Boy, if this isn’t a perfect glimpse into the mindset of the left, I don’t know what is! From the
b#tch’s horse’s mouth:
We’re going to inherit so many challenges from President Bush. When you think about it, we have two wars, not one. We don’t talk about Afghanistan enough. We’ve got two wars. We’ve got to end one, we’ve got to win the other.
Got that? We need to win the war in Afghanistan, but not the one in Iraq. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
But hey…they “support the troops”, right?
How do you say “You’ve got some kind of friggin’ nerve, you ungrateful, nonbathing, hippie retread losers!” in Moonbat-ese? From Melanie Morgan:
Eamon Kelley, the young Marine who is featured in Move America Forward’s TV commercial that ran on Fox News earlier this week, spent his day today in Berkeley, Calif. in front of the Marine recruiting offices.
Another national/local ad blitz begins on Monday.
Meanwhile, CodePink has set up a virtual blockade at the recruiting center, expanding it’s efforts to harass our troops and turn back young Americans looking to enlist. (The Berkeley City Council stubbornly refuses to apologize and continues subsidizing free parking for CodePink efforts to drive our soldiers out of town.)
Eamon, who is recovering from back surgery, gutted it out under blazing skies in the boycotted town.
He sent me this e-mail after spending four hours there.
Titter Meter: HIGH.
“While we were at the protest in Berkeley from 12 to 4 PM a white volvo drove by and a man spat upon code pink. They chased him down the street and got into a verbal altercation. The police were NO WHERE in sight. That’s not the best part, ready for this? Medea Benjamin yelled and I quote “Marines!” she actually yelled for our help because this man had stepped out of his car. Lol. I even asked her if she was yelling Police and she told me “I said Marines” then put her arm around my friend Allen (the Marine vet) Ironic? Ok back to the emails!! “
Just think: the Code Pinkos wanted the Marines’ help with a spitting protestor, but don’t think they’re needed in fighting Islamofascist terrorists! Moonbats…go figure.
How awful that this young Marine didn’t want to help anyone who calls them “Bush’s death pimps” and works to expel them from Berserkley! For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.
When they’re not busy telling our military that they’re unnecessary, San Fransicko is publicizing to the criminal alien population: Come to our town! We don’t need any stinking laws here! From the S.F. Examiner:
San Francisco’s “sanctuary” policy for illegal immigrants, which has drawn sharp criticism from conservatives, will be promoted in an advertisement campaign complete with multilanguage brochures and radio and TV public service announcements.
The city-funded outreach campaign is expected to roll out this spring and build on San Francisco’s response to last year’s federal immigration raids, which city officials said scared undocumented immigrants into not accessing city services, reporting crimes or sending children to school.
City officials Wednesday were not able to provide The Examiner with a cost breakdown for the campaign.
“We have worked with the Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Health, labor and immigrant rights groups to create a city government-wide public awareness campaign so that immigrants know The City won’t target them for using city services,” said Nathan Ballard, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s spokesman.
City officials there just can’t seem to bring themselves to use the word “illegal”, can they?
Can we please allow these sickos to secede from the union already?
How’s this for blue-on-blue action? From Politico:
African-American superdelegates said Thursday that they’ll stand up against threats, intimidation and “Uncle Tom” smears rather than switch their support from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.
“African-American superdelegates are being targeted, harassed and threatened,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who has supported Clinton since August. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving “nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.
“This is the politics of the 1950s,” he complained. “A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They’re not going to talk about it, but it’s happening.”
After civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) switched his support from Clinton to Obama earlier this week, other black superdelegates have come under renewed pressure to do a similar about-face. A handful have bowed to the entreaties in recent weeks, including Georgia Rep. David Scott, but many say they are steadfast in their support for Clinton and resent strong-arm tactics to make them change.
Obama’s “audacity of
hope intimidation” is inspiring, n’est-ce pas?
Sucks, doesn’t it? Think about it next time before whipping out the “Uncle Tom” smear against a black who happens to think differently from the moonbat groupthink that is so pervasive today.
