoff.
"In my view, he has not been helpful," Picard said.
That set off Madoff.
"This is a man that keeps making statements that have no facts to back them up," Madoff wrote. "I wish I went to trial and he would have been required to provide the evidence he claims he has. As you can see, I am frustrated."
Poor bernard madoff. All this selfless philanthropist wants to do is protect his clients - the ones he stole those many billions of dollars from - and they treat him this way? Heck, why aren't they erecting a statue to his goodheartedness instead?
Unbelievable? No more so than what madoff did in the first place.
Let me end by posting one of the comments made about this article, from someone using the screen name "urakwyjibo"which, despite the oddness of the name, and obvious sarcasm, is especially worthwhile:
why shouldn't he be frustrated? look at corzine - the guy stole 1.2 billion dollars from teachers and farmers, and because he bundles money for obama, the government decided there's nothing to see here and nobody could possibly be to blame anywhere. if madoff had been bundling money for hussein he wouldn't have had to plead guilty and he'd still be living it up large like the rest of obama's cronies. corzine was almost head of the US treasury, obama probably would have made madoff in charge of social security since he's got plenty of experience with ponzi schemes.
It has been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Though not said as often, the road to nowhere sometimes is paved the same way.
Here is a short article (too short to excerpt) from WKRC, Cincinnati's CBS affiliate. See if it gives you the warm fuzzies:
The organizers of a gun buyback say they took in 42 guns today.
The church-based anti-violence initiative "Project Nehemiah" held the buyback today at the Lincoln Heights Baptist Church. They offered gift cards in exchange for the guns.
Organizers say they know the gun collections are just a drop into the bucket but they're hoping to save lives. "People who are coming out are people who realize we're not trying take away their 2nd amendment. We're just trying to make it safe for our children and grandchildren who to live at home with grandparents,.. Or documented or registered the right way."
Also in front of the church were people offering to buythe guns off of people before they reached the buyback event. No word if anyone sold their guns.
The guns turned into the buyback will be destroyed by the Cincinnati Police Department.
I commend the Lincoln Heights Baptist Church for its intentions. They are both positive and honorable.
Now: How many of the 42 guns collected - and paid for - do you think would have been used in the commission of crimes? Or, asked another way, how many criminals do you think were sufficiently moved to divest themselves of their working tool in exchange for a gift card?
My guess is none.
My guess is that the church "collection" consists of guns from people who would not use a gun but somehow or other, came into the possession of one, guns which do not work well, and guns which do not work at all. What's yours?
Reality check: gun buybacks, like additional gun control laws, are perfectly reasonable, and perfectly supportable. But they do not - repeat, not - address gun crime committed by people who ignore the law (which is to say virtually all gun crime).
And they do not address the cultural issues which so much gun crime emanates from: i.e. the ugly, violent, anti-social music our young people are bombarded with, or the video games, arcade games and movies which feature and even celebrate mass killings; the ones which define mass murder as nothing more than an amusement, and are relentlessly pumped out by our so-called "entertainment" industry.
Address that, and maybe some good will come of it. Buy back guns, and put another brick on the two roads mentioned in the beginning of this blog.
THE NEW YORK TIMES: IT'S NOT FAIR, MENENDEZ WAS INVESTIGATED BY REPUBLICANS
You're not going to believe this one. But it's true. It must be. I read it in today's New York Times. Front page.
It seems the Times is sufficiently disturbed over an egregious action by Republican investigators that it was necessary to do a feature story exposing their actions.
The problem? They were looking into possible unethical behavior on the part of Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and (gasp!) apparently found it.
How dare they?
Excerpted from the beginning of Eric Lipton's lengthy article, ominously titled "Inquiry on Menendez Influence Was Powered by Partisan Players" (the print version's title is "Inquiry on Democratic Senator Started With a Partisan Push"):
Sandwiched between two doctors' offices at a roadside plaza here is the headquarters of a small team of veteran Republican investigators, operating almost as a private detective squad, who since late last year have had a determined goal: bringing down Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey.
Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey said a partisan conspiracy focused the news media on him before his re-election.
Ken Boehm, chairman of a conservative group seeking evidence against Mr. Menendez.
To Mr. Menendez and his staff, the work going on at this suburban Washington office suite, paid for by donations from prominent Republicans nationwide, is proof that the news media frenzy focusing on his actions to help a Florida eye doctor is at least in part a political smear.
But the results have been troubling revelations. Those documented by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other newspapers involve serious accusations of favoritism by the senator.
In recent weeks, Mr. Menendez has acknowledged intervening with at least four federal agencies — including the Departments of State and Health and Human Services - in ways that stood to benefit his friend and campaign contributor Dr. Salomon E. Melgen, who is under investigation by federal authoritiesfor possible Medicare fraud.
Wait a minute. Am I reading this correctly?
The New York Times has published a big, feature article like this, to expose the fact that....Republicans do opposition research???? This is news?
Uh, point of order, guys: Democrats do it too. Tons of it. But, then again, you knew that, didn't you?
So what is your complaint? That it turned up "serious accusations of favoritism by the senator"? Isn't that good? Don't you want to know if a US Senator is engaging in such activity? Isn't that what your investigative people are supposed to be doing?
Now a question: during last year's Presidential campaign, when Democrats were coming up with one attack on Mitt Romney after another (where his money was invested, how he was responsible for what happened at Bain Capital even years and years after he no longer ran it, etc.) did The Times publish any articles titled "Inquiry on Romney Investments Was Powered by Partisan Players"? No? How come?
The most amazing part? That these "journalists" wonder why people call them biased...........
AND PEOPLE PAY TO HAVE THEIR CHILDREN EDUCATED HERE......
This latest example of what the university system in our country is turning into, comes to us via the following excerpt from an article at foxnews.com:
Students at University of Missouri don't need to cram for exams that fall on Wiccan and Pagan holidays, now that the school has put them on par with Christmas, Thanksgiving and Hanukah.
The university's latest "Guide to Religions: Major Holidays and Suggested Accommodations" - designed to help faculty know when and when not to schedule exams and other student activities - lists eight Wiccan and Pagan holidays and events right alongside more mainstream occasions.
"The holidays and accommodations section of this guide is provided to faculty, staff and student leaders as an educational resource for the myriad of religious holy days celebrated at Mizzou," the guide reads.
Wiccan and pagan holidays? For who? To celebrate what? What do they do on a Wiccan holiday? Go toad-and lizard hunting? Do the stores have sales on broomsticks and cauldrons?
Hey, can they include my new religion too? I just invented it, and I have 24 holidays lined up...so far. I call it Ken's New Holiday-Filled Religion And Grill.
And yes, people actually pay this University to provide their children with an education -- so they can go out into the world with this mindset, and make big successes of themselves.
Today's quote comes from the increasingly boring bill maher, whose stock in trade these days is to continually pump out the the most obnoxious and outrageous things he can think of, and then pray that media report them, so people will continue to think he is relevant.
Usually I don't play back maher's sh er, stuff, but since Donald Trump is suing him for making an obnoxious, insulting comment about Trump's mother and father (very classy....) I am posting this one to show that, though - maybe on lawyers' orders - he was careful not to get personal and name names, maher intends to keep spewing as much bile as before.
"Based on every statement I've heard out of any Republican in the last two years, the Israelis are controlling our government."
That so, maher? How about some examples. SPECIFICS please. Show us where every - or even any - Republican has said or implied any such thing. We'll wait. And we better bring lots of beer and chips because the wait will be a long one. Like forever.
To me, the only funny thing left about bill maher's show is the pathetic, unconditional maher-lovers who come to see him, determined to cheer and applaud anything he says, no matter how obnoxious and outrageous - not to mention stupid and untrue.
At least maher is making a pile of money for acting this way. The pathetic ass-kissers in his audience make fools of themselves for nothing.
After demanding that the mother of a crying toddler "shut that nigger baby up," a male passenger allegedly slapped the 19-month-old across the face as a flight prepared to land in Atlanta last Friday evening, The Smoking Gun has learned.
The shocking February 8 incident aboard Delta Airlines Flight 721 resulted in Joe Rickey Hundley, 60, being charged with simple assault, according to a U.S. District Court affidavit. Hundley, seen at right, is president of an aircraft parts manufacturer headquartered in Hayden, Idaho.
In an interview, Hundley denied striking the toddler or using a racial slur, though he did acknowledge that he "asked the mother to quiet the child." Hundley, who said he was traveling to Atlanta to visit a hospitalized relative, described himself as "distraught" on the flight, during which he said he consumed a single alcoholic drink.
As detailed by FBI Agent Daron Cheney, Hundley was traveling to Atlanta from Minneapolis in seat 28A on the MD-90 twin-engine jet. He was seated next to Jessica Bennett, who shared seat 28B with her son Jonah.
(According to the passenger seated next to Hundly, Jessica) Bennett, 33... her child "started to cry due to the altitude change." Bennett added that she "was trying to get [her son] to stop crying, but he continued."
At this point, Bennett recalled, Hundley used the racial epithet as he told her to shut the child up. He then allegedly "turned around and slapped" the toddler in the face "with an open hand"...
After Hundley hit the child, Agent Cheney reported, Bennett received assistance from several other passengers, including Todd Wooten, who was in seat 16C. Wooten told agents that he "heard derogatory language coming from the rear of the aircraft" and got up to investigate. "According to Mr. Wooten," Cheney noted, "he saw Joe Rickey Hundley strike" the toddler.
Bennett told TSG that she believed Hundley was intoxicated when he boarded the plane, adding that he "reeked of alcohol" and was "stumbling around wasted." Bennett, who was traveling to a family funeral, said that Hundley drank several double vodkas during the two-hour flight and complained to her that her adopted son, seen at left, was too big to be a "lap baby." Bennett's Facebook profile photo shows her holding Jonah when he was a baby.
That racist enough for you?
What a great line of defense: "Hey, I was distraught about a death in the family. Which, of course, is why I got stinking drunk, called a 19 month old Black child a "nigger" for the crime of crying when his ears hurt, and slapped him for good measure. Heck, anyone would have done the same, right?"
Elsewhere in the article, it is noted that hundley is being charged with "simple assault". Why is he not charged with a hate crime? Could the nature of, and motivation for, what he did possibly be any clearer?
Real racism. It comes in all forms, from all sources. No group is immune to it, or from it. Certainly not a Black woman with her child, in the presence of a racist scumbag like this.
As my wife was putting her coat on, and heading for the gym, I looked out at the dark, heavily clouded sky and mentioned that it looked like "something was going to happen. but at least it won't be snow, it's much to warm for that".
As pulled out of the driveway, it started snowing. Not rain, not a mix, just snow. It has been snowing ever since.
Here are four things that happened in the past week. Please look them over carefully, then tell me which of the four generated the most media coverage; which of the four have our media made the public most aware of:
-More allegations have surfaced about US Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), relating to at least one more trip he took to the Dominican Republic with his close friend and huge $$$ benefactor, Salomon Melgen - who is charged with not paying over $11 million,dollars in taxes, and who, allegedly, set Menendez up with hookers, at least one of who may have been underage;
-US Representative Steven Cohen (D-TN) has been found to have a lovey-dovey twitter relationhship with a 24 year old girl who likes to put up pictures of herself in skimpy bikinis (and who knows what else?). Cohen is not claiming he isn't messing with a girl young enough to be his daughter, but that it is his daughter - a love child, since Cohen has never been married;
-US Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)has agreed to a plea deal, admitted that he illegally used about 3/4 of a million dollars of campaign money - and has implicated his wife Sandi (who already resigned as a Chicago alderman in disgrace) in the use of that money;
-Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), while responding to President Obama's State of the Union message, reached off camera, got a bottle of spring water, and took a sip.
Ok, there they are. Think hard....which one of these four have our media put out in front of the public far more than the others?
Since there is so much talk about "sequestration", I thought it might be a good idea to explain what the heck it is.
Doing so has been made very easy for me. Politifact, in the course of examining who is to blame for the possibility of sequestration (more on that further on), put up a mostly excellent summary (other than one omission which I have noted) of what it is and how it came to be. With great thanks to the folks over there, I am posting it below:
In 2011, the federal government was nearing its legal debt limit, which meant Congress had to authorize a higher level for borrowing. Raising the debt limit (also called the debt ceiling) was in some ways symbolic: Congress has the power of the purse, and the decisions to spend the money had already been made.
But that didn't stop a showdown in the summer of 2011. House Republicans insisted that actual spending cuts go along with an increase to the debt limit. House Speaker John Boehner led negotiations with the White House, and at first the sides seemed to be moving toward a wide-ranging overhaul of the federal budget, dubbed the "grand bargain."
The closed-door negotiations fell apart, though, and a flurry of finger pointing ensued. Some observers blamed Boehner for being unable to deliver his own Republicans on a deal, thanks to tea party opposition to any new taxes. Others blamed Obama for his inexperience, for not cultivating relationships with Republicans and for tactical mistakes at negotiating. Some blamed both. (NOTE: Some also blamed Obama for not really wanting spending cuts at all. Shame on you for leaving that little factoid out).
At any rate, Republicans and Democrats came to a less ambitious agreement to raise the debt limit through the Budget Control Act of 2011. The law found approximately $1.2 trillion in budget cuts spread over 10 years. But it also directed Congress to find another $1.2 trillion through a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. This 12-member committee became known as "the super-committee."
The super-committee was supposed to meet and agree on a deficit reduction package by Nov. 23, 2011. Their proposal -- which could include tax increases, spending reductions or both -- would then get a filibuster-proof, up-or-down vote in Congress.
As an incentive to action, the law included an unusual kind of budget threat: If the super-committee couldn't agree on a package, or if Congress voted it down, then automatic, across-the-board cuts would go into effect, with half of those cuts hitting defense. These automatic cuts are referred to as "sequestration."
Lo and behold, the super-committee didn't agree on a deficit reduction package, so Congress never voted on it. More deadlines have come and gone, and smaller budget patches have been passed. But the sequester is looming again, with big cuts set to hit March 1.
Excellent. That is what sequestration is.
Now let's talk about whose idea it was.
Politifact - which, let's remember, leans heavily Democrat - fact-checked Marco Rubio's claim that sequestration was the brainchild of none other than Barack Obama. Specifically, in his response to the State of the Union message, Mr. Rubio said:
"...tonight, he even criticized us for refusing to raise taxes to delay military cuts – cuts that were his idea in the first place."
Is that true? Well, here is Politifact's conclusion:
Rubio said the defense cuts known that are part of sequestration were Obama's "idea in the first place."
That doesn't tell the whole story -- particularly the fact that Obama does not favor these cuts. The White House proposed them as a means of driving the two sides to a compromise over the deficit, not as a real-world spending plan.
Still, the idea did originate with Obama's team. We rate Rubio's statement Half True.
Translation: Yeah, it came from Obama. No way to get around it. So we have to come up with something. Hey, how about that he doesn't really favor these cuts? Never mind that this has nothing to do with the fact that it was Obama's idea, and, in any case, Republicans don't really favor them either. It's something, isn't it? Ok, good: now we don't have to pin it entirely on Obama, we can blame Republicans too, sort of.
We are finally starting to get some answers from the White House on what President Obama did or didn't (forget that "did" part, it doesn't exist) do the night our Benghazi facility was attacked by murdering terrorists.
"During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama's defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.
Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.
I could call this an utter disgrace. But I won't, since it would trivialize what happened.
Simply stated, President Obama was in the middle of a political campaign. What was happening in Benghazi was an embarrassment (remember, the Libyan forces were there, but did nothing to stop it and - according to some reports - may have helped it along). And, in any case, there was this uber-glitzy campaign bash in Vegas the next day. So nightie-night, sweet dreams, and I hope things work out for you guys.
And how did we find out about this? Certainly not from Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media, which steadfastly looked the other way on this, and every other embarrassment, until the re-election was safely tucked away.
We only found out because a few Republicans with guts, very especially Senator Lindsey Graham, have forced the issue by vowing to hold up his nominees until answers are forthcoming.
By so doing, Mr. Graham and the others have taken immense heat and criticism from much of the same media whose lack of professionalism caused us not to know about President Obama's dereliction of duty in the first place: the same media who celebrated Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "what's the difference" comment as if it were something to be proud of instead of a national disgrace.
Thank you Mr. Graham. Thank you very, very much.
And shame on the media which cared more about re-electing their lord and savor, Barack Obama, than about finding out the truth about what happened to those four murdered Americans in Benghazi.
Over the past decade, Turkey has rapidly gone from a relatively secular, westernized country - about as secular and westernized as you would be likely to find in the Muslim world - to a non-secular, largely Islamacized entity.
How has this affected life there?
Well, here is a story you have not heard about from the Obama administration. Nor, it is an excellent bet, have you seen it in mainstream media. Nor, it is an even better bet, have there been any protests about it from the so-called "women's groups".
But, at hopelesslypartisan.com, we talk about things like this. And, in the hope that what is happening in Turkey concerns you as much as it does me, I will now post the following government data. obtained from a Turkish web site - which anyone who truly does care about women, or society in general, will find horrifying.
Murder a fact of life for women in Turkey
With nearly a thousand women murdered in Turkey in 2009 according to new data from the Justice Ministry, the country has witnessed a drastic increase since 66 women were murdered in 2002. 'The reason behind violence against women is the imbalance of power in society,' an activist says
The number of women murdered in a year in Turkey shot up 1,400 percent between 2002 and 2009, according to data recently revealed by the country's justice minister.
Some 66 women were murdered in Turkey in 2002, but the numbers have been steadily increasing since then, Justice Minister Sadullah Ergin said in response to a parliamentary question from Peace and Democracy Party, or BDP, Van Deputy Fatma Kurtalan.
Eighty-three women were murdered in 2003, 164 in 2004, 317 in 2005, 663 in 2006, 1,011 in 2007, 806 in 2008 and 953 during the first seven months of 2009, the last date for which data was available, according to Ergin.
For Professor Aysel Celikel, head of the Support for Contemporary Living Association, or CYDD, the high increase in the number of murdered women stems from gender inequality and Turkey's increasingly conservative society.
