Article, too, but the headline is outrageous: “Hundreds dying annually in Florida due to lack of health insurance“.
I don’t know how to break it to the mental midgets at the Naples News, but not a single human being has ever died due to a lack of health insurance. People die due to a sickness, injury, trauma, etc. I mean, does anyone die due to lack of car insurance? Hey, I have health insurance…so does that mean I won’t die?
Nope…no liberal media bias!
The “new kind of politician” bears an eery resemblance to the “old kind of politician” to which we’re all accustomed. From Capt. Ed:
Politico has caught Barack Obama in another misstatement about his past, and this one goes right to the heart of his posing as a New Politics candidate. Working on a tip from opposition sources, Kenneth Vogel found a survey with Obama’s handwriting that he had previously denied handling. It shows that Obama himself established much more liberal positions on gun control, abortion, and other issues than he has admitted in his campaign:
During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion– positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign.
The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.
Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.
They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize(d) his position.”
But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago non-profit group that issued it. And it found that Obama – the day after sitting for the interview – filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes adding to one answer.
In 1996, Obama ran as a political unknown, although one with friends in high places — friends like Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Bernadette Dohrn. He wanted the endorsement of Independent Voters of Illinois, a group in which he and his campaign manager had worked in the past. The survey was an important part of IVI’s vetting process, and Obama needed to make sure that it had the answers he needed for the endorsement.
So what were Obama’s positions in 1996, according to the questionnaire that bears his handwriting?
- Opposed to parental notification on abortions. He amended this to say that he might possibly support it for 12- or 13-year-olds, but no older.
- Flatly opposed the death penalty, a position he denied ever having.
- Supported bans on the sale, possession, and manufacture of guns, again a position he denied ever taking.
Those positions won’t even fly with a large number of Democrats, let alone in a general election. The Hillary Clinton campaign has already begun making the argument to superdelegates that Obama holds extremist views so out of touch with the American electorate that he can’t possibly win in November. The questionnaire will bolster that argument, especially on guns, where the Democrats had tried to soften their stance since Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in 2000.
The Obama campaign’s response to Politico has to be read to be believed:
Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved – or even read – the latter questionnaire.
“Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires – a staffer did – and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, in an emailed statement. “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn’t change the fact that some answers didn’t reflect his views. His eleven years in public office do.”
This makes no sense at all. If Obama’s handwriting is on the survey, then he filled it out. If the answers didn’t reflect his views, why didn’t he change them when he “jotted some notes” on it? If the answers were wrong, Obama would have “jotted some notes” to that effect, rather than allow such mistakes to get transmitted to IVI. And the “eleven years in public office” defense might make sense if Obama hadn’t spent much of that time voting “present” instead of taking actual stands.
Once again, we have more evidence that Obama represents nothing more than the political winds. He has zero credibility, zero experience, and a penchant for telling people what they want to hear rather than any truth about what he actually believes. Either he lied to IVI or he’s lying now. In either case, it’s hardly the New Politics Obama has promised.
Just another example of how the extreme leftist Barack Obama is running faster than Michael Moore from a salad bar from his liberal record.
This would explain why he thinks partial birth abortion is A-OK:
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
Exit question: What do you think he finds more objectionable, babies or personal responsibility/accountability?
It seems like it was just this time last year when I posted something on Obama’s shameless lies about (a) the Kennedys bringing his family to America and (b) Selma bringing his parents together (and his resulting Immaculate Conception).
This exposes Obama as a politician who plays fast and loose with his life story to transform himself into whatever his audience wants to see. For those who want to see a post-racial candidate, he downplays race as an issue. When in Chicago, he hangs out with radicals like Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Bernadette Dohrn for authenticity. For Democrats wanting a return to JFK, he ties himself to the Kennedys in a false and strangely sexual manner. And for those who want a candidate with civil-rights movement credentials, he offers the same kind of connection to a famous march that obviously had nothing to do with his birth.