From Capt. Ed:
The Democrats reacted in anger when Senate Republicans blocked their latest economic stimulus bill. Harry Reid said that bankers and lenders were high-fiving each other in hallways after the GOP torpedoed the bill, but perhaps a better explanation of Reid’s disappointment comes from Bob Casey (D-PA). The beneficiaries of the bill turns out to be somewhat different than advertised:
Here’s the transcript:
Mr. CASEY: “We want to do a couple of things with this legislation, which we know is the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Our Majority Leader, Senator Reid, and our leadership and the members of the Democratic Caucus set it out fairly specifically. A couple of basic things this legislation would have done: first of all, it would have continued what we started in the end of last year, foreclosure prevention counseling dollars, to give money to organizations around the country that are certifiably expert at this, organizations like La Raza (way to give props to a racist open-borders organization called “The Race”! – Ed.) that. I know the presiding officer knows that group. We know also the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now, known by the acronym ‘ACORN.’ They’re headquartered in Philadelphia. These are organizations which understand what a lender has to deal with but more importantly deal with borrowers when they’re borrowing money, when they’re dealing with the difficulty and complexity of borrowing money. These organizations would have helped even more so than they’re helping now with $200 million more of counseling money. That’s not going to happen right now because of what the other side did; they blocked that money by blocking this legislation.”
ACORN? Would this be the same ACORN that conducted voter fraud in Washington, resulting in felony charges against its officers there in 2007? Isn’t this the same organization that generated complaints and questions about their practices in several other jurisdictions during the 2006 election? How does shoving money into the pockets of ACORN provide an economic stimulus?
This doesn’t look like a stimulus package. It looks more like an investment in further voter fraud.
Vote early, vote often!
Here’s the obligatory “Nope…no liberal media bias!” intro to this AP photo:
Not content to having p#ssed off 2/3 of Americans with their “heavy-on-innuendo, light-on-evidence” unsubstantiated hit piece against Johnny Mac, the Old Gray Hag decided to further undermine what shards of credibility may have remained. From the NYT:
The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.” (Um…yeah, it is. They were naturally born American citizens from the moment they emerged from the womb, so I’m sorry to say, it is a “slam-dunk” deal! – Ed.)
How’s that, kids? You were born unto parents while they were stationed at a military base on foreign soil? According to the Hag, that sucks for you if you want to be prez one day. Sure, an anchor baby popped out in an El Paso hospital from criminal aliens can one day be the leader of the free world, but not you military brats!
As Capt. Ed shows, though, the intent was made perfectly clear three years later:
The Founding Fathers recognized this. They passed a bill in 1790, three years after the adoption of the Constitution, which made clear that “natural born” applied to children born of American citizens “outside the limits of the United States”. That law remains in effect and has never been challenged. At the least, it speaks to the intent of the founders when they used the term “natural born” in the Constitution.
Of course, this information just now came to light, never mind the fact the dude has been around for 70+ years and that the NYT endorsed him in the primaries. If this isn’t desparation from a hopelessly leftist rag that was once a semi-respected news outlet, then Obama is a proud member of the NRA.
Canuckistan likes NAFTA. Barry O says he doesn’t. But Osamabama wants to curry favor with the Canucks, so he gets a little disingenuous about it. Details:
Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers’ jobs.
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
Either Obama doesn’t believe NAFTA sucks but is willing to say it solely to appease the great unwashed that is the Democrat base; or he does believe NAFTA sucks and is lying to the collective faces of Canuckistan so as not to p#ss them off. Either way, that makes him a demagogue and very disingenuous…a “liar”, if you will.
Considering the Frogs are known for their well-honed surrender techniques, this should come as no surprise. But Abe Greenwald tears them a new one:
A new Gallup poll is being touted as a “challenge” to western misperceptions of Islam. The survey was done on three continents and took six years to complete, and as the French news agency AFP reports, we’ve all been a little alarmist over here: “About 93 percent of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews.”
Seven percent of 1.3 billion leaves us with . . . 91 million radical Islamists. And to think we were concerned! That piddling handful is nothing that can’t be taken care of with a little dialogue, a few billion in American aid, and some proper education. I’m feeling audaciously hopeful.
But, wait, what’s this? “The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims,” said John Esposito, who authored the book Who Speaks for Islam.
One shouldn’t cherry-pick facts to fit an agenda. The study does say that radicals “believe in democracy even more than many of the mainstream moderates do.” But does anyone really think we’re operating with a consistent definition of democracy here? The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, makes claims to be democratic, yet its leaders-for-life are not elected, the organization boasts a doctrine of female subordination, and it calls for the death of apostates. Kind of a big-government democracy, I suppose.
Dalia Mogahed, Esposito’s co-author, says, “A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority.” How right she is. We need to find out from one billion rational human beings why they largely refuse to stand up for humanity and dignity instead of cowering in the face of fascist thugs. They’re the only Westerners this study challenges.
A baker’s dozen falafel-crusted weirdbeards have died due to scurvy and robot attack planes…but mostly robot attack planes. From Pakistan:
Waziristan, 28 Feb. (AKI) – A deadly airstrike early on Thursday in Pakistan’s South Waziristan tribal area that reportedly killed 13 Islamist militants was carried out by an unmanned United States predator plane, according to Pakistan’s Geo TV news.