"Women’s rights are going backward as much as conservatism (NOTE: read that as Islamic intolerance) is increasing in society," Celikel told the Hurriyet Daily News & Economic Review on Sunday.
There is a direct correlation between the increase in the inequality between the genders and the increased level of violence men commit against women, she said.
According to a government study titled "Research on Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey," 41.9 percent of Turkish women are subjected to physical and sexual violence. Women at a “"ow-income level" are assaulted at a rate of 49.9 percent, while the number for higher-income women is still high, at 28.7 percent.
Some 55.8 percent of women who have no education or have not finished primary education are subjected to violence (NOTE: shari'a law opposes the formal education of women), while 27.2 percent of women with at least a high school diploma or higher are the victims, the study said.
Some 48.5 percent of women experience some form of violence but do not disclose their victimization, the study said, adding that women with a lower income (54.1 percent) were more likely to stay silent about being assaulted than women with more education (37.5 percent).
Some 23.4 percent of women have been forced by men to quit their jobs or have been prevented from working; in the lower-income category, this figure is 21.5 percent while it is 21.2 percent for those with higher incomes.
Altogether, 33.7 percent of women said they considered suicide as a solution to their problems. For those with less education, this number is 34.1 percent, while 37.6 of higher educated women have also considered taking their own lives.
In reading these data, remember that they are almost certainly far worse than they appear. The 2009 murder total only reflects the first 7 months of the year. If the other 5 months maintained the same murder rate, that year's total was actually 1,630 - about 25 times the murder rate of 2002. And is there any doubt that, given the nonstop increases from 2002 to 2009, the 2010, 2011 and 2012 totals are even higher - maybe a lot higher?
Then we have the 41.9% of Turkish women subjected to physical and sexual violence. Is there any doubt that has increased as well?
And the reason this is happening is right in front of our eyes. Specifically, it is because Turkey is becoming more and more Islamicized, and in fundamentalist Islam women have almost no rights. They are considered little other than cooks, maids, sperm repositories and baby factories, with no control over their day to day lives or their destinies.
Simply stated, we are witnessing, in real time, what happens when a secular country succombs to fundamentalist Islam.
Yet neither our government, nor our media, nor the so-called "womens groups" are talking about it, let alone condemning it, let alone expressing concern that it could happen elsewhere.
Is this the kind of world we want to live in?
In the words of Edmond Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." So far, at least under this administration, the evil we are seeing in Turkey (and, by the way, in more and more European countries as well - notably, but not exclusively, the UK, France and Sweden) seems to be getting a free pass.
RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE: GREAT POPULISM, FOOL'S GOLD
One of the many proposals made by President Obama in his State of the Union Address was that we raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour - a 24% jump from the current $7.25. His exact words:
"We know our economy's stronger when we reward an honest day's work with honest wages. But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. Even with the tax relief we've put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That's wrong. That's why, since the last time this Congress raised the minimum wage, 19 states have chosen to bump theirs even higher.
"Tonight, let's declare that, in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full time should have to live in poverty -- and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour."
Sounds great, doesn't it?
How many families are you aware of with one wage earner, at minimum wage, and no other sources of income? If we're talking about legals, I am betting the answer is none. Not one.
The claim that there are families out there in this situation, who are not taking advantage of any of the countless government assistance programs available to them (food stamps, subsidized housing, earned income tax credits, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) is flat out BS.
So who is earning nothing but minimum wage?
Do yourself a favor and read the government's own statistics, which you can find by clicking here. You will find that the most likely minimum wage earner is a young person, without experience, looking for flexible-hours work (to fit in with school and other activities) so he/she can have some pocket money, or people in the hospitality and/or food service areas who supplement their minimum wage income with tips.
Raise the minimum wage to $9, and you force employers not only to pay that additional 24% per hire, but almost certainly to have to bump up the hourly wages of employees who started at or near the minimum wage, got a raise or two, and now would find themselves right back to square one: i.e. being paid about the same as new, inexperienced employees.
The most logical solution? Don't hire.
That, folks, is fools gold. It is far from the only pile of fool's gold offered by Mr. Obama on Tuesday, but it is one of the worst, because it directly hurts so many young people who a) have limited options on how and when they can work, and b) can't take advantage of the government programs mentioned above.
Well, we knew what we had, and we re-elected Barack Obama anyway.
Sorry to say, there never is a shortage of material for this series.
Here's the latest installment - from an article posted at CBS News, web site:
AURORA, Colo. (CBS4) - A school principal said no white children were allowed at an after-school tutoring program, and now some parents call it discrimination.
The principal at Mission Viejo Elementary in Aurora sent a letter telling parents the program is only for students of color. Parents CBS4 talked with said they were shocked to see, in this day and age, what they consider to be segregation.
"I was infuriated. I didn't understand why they would include or exclude certain groups," said parent Nicole Cox, who is white.
Cox’s 10-year-old daughter needs tutoring. After receiving the notice, other parents complained to the school's principal, Andre Pearson.
Before Cox could complain to the school, Pearson contacted her directly. His voicemail only seemed to reinforce the segregated tutoring idea.
"This is Andre Pearson. It's focused for and designed for children of color, but certainly, if we have space for other kids who have needs, we can definitely meet those needs," Pearson told Cox in the voicemail.
Pearson declined to comment on camera, but a district spokesperson claims it was all just a big misunderstanding.
The new tutoring program was started by parents of minority students to help bridge the achievement gap.
The district is now clarifying that the program wasn't meant to segregate anyone.
The new tutoring program began Wednesday. CBS4 was told a letter would be going out to parents to clarify the error that was made
Yeah, right. Just a misunderstanding.
The principal of the school sends a letter specifying the program is only for Black students. Then, when there are complaints, he says so again.....but is nice enough to allow that, after all the Black students are taken care of, if there is any space left maybe he'll let some White kids in.
If you believe that is just a "misunderstanding", say hello to Santa and the Toothie Fairy for me the next time you see them.
Real racism. It comes in all forms, from all sources. And no group is immune to it, or from it.
By the way, wasn't Aurora, Colorado the site of that movie massacre last year? What the hell is going on there.
Does it trouble you as much as it troubles me, that................
............ the same media which, for the most partm, have buried Senator Robert "Menendacious" Menendez's unsavory alliance with a sugar-daddy who, among other things, owes the government over 11 million dollars in back taxes, and his pleasure jaunts to the Dominican Republic which he suddenly remembered he had to pay for, and his alleged sex parties with Dominican prostitutes, possibly underage ones.................
............are going out of their minds over the fact that Senator Marco Rubio took a sip of bottled water during his response to President Obama's State of the Union speech?
If ever you wanted to see an example of media bias so egregious that even the left wing robots can't explain it away, this is it.
And, yes, they still squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.
Having been in marketing research for most of my life, I sort of root for companies in my industry to do well -- certainly not to shoot themselves in the foot.
A number of years ago, a field service (i.e. a company which recruits participants for research studies) decided to put out a promotional flyer. Its idea - hardly unique, but tried and true - was to put its name, vertically, down the page, with each letter used to spell out an attribute.
The first letter of this particular company's name was "C". And - very, very unfortunately - the attribute it selected was "Competant".
As you are probably aware, the correct spelling of that word is "competent". Yikes. How do you convince prospective clients that you are competent if you can't even spell competent?
I had not thought of that embarrassing gaffe for quite a while....until just now when I checked my email and found an ad for a different marketing research company.
This one - which personal compassion precludes me from citing by name, starts out with "Dear (Contact First Name)".
Uh, wasn't that part after "Dear" supposed to have my name? Kinda makes a feller feel pretty anonymous. But, heck, everyone makes a mistake now and then, right?
Yep, except that, the email then lists out a number of attributes it promises to have....and the very first one is "Precisce Recruiting".
"Precisce Recruiting"? Yikes. How do you convince prospective clients that your recruiting is precise if you can't even spell precise?
In the immortal words of a gentleman who used to squat a lot in Yankee Stadium....it's like deja vu all over again.
EGYPT "PEACE AND DEMOCRACY" UPDATE: AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
Over a week ago - on February 6th to be exact, an open letter to President Obama was published by Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly.
The letter was written by Egyptian rights activist Bahieddin Hassan, and is highly critical of the Obama administration's support for Egypt's increasingly dictatorial, fundamentalist "elected" government.
Is that why our wonderful "neutral" media, which were so happy to talk about what a great foreign policy triumph Egypt was when President Obama worked so hard to depose Hosni Mubarak, have given this letter a virtually complete burial? You tell me.
"Three years ago, I had the honor of meeting you in the White House as part of a delegation of some 50 human rights defenders from around the world. I was one of three rights defenders who were asked to speak during the 40 minutes out of the 90-minute meeting during which you and your advisors were present.
"When it was my turn to address those gathered, I urged you to consider the gulf between the content of your speech to the Arab and Islamic worlds in Cairo in June 2009 and the reality of American policy in February 2010, noting that they seemed separated by much more than simply a few months. In Cairo, you promised to stand by peoples of the region and engage with them, but eight months later your administration's policy was to turn its back on the people and work instead with local regimes. I discussed three examples of this: Palestine, Yemen and Egypt.
"Now, two years later, neither changes to the human rights situation nor to U.S. policy have fulfilled our hopes. Egyptian young people continue to live in frustration due to the deteriorating economic situation and the repeated failure of political processes to represent their demands, despite the sacrifices that they have made for the sake of the revolution and transition to democracy. Young people taking to the streets to express this frustration continue to be met with violence."
"While People Often Write Their Last Wills In Their 60s Or 70s, Egyptian Youth In Their 20s... Have Been Found Carrying Freshly Penned Wills While Participating In Protests"
"According to victims and video footage, female protesters are separated from the demonstrations, taken to other locations, and raped, in what appear to be organized, previously planned attacks. The faces of the assailants show no signs of emotion or sexual excitement.
"The objective appears to be to break the political will of the victims through profound degradation, whether they are raped, sexually mauled, or stripped entirely of their clothes - if they manage to escape the mob. In more than one case, a knife was used to penetrate the victims' vaginas, and multiple women underwent hysterectomies after being assaulted. In this context, we can understand the attempted rape of a 70-year-old woman known for her political affiliation as well as the sexual assault of a number of men."
"The Stances Of Your Administration Have Given Political Cover To The Current Authoritarian Regime In Egypt And Allowed It To Fearlessly Implement Undemocratic Policies And Commit Numerous Acts Of Repression"
"Statements that 'Egypt is witnessing a genuine and broad-based process of democratization' have covered over and indeed legitimized the undemocratic processes by which the Constituent Assembly passed the new constitution, an issue which has in turn led to greatly heightened instability in the country.
"Is it a coincidence that the statements issued by your administration reflect the same political rhetoric used by the new authoritarian regime in Egypt?
"My Request Is Quite Modest: That Spokespeople And Officials In Your Administration Stop Commenting On Developments In Egypt... That As Long As They Cannot Speak The Truth About What Is Happening In Egypt, They Keep Silent"
This will no doubt spare your administration much time and effort, but more importantly, it may spare more bloodshed in Egypt, as the current regime will no longer enjoy the political cover that the U.S. administration now offers them.
"Mr. President, I fear that the gulf I spoke to you about three years ago is fast filling up with blood. In this context, further American statements supporting the current Egyptian regime will only lead to more Egyptians being beaten, raped, tortured, and killed. Please, ask officials with your administration to stop talking about Egypt for a while, at least until we can bury our dead, comfort their grieving families, treat the victims of rape and torture, find the disappeared, and read the wills of a new generation of young people who plan not for their weddings but for their funerals."
That is the reality of today's Egypt, through the eyes of a sincere human rights activist who was so respected that he was invited to speak at the White House just three years ago.
Now? Egypt is a shambles, significantly on its way to becoming a shari'a law dictatorship, and Bahieddin Hassan is an inconvenient artifiact, to be ignored at all costs.
That is the great "foreign policy triumph" of Egypt - the one Barack Obama's Accomplice Media won't talk about.
Barring something really stupid from our media, this will be my last post about the Marco Rubio water-sipping non-event.
Jeff Poor at dailycaller.com, has provided a count of how many references to this utterly meaningless stupidity were made by each of the three cable news venues between 5PM and 11PM yesterday. The tally?
-MSNBC - 155 (the vast majority accompanied by sarcastic, negative commentary)
-CNN - 34 (including a segment on whether taking a sip of water during his commentary would end Rubio's career (??!!)
-Fox - 12 (mostly to show viewers what the other two were making a big deal, while pointing out how ridiculous it was..
And they call Fox "Faux news"?
By the way...if anyone is wondering why MSNBC and CNN might obsess this much over absolutely nothing, consider that Rubio made one helluva response speech - and by doing nothing but weisenheimer material, neither of these networks had to deal with the content of what he said.
Once you compare the two you will not wonder why MSNBC - the beloved network of christopher dorner - and CNN - more anonymous by the day - worked so hard to ignore Marco Rubio's words and, instead, concentrate on the fact that he (gasp!!) occasionally drinks water.
In 1933, W.C. Fields starred in a short film called "The Fatal Glass Of Beer". The most notable scene (please don't ask me why) had Fields in a cabin during a snowstorm, opening the door, proclaiming "Tain't a fit night out for man nor beast" and being hit in the face with a bucketful of snow tossed by an off-camera henchman.
It was so absurd, it was funny. Very, very funny.
Now, fast-forward 80 years. President Obama has just made his State of the Union address, and Republican Senator Marco Rubio is responding to it. During his response Mr. Rubio feels the need to take a sip of water, but none is in front of him. So he reaches off-camera, takes a swig from a bottle of, I think, Poland Spring water, and continues his response.
Mr. Rubio's action was neither absurd nor funny. He needed a little water and had some. Yawn.
All day today, left wing bloggers and mainstream media (not always easy to tell the difference) have been obsessing over this as if it meant something. I kid you not, it really is happening.
You want absurd? Try that on for size. But what is the single most absurd example of them all?
This "honor", if you want to use the word, goes to Wolf Blitzer of the increasingly anonymous CNN network, who - I swear I am not making this up - started a segment on the Rubio sip by saying:
"So can a drink of water make or break a political career?" Blitzer asked. "A U.S. Senator, possible presidential candidate. We're going to find out, whether he likes it or not."
There you go. Just like The Fatal Glass Of Beer: absurd, and very, very funny.
But what is absurd and funny in this instance is not the line itself. It is that CNN (or anyone) would pay on-air "talent" to make such a statement.
Here's a scoop for you, Wolf. If CNN cameras had followed Senator Rubio into the bathroom after he finished his response, I'll bet they'd have caught him peeing too.
My question: if drinking water is a potential career-ender for Marco Rubio, is relieving himself of the water a resurrection? Maybe you can do a segment on it.
Yes, folks, this is what passes for "journalism" today. And somewhere in eternity, W. C. Fields is probably belly-laughing about it too...through a faceful of snow, no doubt.
Here is the first paragraph of Caroline May's article at dailycaller.com. If it doesn't make your blood boil, you either have no blood...or you are a beneficiary of the giveway it is talking about:
In a response letter to four top Republican lawmakers, the Department of Homeland Security revealed it initiated only one case against an immigrant for becoming a "public charge," or being primarily dependent upon the government, in fiscal year 2012. The case was later withdrawn.
When you do, you just might come to the conclusion that this administration is hell-bent to do two things with illegal immigrants: 1) give them everything they can, thus making them dependent, and obligated to the Democrat Party. Then 2) do everything possible to turn them into voters as soon as possible.
If you have a more plausible explanation, I would love to know about it. I'll wait......
Don't you love it when other people make life simple for you?
I was all set to write a piece about President Obama's State State of the Union speech -- until I read the summary by powelineblog.com's Scott Johnson this morning. Now I don't have to: why bother, when Scott has done such a superlative job of it already?
Click here to read Mr. Johnson's witty, fact-filled commentary -- a few excerpts of which are shown below.
When Obama describes the "sequester" budget cuts as a looming disaster, does he expect us to forget that he is their author? Is he counting on his friends in the media to keep a secret? (Okay, foolish question.) How is it possible to take anything he says in good faith?
When Obama says we've already cut $2 trillion from the deficit, does that include the savings from Obamacare? Or just the savings from throwing in the towel on Afghanistan and Iraq?
When Obama promises that his proposals aren't going to add a penny to the deficit, what does he mean exactly? That they don't cost anything? That they will be financed by the savings from Obamacare?
When did tax deductions become loopholes? Or are they just loopholes when taken by those earning more than $200,000? I think I missed that class in law school.
When did government spending become "investment"? Was it during the halcyon days of the Clinton administration?
Why not just imposes a 100 percent tax on the millionaires and billionaires exploiting tax loopholes and be done with it? Why the half measures? Does anybody really need more than $200,000 a year to live on?
If that doesn't entice you to read Scott's entire piece, I give up.
Finally, allow me to finish with what probably is the single best response an Obama supporter will be able to muster: 'But...but....look at all the promises he made. And the media liked his speech. Isn't that enough for you?"
Remember that old Sesame Street song (maybe they still use it now): "One of these things is not like the others..."?
According to an Associated Press story this morning, President Obama is appointing a non-partisan commission to fix voting in this country (if you are like me, you'll be putting special emphasis on the word "fix").
Let's stop here for a moment to reflect on the premise that President Obama would ever appoint a truly non-partisan commission to do anything. Stopped laughing yet? Good, I'll continue....
Now I will post the first paragraph of the AP story. When you read it, I suggest you think about the Sesame Street song referenced above:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is creating a commission directed to help improve voting, a reaction to widespread complaints about lengthy waits, growing photo ID requirements and shortened early voting periods.
Let's see....three areas of "widespread complaints" are cited. Can you tell which one of them is not like the others? Well, we have:
-Lengthy waits: This is an ongoing problem, usually in heavily populated urban areas, and has been for as long as I can remember. If Mr. Obama and his commission can figure out a legitimate way of addressing it, more power to them.
-Shortened early voting periods: Personally I do not see the problem here. It used to be that voting took place on one day, or by absentee ballot. Then there was the concept of "early voting" - which presumably can to a considerable degree solve the "lengthy waits" issue, as well as any difficulty some people might have in voting on that one specific day. It seems to me a few days, or at most a week is more than enough. But, that said, I do acknowledge that there is a problem per se.