In other words, Barack Obama is a phony. Had the media that covered his speech in Selma in March 2007 thought to do the math, Democrats could have figured this out nine months before the first primary contests. Now they’re stuck with him — unless the superdelegates want to hand the nomination to the Tuzla Dash candidate instead.
It can be argued that it’s the typical liberal media bias to which we’ve grown accustomed, but in this case (since they did report it, albeit a year late), I think it may just be grotesque laziness and incompetence…not that it’s any better.
Exit question: How can Hillary make any hay out of this, considering her recent “misstatements” about Tuzla?
Props go to my hometown boys from Memphis! The Tigers finally figured out how to shoot free throws, and they scorched the Texas Longhorns 85-67 to reach the Final Four for the first time in 23 years!
I’m not piling on Texas, since I actually had them in my brackets winning this game. Texas has an outstanding team, and they’ve no reason to hang their heads. Hats off to the Longhorns for a great tournament appearance.
Pardon the implied vulgarity, but I’m not the originator. Hat tip to V the K at Caption This!
From Pew Research:
From January 2007 — when Bush announced the “surge” — through the end of May 2007, Iraq had been the dominant story, accounting for 20% of all the news coverage measured by PEJ’s News Coverage Index. But from the time of that May funding vote through the war’s fifth anniversary on March 19, 2008, coverage plunged by about 50%. In that period, the media paid more than twice as much attention to the presidential campaign as it did to the war.
All that helps explain another eye-catching statistic. In the first three months of 2008, coverage of the campaign outstripped coverage of the war by a margin of more than 10-to-1 (43% of the newshole compared with 4%). In an environment in which newsroom cutbacks and decreasing resources may make it more difficult for news outlets to stay atop two ongoing mega-stories, the media, for now, have made their priorities clear. …
But there is another key reason why the war has virtually disappeared from the headlines and talk shows these days — and that’s the situation inside Iraq itself. The reduction in violence on the ground that began late last year has coincided with a significant decrease in coverage from the war zone as well.
Through the first half of 2007, about half the stories from Iraq examined in a PEJ study were about the continuing drumbeat of daily violence. From July through October, that number fell to a little more than one-third. In November, stories filed from Iraq began to take greater notice of the surge’s success in reducing violence, even as the volume of coverage tapered off, evidence perhaps of the old adage that no news is good news.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
He loves him some tax money…just don’t call him a liberal for it, though, m’kay? From the LAT blog:
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama went after the “We’re not paying enough taxes to the government” vote today during a television interview in New York.
First, he said the Bush tax cuts ought to die. He likes that top marginal rate of 39%. Although the non-partisan National Journal recently declared him the most liberal of the 100 senators, Obama denied being a “wild-eyed liberal,” which wasn’t what the Journal called him, but it sounds good on TV where everything moves by so quickly.
Maria Bartiromo on CNBC’s “Closing Bell” asked, “Who should pay more and who should pay less?” Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the “wealthy” in his mind are those making more than $75,000.
“I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to….
provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,” he said. “For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.
“Senior citizens who are bringing in less than $50,000 a year in income, I don’t want them to have to pay income tax on their Social Security. And as part of my overall approach to housing, I actually want to provide an additional 10 percent mortgage deduction, a credit, mortgage interest credit, for those who currently don’t itemize.”
“Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown?” Bartiromo asked. “Isn’t that going to put a further strain on people?”
“Well, look,” said Obama, “there’s no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office.”
Obama said, “I’m going to be sworn in in January — we don’t know what the economy’s going to look like at that point.”
He was asked about the liberal tag. “I believe in capitalism and I want to do what works,” the senator replied. ” But what I want to make sure of is it works for all America and not just a small sliver of America.”
“Obama’s completely disingenuous dodge on whether he would raise taxes during a time of economic slowdown is belied by his vote earlier this month,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. “Obama’s claims to the contrary, his votes to raise taxes on people earning as little as $31,850 are straight from the Democrats’ tax-and-spend playbook.”