US forces, who are operating in neighbouring Afghanistan, have fired missiles at militants on the Pakistani side of the border several times in recent years.
In late January, one of al-Qaeda’s senior commanders, Abu Laith al-Libi, was killed by a missile believed to have been fired by a US pilotless drone.
Enjoy those raisins, Mohammed.
Why do I call the guy naive? Read the intro of the story, and note the emphasis:
Kahraman Sadikoglu remembers the day in May 2003 when a U.N. agency asked him to move forward with a business deal that would make the world a better place — and help him earn a tidy profit.
“I was very proud to be working for the U.N., because the U.N. is the best in the world, and it solves the problems,” the Turkish shipping tycoon said in a recent interview. “I thought we were going to help the Iraqi people.”
Sadikoglu was asked by the U.N. to clear from the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr several sunken ships that were blocking this major supply artery into the war-torn country.
But nearly five years later, the colorful billionaire insists he’s out more than $50 million — with the meter running on another $100,000 a day in interest and expenses — and has been blocked from providing life-saving aid by the very agency charged with overseeing the project, the U.N. Development Program, or UNDP.
That’s not all. Dozens of crew members living on a virtual armada of Sadikoglu’s salvage ships — nine in all — remain stuck in limbo at an Iraqi port, unofficially held hostage, he claims, in a stalemate the UNDP seems uninterested in or unable to resolve.
Corruption, deceipt, and sleaziness. The United Nations: more useless than non-alcoholic beer in a Kennedy refrigerator.
Nothing like a little red meat for the base, especially if it shows what a lightweight Barry O is. From The Weekly Standard:
Obama at last night’s debate:
“As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”
McCain today on the trail in Texas:
“When you examine that statement, it’s pretty remarkable,” McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas.
“I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It’s called ‘al-Qaida in Iraq,’” McCain said, drawing laughter at Obama’s expense.
Of course, Obama doesn’t say he’d send troops back into Iraq, only that he’d “act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.” It’s a euphemism for ‘I might not do a damn thing,’ and it plays fine with a Democratic audience–but in the general? Maybe not so much…
McCain led Obama among likely voters in yesterday’s USA Today/Gallup poll, and now the Los Angeles Times has McCain beating Obama among registered voters, “with voters giving McCain far higher marks when it comes to experience, fighting terrorism and dealing with the situation in Iraq.” I tend to think this kind of back and forth will only serve to widen that gap in perception.
Update: McCain adds in a just released statement:
Where is the audacity of hope when it comes to backing the success of our troops all the way to victory in Iraq? What we heard last night was the timidity of despair. Our allies deserve better, our soldiers deserve better, and so do the American people.”
Odd that you’ve never heard of al-Qaida in Iraq, Osamabama. One would think that turning on the TV, opening a fishwrap, or an occasional trip to the Senate floor would have given you a heads-up on AQI’s existence.
If, by “stalling”, you mean advancing YOUR motion to the floor of the Senate for an actual vote so America can see you take a position, then yeah…stalling. From Ace of Spades HQ:
This is a little inside baseball but it nicely demonstrates just what tools the Democrats are.
Reid and Dick Durbin are accusing Senate Republicans of ‘stalling’ debate on a housing bailout bill. How did those nasty Republicans do that? By voting FOR a motion Reid himself made.
Yesterday Reid brought up a bill that would have cut off funding for the troops in Iraq and set a withdrawal date. They seem to do this every week or so, I imagine it’s a fundraising tactic. Normally the Republicans filibuster, the nutroots hit the donate button and business goes on.
But the evil Republicans didn’t play by the rules and called Harry’s bluff basically saying, ‘hey, there’s a lot of good shit going on in Iraq to talk about, so let’s have it’. This sets the stage for 30 hours of floor debate on Iraq.
Now Reid is upset that he can’t bring up the housing bailout bill and because the Republicans exposed him as a craven jackass who uses money for the troops as part of just another legislative game to be played.
And to top things off by demonstrating just how clueless he is, Reid said yesterday that ‘a civil war rages’ in Iraq. Harry? You need some updated talking points.
So when Senate Democrats say they ‘support the troops’, remember what they really mean is they support their use as a political weapon but not much else.
If you have not yet done so, feel free to go ahead and question the left’s patriotism.