-And then we have "growing photo ID requirements". This means that people have to demonstrate they are who they say they are before being allowed to cast their votes.
Any doubt about which one of the three is not like the others?
Every poll I have ever seen shows that a majority of people - including most people in both the Democrat and Republican Party individually, support mandatory voter ID. The reason is self-evident: that it protects the legitimacy of the vote: i.e. it makes multiple-voting, or voting under an alias, much more difficult. Concomitantly, it enables law enforcement to identify people who try to commit voter fraud, so they can be charged with a crime. What exactly is wrong with that?
The people who are against voter IDs cite several reasons for their opposition, none of which make any sense:
-It is like a poll tax: ridiculous. Every state provides a way of getting a valid voter ID at no cost;
-It suppresses the minority vote: ridiculous. Minorities are 100% as capable of getting IDs as anyone else. And overtly racist as well, since it suggests minorities as so inferior to Whites that they can't even engage in the simple procedure of acquiring a valid ID;
-It is an undue burden: ridiculous. The vast majority of people already have valid IDs, and there is no problem at all for any other legitimate voter to get one. You need a valid ID to do just about everything in the course of a normal day even before we get to voting. You need one to cash a check, to get into an R rated movie, to get into any government building, to buy liquor, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Did you ever hear anyone complain about how burdensome acquiring an ID was until it was for the purpose of voting?
So the question has to be asked: why would a photo ID, or any other voter ID, be a problem? Why wouldn't it be seen as nothing more than a logical expectation?
Sadly, the most obvious answer is that some people do not want there to be photo IDs is that some people want it to be easier for voter fraud to take place. Why do you suppose they would want this to be true? Yep, you got that right.
And if you're going to tell me voter fraud doesn't exist, take it somewhere else. Of course voter fraud exists. How could any intelligent person ever believe otherwise? Because the "non-partisan" Brennan Institute for Social Justice" - a left wing, soros-funded entity with a name as fraudulent as the votes we're talking about - says so?
Let me end by saying that I wish every success for President Obama's "non-partisan" commission (sorry, still laughing at the thought that President Obama could do anything in a non-partisan way). Every legitimate success.
And may serious IDing of voters be required in every state of the country.
Here is the headline from Dylan Byers' blog at politico.com, about President Obama's "State of the Union" address. You don't need more than this to understand why I call it the funniest story of the morning:
State of the Union reaction: Media gives Obama thumbs up
Really????????? Wow, who would ever have thought.
The next thing you know, Mr. Byers will have an exclusive on the sun rising in the East, and night following day.
(By the way, Dylan, media is plural. Maybe you can take time out from marveling over the fact that the same media which have given Barack Obama a free pass on scandal after scandal after scandal for all these years like his speeches too, and correct your headline to "Media give Obama thumbs up". Just a suggestion....)
Sen. Robert Menendez took at least one more trip to the Dominican Republic on the plane of a doctor and campaign donor than he has publicly admitted, according to sources who spent time with the New Jersey Democrat on the unreported visit.
Menendez, already under fire for his association with a South Florida doctor and political contributor whose offices were raided by the FBI on Jan. 29, visited the Dominican Republic on the doctor's private jet in 2008 and took part in an exclusive private golf charity tournament, the sources said.
Sources said Menendez flew on Dr. Salomon Melgen's plane to the Dominican Republic in April that year for the invite-only Sugar Open golf tournament at Casa de Campo, an exclusive vacation resort popular with American visitors. While there, Menendez stayed at the doctor's Casa de Campo villa, the sources said.
"He was on the doc's jet in 2008 -- that I guarantee," a source who attended the same event told FoxNews.com.
The senator did not report the 2008 trip in his annual disclosure forms, according to records reviewed by FoxNews.com. Depending on how the trip was funded, it's possible he was not required to. But claims Menendez attended the 2008 golf tournament would appear to conflict with a recent statement from the senator's office that he only flew on the donor's plane in 2010.
Representatives for both Melgen and Menendez did not return requests from FoxNews.com for comment.
The annual Sugar Open event, which is hosted by sugar barons Alfy and Pepe Fanjul, "actually incorporates four evenings of entertainment as well as three days of golf," according the tournament website.
Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock....
How much longer before New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is picking a new US Senator?
Remember the terrorist attack at Fort Hood in 2009? You know, the terrorist attack that the Obama administration has yet to call a terrorist attack?
To refresh your memory, a member of the military, nidal malik hasan, became radicalized - in part by listening to the hate-USA vomit spewed by anwer al-awliki who - to his credit - President Obama had "neutralized" in a drone attack two years ago (will he ever live it down)? hasan decided that, since all US soldiers should die, and he was in a military base, and he knew military personnel do not carry weapons on their person within the base, it would be no problem to take out quite a few of them.
And in that one way, he was correct. hasan's shooting spree, on November 5, 2009, took the lives of 13 and injured 32 others, most of them military.
The carnage ended when hasan himself was shot, but not fatally. Years later he still awaits trial.
While hasan enjoys life with three hots and a cot, his murder victims have long since been buried. But what of the injured?
This leads us to a remarkable story by Diane Sawyer on the ABC news web site, which - according to the ABC site, will be broadcast tonight. I call the story remarkable because, finally, one of the major networks decided it just might be worth reporting (the other two? No such luck - unless Ms. Sawyer's report shames them into it).
Here are a few excerpts from the web site report - which I strongly urge you to click here and read every word of prior to watching it on air this evening:
Three years after the White House arranged a hero's welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.
"Betrayed is a good word," former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline."
"Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of," she said. "In fact they've been neglected."
There was no immediate comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.
Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the November 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, who now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder.
Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as "workplace violence" instead of "combat related" or terrorism.
Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the "workplace violence" designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as "combat related."
Some of the victims "had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment" and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group's lawyer, Reed Rubinstein.
Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out of political correctness.
"These guys play stupid every time they're asked a question about it, they pretend like they have no clue," said Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day at Fort Hood. Two of the bullets remain in his leg and spine, he said.
"It was no different than an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan trying to kill us," said Manning, who was twice deployed to Iraq and had to retire from the military because of his injuries.
An Army review board initially classified Manning's injuries as "combat related," but that finding was later overruled by higher-ups in the Army.
Manning says the "workplace violence" designation has cost him almost $70,000 in benefits that would have been available if his injuries were classified as "combat related."
"Basically, they're treating us like I was downtown and I got hit by a car," he told ABC News.
"It's a slap in the face, not only for me but for all of the 32 that wore the uniform that day," he told ABC News.
Former Sgt. Munley says she now believes the White House used her for political advantage in arranging for her to sit next to Michelle Obama during the President's State of the Union address in 2010.
Munley says she has no hesitation now speaking out against the President or taking part in the lawsuit, because she wants to help the others who were shot that day and continue to suffer.
"We got tired of being neglected. So this was our last resort and I'm not ashamed of it a bit," she said.
Wonderful. What a great performance by our government and our military.
FYI: by contrast, nidal malik hasan has gotten the best treatment available, free of charge.
And incredibly - beyond sickeningly - he demanded the right to grow a beard in the tradition of his Muslim beliefs, and was granted that right.
Think about this: for years, hasan, always a Muslim, had no problem being clean-shaven. But because his beliefs became radicalized, resulting in the killing of 13 and wounding of another 32, he demanded the right to grow a beard. In other words, the sole basis for that beard is the beliefs which caused him to go on his deadly rampage. And he is ALLOWED to grow it? ALLOWED to celebrate the beliefs which motivated his actions?
Could what you have read here possibly be more wrong? What kind of insane nether-world are the people in this administration living in? They refuse to acknowledge he committed a terrorist act (the fact that he had al-awliki's materials in his living quarters and screamed "allah hu akbar" before he started shooting somehow did not qualify to these geniuses) so leave him alone to revel in his great radical Islamist trial.
And it certainly didn't stop Barack and Michelle Obama from exploiting this event for political gain, did it? ex-Sgt. Munley had no idea that this was her value to the Obamas then. But, as you just read, she certainly knows it now.
The account you have just read should sicken every decent American. In fact, it should sicken every decent human being, regardless of where they are.
And, however unfairly, it should make every decent Muslim, who would never think of doing such a thing (do not doubt that there are countless Muslims who qualify) cringe 100 times over, that they could in any way be associated with this murdering radical madman.
Put another way, in our anger, let us never forget that hasan is an individual. He is no more representative of Muslims in general than jared lee loughner is of Whites, or christopher dorner is of Blacks, or bernard madoff is of Jews.
I've said it many times in this blog, and I'll say it again now: the single straightest line to unreasoning hatred is to see people as components of other groups, instead of the individuals every one of us is.
But as far as hasan goes? As someone who is almost always against capital punishment, let me assure you that, if they fry him, I will not lose one second's sleep. And I hope his effing beard is the first thing that bursts into flame.
SARAH PALIN & AL-JAZEERA: THE CLASSIC "TOO GOOD TO CHECK" STORY
In recent years, the term "too good to check" has come into use. It usually refers to a news story that so completely confirms a "journalist"'s position about someone or something, that the "journalist" doesn't want to vet the story, for fear of finding out that it is wrong, thus unusable.
This, not surprisingly, moves us to a negative story about Sarah Palin - who, more than any other political personality in recent times, has been crapped on unmercifully - and very often erroneously - by a media which hates her guts.
How obvious was this? Well, here are the "quotes" ascribed to Ms. Palin, and to Al Gore, who sold Current TV to Al-Jazeera:
"As you all know, I'm not a big fan of newspapers, journalists, news anchors and the liberal media in general," Palin said. "But I met with the folks at Al-JaJizzraa (sic) and they told me they reach millions of devoutly religious people who don't watch CBS or CNN. That tells me they don't have a liberal bias."
"Al Jazeera provides high-quality, intelligent coverage of important issues", Gore said. "And more importantly, it's backed by oil money. That means when you get paid...you really get paid."
Could anyone possibly read those quotes and think either person actually said them?
Uh........yep. Suzie Parker of the Washington Post. She wrote all about it in her supersedingly nasty, insulting column about Ms. Palin; the one which had this sarcastic headline "Sarah Palin tries to stay relevant".
But it was Parker, not Palin, who turned out to be irrelevant. Because no such deal has ever been struck between Palin and Al-Jazeera.
I can't show you Parker's exact words about Palin's nonexistent contract, because they have been removed. You can, however, read the rest of her obnoxious hit-piece by clicking here). And if you do, you will find this disclaimer under the headline (its bold print is theirs, not mine):
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post incorrectly reported that Sarah Palin had signed on as a contributor to the Al Jazeera America news network. The blogger cited a report on the Daily Currant Web site as the basis for that information without realizing that the piece was satirical.
Not even an apology.
But, then again, why should the Post, or Parker in particular, bother, since there are so many insults in the remaining piece that it would make such an apology laughable.
I have mentioned this in the past, but it bears mentioning again today: it is a measure of how completely these people can turn public opinion that, until media decided to crucify Sarah Palin, she had the single highest favorability rating of any Governor in the United States- an astonishing 87%. But now, after years of unrelenting, often disgusting, often unfair and untrue media attacks, try and find anyone in or out of Alaska who can provide one good thing to say about her.
Great job, Washington Post. Super work, Suzie Parker. And welcome to the "Too Good To Check" hall of sha...er, fame.
You have nothing to be proud of. But look at the bright side: you do have plenty of company.
Want to see just how far the New York Times has sunk as a newspaper - more specifically, as a source of editorial commentary?
Here is an editorial in today's paper....in rust, with my comments in blue. Please read it through and decide for yourself who is making more sense:
For Two Senators, Petty Politics Comes First
Individual senators hold an enormous amount of power in Washington, which is exactly the way they like it. But when that power is abused, as two Republicans are now doing in trying to derail the nomination of a defense secretary, it has to be curtailed. Ok, you've set down the gauntlet.Let's see what you've got.
The two senators, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, say they will place "holds" on President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel to run the Pentagon. A hold is a kind of minifilibuster, preventing unanimous consent to take up a bill or nomination, and preventing an up-or-down vote. Agree so far.Using this power for showboating, as Mr. Graham and Mr. Inhofe are doing, shows how easy it has become for senators to put petty personal demands ahead of the country's needs. There's that gauntlet again.Ok, Times, what have Mr. Graham and Mr. Inhofe done that you characterize as "showboating"?
Mr. Inhofe told National Review on Monday that he would block Mr. Hagel's nomination on the Senate floor for "a long, long time." The reason? He thinks Mr. Hagel is "anti-Israel," and he hopes the delay will pressure pro-Israel Democrats.Actually, Inhofe said he would hold it up until there are 60 votes.And he didn't just flip out the term "anti-Israel", he said . "The anti-Israel history of Chuck Hagel is real.We can't have someone at the Pentagon who has made these kind of statements." Mr. Hagel, in fact, has 12 years' worth of votes in support of Israel, and he amplified that backing in his confirmation hearing. But because he has also dared to express concern about the plight of Palestinians in their quest for a state, he has given Mr. Inhofe a platform to make extremist charges. Now the Times is lying.I - along with many other bloggers - have put up a history of Chuck Hagel's anti-Israel comments - and actions, along with his tacit, maybe not-so-tacit, support for the terrorist group hamas, whose charter specifically calls for the obliteration of Israel in its entirety and the death of all Jews.And that is before we get to the fact that Hagel steadfastly refuses to release a list of foreign contributions - quite possibly because of how much money he has gotten from hamas, hezbollah, and their sympathizers.That The Times has not so much as mentioned these facts is a testament to how little credibility it has on this issue.
Mr. Graham is being even more petulant. With his eye clearly on his Republican primary next year, he said on Sunday that he would block the nomination of Mr. Hagel (and of John Brennan to run the C.I.A.) until he finds out whether Mr. Obama called the Libyan government last September during the takeover of the American consulate in Benghazi. This is a continuation of his party's fantasy of a direct connection between the president and the deaths of four Americans. Fantasy?FANTASY?President Obama, Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary of State Clinton lied to our faces about this for weeks, claiming the attack emanated from some nondescript youtube video no one ever heard of. Then they lied about the fact that they were lying.Just this week we found out, from the administration's own Leon Panetta, that President Obama was AWOL throughout the entire Benghazi attack.As low as the New York Times has sunk in its endless-love-fest with Obama & Co., this truly sets the bar even lower.Most Republicans gave up on this nonsense after Mr. Obama's re-election, when it was no longer useful to them, but Mr. Graham is proving to be the ultimate dead-ender. Some Republicans gave up because Obama's Accomplice Media - like the New York Times, for example - had made it clear that looking for real answers about Benghazi was almost impossible.You want proof?Look at most media's reaction to Hillary Clinton's disgraceful dodge during her one round of testimony on this murderous, terrorist event:slamming her hand down on the table and petulantly whining "what's the difference" how it happened.Not in your wildest dreams would a Republican President or his Secretary of State ever get away with even a tiny fraction of this.But Obama, not content with the free pass media like The Times gave him on Benghazi, is now trying to install a Secretary of Defense who has no interest in Benghazi either. That is taking it to another even lower level.I hope Lindsey Graham is 100% successful in what he is doing, and hope you feel the same way.
This kind of posturing is exactly why holds and filibusters against nominees have to end. Any senator is free to cast a vote for or against a nominee but should not be able to prevent others from doing so. Translation: We know what is best for you, and what is best for you is Democrats, no matter what they do or say, even if they lie to your faces and even if they are anathematic to our staunchest ally in the Middle East, while being sympathetic to the terrorists there. My name is THE NEW YORK TIMES. Newspaper of Newspapers. Look on my editorials, ye mighty, and despair.
Well, there you have it.Two very different points of view.Who is right and who is wrong?
Well, the election is over. So there is no need to help out Barack Obama's re-election chances by hiding what an absolute disaster ObamaCare is.
Now the news is coming out. And guess what? It is ugly.
Betsey McCaughey has wrtitten an excellent analysis of just what a horror show ObamaCare really is. You can read it all by clicking here, and I strongly recommend that you do. For the meanwhile, though, here are the first few paragraphs:
The central parts of ObamaCare don't roll out until 2014, but the wheels are already falling off this clunker. The latest news from four federal agencies is that 1) insurance will be a lot less affordable than Americans were led to expect, 2) fewer people than promised will get insurance and 3) millions of people who have coverage through a job now will lose it, thanks to the president's "reforms." Oh, and children are the biggest victims.
The Affordable Care Act is looking less and less affordable.
Start with the IRS's new estimate for what the cheapest family plan will cost by 2016: $20,000 a year to cover two adults and three kids. And that will only cover 60 percent of medical bills, so add hefty out-of-pocket costs, too.
The next surprise is for parents who thought their kids would be covered by an employer. Sloppy wording in the law left that unclear until last week, when the IRS ruled that kids won't be covered.
Not surprisingly, we are now starting to hear cries of anguish and fury from people who supported Mr. Obama, in no small part because of the bill of goods they were sold about his signature health care program.
Well, it is TOO LATE, guys. The game's over. The ship has sailed. You ignored reality, you believed a man who looked you in the eye and lied to you for four years, you voted for the progenitor of this health care monstrosity. And now? What was that old saying? Oh yeah: "be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it." And get it you did.
The problem is that when you get it, the rest of us, who knew better, get it too.
And now, after the damage is done, you don't like what ObamaCare actually is? Then tell it to someone else. This is one complaint I really do not want to hear.
Hundreds of thousands of people marched on Sunday in Tehran and other cities chanting "Death to America" as Iran marked the 34th anniversary of the Islamic revolution that ousted the U.S.-backed shah.
In the capital, crowds waving Iranian flags and portraits of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini walked toward the landmark Azadi (Freedom) Square, in a government-sponsored rally which is now a cornerstone of the regime.
Marchers also chanted "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" as they headed for the square, some waving posters of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was expected to make an address.
You understand, of course, that these marches are completely under the auspices of the Iranian "government" (the illegitimately elected government which caused mass protests in these same streets during the summer of 2009, and which Mr. Obama declined to support).
Kinda makes you wonder what, exactly, Mr. Obama would like to talk about, doesn't it?