Well, G-D America! Now I see why he had such a moonbattery-laced tirade from the pulpit. How’s a brother supposed to get by on such a pad? From FNC:
This was supposed to be the week that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. returned to the pulpit to preach for the first time since his anti-American sermons generated nationwide outrage and drew condemnation from his longtime parishioner, Barack Obama.
But, citing security concerns, Wright canceled his speaking engagements in Florida and Texas. A spokeswoman at his former church in Chicago said his schedule is pending.
A two-week FOX News investigation, however, has uncovered where Wright will be spending a good deal of his time in retirement, and it is a far cry from the impoverished Chicago streets where the preacher led his ministry for 36 years.
FOX News has uncovered documents that indicate Wright is about to move to a 10,340-square-foot, four-bedroom home in suburban Chicago, currently under construction in a gated community.
While it is not uncommon for an accomplished clergyman to live in luxury, Wright’s retirement residence is raising some questions.
“Some people think deals like this are hypocritical. Jeremiah Wright himself criticizes people from the pulpit for middle classism, for too much materialism,” said Andrew Walsh, Associate Director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life with Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.
“So he’s entitled to be tweaked here. So the question really is, how unusual is this? Somewhat unusual,” he said.
According to documents obtained from the Cook County Register of Deeds, Wright purchased two empty lots in Tinley Park, Ill., from Chicago restaurant chain owner Kenny Lewis for $345,000 in 2004.
Documents show Wright sold the property to his church, Trinity United, in December 2006, with the proceeds going to a living trust shared with his wife, Ramah.
The sale price for the land was just under $308,000, about $40,000 less than Wright’s original purchase two years earlier.
Public records of the sale show Trinity initially obtained a $10 million bank loan to purchase the property and build a new house on the land.
But further investigation with tax and real estate attorneys showed that the church had actually secured a $1.6 million mortgage for the home purchase, and attached a $10 million line of credit, for reasons unspecified in the paperwork. …
Only in AmeriKKKa, right? God tells us the meek shall inherit the Earth, while Rev. Nutbar will be inheriting a big ol’ house instead.
Why? Because they thought prayer would work better than modern medicine. From FNC:
The aunt of a sick Wisconsin girl whose parents trusted in faith rather than medicine pleaded for authorities’ help in a 911 call obtained by the Wausau Daily Herald.
The girl, 11-year-old Madeline Neumann, died Sunday from a treatable form of diabetes.
Emergency personnel responded to Neumann’s home Sunday after receiving a 911 call from Neumann’s aunt, Ariel Gomez. In the call, Gomez pleaded for help because Neumann’s mother “believes in faith instead of doctors,” the Wausau Daily Herald reports.
“My sister in law is, her daughter’s severely, severely sick and she believes her daughter is in a coma. And, she’s very religious so she’s refusing to take (Neumann) to the hospital, so I was hoping maybe somebody could go over there,” Gomez said.
Let’s get something perfectly straight here: any parent that neglects seeking medical care for their child who is in dire need of it should be jailed and, if their child is fortunate enough to live, have their parental rights terminated. I, more than anyone, believe that a parent should be able to raise their kids in a manner they see fit…so long as the child’s life or well-being isn’t jeopardized!
God gave us doctors for a reason, people. It’s not a sin to use them.
From the Windy City:
Are Chicagoans trekking to the suburbs to buy cases of bottled water — and avoid a new nickel-a-container tax that adds $1.20 to the price of a 24-pack? Or are they making the switch to tap water to save money?
One or the other is happening. Maybe both.
Revenues from Chicago’s new bottled water tax are trickling in — at a rate nearly 40 percent below projections — exacerbating a budget crunch that has already prompted Mayor Daley to order $20 million in spending cuts.
January collections were $554,000. That’s far short of the $875,000-a-month needed to meet the city’s $10.5 million-a-year projection.
Wendy Abrams, a spokeswoman for the city’s Budget and Management Office, said it’s too early to sound the alarm.
“Since January is generally one of the coldest months of the winter, we don’t think January collections are a strong indicator of potential revenue for the remainder of the year,” she said.