Dead at age 82. Countdown to “Moonbat Grave Dance” at 3…2…1…
Not that it’s tough to get those mouthbreathers in a huff, but Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) did her part. Here’s the deal:
Speaking about a Democratic proposal to force Iraq troop withdrawal within 120 days, Hutchison said Tuesday that such a proposal would “put a bullet right in the hearts of our troops who are there.”Hutchison had joined fellow Republican leaders to question the political motivations behind the 35th Iraq related vote in the Senate over the past year, and was trying to make the point that mandatory withdrawal on the heels of recent military success would undermine the troops.
But her choice of words made it sound like Democrats were advocating something that would kill U.S. troops, and it didn’t go over well with Democratic leaders.
I am reminded of the parting words a former friend of mine once used about me: “If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck…”
Hutchinson should not back away from her words. She is 110% correct.
After the Old Gray Hag ran her “heavy on innuendo, light on the proof” hit piece on McCain last week, they received (deservedly so) tons of scorn. Heck, McCain’s standing with the electorate improved as a result of the smear! With that kind of negative publicity, the NYT certainly didn’t need this latest headache:
Dan Rather vouches for professionalism and aptitude of the NYT’s reporters and editors.
Now if Danny Kinko’s gives you his seal of approval, that plus a quarter will get you a steaming hot cup of Jack Squat!
Ray Nagin should have put a patent on his “Chocolate City” expression before Rep. Dianne Watson (D-CA) stole it for her own demagoguery. From a Black History Town Hall meeting last night in D.C. at Howard University:
Did you know your representatives can not vote? They can only vote in the committee as a whole. So what you’re going to have to do is declare the District [of Columbia] something like a state so they can have a proportional representation who vote. But that would give this district two senators and there are a lot of people on that floor who don’t want to see that occur because if there’s a chocolate city, this is it.
That must be it! Whitey doesn’t want any “chocolate” folks in the Senate. Way to spread that message to college kids, moron.
Michelle Malkin reminds us of what the Chocolate Lady said about Ward Connerly (a black man) for marrying outside of his race:
He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black. I said that.
Does that mean that all black men who marry white women are trying to “be white”, or only those who stray from the liberal massah’s plantation?
You stay classy, Watson!
I’d expect this kind of claptrap from the Washington comPost, but not the Washington Times. Disappointed, I don’t mind telling ya! From Lone Wacko:
A purported memo from John Solomon, new editor of the Washington Times, is here. It updates their style guide to remove scare quotes around certain phrases, and also:
1) Clinton will be the headline word for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
2) Gay is approved for copy and preferred over homosexual, except in clinical references or references to sexual activity.
3) The quotation marks will come off gay marriage (preferred over homosexual marriage).
4) Moderate is approved, but centrist is still allowed.
5) We will use illegal immigrants, not illegal aliens.
“Aliens” and “illegal aliens” are used in the U.S. Code many times. “Illegal immigrants” appears, as far as I can tell, only one time. And, while some might disagree, “immigrant” implies legality and in that way “illegal immigrant” is an oxymoron. It might also indicate that the Washington Times is starting down the slippery slope towards being like the Washington Post.
It could have been worse. They could have pulled a Harry Reid and called them “undocumented Americans“!
Friggin’ wonderful. I guess as long as the interns don’t follow Sen. Wide Stance into the bathroom, they just might make it through this internship in one piece.
So what else is new? From Capt. Ed:
CBS and the New York Times have a new poll out that looks at the Democratic primary race and at the general election. In the former, it uses a rather small sample, but in the latter the sample gets weighted — as usual — in favor of Democratic voters. Barack Obama has taken a lead in the national numbers for the primary, not exactly breaking news:
A new CBS News/New York Times poll finds Barack Obama with a 16-point lead over rival Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters nationwide.Obama, coming off 11 straight primary and caucus victories, had the support of 54 percent of Democratic primary voters nationally. Clinton had 38 percent support.
In a CBS News poll taken three weeks ago, shortly before Super Tuesday, Obama and Clinton were tied at 41 percent. Clinton led by 15 points nationally in January.
The former first lady has lost her advantage among women, according to the poll: The two leading Democrats now have even levels of support among female primary voters.
How did CBS reach this conclusion? They polled 427 Democratic voters. That isn’t an exceptionally strong sample, and it produces a conclusion that is a likely outlier. Gallup, AP, and Rasmussen all show Obama leading but in a much closer race.
The problems increase when the poll includes Republicans. They show Obama beating John McCain by twelve points, 50-38. However, the sampling and weighting explains the strange notion that John McCain would only get 38% of a general election vote. The sample of 1152 respondents comprises 358 Republican voters, 420 Democrats, and 337 independents. Here’s how they weight the sample:
Democrats – 419
Republicans – 318
Independents – 325
Get the math? They deducted 40 Republicans, 12 independents, and a grand total of 1 Democrat for their weighted sample. The original configuration would have made Democrats 37.6% of the sample, and Republicans 32% – almost exactly how Rasmussen
breaks out party affiliation. Instead, the weighting makes Democrats 39.5% of the sample, and Republicans just a shade under 30%.