Kinda makes you wonder why he insists on humbling himself, and our country, again and again, by begging them to talk to us.
Kinda makes you wonder what the hell we re-elected him for............
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 excerpts 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"
So? Does it matter? You're damn right it does.
Now let's add in a couple of other facts:
-Trayvon Martin was in that neighborhood instead of school because he had been suspended from school - for the third time in six months - with one of the suspensions relating to the fact that women's jewelry and a burglar's tool were found in his possession, neither of which he could explain (remember, Zimmerman followed Martin because he seemed to be acting suspiciously),
-And Trayvon Martin apparently had gone from being a sweet little boy with a baby face (the "red shirt" picture media relentlessly showed us, which stirred up so much anger against George Zimmerman)....
...to a sneering, tattooed gangsta thug wannabe, with tattooed arms, a "grille" (phony gold teeth for the front of his mouth) and the twitter name NO_LIMIT_NIGGA:
Now what have you got? Someone to elevate to hero status? Someone to celebrate? Emulate? Organize tribute marches to?
Look, I do not know for sure what happened on that fateful day. I cannot say who was at fault for the initial physical contact or the shooting. But, then again, no one else knows for sure either, which is why, barring a judgment based on the fear of racial reprisal, there is no way George Zimmerman can be, or should be, convicted of murder.
Here, however, is one thing I do know for sure. On an average day in this country, 18 Black people are murdered, most of them young people. And, on average, 16 - 17 of them are murdered by other Black people - with a very large percentage of them the result of inner city gang wars - either gang members killing other gang members, or the "collateral damage" of innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with why the shots were fired.
Where are the marches about that? Where are the "I Am A Young Black Victim Day of Remembrance" Community Peace Walks?
If Black groups are going to pick an individual to elevate this way, does it have to be someone like Trayvon Martin? And, when 90% of Black murders are committed by other Blacks, does the focus have to be on racism - which provides a convenient diversion from what is putting the vast majority of these young people in the ground?
Let me end this blog the way it began: what possesses people to do this to themselves?
When I was 17 years old, I attended Saint Louis University, a Catholic - Jesuit, actually - school. Being a Jew from the Northeast, I had a lot of learning to do about what Catholicism was - including, of course, the concept of a Pope as the Vicar of Christ.
But I can't say that papal resignation came up much - probably because it had not happened since 1415.
Well, I'm sure the kids at SLU are talking about it today. Because Pope Benedict has, this morning, announced his intention to resign, effective February 28th. The stated reason seems to be both health and age related (he is 85 and has taken to using a walker).
The former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has been Pope since 2005 and, to my knowledge has been a very popular one. I hope the selection of a new Pope and subsequent transition is as smooth as possible.
Today's quote comes from the lovely Ms. Nancy Pelosi. Speaking to Chris Wallace on Fox's "Sunday Morning", she said:
"We avow the First Amendment. We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves in their homes and their jobs, where, and that they -- and the workplace and that they, for recreation and hunting and the rest. So we're not questioning their right to do that."
Brilliant. How, er, bidenesque.
I wonder if Ms. Pelosi also avows the second amendment and its right to freedom of speech and religion.
Remember, folks, this once was our Speaker of the House......
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is angry about the lying and stonewalling over Benghazi. And he should be. And as you should be. And as every member of the media - including the Accomplice Media so willing to bury any story that is embarrassing and/or damaging to Barack Obama - should be.
Mr. Lindsey is so angry, in fact, that he is now threatening to hold up President Obama's nominations of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense and John Brennan as Director of the CIA until he gets some real answers.
Read this transcript of Graham with Bob Schieffer on "Face The Nation" this morning:
SCHIEFFER: What has to happen? What would they have to do then to bring this to a vote?
GRAHAM: I want to know who changed the talking points. Who took the references to al Qaeda out of the talking points given to Susan Rice? We still don't know. Richard Burr and Saxby Chambliss have found emails discussing changing the talking points. I think her story, after what we found out in this hearing, was incredibly misleading. I want to know what our president did. What did he do as Commander in Chief? Did he ever pick the phone and call anybody? I think this is stuff that the country needs to know.
You bet the country needs to know it, Senator. Four people are dead. And for a half year, this administration has done nothing but lie to us about it.
And that's not all: mainstream media need to know that, this one time, they are not going to get away with sweeping a major scandal under the rug on behalf of Obama & Co. - a scandal that, if this were President Bush, would be lead-story news every day until, and even after, everyone spilled their guts.
I wish Lindsey Graham every success here. Someone has to act as though the truth means something. And, in the age of Obama, that someone is very, very unlikely to be one of what we laughingly call our "journalists".
Time for another installment of my Jimmy Cannon-inspired column of little bits from here and there, none of which need its own blog. So here goes.
Nobody asked me, but:
-Silly though it is, I'm sort of glad Donald Trump is suing bill maher, who offered $5 million dollars for proof that Trump was not the result of his mother having sex with an orangutan. I'm sure maher and his pals found that comment hilariously funny - just as funny as when maher called Sarah Palin those offensive names for female genitals, and when he makes the stereotypical racist comments he seems so fond of. But this time he is screwing with the wrong guy. Trump is just as willing to play in a sandbox as maher is - except he has a much bigger shovel, and is motivated by maher's offensive slur against both his parents. Not surprisingly at all, maher already is circling the wagons, deep into his whiney "aw, what's the problem, I'm just a comedian telling a little joke" routine. But I doubt that it will work this time. I have little doubt his lawyer has told him to shut the $*%^ up about Trump until the suit is resolved. And, if so, it might even encourage other targets of maher's unending (and usually unfunny) pile of bile to do the same. Good.
-We got only about 7 inches of snow from the monster storm. Lucky, lucky, lucky. Some places further north got 3 feet - and even worse: today's New York Times (print edition, only) has a picture of Winthrop, Massachusetts not only being slammed with snow, but with ocean water wildly cascading over its seawall onto the city streets. Pure hell.
-The New York Yankees signed what is left of Travis Hafner to a contract as its DH. He is 35 years old, his best years are probably behind him and he cannot play the field anymore. Sadly, this may be an upgrade for the Yanks' 2013 team...and may lower its average age too.
-Do you have any doubt at all that we'll be hearing more - a lot more - about Robert "Menendacious" Menendez's involvement with Dominican hookers? I sure don't.
-Unlike my wife (and, apparently, a great many other women) I have never cared much about which toilet paper I use. Given the additional location where women use this product I can certainly understand why it might be an issue for them. But for most guys, even perforated sandpaper is okay in a pinch...er, wipe. That said, however, I have come across one brand that I actually find better than the others. Quilted Northern "Soft & Strong" toilet paper really is superior. Just as the name says, it is soft and strong - more so than any other brand I've come across. I prefer that we use it in the house and, not surprisingly, my wife agrees.
-Cubacan restaurant, in Asbury Park, NJ, has reopened (or so its web site says). Hurricane Sandy put it out of commission for over 3 months, and I worried that it was gone forever - not just because we like going there so much (a pretty good reason in and of itself) but because a closed restaurant means a lost business and a bunch of lost jobs. It's not like there's a surplus of either these days. All the best to them and I hope business booms again.
-I tried "vitamin water" this week. It was terrible. I don't care how healthy it is (or, at any rate, they try to convince me it is), I think it tastes like plain water with a bunch of sugar poured into it. Yech.
-I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said "I wear lipstick, and I vote Democrat". Thanks in advance to anyone who can explain what that is supposed to mean, because I don't have a clue.
-If a viagra pill gets stuck in your throat, do you get a stiff neck?
-Whatever I might think of their father politically, Malia and Sasha Obama seem like very nice young ladies. Anyway, I certainly hope they are.
-I just asked my wife what ticks her off more than anything these days, and she says it is when you go the extra mile for people and they take it for granted, as if it were somehow owed to them as a matter of course. She said this a bit differently than I am posting it, but I'm not putting up her exact words. Come to think of it, I asked her a bit differently and I'm not putting up my exact words either. Married couples really do talk very differently when they are alone than when they are with other people.
-In the past year or two, Wegmann's, a terrific supermarket/specialty store, has begun weaning out certain name brand products, seemingly in an attempt to sell more of their own brand. Two examples are paper napkins and salad dressings. I happen to like most Wegmann's brands a great deal, but I very much do not like having my other options removed. I hope they don't continue in this direction.
-While we're on the subject of stuff you can get in specialty stores, my wife thinks Trader Joe's has the best coffee sucking candies anywhere. I'm no expert on this (I'm still a kid and much prefer the fruit flavored stuff) but I've tried them, and she is right.
-Chris Christie can make all the jokes he wants about his weight, and tell all the doctors who comment on it to shut up. But he is a young man who is enormously overweight, and is begging for a disaster. I wish he'd do something about it.
-Wilkes-Barre PA, Chili New York, Forked River New Jersey and Houston St., Manhattan. Pronounce any one of them the way it looks, and you will pronounce it incorrectly. What are the correct pronunciations? Sorrrrrrry, that's your job to find out.
-When I need a new pair of sneakers, I buy the absolute cheapest version of a "name brand" I can find. I'm not in the NBA, I don't play tennis and I don't walk long distances. All I need is a reasonably adequate foot covering. I would never, ever spend more than, say $40 or $50 for sneakers...and usually get away with a good deal less.
-Similarly, I can't fathom why anyone would spend more than that amount for a pair of jeans. Yet "designer" jeans are sold in stores like Bloomingdale's and Lord & Taylor for hundreds of dollars, and there is a serious market for them. Incomprehensible to me.
-We found great Valentine's day cards for our grandchildren. Dinosaur-themed for our 6 year old grandson, princess-themed for our 3 year old granddaughter. We can't wait to give them (yes, that means we also see them, which is the best of all).
Ok, enough. This is more fun, but the next post is back to politics as usual.
Did Hamas dispatch 7,000 militiamen from the Gaza Strip to Egypt to protect President Mohamed Morsi, who is currently facing a popular uprising?
Reports that appeared in a number of Egyptian opposition media outlets in the past few days claimed that the militiamen entered Egypt through the smuggling tunnels along the border with the Gaza Strip.
The reports quoted unidentified Egyptian security officials as saying that the Hamas militiamen had been spotted in the Egyptian border town of Rafah before they headed toward Cairo, to shore up the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Morsi, which Hamas may have feared was in danger of collapse.
Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood organization, is a staunch supporter of the Morsi regime.
There is no doubt that Hamas is prepared to do its utmost to help Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood organization stay in power, even at the cost of killing and torturing Egyptian civilians. The downfall of the Mubarak regime has been a great blessing for Hamas, which has since emerged as a major player in the Palestinian and regional arena.
Thanks to Morsi, an Egyptian prime minister visited the Gaza Strip for the first time ever last November to express solidarity with Hamas during Israel's "Pillar of Defense" military operation. Such a visit would have been unthinkable under Mubarak, who did everything he could to weaken Hamas and stop it from meddling in the internal affairs of Egypt.
But now Hamas knows that it can always rely on Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to stay in power and increase Hamas's influence. In return, Morsi apparently expects Hamas to reward him by sending its men to defend his palace.
Isn't that great? mohamed morsi, a member of the terrorist Muslim brotherhood is now militarily backed by terrorist hamas. And both groups are irrevocably committed to the annihilation of Israel, the US's staunchest ally in the Middle East, which means the peace treaty between Egypt and the USA, which Hosni Mubarak held to for over 30 years, is so much toilet paper.
To President Obama: my congratulations. This could never have happened without your intervention.
Without you, Mubarak would still be in power, peace between Egypt and Israel would still be real, and two terrorist organizations would be skulking in the shadows instead of running the largest Arab country in the world.
How lucky we are that you, and your Secretary of State - who ignored the pleas for more security in Benghazi last September, thus facilitating the massacre there - are on the job. Otherwise, things could really have deteriorated in that part of the world.
This, folks, is what we re-elected, and subjected ourselves to for four more years. Enjoy the ride.
Though the term "Poor Little Rich Girl" sprung from a 1917 silent movie starring Mary Pickford, it was much more famously used to describe Barbara Hutton, a fabulously wealthy woman (her father co-founded E.F. Hutton, her mother's father founded F. W. Woolworth), who, despite all that money, had a terrible life - 7 husbands (several of whom abused her both physically and emotionally), a major-league drinking problem, bouts with depression, the untimely death of her only son in an airplane crash, etc.
Today, for similar reasons, the term "Poor Little Rich Country" is a pretty good descriptor of Venezuela under hugo chavez (or quite possibly, his ghost, since no one has seen him for over a month and he may well be dead).
Venezuela should be rolling in dough. All that oil money. But extreme mismanagement, coupled with an insatiable urge to prop up communist and near-communist governments in Latin America (just as Ms. Hutton squandered her fortune giving away millions to various hangers-on and ne'er-do-wells). have turned the country into an economic basket case.
How are the people supposed to survive? How are they supposed to obtain the basic necessities of life?
It certainly won't be by "taxing the rich", since chavez has already expropriated so much of the private sector and put it under his own thumb that there is precious little left. So what's next?
When do the people of Venezuela finally, at long last, realize what a disaster has been visited on them by this charismatic fraud, who makes so many of them feel so good, while plunging them into a bottomless pit of national debt?
And even if chavez is already dead, or dies very soon, who is to say that his second-in-command, Vice President Nicolas Maduro, won't simply take control of the country and keep it on its collision course to oblivion?
As bad as "Poor Little Rich Country" is, "Hopelessly Destitute Little Rich Country" is worse. Don't think it can't happen.
TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK...TIME RUNNING OUT FOR THE "MENENDACIOUS" ONE?
How much trouble is Robert "Menendacious" Menendez in?
Well, the New York Times has jumped in with both feet. And it hasn't even touched (bad pun there) on the most salacious of the charges against him.
Here are the first three paragraphs of The Times' scathing editorial about the Menendacious one, in today's edition:
Senator Robert Menendez was never a distinguished choice for chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the position he ascended to this month by virtue of seniority. Concerns about that quality gap have sharply escalated amid new disclosures about Mr. Menendez's use of his position to advance the financial interests of a friend and big donor. Instead of trying to protect Mr. Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, needs to remove his gavel, at least pending credible resolution by the Senate Ethics Committee of the swirling accusations of misconduct.
At issue are the curious dealings between Mr. Menendez and his close friend and benefactor Salomon Melgen, a wealthy Florida eye surgeon and major Democratic donor. The senator's efforts to help Dr. Melgen, part-owner of a firm that had a long-dormant contract with the Dominican Republic to provide port security, revive that lucrative contract - deemed an exorbitant giveaway by business leaders and government officials there - were detailed in an article in The Times last week by Raymond Hernandez and Frances Robles. The contract's dubious legitimacy and Dr. Melgen's lack of experience in border security issues did not deter Mr. Menendez from pressing State and Commerce Department officials to insist that the contract be honored, including at a hearing in July of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee over which he presided.
Compounding the unseemliness, Senator Menendez's help came as Dr. Melgen was in the process of making donations totaling $700,000 to Majority PAC, a Democratic "super PAC" set up by former aides to Mr. Reid. Majority PAC ended up shoveling $582,500 to Mr. Menendez's 2012 re-election campaign.
The editorial goes on to note that Mr. Menendez has had ethics problems in the past, and apparently has learned little from them.
Reminding you again: this is the New York Times. Not Fox News, or National Review, or The Weekly Standard, but the New York Times.
And also reminding you again: this is only about Menendez's dealings with Salomon Melgen - a man who may well leave him in the dust when it comes to lack of ethics - and not a word about his alleged jaunts with hookers, including the underage variety.
Tick tock, tick tock. How long before Chris Christie is picking the next Senator from New Jersey?
Today's quote comes to us - surprisingly - from the hardline leftist editor of Newsweek and The Daily Beast, Tina Brown.
Speaking of Barack Obama, she said, so help me:
"He'd be impeached by now for drones if he was W. Bush"
There have been some - a tiny percentage compared to what we heard during the Bush era, but some - rumblings from the left about Barack Obama's willingness to meet out summary "justice" to enemies of ours, via drone attacks. Maybe Tina Brown is one of the rumblers.
I say maybe, because please notice that she is not expressing disapproval of Mr. Obama's drone policy, only noting that there would be hell to pay for it if the President were named Bush. This gives me the unusual opportunity to agree with Ms. Brown which, of course, I do.
A closing observation: don't you find it interesting that the same President who demanded civil trials for terrorists, even non US citizens captured in other countries, would be ok with zapping them from the sky, like a kid on a sunny day with a magnifying glass and a few ants in front of him?
Are you surprised that more media, even Obama's Accomplice Media, do not seem to notice? Oh, what's that? You aren't surprised at all?
-A total of only 7,640 people (out of over 3 million) have firearms permits.
-But last year alone, police seized 7,400 guns that were used in the commission of crimes. The article does not say, but it is an excellent bet that only a tiny fraction of those guns were obtained legally. Obviously none of them were used legally.
Does it not stand to reason that gun laws had no affect on the people these guns were seized from? Or that more such laws would not have any more meaning than the current ones, since, by definition, every gun was seized from someone with no problem ignoring gun laws?
Maybe, just maybe, there is more to this than politicians, like Rahm Emanuel for example, demanding the passage of still more laws, wiping their hands back and forth vigorously, and proclaiming they have addressed the issue.
When do those politicians talk about the violent video games? The "rap" music"? The movies? The cultural components that teach our young people that killing is no big deal, it is nothing more than some kind of game, an amusing pastime? Or do they fear being attacked by the celebrities who currently support them (as they do nothing about this, of course), and their sources of campaign money from the "entertainment" industries drying up?
Oh, sorry. That would mean really doing something about what causes gun violence, even if it offends Hollywood and all that money.
Forget it. That'll never fly. Just call a press conference, attack the NRA as if it were the source of those illegal guns and the perps were NRA members, then pass some more new gun control laws. Yeah, that's the ticket.
I don't know how or where our pal Toy Insurance Bob comes up with this stuff, but I have to admit I laughed out loud watching the video he just sent me, of someone named "Golf Brooks" (really, that's the name he uses) singing about "senior moments, brain farts".