David Vite, president of the Illinois Retail Merchant’s Association, acknowledged that bottled water consumption rises with the temperature.
But that doesn’t explain away what Vite calls “enormous increases” in suburban bottled water sales, particularly in stores near the Chicago border.
Check that out again: “Since January is generally one of the coldest months of the winter, we don’t think January collections are a strong indicator of potential revenue for the remainder of the year”…which completely ignores the fact that the Chicago suburbs (not subjected to the tax) had an explosion of bottled water sales. So put that in your Evian bottle, you bureaucratic boobs! Your constituents aren’t as stupid as you thought they were.
From Matt Towery:
Last week I wrote that it would be hard to determine the political impact of either Barack Obama’s pastor’s comments, or Obama’s subsequent speech about those various comments. I also wrote that our own polling firm would attempt to measure exactly that.
(For the record, our polls have correctly polled the winner in every presidential primary race we’ve surveyed this year, except the Tennessee Republican primary.)
In our survey of the Wright / Obama situation, we merely asked if respondents were aware of the pastor’s “past comments,” and of “Sen. Obama’s speech about the remarks made by his pastor.” We did not ask respondents if they heard Obama’s speech, or knew the (racial) nature of the pastor’s comments over the years.
The results indicated not only that a significant percentage of white voters, and independent voters of all ethnicities, were now “overall” less likely to vote for Obama for president, but also that a plurality of African-Americans felt the same way.
Admittedly, our survey was only a snapshot of public opinion. And its results likely were based on vague notions by respondents of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments and of Obama’s speech. I would never claim the poll as definitive, or as an indication of what influence the whole affair may eventually have on the presidential race.
Then I came across what in my view is the single most biased and dishonest public opinion survey I’ve ever seen.
CBS News released a poll that read, “Most voters following the events regarding Senator (STET) Barack Obama and Rev. (STET) Jeremiah Wright think Obama’s speech was a success.”
This lead sentence in the press release appeared in media outlets all over the world. It gave the impression that Obama’s speech on Wright had ended any dispute or controversy about Obama being associated with Wright and his many inflammatory comments.
Maybe over time that will prove true. And Obama’s speech was an impressive one, no doubt.
But that’s not the point. Most Americans didn’t hear the speech. Most have only heard bits and pieces about this whole business about Obama and his pastor of many years.
So, rather than survey registered voters in the customary way — by randomly finding voters around the nation and asking them their impressions of the issue — CBS instead adopted the most curious polling methodology I’ve ever some across. It was probably the only methodology possible on this subject that could reach what was apparently the network’s desired outcome.
CBS didn’t randomly phone registered voters. They didn’t weight the poll for age, race, gender and political affiliation. Instead, they chose to poll a group of people prior to Obama’s speech about Wright. The poll asked respondents their opinions about Wright and his views.
Then CBS later re-polled the exact same group to gauge their reactions to Obama’s speech. Based on those two separate pollings, the network extrapolated the result that “Sixty-nine percent of voters who have heard or read about Obama’s speech think he did a good job addressing the issue of race relations.”
Unbelievable! Had my firm employed these types of polling tactics, pundits and alleged “polling experts” would have torn us to pieces.
To fully understand how CBS’s methodology here was biased and flawed, let’s use common sense.
First, you get a call from CBS pollsters, prior to the Obama speech, asking you what you think about Wright and those of his past views that have made for controversy in the news lately. You answer the survey.
Now you are keenly aware of the issue, because you have just been polled about it, probably in some detail.
Would it not follow that you are more likely now to pay close attention to the issue? To view the speech, or read it word for word? Of course.
Can we really believe that the people at CBS, who are obviously bright, didn’t understand the likely impact that the results of their first poll would have on the second poll of the exact same people? That’s not a random poll. It’s a giant focus group.
For CBS to represent that calling the same group twice on the same issue is a reflection of American public sentiment is a farce. This so-called poll was the very sort of fast and loose twist on legitimate polling and journalism that has so many Americans mistrustful of national media. This was nothing less than a case of network-distributed damage control on behalf of Barack Obama. It’s that simple.