If your butcher did this, you’d demand that he take his thumb off the scale. These results are completely useless, and once again CBS and the New York Times report more on their own credibility than on the mood of the electorate.
Wow! Barry O has a 12% lead over McLame! That’s amazing…except for the inconvenient detail that it’s not true. From Rasmussen:
Tuesday’s results also show John McCain continuing to hold a very modest lead against both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in general election match-ups. McCain now leads Obama 47% to 43% and Clinton 47% to 44%. McCain has consistently held a modest lead over Clinton but he moved ahead of Obama only after publication of the controversial New York Times article last week …
Then again, I don’t think Rasmussen oversampled. They want their poll numbers to actually reflect reality. They’re kind of funny that way.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Yes, folks, it’s that time again to play “Guess That Party”! From Newsbusters:
Today’s edition of “Democrat or Not?” gives us an example of a party affiliation that is mentioned by the MSM instead of one kept secret and naturally the party mentioned is the Republican brand. The strange part about this one, however, is the context in which it is reported. In what the media is calling a “politically motivated” family argument over Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton a stabbing occurred. But, here is the thing: neither of those involved in this family tiff are politicians and both were fighting over democrats that they support. Yet, for some reason, TV station CBS 3 in Philly felt it necessary to mention that one of the combatants was a “registered Republican.”
Now, we have all heard the Associated Press claim that mentioning a party is fine “when it’s relevant.” They’ve claimed they only mention a party when it is “relevant” to the story. If this practice is prevalent throughout the news industry it sure seems that they all think it “relevant” when a Republican is involved… in anything.
This domestic argument involved a Mr. Sean Shurelds, a Barack Obama fan, who was stabbed in the abdomen by one Mr. Jose Antonio Ortiz, a Hillary Clinton supporter. These two goofs were brothers-in-law and were fighting in an Upper Providence Township home. Afterwards, Ortiz was charged with felony aggravated assault count and two misdemeanors.
So, what we have here are two guys fighting over who they are going to vote for. But, the interesting thing is how many MSM outlets found it “relevant” to mention that one of them was a Republican. And the other? Well, his party didn’t interest any of these newsers at all amusingly enough.
Channel 3 news gave us what seems a common report on this story…
Authorities said Ortiz, a registered Republican and Clinton supporter, allegedly stabbed Shurelds, an Obama supporter, in the stomach.
Channel 69 News also mentioned that Ortiz was a “registered Republican.” So did ABC Channel 6 news. As did KYW Newsradio 1060 from Philly.
If you’re interested, the smokinggun.com has a copy of the police report but the registration of Ortiz is not mentioned in the account.
So you tell me. WHY was the fact that Ortiz was a “registered Republican” necessary to report? Was it because they could portray a Republican as a knife wielding, nut case? Maybe we should expect to see a mention of party affiliation of carjackers, flim-flam men, and jay walkers if they are Republicans, that is?
A Hillary backer is supposedly a registered Republican, but his Obama supporting brother-in-law is…well, who knows, right? Apparently, all we need to know is that the assailant is a “Republican” (who is voting for Hillary?), which adds exactly what germaine detail to the story?
Nope…no liberal media bias!
I’m assuming this is not a hoax, until I see some evidence to the contrary.
I wish I would have been able to speak to this guy before he leaped to his death. In addition to the usual “You have too much to live for” and “Think of the harm you’ll do to your family and friends” advice, I would have told him that the left gets downright giddy when someone on the right dies. Classy bunch, those leftards.
Anywho, here’s the story if you want to read it. In a nutshell, a right-wing blogger felt that by leaping to his death off of a 150+ ft. tall building, his death would serve as a successful protest to the left who, in his words, “have stabbed the Armed Forces in the back in the early stages of what is shaping up to be The Third World War.” Here’s one line from his suicide note that got on my nerves:
I have no doubt the Leftist Media will spin my death as that of an insane man with few options left in life who killed himself in desperation.
I’m going to come across as an insensitive schmuck (I know, big surprise there) for saying this, but I’m going to say it: that’s not spin, dude…that’s reality.
Look, unlike those on the left who danced a little jig on Reagan’s grave and have already started a Tony Snow deathwatch, I’m not taking any pleasure in this guy’s pain. Not at all. He was clearly mentally ill and would have benefited greatly from therapy and meds. But if he was looking to be a “martyr” for right-wing causes, he failed miserably. I’m sorry, but he ended his life for nothing.