The older we get the more we understand just what those are (me very, very much included)...and the more some of us are willing to laugh about it. Click here, watch/listen to the video, and I guarantee you'll laugh right along with me.
ED SCHULTZ: WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT OF HYPOCRISY
Ed Schultz accusing someone else of being insulting? You're kidding, right?
Nope, it's for real. When you stop laughing, please read on.
Here's the dea: earlier this week, Fox and Friends' Steve Doocy put up two pictures of Hillary Clinton, one of which presumably looks more attractive than the other. The headline says "Face of Hil, 2016" and the sub-head says "new website glams up Hillary Clinton". Doocy's commentary was as follows:
"Is this the face of presidential ambition?Days after retiring as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, somebody has launched a new web site for her, showing off this glamorous new face.Face lift, perhaps?Well, that's fueling rumors about a run for President in 2016, but her aides say it's simply a way for fans and the media to reach her"
Doocy's intent is eminently clear; he is tweaking Ms. Clinton for trying to "glam" herself up and either speculating that she had a facelift or sarcastically referencing the possibility it will happen.
Frankly, this is not a big deal. Nothing terrible was said and the comments, while admittedly childish, were more cutesy than anything else. But Doocy did make it into a big deal by subsequently claiming, on his twitter account, that:
"Some lefty blogs thought I said Hillary had a facelift, nope, I was saying the Hillary WEBSITE, a new pic, a facelift for site"
Ok, let's finish with Doocy by acknowledging that the meaning of his comment was unmistakable, and his twitter alibi doesn't come close to passing a smell test, unless you like the smell of unadulterated bullcrap.
Ed Schultz said as much and, this one time, he was dead-on correct.
That, obviously, is not my problem with Schultz.
My problem - and the point of this blog - is the amazing hypocrisy of a serial insulter like Ed Schultz accusing anyone else of doing what he does virtually every day as a matter of course - and far more viciously than the more or less smiley-face comment Doocy made.
Here, for your delectation or disgust, are a few of the comments Schultz has tossed out about his (countless numbers of) bogeymen, as compiled a couple of years ago by Juli Weiner of mediaite.com. Remember, a) it is a tiny fraction of the total, and b) Schultz has had two more years to expand on it since. Enjoy:
Schultz makes headlines every few months with these types of ad hominem attacks, some of which are more clever than others. In September, Schultz called New Jersey governor Chris Christie a "cold-hearted fat slob." He was then "reprimanded" by MSNBC boss Phil Griffin. In February, he suggested that radio foe Rush Limbaugh "wrap [his] fat ass in the flag." Sarah Palin? An "all-American nobody." (Pretty good.) Glenn Beck? "Appeals to the Joe Plumbers of the world." (Mean!)
Want to compare that to Doocy's silliness about Hillary Clinton's possible "facelift"?
Ed Schultz has gotten very rich by turning from an unsuccessful conservative talk show host (that's right, he tried that first, before going left), to a nasty, vituperative, always-insulting left wing hypocrite. And he whines about what Doocy said?
Hypocrite? The word barely begins to describe him.
"People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones": old adage
"The Republican Party is mostly White, stated by a magazine which has existed for a century and had nothing but White - and male - editors": new hypocrisy
Here is the cover of The New Republic's latest issue:
Very clever graphics. But what about the point it makes?
Well, in recent years the Republican Party has has Black Secretaries of State, senior security advisors, cabinet members and a House Republican Conference Chair.
And The New Republic? Here is a list, compiled by reason.com's Matt Welch, of every editor in the magazine's 99 year history, from its beginning in 1914 right up to the present day:
Herbert Croly, Bruce Bliven, Henry A. Wallace, Michael Straight, Gilbert A. Harrison, Marty Peretz, Michael Kinsley, Hendrik Hertzberg, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Kelly, Charles Lane, Peter Beinart, Franklin Foer, Richard Just, and Chris Hughes
Every one White, every one male.
Simply stated, The New Republic is Whiter than the current Republicans
I started this blog with an adage. Let me end it with a quote - from the great poet Robert Burns, in his native dialect:
O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!
Translation: Maybe The New Republic's staff should take a good look in the mirror.
I could do several of these every day. I don't because the amount of bile spewed by the left - with no repercussions whatsoever from our wonderful "neutral" media, of course - is enormous.
This brilliant piece of, er, humor comes to us from the execrable joy behar. Speaking about Dick Morris's departure from Fox News Channel, behar said:
"Okay, Fox News has gotten rid of Dick Morris... but don't worry, there's no shortage of dicks at Fox"
My god that is funny. Real classy. And so original too. No wonder behar has such a huge audience on Current TV of, oh, dozens and dozens of relati, er loyal viewers.
I'll just bet sterling dialogue like that will make a major impression on the new owners of the station. Yep, Al Jazeera is sure to swoon over a foul-mouthed female show host with virtually no ratings.
A question for behar: how does it feel to know that many multiples of viewers would rather watch the "dicks" at Fox than you?
Yep, left wing "civility" at its finest. And, with behar and her pals out there, an unlimited supply to draw from.
One of my facebook friends, Montreal Rhonda, paid a tribute to the great Canadian jazz pianist Oliver Jones. And it is true, he is a very special talent.
But I had to answer that, to me, the greatest Canadian jazz talent of all time was the late, great Oscar Peterson. And, to provide an example, I put up this link to Mr. Peterson, accompanied by the equally great orchestra leader and arranger par excellence, Nelson Riddle, playing the Disney Snow White classic "Someday My Prince Will Come".
From the album "Oscar Peterson and Nelson Riddle", 1963.
Listen to what Mr. Peterson does with this simple beautiful melody. Listen to how he somehow maintains its simplicity and beauty, while putting it into a different stratosphere jazz-wise. It is not only magnificent from the standpoint of technique and creativity, but so pleasing to listen to that you find yourself simultaneously impatient to hear every new note and phrase, and depressed because when you do it is that much closer to ending.
Great is great. And when it came to greatness Oscar Peterson was in a class by himself.
Now....back to politics.
Ok, ok, in fairness to Oliver Jones,click herefor his medley of Gershwin classics, and you will understand why Montreal Rhonda loves him so much
Yesterday, during his confirmation hearing for the position of Director of the CIA, long-time Islamist John Brennan had this to say about waterboarding:
"As far as I'm concerned, waterboarding is something that never should've been employed. And, as far as I'm concerned, never will be if I have anything to do with it."
That's nice. Now here is what the same John Brennan had to say about waterboarding during an interview with CBS News in 2007:
"There has been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has, in fact, used against the real hard-core terrorists; it has saved lives"
Either the invasion of the body snatchers really took place and yesterday's testimony was performed by the new pod-version of Brennan....or it is the same version of John Brennan and he has 100% reversed his position to accommodate Barack Obama.
I'm not sure which of the two choices is worse. I just know that neither is good.
Let me ask you a question - not meaning to be snide, but asking seriously: has Barack Obama given us even one decent nominee for a cabinet position yet?
In my view, the answer is an emphatic "no". But try and find any media criticism of his choices.
Come to think of it, don't bother. That's too tough a task to ask of you. Finding media criticism of Mr. Obama's appointees is as hard as...as....finding media criticism of the repulsive lying, whining charade Hillary Clinton put on for us in her one and only day of testimony on Benghazi.
Today's quote comes to us from Paul Krugman, who, by saying what he did during a speech in Washington DC this week, clearly demonstrates that the election is over and his lord and savior won another four years, so he is now free to admit what is really going to happen:
"Eventually we do have a problem. The population is getting older, health care costs are rising ... . Something is going to have to give.
"We won't be able to pay for the kind of society we want without some increases in taxes.And surely in the end it will require some middle-class taxes as well, maybe a value added tax.
”(We're) going to have to ... really make decisions about health care, (and) not pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits."
Higher taxes on the middle class? Decisions on what health care will and will not be offered (AKA Death Panels)? Who does that sound more like? Krugman or Krauthammer?
And if this is true, why did Krugman not say so during the presidential campaign when it could have informed people's votes, rather than afterwards when it could not?
By now I am sure you have heard of christopher dorner, the rogue Los Angeles cop who has killed three people so far, tried unsuccessfully to kill others, and has vowed to continue the killing.
But are you aware that dorner is a leftward liberal who loves the Obamas, supports Hillary Clinton for President in 2016, supports gun control, hates the NRA agrees 100% with Piers Morgan on gun control and is enthralled with the crowd at MSNBC?
If you read this obviously deranged man's "manifesto" - all of it, not just the selected excerpts our wonderful "neutral" media have extracted and spoon-fed to the public - you will find that, and a lot more.
Yes, dorner's ramblings also include a tip of the hat here and there to Republicans (Chris Christie, for one - probably, in my opinion, because of the help he gave Obama last year). But, aberrations aside, the overall political direction of this lunatic is crystal clear.
Now: why have mainstream media not pointed this out? If you used the link I provided above, you know that it is right there in his "manifesto" in black and white. But, somehow, it seems to have been lost in the shuffle.
Is this, just possibly, because it shows that someone with these views, someone who shares most mainstream media's hatred of the NRA and support of far stricter gun control laws - is just as capable of using guns to commit mass murder as anyone else? Because it shows that there is no gun control law on the books, or proposed, which would have stopped him dorner, therefore however desirable those laws might be they do not resolve the issue?
Whoops. Outside the narrative. Not in the party line. Better, er, kill that part of the story.
A quick flashback for you: remember when jared lee loughner shot up that outdoor event in Tucson, Arizona, killing 6 and gravely wounding then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords?
Remember how fast media were to claim that loughner's killing spree may have been the result of his reaction to a political document from Sarah Palin, showing 20 "targeted" congressional districts which, she thought, Republicans might win from Democrats? Remember the tidal wave of hatred they spewed at Ms. Palin over this speculation?
Remember that - well after loughner's massacre and dramatically less reported than their speculation about Palin - it turned out that a) there was absolutely no evidence of any kind that loughner ever saw the Palin document but b) he had a years-long grudge against Giffords and c) in any event he apparently got his "inspiration" from a disgustingly violent, anti-social music video called "Bodies"?
Well, now we have christopher dorner; a murderer whose political views are not the subject of speculation, And we know exactly where he is coming from because he has clearly written it out for us.
But there is a problem. dorner's views are primarily from the left side. His actions, therefore, cannot be ascribed to the right. So these same media, at least to this point, are, for the most part, either barely reporting anything about his views or not reporting them at all.
In other words, the same media which crucified Sarah Palin, and the right in general, for what neither she nor they had nothing to do with, now spare the left any embarrassment over a killing spree by one of their own.
These people are not journalists. They are hypocrites, frauds and propagandists.
Has Chuck Hagel accepted money from a hamas-friendly group?
I do not know if he has. And neither does Ben Shapiro, who has broken the story, excerpts of which are shown below.
But if the allegations are true, Chuck Hagel's chance to be our Defense Secretary will disappear faster than a fresh salmon at the Oregon bear convention.
Read this and see why:
On Thursday, Senate sources told Breitbart News exclusively that they have been informed that one of the reasons that President Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has not turned over requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is that one of the names listed is a group purportedly called "Friends of Hamas."
Called for comment and reached via telephone, Associate Communications Director at the White House Eric Schultz identified himself, heard the question, was silent for several seconds, and then hung up the phone immediately without comment. Called back via the White House switchboard, Schultz's phone rang through to his answering machine. Called on his cell phone, Schultz's phone rang through to his answering machine.
Let me again say that we do not know for certain that this allegation is true. But a little common sense goes a long way, so let's use a bit of it. Why has Hagel refused to turn over documents showing his sources of foreign funding? Because he's proud of who is on the list? Because he doesn't think it will damage him?
See, the issue is not whether there are names on that list which Hagel does not want us to see. We know there are. That is self-evident by how zealously he is trying to keep the list from view.
This, in and of itself, should disqualify Hagel for the position of Secretary of Defense. How can the senate - even a Democrat-majority senate eager to please President Obama - possibly confirm a candidate who hides which foreign entities are filling his pockets with money?
And if he was handed - and accepted - money from a group which supports the terrorist organization hamas? In the immortal words of my Brooklyn brothers, fuggedaboudit. His nomination is DOA.
It will be very interesting to see which senators - especially Democrat senators - show the minimal amount of courage necessary to pubicly state that, without full disclosure of this list, they will not vote to confirm.
PLEASE, JUST SHUT UP ABOUT POLITICS AND SING (CONT.)
I haven't posted an entry in the "Please, just shut up about politics and sing/act/dance/entertain" series for a while. But today I must.
This quote is from Tony Bennett - a great singer for many years, who has a penchant for making amazingly stupid comments he sometimes does, and sometimes does not, apologize for afterwards. Here is how Bennett sees gun violence in the USA:
"It's the kind of turn that happened to the great country of Germany, when Nazis came over and created tragic things, and they had to be told off. And if we continue this kind of violence and accept it in our country, the rest of the world's going to really take care of us, in a very bad way."
Aside from the fact that German gun violence was entirely unrelated to gun violence in the USA, the nazis did not "come over" from anywhere but were entirely home-grown, nazis were not "told off", they took over much of Europe and killed many millions of people before being decimated by the US-led allies, and the rest of the world has never expressed one iota of desire "to take care of us in a very bad way" because of domestic gun violence, that statement is 100% correct.
I strongly urge you to eliminate the parts mentioned above, and think of what's left, because it is the most intelligent part of Mr. Bennett's commentary.
Let me end with a personal note to Mr. Bennett:
Tony, you're 86 years old, way past your prime, and your singing skills are a fraction of what they used to be. That's ok. It happens. But do us a favor please: as diminished as those skills are, at least they once existed.
In the past year and a half, you have blamed the USA for 9/11 - and then apologized for it. You have stated that the deaths of Michael Jackson, Amy Winehouse and Whitney Houston was an reason to legalize drugs, which leaves logic, even illogic, in the dust. And now this.
Please, please do us all a favor - especially yourself: just shut up about politics and sing.
AN INSIGHTFUL DESCRIPTION OF GROWING UP IN THE GHETTO
Until today I had never heard of Ta-Nehisi Coates. I now know he is a male (the name certainly didn't tell me), he is a Senior Editor at the Atlantic, and that he wrote a very interesting op-ed piece in today's New York Times.
Based on his background, both cultural and familial (his father was a member of the Black panthers), and his apparent reverence for hip-hop music, it is pretty likely we are not exactly a match when it comes to political thought. But there is a passage in Mr. Coates' piece about growing up in Baltimore's inner city that touched me greatly, and provided a deeper insight about life in "the ghetto" than I've seen almost anywhere else.
Here it is - see if you agree:
I must confess my bias. I grew up in Baltimore during a time when the city was in the thrall of crack and Saturday night specials. I've spent most of my life in neighborhoods suffering their disproportionate share of gun violence. In each of these places it was not simply the deaths that have stood out to me, but the way that death corrupted the most ordinary of rituals. On an average day in middle school, fully a third of my brain was obsessed with personal safety. I feared the block 10 times more than any pop quiz. My favorite show in those days was "The Wonder Years." When Kevin Arnold went to visit his lost-found love Winnie Cooper, he simply hopped on his bike. In Baltimore, calling upon our Winnie Coopers meant gathering an entire crew. There was safety in numbers. Alone, we were targets.
I have read many descriptions of how life works in a high crime inner city neighborhood. But none more insightful and compelling than I found in this single paragraph.
If it intrigues you - and I expect that it might - then click here and read Mr. Coates' entire piece. You'll find that the first half is a tribute to hip-hop music in general, rapper Kendrick Lamar in particular, and his "Good Kid, m.A.A.d City" rap in particular. Other than that, and what I've posted above, the rest seems to tell us that the problems of the ghetto are primarily caused by "public policy" (without blaming anyone in particular - certainly not Democrats, who with almost no exceptions, have absolutely predominated in running cities with large urban ghettos for decades) or the individuals using the guns they kill people with.
Personally, I consider the lyrics to "Good Kid, m.A.A.d City" an often-inchoherent combination of street slang and childish rhyming which starkly describes the horrors of "the street" without blaming the people of "the street" - the ones perpetrating those horrors. Not my kind of thing. But I suggest you use the link I've provided and check it out for yourself; maybe you'll see things differently.
Oh, one other thing: In case you are wondering how to pronounce Ta-Nehisi...it may not look it, but the pronunciation is TAH na HAH see - a little like Tallahassee, with an accent on the first and third syllable and n's instead of l's. Got it?
At the end of my previous blog, I mentioned Rod Blagojevich - a man who is going to spend a lot of time in jail in no small part because of dealings he may have had with Jesse Jackson Jr. and his, let us say, "interest" in becoming an appointed US Senator.
Sneed has learned a plea deal is now on the table between former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and federal authorities probing allegations of campaign fund misuse.
Sneed is told the plea deal includes Jackson serving time in federal prison.
Ms. Sneed goes on to tell us that the amount of jail time involved is "significant".
Sneed also tells us that Jackson Jr.'s wife, former Alderman Sandi Jackson, who, like her husband, resigned in disgrace, was being paid $5,000 a month by her husband's office for...???????, is the subject of a separate probe. And that she feels that her husband betrayed her, presumably to try to save himself.
The saddest part of all this? I cannot prove it, but I would bet body parts that if these two ran for their offices again today, they would both win by landslides. That is the state of Chicago politics.....and the culture that Barack Obama comes straight out of - which should explain a lot about Barack Obama.
Menendez, who became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month, is under scrutiny because of his close relationship with Melgen. The doctor donated more than $700,000 last year to Menendez's reelection campaign and other Senate Democrats. And when Melgen needed help with a port security contract in the Dominican Republic last year, Menendez urged U.S. officials to press the country to carry out the multimillion-dollar agreement.
Menendez is facing a Senate ethics inquiry about two free trips he took in 2010 on Melgen's private plane to the doctor's seaside mansion in the Dominican Republic. Menendez acknowledged this month that he had not properly disclosed the trips. He wrote a personal check for $58,500 to reimburse Melgen. (NOTE: There may have been a total of four such trips).