As for our poll of the same situation: At least I was fair enough to admit that I can’t yet say that Obama’s speech has severely damaged his ultimate chances of becoming president. That, even though our survey showed many respondents indicating they were less likely to vote for Obama after the Wright comments and the Obama speech. And I don’t have to survey the same people I surveyed last week to prove my own theory.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Good enough for me, but not for thee…eh, Barry O? From the Weekly Standard:
Marc Ambinder wrote today of Obama’s troubles with McPeak and Rev. Wright:
The problem with guilt by association arguments is that they tend to render insignificant the degree or quality of the association that allegedly tarnishes one participant.
Fair enough. But there comes a point when one looks at the people Obama has surrounded himself with and begins to wonder. On Israel, Obama has no real track record, so voters can judge him only by his words and the words of those who advise him. Will Gen. McPeak, whose “odious” statements on Israel have drawn condemnation from supporters and foes alike, have Obama’s ear on such issues? We don’t really know. But if their association is insignificant in degree and quality, why doesn’t Obama toss him overboard?
Obama also refuses to disown Rev. Wright, whose anti-Semitism is overt and unabashed. That Obama would show such loyalty to a character as poisonous as Wright is considered a sign of character by some, but it is another reason for supporters of Israel, of whom Jews make up only a small portion, to doubt Obama’s commitment to the security of that close American ally.
Which brings me back to a quote that has gotten surprisingly little mileage in the last few days. Last month, long before the chickens came home to roost, Obama attacked McCain:
“I am looking forward to a debate with John McCain. John McCain is a good man. He’s an American hero. We honor his service to this nation. But he has made some bad choices about the company he keeps.”
If this is how we are to judge a candidate, then Obama still has a lot of explaining to do.
Got that? Barry O keeps the company of an anti-Semitic, anti-American, bigoted, barking moonbat “minister” (and I use that word loosely) and an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist military adviser, while McCain keeps the company of Nancy Reagan. I’ll let those facts speak for themselves.
I know that liberal commenter jen (little “j”, one “n”) thinks that Shelly O didn’t really mean “for the first time in my adult life, I’m really proud of my country” when she said it. Or how life sucks in America now more so than the Jim Crow days. However, considering Shelly’s history of anti-American sentiment (which I’m sure had no influence whatsoever from her church, presided over by Rev. Moonbat), I think she’s having a hard time keeping her low image of America to herself. From Capt. Ed:
Jim Hoft links to this speech from January of this year by Michelle Obama to students at the University of South Carolina, presumably just before their primary. It shows how Mrs. Obama can utter some truth but put it in such a tone-deaf manner that she obscures the truth with hostility and sneering condescension. In this case, she starts by challenging students to actually embrace diversity by having the courage to reach beyond their social comfort zones, and winds up calling America ignorant:
We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables- you all living in different dorms. I was there. You’re not talking to each other, taking advantage that you’re in this diverse community. Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That’s America. So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?
Anyone who spent time at a college or even a high school with a diverse population knows that the first part of her statement is absolutely true. I discovered this for myself in college, ironically when I took an African-American Studies class at Fullerton State. We had a debate over diversity in public schools, and I said that my high school was a good example of how diversity could work — and I got challenged by a student who had gone to my school whom I had barely known. Despite the diversity, the populations didn’t interact much socially at either level of school.
However, the second part of the statement doesn’t follow from the first. America is not about being “justified in our own ignorance”, no matter how Mrs. Obama feels about campus life. America has been about fixing its flaws, sometimes haltingly and imperfectly, but always working towards that end. If she feels otherwise, then how can we explain the efforts made by many people of all backgrounds to end racism and protect civil rights? If anything, America is about hope, not ignorance. Her husband didn’t invent hope and change.