From the AP:
President Bush on Monday lobbied again for an intelligence law allowing government eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails, as the tone of the dispute between the White House and Congress over terrorist surveillance grew increasingly sharp.
“To put it bluntly, if the enemy is calling into America, we really need to know what they’re saying, and we need to know what they’re thinking, and we need to know who they’re talking to,” Bush said at the start of his annual meeting with the nation’s governors at the White House.
“This is a different kind of struggle than we’ve ever faced before. It’s essential that we understand the mentality of these killers,” Bush said.
The law in question targets foreign terrorist threats and allows eavesdropping on communications involving people in the U.S., so long as those people are not the intended focus or target of the surveillance. The latest version of the legislation expired on Feb. 16, and the rules reverted to those outlined in the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Bush and Congress are at odds over whether to give legal immunity to companies that in the past helped the government spy on customers without court warrants…
…Democrats, in an op-ed piece Monday in The Washington Post, accused Bush of resorting to “scare tactics and political games.”
“It is clear that he and his Republican allies, desperate to distract attention from the economy and other policy failures, are trying to use this issue to scare the American people into believing that congressional Democrats have left America vulnerable to terrorist attack,” said the article.
The piece was signed by Democratic Sens. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee; Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Democratic Reps. Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee; and John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
White House press secretary Dana Perino responded to their op-ed with her own statement. Perino said that Bush is not using scare tactics, but rather repeating the concerns of the intelligence community about the risks to the nation. “Unless this threat is taken more seriously in Congress, the ability to obtain the intelligence we need will be at risk, and with it our national security,” Perino said.
Later, speaking to reporters, Perino said the Democrats’ use of the phrase “scare tactics” must “be like one of their favorite words — it must poll very well, because they use it almost every time. What we have done is state facts.”
Well, good grief, Perino! There’s your problem right there: you stated facts. The left has little use for those things. They get in the way of their agenda.
If you have not yet afforded yourself the opportunity, feel free to question the left’s patriotism now.
While some Euros are getting their knickers in a wad, people like me enjoy it when Sarkozy lays the smack down on a Frog heckler. Story:
A video of French President Nicolas Sarkozy telling a bystander to “get lost” has become a hit on the Internet.
Sarkozy was filmed by a journalist from the daily Le Parisien on a walkabout at the annual farm fair in Paris on Saturday.
Sarkozy offered his hand to a man who said: “Don’t touch me, you are soiling me.” In reply, Sarkozy said, without dropping his smile: “Get lost, dumb ass.”
Presidential-like? No. Called for? Absolutely.
It was bound to happen to the environuts out there. But to you Chicken Littles out there, look at the bright side: you still have a catastrophe over which to get worked up. From the National Post:
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its “lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.
The ice is back.
Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.
OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.
But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter’s weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.
And it’s not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona — two prominent climate modellers — the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
“We missed what was right in front of our eyes,” says Prof. Russell. It’s not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind’s effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.
Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as “a drop in the bucket.” Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to “stock up on fur coats.”
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.
It’s way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it’s way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
Countdown to “these scientists are being paid by ‘Big Oil’” conspiracy theories in 3…2…1…
I suppose had she been accused of boinking a lobbyist, they may have cared. OK, let me reprhase that: had she been a Republican and accused of boinking a lobbyist, the NYT may have cared. From The American Thinker:
Since the 2006 Congressional victory by Democrats, The New York Times has ignored a highly questionable situation involving Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi among other leading Democrats, instead focusing on alleged Republican offenses.
On August 2nd, 2007 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) submitted a bill to the U. S. House of Representatives which raised a potential conflict of interest involving the Speaker’s widely publicized family stock holdings, corporate sponsors, and former staffers turned lobbyists. The Speaker submitted the bill called the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA) to the House with bipartisan support. It would allow states to decide whether or not to extend Medicare benefits for HIV treatment to some currently not covered.
Speaker Pelosi submitted ETHA one day after Medicare officials announced new rules to cut back on significant expenditures for the drugs PROCRIT® made by Johnson & Johnson and EPOGEN® made by Amgen. The new Medicare rules were primarily geared to reduce the use of the drugs for cancer patients. Those pharmaceuticals are used to treat anemia often seen as a side effect of HIV medications and for other conditions. Both companies enjoy massive revenues from the sales of those medicines, with Johnson & Johnson reporting $3.2 billion in earnings from PROCRIT® and a similar drug and Amgen showing $6.5 billion for EPOGEN® and a similar drug during 2006.