Meanwhile, a federal investigation of what law enforcement officials say are allegations of health-care fraud by Melgen escalated last week when FBI agents and health-care investigators raided medical offices in West Palm Beach where he runs Vitreo-Retinal Consultants. The teams spent nearly 24 hours searching the premises and removing dozens of boxes containing billing and medical records and computer files.
"Senator Menendez was never aware of and has not intervened in any Medicare fraud investigation on behalf of Vitreo Retinal Consultants," his office said in a statement.
Menendez may not have intervened in the Medicare fraud investigation (though, given what seems to be his loose attachment to the truth, maybe he did), but he and his Democrat cronies sure took almost 3/4 of a million buckaroos of Melgen's money, didn't they? And that, of course, is before we talk about what occurred on the pleasure jaunts Melgen took Menendez on, which allegedly involved Dominican prostitutes, not all of whom were of legal age.
A controversial donor with ties to prominent Democrats who is under investigation by the FBI may not have the qualifications he claims.
The resume of Dr. Salomon Melgen, a Florida-based ophthalmologist and controversial Democratic donor, boasts medical education and experience at Harvard University, Yale University, and the University of Missouri.
But none of those schools says it can find any record of Melgen, who claims to be a Harvard alumnus, the former chief resident of the University of Missouri's ophthalmology department, and a former Yale intern.
Now add in the fact that Menendez heavily promoted a port security company Melgen had bought, even though Melgen had no experience in port security, and what do you come out with?
Does it matter to Robert Menendez how fraudulent his moneybags is, as long as the moneybags keeps doling out that do re mi...and providing pleasure jaunts to the Dominican Republic? Based on this new information, I very much doubt it.
Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock...... How much longer before New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is asked who he will appoint to fill a newly open U.S. Senate seat?
I just hope he doesn't take advice from Rod Blagojevich on how to go about doing it....
If you only tuned in for former Sen. Chuck Hagel's opening statement in the Senate confirmation hearing last week on his nomination for secretary of defense, you might have thought, what's all the fuss?
But then came the questions from the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Queries that Hagel should have drilled out of the park, given that he'd prepped intensively for this performance. Instead, Hagel stumbled, bumbled and fumbled.
One squirm-in-your-chair example: Hagel declared the Obama administration's policy on Iran's nuclear weapons program was "containment," meaning the U.S. could tolerate a nuclear-armed Tehran. An aide handed Hagel a slip of paper to remind him that the administration's position is that Iran will not be allowed to terrorize the world with a nuclear weapon.
Slap to forehead.
Sen. John McCain grilled Hagel about his opposition to the 2007 troop surge in Iraq ordered by President George W. Bush. Hagel refused to say whether he had been right or wrong. He said he'd await the "judgment of history." If he had spoken with candor, he would have acknowledged that the surge helped win that war and hasten the safe departure of U.S. troops. Why the reluctance to say so?
There was a puzzling assertion by Hagel that Iran's rulers are "legitimate" and "elected." The despotic ayatollah who rules Iran and all those who rigged the last presidential election must still be chuckling over that.
Even Hagel's defenders blanched at his astonishingly poor performance. "I'm going to be candid," Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri told MSNBC. "I think that Chuck Hagel is much more comfortable asking questions than answering them."
We'll be candid, too: He should be in some other job, not running the Pentagon.
The nation needs a defense secretary who is consistent, who is well-versed in defense planning and policy, and who will give frank and independent advice to the president about when and when not to project U.S. power. Hagel inspires no confidence on any of those counts.
Chuck Hagel served this country honorably in Vietnam. But his troubling position on key defense issues and his disastrous performance at his hearing last week should prompt the Senate to turn down the nomination.
The Trib's editorial concludes, much to its chagrin, that even after this unbelievable display of ineptitude, selective memory loss and clumsy ducking when asked yes-no questions, Hagel will probably be confirmed. To my chagrin, I probably agree.
Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe it.
Now: when do some of the other major media venues, all of which saw Hagel in action, join the Chicago Tribune in stating the obvious?
Anyone who wonders how far we have gone from what used to be reasonably accepted norms need only look at these guidelines:
Date: February 5, 2013, 10:39:56 PM EST Subject: 55th GRAMMYS: Standard And Practice Wardrobe Advisory
-kindly confirm receipt of s&p standards-
CBS Program Practices advises that all talent appearing on camera please adhere to Network policy concerning wardrobe.
Please be sure that buttocks and female breasts are adequately covered. Thong type costumes are problematic. Please avoid exposing bare fleshy under curves of the buttocks and buttock crack. Bare sides or under curvature of the breasts is also problematic. Please avoid sheer see-through clothing that could possibly expose female breast nipples. Please be sure the genital region is adequately covered so that there is no visible "puffy" bare skin exposure. Please avoid commercial identification of actual brand name products on T-shirts. Foreign language on wardrobe will need to be cleared. OBSCENITY OR PARTIALLY SEEN OBSCENITY ON WARDROBE IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR BROADCAST. This as well, pertains to audience members that appear on camera. Finally, The Network requests that any organized cause visibly spelled out on talent's wardrobe be avoided. This would include lapel pins or any other form of accessory.
I'm not exactly sure what to say about the quality of a show the network needs to advise this way. Please feel free to draw your own conclusions.
But one thing I would bet on: the music industry being what it is these days, people are going to make a point of sneering at what you just read - either in words, or in actions.
Y'know, that almost makes me think the grammies might be worth watching.
Israel and the United States have been allies since Israel's creation as a secular state in 1948. Israel votes about 90% of the time with the USA in the UN, and has provided decades of invaluable intelligence, and military technology, to us - a huge return on the aid we have given to Israel.
With that in mind, a question:
Since Egyptian President mohamed morsi has been caught on tape calling for his people to nurture hatred against Jews, since he defines Jews as the descendants of apes and pigs, since he has solidified ties with hamas and Iran - both of which are committed to the annihilation of Israel.....
....why the hell is this administration supplying him with F16s and tanks that could be used if/when hamas or Iran attack?
If you've got an answer, I would love to know what it is.
I've seen this in various forms over the years, but the following version, just sent to me by our pal Toy Insurance Bob, is the funniest so far (or, maybe it's not so funny).
You decide -- is it humor, reality, both or neither:
Original Chinese Proverb :
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.
2012 USA Proverb Revision :
Give a man a welfare check, a free cell phone, cash for his clunker, food stamps, section 8 housing, free contraceptives, Medicaid, ninety-nine weeks of unemployment, free meds, and he will vote for Democrats the rest of his life; --- even after he's dead.
Here is the latest "menendacity" from Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), the "menendacious" one.
First, his defense: To the surprise of absolutely no one, Menendez is blaming his troubles on a baseless smear fomented by the right wing. (Hmm, baseless smear, right wing conspiracy....this boy doesn't get many points for creativity, does he?)
Read this article at politico.com and see for yourself. But when you do, please also go through some of the reader comments. See if you find it as interesting as I do that, while politico.com commenters tend to the liberal/left side, for this story the preponderance of them range from deep skepticism about Menendez to an outright assumption that he is full of crap.
Shady Menendez campaign contributor and BFF Salomon Melgen is the high-flying eye doctor at the center of the senior senator's ills. Melgen is owner of the Casa de Campo resort home where he and Menendez reportedly engaged in sexual romps with a bevy of Dominican escorts, including at least one minor girl. In his latest statement on the matter Monday, Menendez repeated his blanket denials of any wrongdoing, recycled his attack on conservative media reporting the story and labeled accounts of the alleged island sex parties "smears."
While his lips keep denying, his actions smack of lying. Last week, he sheepishly disclosed that he had just reimbursed Melgen in January of this year for nearly $60,000 in expenses tied to two of three private jet trips to the Dominican Republic in 2010 -- which he had never admitted taking before. Senate rules require prior approval of such private jet travel and luxury lodging. Senate rules also require financial disclosure of such gifts after approval.
Menendez ignored all the rules, blamed his staff and now wheedles that the matter simply "fell through the cracks."
But you know what didn't fall through the cracks? A special multimillion-dollar port security contract Melgen wanted with the Dominican Republic. The politically connected ophthalmologist -- who forked over $700,000 to help Menendez and other Democrats get re-elected last cycle -- has zero experience in port security. But Menendez used a Senate hearing last summer to lobby for enforcement of the contract Melgen's company has with the Dominican government.
Wait, there's more. While Melgen shelled out millions to Menendez and the Democratic Party over the years, he is a serial tax evader. The jet-setting doc incurred liens of $1.3 million before 2002, $6.2 million in 2011, and a still outstanding $11.1 million lien between 2006 and 2009. And the FBI and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -- not a part of the "right-wing" blogosphere the last time I checked -- are now sifting through boxes of documents they carted away during last week's raid of Melgen's offices as part of a Medicare fraud investigation.
The feds finally acted after a document shredding truck was spotted outside Melgen's clinic. I think it's safe to say a "right-wing blog" didn't send it.
Hmmmm. Menendez has a sudden memory jolt about this little matter of almost $60,000 legally required to be declared a gift, from Saloman Melgen, a big-time benefactor whose specialty seems not to be ophthalmology but of stiffing the government out of millions, and millions and millions of dollars.
By "coincidence", after giving tons of quite probably ill-gotten money to Menendez and other Democrats, Melgen's port security company is heavily promoted by Menendez, even though Melgen has no qualifications to run a port security company.
And all this before we get to Melgen's hobnobbing with Menendez and other Democrats both here and in the Dominican Republic, where - if you believe Menendez - he had no interest in the sex parties which apparently took place on Melgen's yacht and in his resort.
You tell me: does Robert Menendez come across as a victim of baseless smears? An innocent man being put through the ringer by (tip of the hat to Elmer Fudd here) those wascally wight wingers?
Or does Menendez look like a low-life scumbag who takes bribes, pays back handsomely with taxpayer dollars, and who enjoys the company of hookers - especially, according to one of them, "the youngest and freshest " ones?
Folks, this is not going away. And it is not going to get any better either.
If you're asking me, the only thing that can save Menendez is if the Democrat Party aids and abets him well beyond what party members usually do for one their own -- and if the Accomplice Media buries the scandal because Menendez is a Democrat (I won't ask you if you think they would do so for a Republican, I respect your intelligence too much).
Personally, I don't think either prospect has a long shelf life. Not on a bribery and sex scandal...especially with the likelihood that underage girls are involved. If there's one thing media are likely to keep talking about, even if it hurts a Democrat, it is a sex scandal (ask Anthony Weiner if he agrees). Besides, Menendez may be important, but he isn't that important: his party will hold the senate with or without him.
I mean, there is just so far Democrats, and their Accomplice Media, will go for a guy like this. After all, his name isn't Clinton, is it?
Today's quote comes to us from Matt Lauer of the Today Show. This is Mr. Lauer's reaction to the White House releasing a photograph of President Obama apparently shooting skeet:
"So like releasing the birth certificate a year or so ago, this is the next step, that now the President always has to back up his words with proof?"
Omigod. OMIGOD! "Y'mean we're (gasp!) not supposed to just take President Obama's word for it? What an outrage! After all, when has Barack Obama ever said anything untrue?
Any doubt about why this is the quote of the day? I didn't think so.
Now, on the off chance that Matt Lauer sometimes reads this blog, let me end with a quick note to him.
Since you mentioned the birth certificate President Obama released almost two years ago (not a year or so ago -- he released it on April 27, 2011), would you please remind us of which experts you had on the Today Show who looked it over and declared it authentic?
Oh, wait. Never mind. I forgot. You can't. And the reason you can't is because you didn't have any such experts on the Today show.
You didn't have even one expert get in front of the camera and say something like "I've examined this birth certificate and conclude that it is perfectly authentic. I would stake my professional reputation on this. Here is my explanation of why the countless tech people who are screaming it is an adobe illustrator-created concoction, and showing, step-by-step how it was created, are wrong"
Let me start by apologizing for the title. The answer is pretty obvious. An illegal alien is someone from another country (an alien) who did not come here legally (and therefore is illegal). Illegal alien. There you go.
But not according to John Conyers, the 48 year congressperson from Detroit and ranking Democrat of the house judiciary committee. To Rep. Conyers, the term should never be used.
Why? Well, here is his "reasoning":
"I hope no one uses the term illegal immigrants here today. Our citizens are not - the people in this country are not illegal. They are out of status. They are new Americans that are immigrants"
Uh, Representative Conyers.....they are not citizens. Citizens have legal status. They are here illegally. They are not "new Americans". They belong to another country. They may currently be in our country, but our country is not their country.
Maybe a dictionary might help here. According to merriam-webster.com:
alien: relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government :foreign
Got it, Mr. Conyers? If a person is not here legally, and is a citizen of another country, that person is an illegal alien. I L L E G A L A L I E N. Clear enough?
And why are John Conyers and other Democrats doing this? Why are they trying so hard to sanitize the perfectly correct, descriptive term "illegal alien" into something more palatable, more acceptable?
I cannot prove it, but it seems very clear that their grand plan is to secure some form of amnesty for these millions and millions of illegal aliens, turn them into voters (I wonder how many already vote illegally, don't you?) and reap the benefit of a huge new electoral bloc which, they assume, will cast their ballots for democrats.
That would be great for the Democrat Party, no question about it.
But how will it be for the people who will find themselves competing for jobs with them?
A very large percentage of amnesty recipients will be Mexican blue-collar workers and their families. They will be looking for jobs in agriculture, in construction, in the restaurant industry, on assembly lines, etc.
And which group in the USA is most likely to be losing jobs to these former illegal ali...er, excuse me, these "new Americans"?
That is something Mr. Conyers, after almost half a century representing a predominantly Black constituency in a traditionally working-class city, apparently does not give a damn about.
What do I do when two of my strongest-held beliefs, religious freedom and gay rights, collide?
Read these excerpts from an article at ewtnnews.com (a Catholic news service) and you'll see why I ask:
The Oregon state attorney general's office is investigating a Christian baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
Aaron Klein, owner of the Gresham, Ore. bakery Sweet Cakes by Melissa, told The Oregonian newspaper he chose not to make the cake because he believes marriage is "a religious institution between a man and woman as stated in the Bible."
His business, which he co-owns with his wife, could face as much as $50,000 in fines if found guilty of violating the Oregon Equality Act. The law forbids businesses from denying "full and equal accommodations" for customers on the basis of sexual orientation and other protected categories.
The woman who filed the complaint against the bakery said Klein said she and her partner were "abominations to the Lord" and that their money was not equal to others. Klein denied making those statements.
"I apologized for wasting their time and said we don't do same-sex marriages," he told the ABC television affiliate KATU. "I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn't mean to make anybody upset," he said.
Laura Bowman, whose partner filed the complaint, said her partner was "reduced to tears" when she heard the bakery would not bake the cake.
Klein said his bakery sells its pastries and cakes to all customers, but they turn down requests for cakes for same-sex ceremonies because of the owners' beliefs.
The bakery has crosses on the walls and has the New Testament passage John 3:16 on its website.
Let's start with an obvious, if frivolous, question: how in the world did a religious Christian wind up with the name Aaron Klein? That's a little like coming across a Rabbi named Christopher Palm-Sunday.
But, joking aside, there is a serious issue here. Does a business owned by a devoutly religious couple have the right to refuse providing services which directly fly in the face of their beliefs?
To me, there is no doubt about the answer. Of course it does.
If the bakery refused to sell their everyday products to gay people, that would be wrong, and I would support legal redress against them. But that is not what happened. They refused to create a specific product which, to them, would condone a sinful act. That is another story entirely.
Put another way, suppose a nazi sympathizer and his fiance came to a Jewish-owned bakery and asked for a wedding cake with a swastika on it. Would you have any problem with the baker refusing such a request? Suppose a White Supremacist came to a Black-owned bakery and asked for a cake with the word "nigger" on it. Would you have any problem with that refusal?
See the point? As much as we cherish freedom of speech, we recognize that it has outer limits. You may feel that a same-sex wedding cake does not go beyond those limits, even if the baker is devoutly Christian. But the baker begs to differ, and it is his privately owned bakery. Freedom of speech goes both ways, not just one.
To Laura Bowman, and her partner who was "reduced to tears" by the refusal: I am very happy for your union and wish you every happiness together. But maybe it would be a good idea to stop crying, retract the complaint, and just go to another bake shop.
NBC News (amazingly enough) has uncovered a secret Obama administration memo, which would allow drone attacks to kill US Citizens, without specific proof that they are directly engaging in actions against the United States.
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaida or "an associated force" -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration's most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week's hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them "consistent with the inherent right of self-defense." In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses "an imminent threat of violent attack."
Interesting, wouldn't you say?
Now, a few questions:
- Do you have a problem with this memo? (I can't say that I do);
- Does the left wing contingent, so instrumental in re-electing Barack Obama, have a problem with this memo? (I'm betting that they do, and you will hear about it very quickly);
- Just what do you think the media reaction would have been if this memo were uncovered during the Bush administration? (Think mass hysteria).
Stay tuned, folks. This is just getting started. And, to paraphrase Bette Davis, strap on your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy ride.
On CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday, Dempsey said the reason the Defense Department sent no aid to the Americans under attack by terrorists in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11-12, was because the attack did not last seven hours but was really two 20-minute attacks six hours apart.
However, both a CIA timeline provided last fall by a senior U.S. intelligence official and the report published by the State Department ARB, published in December, contradict Gen. Dempsey's claim that the Benghazi terrorist attack was two discrete 20-minute battles separated by six hours.
Additionally, an account presented by the Senate Homeland Security Committee in its report on Benghazi also does not comport with General Dempsey's version of events.
Is Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs lying to us? Is he ignorant of what we know about Benghazi? Both?
Or are the CIA and Homeland security people lying to us? Ignorant of what we know about Benghazi? Both?
Please note that I am not asking about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who ducked hearings on this murderous terrorist attack for months, and then showed up to bang her hand on a table and demand that we stop concerning ourselves with what happened all that time ago (her exact words? "What's the difference?").
Yep, that's right Hillary. Nobody cares why the attack took place, who attacked us, why there was such low security on September 11th, why forces were not sent in while it was happening or why the Libyan forces stood by as spectators and allowed it to happen.