Besides, after the exposure of Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a racial demagogue, the Obamas are the last people to talk about reaching beyond their comfort zone. They financially support a church that excoriates black conservatives such as Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice by using playground-level names such as “Clarence Colon” and “Condoskeeza”. The Obamas supported Wright as he called the nation the “US of KKK-A”, not exactly a formula for outreach and understanding. The Trinity United Church can hardly be considered an inclusive environment, given the nature of its pastor’s tirades.
The Obamas want to be seen as agents of hope. Calling America ignorant and framing the situation so that Obama’s election will be the only cure doesn’t sound very hopeful to me. Perhaps this is why we’ve seen so little of Michelle Obama on the campaign trail of late.
But hey…don’t question her “patriotism”, right?
While this isn’t exactly a story about media bias, it’s certainly an example of how the MSM’s institutional sloppiness and lust for titillation (uh-huh-huh…I said “tit”illation!) keeps a spotlight of shame on a once-vaunted industry. From National Review:
The LA Times has started an internal investigation to determine the validity of documents at the core of a recent story linking Sean Combs to the murder of Tupac Shakur:
Los Angeles Times Editor Russ Stanton said today he will launch an internal investigation into the authenticity of documents used in a story last week asserting that the newspaper had uncovered new evidence implicating associates of rap impresario Sean “Diddy” Combs in a bloody 1994 assault on hip-hop superstar Tupac Shakur.
Stanton ordered the review after the editor of the celebrity-centric website, The Smoking Gun, told the newspaper that he had reason to doubt The Times’ account and in particular the FBI records that were supposed to buttress the story.
The website this morning posted a story saying the records — purportedly statements by an unnamed informant to an FBI agent, which the newspaper posted on its website — appeared to be forgeries. The Smoking Gun (www.thesmokinggun.com) said the documents seemed suspicious for multiple reasons, including the fact that they appeared to be written on a typewriter, rather than a computer, and included blacked-out sections not typically found in such documents.
Although The Times has not identified the source of the purported FBI reports, The Smoking Gun story asserts that they were created by convicted con man James Sabatino, who the website contends was a starry-eyed music fan with a long rap sheet and a history of exaggerating his place in the rap music world.
“The Times appears to have been hoaxed by an imprisoned con man and accomplished document forger, an audacious swindler who has created a fantasy world in which he managed hip-hop luminaries,” the report on the website says.
The rest here.
Boy, it’s a good thing the MSM has all of those layers of fact-checking that us bloggers don’t have, right? Look on the bright side, LAT: you could always argue “fake, but accurate” like Gunga Dan!
When he wasn’t busy being found guilty of breaking federal wiretap laws, “Baghdad Jim” McDermott (D-Seattlestan) helped pass the time having his junkets financed by former Iraqi dictator (and now worm food) Saddam Hussein. From Yahoo News:
Federal prosecutors say Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion.
An indictment in Detroit accuses Muthanna Al-Hanooti of arranging for three members of Congress to travel to Iraq in October 2002 at the behest of Saddam’s regime. Prosecutors say Iraqi intelligence officials paid for the trip through an intermediary. …
The lawmakers are not mentioned but the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. There was no indication the three lawmakers knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam.
Kudos to the AP for not playing their usual game of “Guess That Party”, right?
All three were against the Iraq war from right around that time. While I doubt they knowingly shilled for Hussein, at the very least they allowed themselves to be played as propaganda pawns in Saddam’s PR game. However, Baghdad Jim says he and his leftist cohorts “didn’t mind being used” as a propaganda tool for Hussein.
Is there anything that the medical community can’t discover? From the Hartford Courant:
Having a large gut in midlife increases the chance of dementia in old age, according to new research published Wednesday that suggests that abdominal fat is a bigger risk factor than family history.
Apparently, having a spare tire also increases the risk of commiting vehicular manslaughter while DUI, as well as pumping out lie-based mockumentaries. Who knew?
Can you say “carnage”, boys and girls? I knew that you could! From Gallup:
A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.
Between 1/5 to 1/3 of Dems would jump ship if their horse lost the race for the nomination! This prolonged, steaming hot blue-on-blue action has me hornier than Scott Ritter at a middle school cheerleader competition!