Last year Amgen started losing stock value as word of the cuts spread. A press release from Amgen at its’ corporate website stated “”Recent changes in coverage rules and adjustments to Amgen’s FDA approved labels for EPOGEN(R) and Aranesp have and will adversely affect Amgen’s revenue.” The company then announced layoffs.
The ETHA bill would increase the number of HIV infected persons able to receive government assistance. A PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis conducted in 2003 estimated that the act would increase eligibility for treatment by 30,000 people. In turn the government purchasing of the anemia medications associated with their treatment will certainly increase, making up some of the difference caused by the planned Medicaid purchasing reductions. In effect, this law could turn things around for Amgen and increase Johnson & Johnson stock values.
Considering that the bill was submitted only one day after the Medicare announcement, some viewed it as a reaction to the new guidelines and an attempt to improve the finances of those two drug makers. Unless Speaker Pelosi has divested herself of certain stocks that she held in 2006 by the time she sponsored ETHA, then she stood to profit from the bill. Inquiries to clarify her holdings have gone without response from her office. In addition she has strong connections to Amgen.
According to the ethics guidelines for the House of Representatives, an elected official must declare perosnal investments and holdings. Those declarations are available online and can be viewed at a website called opensecrets.org. The last declaration on record that covers the calendar year 2006 shows the Speaker owned over $500,000 dollars worth of Johnson & Johnson stock. Such a scenario creates the impression of a conflict of interest.
In addition, her close ties to biotech firm Amgen come into question. Two of her key staffers have left to become lobbyists working for Amgen directly or through lobbying firms. They include George Crawford, described by the San Francisco Chronicle as the Speaker’s former chief of staff and Howard Moon, described in a Washington Post article as a former senior policy adviser who was named the government affairs director for Amgen.
In addition, Amgen has supported her campaigns through PAC money and by sponsoring fund raising events. While she does not appear to own stock in Amgen, the timing of the bill raises questions about just how closely she is tied to the company.
Between 2002 and 2006 Amgen became a superstar stock amid soaring price hikes and massive profits. Nancy Pelosi attempted and failed to pass the Early Treatment of HIV Act during that run-up. In 2006 Amgen sponsored a fund raiser for Pelosi.
The Democrats won Congress in 2006 on a pledge to clean up the “culture of corruption” they ascribed to the majority Republicans. In one example, a Republican congressman in 2004 announced that he was considering taking a position with a pharmaceutical lobbying firm after he had negotiated pharmaceutical legislature. Congresswoman Pelosi charged at the time that the move was an “abuse of power”.
The pharmaceutical industry was expected to be hit hard as Democrats strove to lower prescription drug prices through government negotiations. Pharmaceutical stocks were expected to fall. Speaker Pelosi herself was viewed by many as a threat to ‘big pharma’. One common investment technique for drawing profit from the markets is to buy when prices fall and sell when they go high again. According to the Speaker’s 2006 disclosure she was invested in multiple pharmaceutical and biotech firms that make medications.
This new scandal recalls the early 2007 incident in which the Speaker promoted a minimum wage hike that would include all U.S. areas except American Samoa. Some large companies with canneries in Samoa are headquartered in the Speaker’s district. Amgen is a powerhouse in Northern California, with a significant presence in the Speaker’s district. That fact mirrors the Samoa controversy in which critics accused Pelosi of playing favorites with her district. And in 2007 it was revealed that the Speaker sponsored a massive earmark that would probably affect the value of property in which her husband was invested.
This summer, under extreme pressure from Congress, led by Pelosi, Medicare dropped its’ planned regulation changes. J&J and Amgen stock immediately soared as The New York Times reported:
Medicare has eased up on some of its proposed restrictions on the use of popular anemia drugs made by Amgen and Johnson & Johnson.
The decision, announced late yesterday, could provide some relief for the two companies, which have already experienced steep drops in sales of the drugs. [....]
The federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services had proposed in May to sharply limit coverage for the drugs – Aranesp from Amgen and Procrit from Johnson & Johnson. Some analysts had predicted at that time that use of the drugs could be cut by as much as 50 percent. [....]
But investors reacted favorably, sending shares of Amgen by more than $2 in early after-hours trading, though it then began to drop back. Shares had closed at $56.19, up 57 cents.
Shares of the larger and more diversified Johnson & Johnson rose about 30 cents after hours, having closed at $60.07, up 30 cents.
How very interesting that The New York Times invests the efforts of a cadre of writers to investigate the wisp of a rumor concerning McCain while the Democrat Speaker of the House gets a free ride on such an apparently blatent abuse of power to enrich herself and friends.