The fact that an adoring media celebrates Hillary Clinton for despicable, amoral, dishonest garbage like this turns my stomach.
It is clear that we are being lied to now - every bit as much as when the President lied to us for weeks by claiming the attack was caused by a nondescript video no one ever heard of...and then lied to us again by claiming he didn't lie about the video in the first place.
Call me a cynic. But, in my mind, the more lies we are told about Benghazi, the more apparent it is that what really happened is being withheld from us - and that what really happened is even worse than the horror show we are already aware of.
When do our media care enough to investigate this? The day after Barack Obama leaves office?
Would they have held back this long if the President's name were Bush?
THE IMPRACTICALITY OF ELECTIC CARS: THE CREATOR SPEAKS
There is a fascinating little song from "Fiddler on the Roof" in which, after 25 years of marriage, Tevya asks his arranged-marriage wife Golde a simple question, which also happens to be the song's title: "Do you love me?"
And, after the two of them discuss it (in song, of course), the final lyrics are:
(Tevye): Then you love me?
(Golde): I suppose I do
(Tevye): And I suppose I love you too
(Both); It doesn't change a thing, but even so, after 25 years it's nice to know.
Those lyrics came back to me as I read an article by Wynton Hall at breitbart.com. Take a look at the excerpts below and see if you understand why:
Hybrid car pioneer and "father of the Prius" Takeshi Uchiyamada says the billions poured into developing battery electric vehicles have ultimately been in vain. "Because of its shortcomings--driving range, cost and recharging time--the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars," said Uchiyamada. "We need something entirely new."
President Obama made promotion of electric vehicles a key component of his green initiative. Last September, the Congressional Budget Office reported that federal policies to prop up and promote electric cars will cost taxpayers $7.5 billion through 2019.
Several of the electric car companies Obama has funneled taxpayer funds to have floundered. U.S. electric battery maker A123 Systems, which received a $249 million taxpayer-funded government loan, announced last year its decision to sell a controlling stake to Wanxiang, a Chinese company, for $450 million. Similarly, lithium-ion battery manufacturer Ener1, Inc., which received a $118.5 million taxpayer-funded grant, filed for bankruptcy. And another company, Aptera Motors, has already folded.
See the parallel? Takeshi Uchiyamada is telling us about a fait accompli - not of marriage, but of the marketplace: i.e. other than corporations which are probably being coerced into doing so, just about no one is buying these overpriced, underperforming dogs.
It doesn't change a thing, but even so, after all these years it's nice to know....that even a pioneer of electric car technology realizes electric cars, at least so far, are not anywhere near happening.
Now, when does President Obama stop pissing our taxpayer money down the drain and come to the same conclusion? Or are there too many big Democrat backers invested in these companies for him to do the right thing?
No need to elaborate on this one. The ZTI (Zero Tolerance Imbeciles) have done it for me.
Excerpted from an article at eagleforum.com:
Parents of a deaf child named Hunter were told by his Nebraska public preschool that they must change his name because he was in violation of the school district's weapons policy. To sign his name, the three-year-old crosses his index and middle fingers then wags his hands. This sign apparently appeared to school officials to represent a gun.
Grand Island Public Schools' policy section 8470 - Weapons in Schools states: "Students are forbidden to knowingly and voluntarily possess, handle, transmit or use any instrument in school, on school grounds or at school functions that is a firearm, weapon, or looks like a weapon. . ."
The ZTI's think this keeps schoolchildren safe? That it makes sense of any kind?
Imbeciles on parade. And these are the people we entrust our children with?
Just days ago Robert "Menendacious" Menendez suddenly paid something like $58,000 out of his own pocket for three trips he took on sugar daddy Salomon Melgen's private plane...trips he somehow forgot to tell us about until the Daily Caller started writing about them.
Was his reason for not remembering related to the fact if no one knew, he didn't have to pay for the trips? Because he was patronizing young Dominican prostitutes, maybe even underage girls? Both?
Well, it turns out there may have been at least one more trip - also unpaid for - that he has not told us about.
Excerpted from Matthew Boyle's piece at breitbart.com:
Flight records obtained by Breitbart News show Democratic Party donor Dr. Salomon Melgen's private jet was in New Jersey near Sen. Bob Menendez's home on April 8, 2012--Easter Sunday last year. From there, it flew straight to the Dominican Republic.
Menendez and his staff have not answered when asked repeatedly whether the Senator was on that flight. They also have not provided any accounting as to where Menendez was on Easter Sunday, either.
...on the morning of April 8, 2012--Easter Sunday--at 8:56 a.m., the plane left Palm Beach International airport. At 11:30 a.m., it landed at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey.
Teterboro is an airport meant for private jets and chartered flights, and is a 20-minute cab ride from Menendez's New Jersey home. After landing at Teterboro at 11:30 a.m. EDT, the plane sat for about an hour and ten minutes--just enough time to wait for someone to reach the airport from about 20 minutes away. At 12:50 p.m., Melgen's plane took off for Las Americas International Airport in the Dominican Republic.
Menendez's public schedule--available on his Senate website--puts him in New Jersey the night before that flight, at an Easter Musical entitled God's Masterpiece at Roselle Park Middle School in Roselle Park, New Jersey.
Menendez does not appear to have had any public events until several days later. The Senate was not in session from March 31 until April 15.
It is during this timeframe that two Dominican Republic prostitutes alleged, in interviews with this reporter who broke the story for The Daily Caller before joining Breitbart News after the election, that they were under-paid to have sex with Menendez. The activity allegedly took place at Casa de Campo, a luxurious resort in the Dominican Republic around Easter-time in 2012. Casa de Campo is about an hour's drive from Las Americas airport.
While Menendez denies soliciting prostitutes in the Dominican Republic--including during that alleged Easter Sunday incident--he and his staff have not yet offered any alternate explanation as to where the Senator was on Easter.
Paul Brubaker, a Menendez spokesman based in New Jersey, told a local news reporter that the reason why the Senator paid for these trips "out of his own pocket" and not through his official office or campaign accounts was so they did not have to be reported to official authorities.
This stinks. And it is stinking even worse by the second.
At what point will even a conscienceless lout like Robert Menendez conclude he has to take a hike and resign from the Senate?
Here, from today's Morning Joe show, is Joe Scarborough - after condemning the NRA ad which suggested that our children deserve protection as much as President Obama's children - attacking NRA head Wayne LaPierre, over what he supposedly said during Chris Wallace's show yesterday morning:
"And this argument, and Chris Wallace really drilled down hard here, the argument. Seriously? That all of our children deserve the same amount of protection as the President of the United States's children? That's the problem with Wayne LaPierre and the extremist wing of the NRA's arguments. They're stupid arguments. They've got to say oh, and while a mother's clutching her Bushmaster with crying children-they're stupid arguments."
The truth? Wayne LaPierre said no such thing. Not even on the clip that Scarborough played. What LaPierre did say was that school children should have police, or armed guards, to protect them at schools. Nothing more.
"If you want to stop violence in this country, here's what you do, OK? First, if you want to protect or kids, you put armed security in schools. I'm not talking about arming teachers, I'm talking about police officers, and I'm talking about certified professional security people. There is not a parent that sends off their kid to school that wants those kids to be unprotected."
And then there is this exchange:
WALLACE: Do you really think the president's children are the same kind of target as every school child in America? That's ridiculous and you know it, sir.
LAPIERRE: You know, unfortunately, I think there are parents all over the school that think -- all over the country that think their kids are entitled to the same amount of protection when they go to school, and they want --
WALLACE: So, they should have Secret Service?
LAPIERRE: No, but what they should have is police officers or certified armed security in those schools to keep people safe. If something happens, the police -- despite all the good intentions, is 15 to 20 minutes. It's too long. It's not going to help those kids.
Certified armed security in schools, just like --
WALLACE: But that's not going to protect them in the shopping mall, in the movie theater, on the streets.
LAPIERRE: Which is why we need to do everything else I'm talking about. Let's enforce the federal gun laws which we did not do now against gangs with guns, felons with guns -- my gosh, in the shadow of where we are sitting now, gangs are out there in Washington, D.C. You can buy drugs. You can buy guns. They are trafficking in 13-year-old girls --
As you can see, no matter how Wallace tried to contort what LaPierre was saying, La Pierre would not let him do it.
Do yourself a favor: erase all ingoing feelings/prejudices/etc. Just read the exchange. And tell me, honestly, who made more sense.
No, Mr. Scarborough; the stupidity was not Wayne LaPierre's. The stupidity was yours. And it jibes perfectly with your dishonesty in lying about what LaPierre actually said..
Incidentally, for readers who do not know, I have never been a member of the NRA, I disagree with a lot of its positions, and I am a strong advocate for stricter gun controls. But that does not mean I disagree with every position the organization takes. Sometimes the NRA is correct, and this is one of those times.
To quote from a blog I wrote just two days ago....
...events (in Newtown, Connecticut) have shown, all too devastatingly, that there is a difference between enacting laws - which can only influence people who obey laws - and the presence of someone who can do something about a deranged lunatic intent on killing innocent people, with a special taste for killing children.
I stand by that 100%. If you disagree, fine. Please tell me why.
But do not answer with stupidity and dishonesty. Leave that to the remnant of his former self that Joe Scarborough has become.
Sheikh Fayhan al-Ghamdi, an Islamic television preacher in Saudi Arabia, beat Lama, his 5-year-old daughter to death during a custodial visit. Saudi police had found the 5-year-old wandering the streets, she was taken to the hospital and placed in intensive care.
The side of her head had been mashed in, her back was broken, she had a skull fracture, bleeding in the head, a broken left hand, bruises all over her body, and burns that apparently came from an iron. One of her fingernails had been pulled out. There were signs that she had been sexually assaulted in various ways that are too horrific to describe, but that are in serial killer territory. (NOTE: Other accounts specified the 5 year old had been anally raped, and that part of her body was "torn apart").
Sheikh Fayhan al-Ghamdi told the judge that his daughter had been "behaving strangely" and questioned her virginity. He took her to a medical professional to have her virginity checked.
The court found that under Islamic Hadith from several sources that states that a father cannot be executed for killing a child, that he should not be treated as a murderer.
Apparently that also applies to jail time for torturing your 5-year-old daughter to death. Instead the court sentenced Sheikh Fayhan al-Ghamdi to 4 months in prison and to pay $50,000 in blood money to the mother of his child.
This is what the Islamic justice system and its values are like. This is the Sharia law that the left insists on importing to America and to Europe.
A Saudi cleric has called for all female babies to be fully covered by wearing the face veil, commonly known as the burka, citing reports of little girls being sexually molested.
In a TV interview on the Islamic al-Majd TV, which seems to date back to mid-last year, Sheikh Abdullah Daoud, stressed that wearing the veil will protect baby girls. The Sheikh tried to back his assertion with claims of sexual molestation against babies in the kingdom, quoting unnamed medical and security sources.
Try, as a civilized human being, to fathom the sickness you have just read about.
A 5 year old girl horribly tortured, horribly raped, and left to die by her own father because "she may not have been a virgin"? At 5? (How would she have lost her virginity? Did she pick up a sailor at a bar?) and the sentence, based on Islamic law, is a few months in jail and a fine?
A "cleric" calling for female babies to wear full covering to "protect them" - i.e. Muslim men, seeing a baby female's face, will not be able to control the urge to molest that baby?
And where are the great defenders of womanhood in the USA about this? Why aren't members of NOW picketing the Saudi embassy? Why isn't Code Pink picketing mosques which primarily service Saudis (and any others which adhere to this impossibly sick belief system), demanding that females be treated as human beings?
I guess it's a lot more fun - and a lot safer - to scream for free contraceptives, advocate for late term abortions and run around in vagina outfits at political conventions, while an adoring press extols their courage and bravery.
And these fraudulent opportunistic publicity hounds call themselves women's groups?
If we fight radical islam, we may win and we may lose. But if we don't, we most assuredly will lose, because radical islam will fight regardless.
And for what? To turn us into a society in which a "man" who rapes, tortures, and effectively kill his 5 year old daughter is given almost no punishment, because it is ok for men to kill their daughters? A society where baby girls have to be completely covered or Muslim men will not be able to contain their sexual urges?
There may be some people who are perfectly happy to live this way. But I'm not one of them, and I suspect you are not one of them either.
But I don't envy you at all, because we are having two of them today.
This afternoon we took our 6 year old grandson to the Museum of Natural History/Rose Space Center and Hayden Planetarium.
No football super bowl can compete with the personal superbowl of how happy he was, how much it amazed him, how mesmerized he was by the Planetarium show (beautifully narrated by Whoopi Goldberg, incidentally), how many questions it caused him to ask us about everything he saw, or how enrapt he was with the books he begged for at the gift shop, which he could not stop reading as we drove back.
Tonight's game between the Ravens and 49ers? That's nice too...a solid second-place finish.
Today's quote comes an interview the AP's Matthew Lee conducted with now-ex Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, regarding the attack on our Benghazi facility last September 11th and the questioning she faced about it when, after ducking for months, she finally appeared before a US Senate committee:
"I was so unhappy with the way that some people refused to accept the facts, refused to accept the findings of an independent Accountability Review Board, politicized everything about this terrible attack.My job is to admit that we have to make improvements and we're going to."
"There are some people in politics and in the press who can't be confused by the facts.They just will not live in an evidence-based world. And that's regrettable. It's regrettable for our political system and for the people who serve our government in very dangerous, difficult circumstances."
Other than possibly Barack Obama, is there a more whiney, excuse-maker in the country than Hillary Clinton? Is there anyone who more brazenly lies to our faces, secure in the knowledge that her fawning media accomplices will look the other way. Again. As they always have done for her?
The Benghazi staff begged for more security and did not get it. The simple fact that it was September 11th - the single most dangerous date of the year for our international assets, because it is the date of al-qaeda's greatest "triumph" against us - should have caused highest alert even without the begging. But Hillary Clinton and her people left those people woefully unprotected, and sealed their doom.
And what about that "independent" Accountability Review Board?
Er, she convened that review board, and it was drawn from her own department. To call it "independent" barely qualifies as a sick joke. Are you surprised that her underlings on that board tossed everyone else overboard, while leaving Queen Hillary intact? Why would you be? Excuses have been made for Hillary Clinton's failures ever since she has been in the public eye. And the failures are legion.
If you want a tough assignment, don't look for the failures of Hillary Clinton. Look for her successes. Other than using her husband's influence and the love affair media have with her to be appointed, and elected, to positions in which she has moved little forward and demonstrated little other than personal incompetence and dishonesty, I doubt you'll find any at all..
National Review has compiled an 80 second video of Chuck Hagel's hearing earlier this week, in which he does nothing but regret and revise the things he has said. I thought you might like to see it, so click here and you will.
And when you do, keep in mind that this video does not even bother with the amazingly embarrassing moments when Senators McCain and Cruz asked Hagel direct yes-or-no questions about key matters relating to his grasp of defense, which he could not/would not answer.
Chuck Hagel is going to be confirmed as this country's Secretary of Defense? Who are we going to pick for HEW? Sponge Bob Square Pants?
THE CLIMATE CHANGE EVIDENCE WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE
Here is a little succor for the people who are skeptical about man-made climate change, but have been intimidated into silence because to have such skepticism is to be branded a flat-earther right wing idiot.
The Earth has been getting warmer -- but how much of that heat is due to greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural causes?
A leaked report by a United Nations' group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.
"[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate," reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
'The main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.'
"The public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself," Rawls wrote on his website in December, when he first leaked the report.
Rawls blames the U.N. for burying its point about the effect of the sun in Chapter 11 of the report.
"Even after the IPCC acknowledges extensive evidence for ... solar forcing beyond what they included in their models, they still make no attempt to account for this omission in their predictions. ... It's insane," he told FoxNews.com.
Interesting, wouldn't you say?
Please keep in mind that this does not dispute the possibility of climate change, at least to some extent, being man-made. But it obviously puts the issue into question....which is where it should be, and should have been all this time.
Now a key question: Why would the UN so significantly downplay the findings of its own study? And, given that this was leaked well over a month ago, where have the mainstream media been in reporting it? They certainly have no problem reporting anything they can find to prop up the claim that climate change is all our fault, and nature somehow has little or nothing to do with it.
Remember the old saying, "follow the money"? Well, think of how many billions (yes, billions) have been pumped into grants, studies, commissions, etc. etc. etc. which tout the man-made point of view. Maybe, just maybe, the answer lies there.
But for people interested in the truth, not the politics, of climate change, wouldn't it be great if - as a refreshing change if nothing else - we got both sides of the story? And isn't the article excerpted above a pretty clear indication that even the UN knows there are two sides to be told?
My question: what has Hillary Clinton, or her boss Barack Obama, done about any of them?
The answer? Nothing. Who has been "brought to justice", as the cliche goes, for any of them?
And since I'm asking questions, here are a few more: Is the reason nothing has been done because Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama are hapless incompetents? Is it because they are so intimidated by terrorists that they fear retaliating? Is it that they don't think retaliation is warranted?
Whichever it is, what exactly have terrorists ever had to fear from Hillary Clinton? Or Barack Obama?
Steve Capus, the longest-running President of a major network news division (7 years), is going bye-bye - just six months after Patricia Fili-Krushel was hired as Chairman of NBCUniversal News Group.
There is no clear indication of whether Capus was fired outright, or felt he had to leave after Ms. Fili-Krushel was brought in above him (though the second choice can also be seen as a "firing"; just a different way of doing it).
We don't know for sure - yet - but is it not possible that Ms. Fili-Krushel was brought on board because of the ongoing series of scandals which seem as much a part of NBC News as its lovey-dovey fawning over President Obama?
I wish I didn't come across real racism as often as I do. But it is out there, unavoidable, and no group has any monopoly on being victimized by it.
This latest entry into the series comes to us from Atlanta, where nkosi thandiwe may be sentenced to spend the rest of his life in jail for shooting three women, one of whom died and one of whom is now paralyzed.
A Fulton County judge will rule Thursday on whether to give the jury a third verdict option in the trial of a former Midtown security guard accused in a deadly 2011 shooting spree in Midtown.
Superior Court Judge Kelly A. Lee will hear from experts who evaluated Nkosi Thandiwe Wednesday night to determine if his mental state during the shooting spree was so disturbed that a jury could find him "not guilty by reason of insanity."
Thandiwe's attorney made the last-minute request Wednesday after his client testified, admitting to fatally shooting Brittney Watts amid a trance-like state.
Thandiwe, 23, also confessed from the witness stand that he shot two other women that day - Tiffany Ferenczy and Lauren Garcia, who is now paralyzed from her injuries - before driving off in Watts' car.
"My mind was blank at the time," he said.
During his testimony Wednesday, Thandiwe suggested that his reason for even purchasing the gun he used in the shootings was to enforce beliefs he'd developed about white people during his later years as an anthropology major at the University of West Georgia.
"I was trying to prove a point that Europeans had colonized the world, and as a result of that, we see a lot of evil today," he said. "In terms of slavery, it was something that needed to be answered for. I was trying to spread the message of making white people mend."
He said the night before the shooting, he attended a so-called "Peace Party" intended to address his concerns about helping the black community find equal footing, but two white people were there.
"I was upset," Thandiwe said. "I was still upset Friday. I took the gun to work because I was still upset from Thursday night."
Let's put aside the last-minute hail mary attempt at an insanity plea, and focus on thandiwe's rationale for acting as he did.
His explanation? He learned about how terrible White people - Europeans in particular - were regarding slavery. And someone had to answer for it, you see.
So, with that in mind, he shot a gun at three White women - any Whites would do - none of whom could possibly have had anything to do with slavery, unless they were over 150 years old and just looked young for their age.
Is this different from the lynch mobs from many years ago, which went looking for a Black person to hang - any Black would do - for some real or imagined affront? Were the Black victims of those mobs any more guilty than the White victims of nkosi thandiwe?
And what about the things he claims to have been taught at the University of West Georgia?
Did the anthropology department teach thandiwe where the European slave traders got their goods? How the ashanti tribes, to name one source, were happy to catch their Black brothers and sisters, then sell them to the traders? Did thandiwe learn about the abolitionist movement in the United States or the Civil War - i.e. that not every White European was in favor of slavery, and many lost their lives to put it to a halt? Where those people any less White than the slave traders?
For that matter, did thandiwe learn that Arabs traded African slaves for 1,000 years before Europeans ever got into the act? How come he didn't head for a Mosque and try to find three random Arab women?
Were there White racists in the past? Of course there were.
Are there White racists today? Of course there are.
Does the existence of a racist segment within the overall White population give a Black man the right to open fire on random White people, simply because they are White? Absolutely not. That is racism. Real racism.
When does it ever end?
And what the hell are they teaching at the University of West Georgia?
As Barack Obama eases into his second Presidential term, and Hillary Clinton leaves as Secretary of State, I thought it would be a good idea to update how things are going in their two great "foreign policy triumphs" (as the fawning, Accomplice Media have referred to them).
After eight days of protests that killed nearly 60 people, a video of one demonstrator stripped, dragged across the ground and beaten has fired Egyptians to a new level of outrage.
Hamada Saber, a middle-aged man, lay in a police hospital this morning, after he was shown on television naked, covered in soot and thrashed by half a dozen policemen who had pulled him to an armoured vehicle near the presidential palace.
President Mohamed Mursi's office promised an investigation of the incident, which followed the deadliest wave of bloodshed of his rule.
His opponents say it proves that he has chosen to order a brutal crackdown like that carried out by Hosni Mubarak against the uprising that toppled him in 2011.
The incident was an unmistakable reminder of the beating of a woman by riot police on Tahrir Square in December 2011.
The rise of Mr Mursi - the first freely elected leader in Egypt's 5,000-year history - is probably the single most important change achieved by two years of revolts across the Arab world. But seven months since taking office, he has failed to unite Egyptians. Street unrest and political instability threaten to render the most populous Arab state ungovernable.
He said two religious communities are leaving "after being pressured by fundamentalists," adding that the Apostolic Vicar of Benghazi was cautioned to take shelter ahead of a large-scale demonstration on Feb. 20.
"In past days, the Congregation of the Holy Family of Spoleto who had been there for nearly 100 years were forced to abandon Derna," east of the main eastern city of Benghazi, he said.
"In Barce [located between Benghazi and Derna] the Franciscan Sisters of the Child Jesus will leave their home in coming days."
Friday, Martinelli told Vatican Radio that for some time now fundamentalism has governed decisions in Libya.
Christians have voiced fear of a rise in sectarian sentiment in the overwhelmingly Muslim nation following the 2011 revolt that toppled dictator Moammar Gadhafi and in which hard-line Islamists played a major part.
Before the uprising, 3 percent of Libya's population of around 6.3 million were Christian. Now only a couple thousand of them remain, with the majority of them expatriates.
In December, two Egyptians died in a blast at a Christian Coptic church in the Libyan town of Dafniya, and two others were wounded.
There you have it. The Obama definision of "foreign policy triumphs":
-Egypt quickly descending into chaos - after which it will be an excellent bet that the Muslim Brotherhood, which already is ignoring the formalities of Egypt's one and only free election, will simply take over altogether.
-Libya methodically, violently, removing all vestiges of Christianity, to purify it as a Shari'a law state.
And the architects of these media-defined "triumphs"? One of them has just been re-elected for four years, and the other has just been replaced by John Kerry, who, I suspect, would have supported exactly the same policies.
Welcome to the new normal: as disastrous in the foreign arena as it is domestically.
The future of security in Newtown schools is beginning to take shape.
At Thursday night's meeting, the Newtown Board of Education voted to approve a request to the Police Department for armed SROs (school resource officers) for each of the town's elementary schools.
Combined with the eight unarmed security personnel slated into the still-unapproved 2013/2014 budget, that would put two eyes and ears -- one armed, one unarmed -- at each Newtown school as a way to ensure the tragic Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School never happens again.
Some parents didn't think the measure went far enough.
"Policemen travel with a partner, and there's a reason for that," said Donna Lorenz. She said she felt comfortable letting her daughter go to a school guarded by two armed officers -- but wouldn't feel comfortable with anything less.
"The only thing that stopped that guy that day was when the two Newtown police burst in the building," said Lorenz. "You all know that."
Why would the town vote this way, when so many media people, and politicians, are talking almost exclusively about adding new gun control laws, while acting as though armed security is some kind of right wing insanity?
Because in Newtown, Connecticut, events have shown, all too devastatingly, that there is a difference between enacting laws - which can only influence people who obey laws - and the presence of someone who can do something about a deranged lunatic intent on killing innocent people, with a special taste for killing children.
That is why I congratulate the people of Newtown for last night's decision, even as my heart continues to go out to them and their unspeakable loss.
And I hope with all my heart that people in a lot of other places wake up to how vulnerable their children are, and understand why, as distasteful as the idea of armed security may seem, they need the protection Newtown schools will now have - protection the families of those innocent victims so desperately must wish they had last December 14th.
Did you know that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wrote a letter to TD Bank and Bank Of America, suggesting that they revoke their lines of credit to major gun manufacturers unless those manufacturers agree to support the gun control measures Emanuel thinks should be enacted?
"Collectively we can send a clear and unambiguous message to the entire gun industry that investors will no longer financially support companies that support gun violence"
Well, this did not sit well at all with Ted Cruz, the newly-elected U. S. Senator from Texas. His response to Emanuel, according to Gehrke, was as follows:
"[Y]our city's longstanding policies stripping citizens of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms have, in turn, produced some of the very highest crime and murder rates in the nation," Cruz wrote to Emanuel, whom he suggested is pushing "a partisan agenda" at the expense of Chicagoans.
"Regardless, directing your attack at legitimate firearms manufacturers undermines the Second Amendment rights of Texans", Cruz added. "In the future, I would ask that you keep your efforts to diminish the Bill of Rights north of the Red River."
To the banks, Cruz wrote this:
"Both of your companies do considerable business in the City of Chicago, and you may be understandably concerned that there are risk to refusing to comply with the demends of a politician who has earned the nickname, 'The Godfather'. In light of the reception you have received in the Windy City, please know that Texas would certainly welcome more of your business and the jobs you create ...If I can be of assistance in that regard, please do not hesitate to call."
And, for good measure, here is what Cruz wrote to the gun manufacturers (Sturm, Ruger & Co., and Smith & Wessen):
"Should Mayor Emanuel's bullying campaign prove successful, I am confident that there are numerous financial institutions in Texas that would be eager to earn your business"
Is it just me, or do you also gather that these two are not seeing eye to eye on the guns issue?
Put another way, it is hard to imagine that this kind of dust-up between Emanuel and Cruz will be the last one.
Today's quote comes to us from Hubert Horatio Humphrey, the great liberal warrior, former Senator from Minnesota, Vice President to Lyndon Johnson, and 1968 Democrat Presidential candidate who, had it not been for the unpopularity of LBJ, would almost certainly have beaten Richard Nixon in that campaign.
Here is what Mr. Humphrey said about guns in 1960:
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
Well said. And just as true now as it was then.
Be very careful who gets guns and how they are gotten (a lot more careful than we currently are), be very careful about teaching the proper use of guns....but never forget that law-abiding citizens have a right to bear arms. Do not try to take them away.
As the federal government moves forward to implement President Obama's Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services is slated to spend millions of dollars promoting the unpopular legislation. In the face of this publicity blitz, it is worth remembering that the law was originally sold largely on four grounds-all of which have become increasingly implausible.
- Lower health-care costs. One key talking point for ObamaCare was that it would reduce the cost of insurance, especially for non-group insurance. The president, citing the work of several health-policy experts, claimed that improved care coordination, investments in information technology, and more efficient marketing through exchanges would save the typical family $2,500 per year.
That was then. Now, even advocates for the law acknowledge that premiums are going up. In analyses conducted for the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado, Jonathan Gruber of MIT forecasts that premiums in the non-group market will rise by 19% to 30% due to the law. Other estimates are even higher. The actuarial firm Milliman predicts that non-group premiums in Ohio will rise by 55%-85%. Maine, Oregon and Nevada have sponsored their own studies, all of which reach essentially the same conclusion.
Does that make you want to read the rest of Mr. Kessler's piece? Boy, I hope so, because, in the immortal words of Al Jolson, you ain't seen nuthin' yet. There is more. A lot more. And none of it good.
This administration lies to us so often, and so casually, that sometimes we have to blink our eyes and pinch ourselves in disbelief. But with an Accomplice Media all too willing to pass along its lies as facts, enough of the public still believed in Barack Obama to re-elect him last year.
Now that the election is over and Mr. Obama has been given a second term? In just in the past few days, we have found out that fourth quarter growth dropped from "pathetically anemic recovery" status to contraction, unemployment has ticked back up to 7.9% - higher than it was the day President Obama took office - and the percentage of people in the job force remains at a 30 year low.
All that, and the ObamaCare lies as well.
This is going to be some four years. I wonder if we can survive them.
The New York Times avidly dislikes Republicans. The New York Times knows that if Robert Menendez has to resign as U.S. Senator, New Jersey's Republican Governor, Chris Christie, will select a fellow Republican to replace him.
So if the Times is willing to publish a front page, above-the-fold, story about how shady Menendez' relationship with the mysterious, hugely wealthy "eye doctor" Salomon Melgin appears to be, what they found must be very, very bad - bad enough so that the Times is willing to risk forcing a Democrat out of the senate to be replaced by a Republican.
-Menendez's ties to Melgin are much deeper than originally reported;
-After Melgin bought a company which was supposed to provide port security to the Dominican Republic but was not being used, Menendez intervened on his behalf to make sure the company got contracts in the neighborhood of $500 million. Where Melgin got the money to buy such a company, and why anyone with his background would have any way of running such a company? No answer.
-Then there is this excerpt from the article:
The friendship between the two men is a focus among prominent Latinos, especially those with interests involving the Obama administration.
"Whenever I see Menendez, I see him with this medical doctor," said Bernardo Vega, a former Dominican ambassador to the United States and now editor of a magazine that has been critical of the port deal.
In Florida political circles, one Miami Democrat explained, it is understood that anyone seeking a federal appointment that requires Mr. Menendez’s blessing should first get Dr. Melgen's backing.
"If you needed Bob, you had to see Melgen," said the Democrat, who insisted on anonymity for fear of upsetting party leaders. "Everybody in Miami knew that."
How does this smell to you? Not very good? If so, be assured that both of our noses are working exactly the same way.
And this is before we get to Menendez's alleged taste for underage Dominican hookers.
All things considered, it is hard not to conclude that Robert Menendez is in one heap of trouble - quite possibly enough trouble for him to do a "Torricelli", and get out while the getting is good.
But, unlike Torricelli's situation, there is no way for the Democrat-stacked New Jersey supreme court to summarily change the rules and concoct a way for Menendez to be replaced by another Democrat.
I'll be watching this closely, and report on what comes out as it happens. I'm guessing there will be more - a lot more - and we won't have to wait long to find out about it.
Here are excerpts from Kate Brumback's article for the Associated Press. I doubt you need me to explain the point it makes:
A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.
Multiple shots were fired in the courtyard of Price Middle School just south of downtown around 1:50 p.m. and the one boy was hit, Atlanta Police Chief George Turner said. In the aftermath, a teacher received minor cuts, he said.
Investigators believe the shooting was not random and that something occurred between the two students that may have led to it.
Schools Superintendent Erroll Davis said the school does have metal detectors.
"The obvious question is how did this get past a metal detector?" Davis asked about the gun. "That’s something we do not know yet."
The story advises us that this might - might - have been due to a problem between the two students. In that regard, two points should be made:
1. If investigators are right, and it was a problem specifically between the two, without an armed guard's intervention would the victim still be alive and breathing? What would have prevented the attacker from continuing to go after him, perfectly free to keep shooting because no one had the means to do a thing about it?
2. If the investigators are wrong, how many students would be injured or dead today because the shooter had free rein to just find people and fire at them? God alone knows. Even if the police showed up just two minutes after being called, then got into the school and found the shooter, say, a half minute later...how many students might already have been killed? Do yourself a favor: look at your watch, count off 2 1/2 minutes, do whatever you do in that time period, and realize just how large a window of opportunity the shooter would have had.
Now, take into account the fact that the shooter was able to circumvent the school's metal detector and get the gun inside. Are you surprised? Since when has it ever been any problem to bring "illegal' stuff into a school? Students always seem to find a way,.
The bottom line here is that the existence of an armed guard - even though he did not have to fire his weapon - may have saved the lives of at least one, and probably a great many more, innocent children.
I guess it wasn't such a bad idea having him around.
Don't you wish one of his counterparts had been at Sandy Hook Elementary School last December 14th?
One of the most colorful, vibrant, politicians of our time - maybe anybody's time - has passed away.
Earlier this morning, Edward Irving Koch, a former New York Assemblyperson, congressperson, and three-time Mayor of New York City, died of congestive heart failure at the age of 88.
No one is asking me for an epitaph that would best describe Mr. Koch. But if someone did, the words I would put on his tombstone are "Here lies a real character - with real character".
Ed Koch was that most valuable of commodities; a politician who belonged to one party because its views most closely paralleled his, but had absolutely no problem departing from his party's position any time he felt the other side was making more sense.
He took over the reins of New York City government at a time when the coffers were empty, everyone had their hand out, and - putting it bluntly - New York was on its way then to becoming what Detroit is now.
In the words of current New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg:
"Earlier today, New York City lost an irrepressible icon, our most charismatic cheerleader and champion, Edward I. Koch. He was a great mayor, a great man and a great friend. In elected office and as a private citizen, he was our most tireless, fearless and guileless civic crusader. Through his tough, determined leadership and responsible fiscal stewardship, Ed helped lift the city out of its darkest days and set it on course for an incredible comeback. We will miss him dearly, but his good works - and his wit and wisdom - will forever be a part of the city he loved so much. His spirit will live on not only here at City Hall, and not only on the bridge the bears his name, but all across the five boroughs.
"I'm expressing my condolences on behalf of all 8.4 million New Yorkers, and I know so many of them will be keeping Mayor Koch and his family and friends in their thoughts and prayers. As we mourn Mayor Koch's passing, the flags at all City buildings will be flying at half-staff in his memory."
There must be hundreds and hundreds of anecdotes attributed to Mr. Koch. But my personal favorite was what he said during a cold snap, when many people were without heat. Mayor Koch opened up all the armories, secured as many cots as could be found, and offered people a place to go where it was warm - a smart, innovative, compassionate act. Incredibly, a group of activists (I don't remember which) actually attacked him for doing so, on the grounds that the places he opened up did not have sufficient toilet facilities -- as if he could suddenly grow bathrooms there).
A reporter and camera crew caught up with Mayor Koch and told him of the protest. By his facial expression it was clear this was the first he had heard about it.
So how did Ed Koch respond? Did he try to come up with some mealy-mouthed political comment? Nope, wrong guy for that. Koch looked straight at the camera, shrugged his shoulders, and said "Then go home".
George M. Cohan, in his classic song from the show "Fifty Miles from Boston", sang that "Harrigan...is a name, that a shame, never has been connected with". Ed Koch was our Harrigan. In all his years as a politician and public figure, I never once heard anyone, even his worst enemies, accuse him of corruption. He did not take money, he did not accept gifts big enough to suggest there was a quid pro quo, he did nothing but act in a way that he thought was right.
People like this come along very rarely, and it is sad beyond words when they leave us.
Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site,
third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser,
or using web beacons to collect information.
At "Hopelessly Partisan" we discuss all issues, big and small. Such as:
-Will President Obama end the pretense that he cares about the constitution, and simply declare himself King?
-How long before Egypt erupts into all-out civil war?
-Can ObamaCare really be this complete a disaster?
-How many more part-time jobs will replace full-time jobs and how many more workers will be underemployed, before media start seriously talking about it?
-What do Republicans see in John Boehner?
Right down to:
-Can the Kardashian family possibly be more boring?
-Has Chris Matthews irretrievably gone over the deep end?
-Is Robin Williams' TV show really worth twice the viewership of Michael J. Fox's?
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!!