And it doesn’t end there. Congress pressured Medicare to backdown from the regulations with votes in the House and the Senate. The Sense of the Senate nonbinding resolution was approved unanimously (with no votes recorded therefore). As a Senator, Hillary Clinton would have also voted on this measure that proved a financial boon for Amgen. Senator Clinton is also tied to Amgen.
Bloomberg recently reported that President Clinton’s former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steve Ricchetti, now a lobbyist, received a $1.7 million payment to his firm from Amgen. He serves as a bundler for Senator Clinton’s campaign. That means she is now receiving financial contributions assembled by a lobbyist at a firm that profited from the success of earning her vote.
One of those contributions was from Howard Moon, a former Pelosi advisor who donated $2,300 to the Clinton campaign a few weeks after Clinton voted to stay the hand of Medicare. In addition, in the days just before and after Pelosi submitted the ETHA bill on Aug. 2nd, 2007 a slew of Amgen executives made almost $30,000 dollars in private donations to the Pelosi campaign.
Barack Obama who claims not to take lobbyist money received over $12,000 in private donations from several Amgen corporate executives (listed as executives, directors, and vice presidents) as revealed by government watch dog group opensecrets.org. The donations listed occured just before the September 4th, 2007 Senate vote on the Sense of the Senate resolution and the day after.
This easily discovered appearance of unethical behavior on the part of Democratic leaders weighs far more heavily than the thin evidence provided against Senator McCain. Maybe the The New York Times has an ethics problem of its’ own.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Pass the popcorn…again. From Politico:
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of “shameful offensive fear-mongering” by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.
Plouffe was reacting to a banner headline on the Drudge Report saying that aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had e-mailed a photo calling attention to the African roots of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
“The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat front-runner dressed as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya,” the Drudge Report said.
The Clinton campaign did not deny the charge, but did not comment further.
My take: Hilldawg is just humiliating herself. This photo will cause no damage to Osamabamadingdong at all. But the blue-on-blue action is nice!
How do you know when you’ve “jumped the shark“? When Seattlestan’s hopelessly leftist fishwrap calls your story “thin beer” and says they wouldn’t have run it at all, and when your own stooge ombudsman says you shouldn’t have run it, then you have officially jumped it. From Seattlestan:
I chose not to run the New York Times story on John McCain in Thursday’s P-I, even though it was available to us on the New York Times News Service. I thought I’d take a shot at explaining why.
To me, the story had serious flaws. It did not convincingly make the case that McCain either had an affair with a lobbyist, or was improperly influenced by her. It used a raft of unnamed sources to assert that members of McCain’s campaign staff — not this campaign but his campaign eight years ago — were concerned about the amount of time McCain was spending with the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. They were worried about the appearance of a close bond between the two of them.
Then it went even further back, re-establishing the difficulties McCain had with his close association to savings-and-loan criminal Charles Keating. It didn’t get back to the thing that (of course) the rest of the media immediately pounced on — McCain, Iseman and the nature of their relationship — until very deep in the story. And when the story did get back there, it didn’t do so with anything approaching convincing material.
A very good editor I happen to work for, P-I Editor and Publisher Roger Oglesby, said today that the story read like a candidate profile to him, not an investigative story, and I think that’s true. A candidate profile based on a lot of old anecdotes…
…Admitting that Keller was in a better position to vet the sourcing and facts than I am as, basically, a reader, let’s assume that every source is solid and every fact attributed in the story to an anonymous source is true. You’re still dealing with a possible appearance of impropriety, eight years ago, that is certainly unproven and probably unprovable.
Where is the solid evidence of this lobbyist improperly influencing (or bedding) McCain? I didn’t see it in the half-dozen times I read the story. In paragraphs fifty-eight through sixty-one of the sixty-five-paragraph story, the Times points out two matters in which McCain took actions favorable to the lobbyist’s clients — that were also clearly consistent with his previously stated positions.
That’s pretty thin beer.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
How does this evil b#stard get away with killing police officers? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm. From Brutally Honest:
brings us the MSM Bias Moment of the Day:
Back on August 27th, Time magazine reported on the death of an officer who had hit an obstruction while escorting President Bush as part of a motorcade. I wrote about their outrageous headline here. The story itself is expired over at Time, but you can still see the headline here. Plus, I screencaped it for posterity. Here it is:
Today, Time reports on the death of an officer in Hillary Clinton’s motorcade. Here’s the headline from that story.
Nice eh… so damned typical.
God rest all cops killed in the line of duty and be with their families. God curse those who’d use their deaths to make political statements.
Nope…no liberal media bias!