I guess that ol’ “science is settled” thingy doesn’t hold much water, now does it? From the NYT:
In the scientific equivalent of the board game Clue, teams of biologists have been sifting spotty evidence and pointing to various culprits in the widespread vanishing of harlequin frogs.
The amphibians, of the genus Atelopus — actually toads despite their common name — once hopped in great numbers along stream banks on misty slopes from the Andes to Costa Rica. After 20 years of die-offs, they are listed as critically endangered by conservation groups and are mainly seen in zoos.
It looked as if one research team was a winner in 2006 when global warming was identified as the “trigger” in the extinctions by the authors of a much-cited paper in Nature. The researchers said they had found a clear link between unusually warm years and the vanishing of mountainside frog populations.
The “bullet,” the researchers said, appeared to be a chytrid fungus that has attacked amphibian populations in many parts of the world but thrives best in particular climate conditions.
The authors, led by J. Alan Pounds of the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve in Costa Rica, said, “Here we show that a recent mass extinction associated with pathogen outbreaks is tied to global warming.” The study was featured in reports last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Other researchers have been questioning that connection. Last year, two short responses in Nature questioned facets of the 2006 paper. In the journal, Dr. Pounds and his team said the new analyses in fact backed their view that “global warming contributes to the present amphibian crisis,” but avoided language saying it was “a key factor,” as they wrote in 2006.
Now, in the March 25 issue of PLoS Biology, another team argues that the die-offs of harlequins and some other amphibians reflect the spread and repeated introductions of the chytrid fungus. They question the analysis linking the disappearances to climate change. In interviews and e-mail exchanges, Dr. Pounds and the lead author of the new paper, Karen R. Lips of Southern Illinois University, disputed each other’s analysis. Experts who have researched the amphibian said neither group had enough evidence to nail down its case and warned that this normal tussle over scientific details should not distract from the reality that humans are clearly roiling biology in ways important and yet poorly understood. (WTF? A fungal spread is caused by “humans roiling biology”? Maybe the same humans who made “ethnic bombs” also made “fungus-based frog-specific” bombs? - Ed.)
“There is so much we still do not know!” David B. Wake, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in an e-mail note after reading the new paper. The origin of the fungus and the way it kills amphibians remain unknown, he said, and there are ample mysteries about why it breaks out in certain places and times and not others.
Dr. Pounds and Dr. Lips have both done important work, Dr. Wake said, adding, “I hope this does not turn into a ‘spitting contest,’ because we all have a lot to learn about amphibian declines.”
Ross A. Alford, a tropical biologist at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia, said such scientific tussles, while important, could be a distraction, particularly when considering the uncertain risks attending global warming.
“Arguing about whether we can or cannot already see the effects,” he said, “is like sitting in a house soaked in gasoline, having just dropped a lit match, and arguing about whether we can actually see the flames yet, while waiting to see if maybe it might go out on its own.”
Let that sink in for a second. “OK, the science may be screwed up, but for the love of Gaia, do NOT let a ‘normal tussle over trivial things like scientific detail’ distract you form our talking points! Man is cooking Mother Gaia to a golden brown, and if you pay attention to science, then you just may miss that!”
Lemme guess: Barry O can no more disown this man than he could disown his own family! From Capt. Ed:
The interview of Tony McPeak in the Oregonian has turned into a bigger headache for Barack Obama than first thought. Obama’s chief military adviser told the newspaper in a 2003 interview that the US should keep troops in Iraq for “a century … if we do [the war] right,” echoing exactly the same sentiments that Obama has ridiculed as “a hundred years of war” when John McCain made them. Now Obama has to explain why the former Air Force Chief of Staff blames the Jews for the Iraq war:
In an interview with The Oregonion about five years ago, McPeak argued that the influence exerted by American Jews is responsible for the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. According to the general the problem was New York and Miami.
“We have a large vote here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it,” he said.In the same interview, McPeak spoke of his personal experience with Israel.
“I’ve spent a lot of time in Israel, worked at one time very closely with the Israeli Air Force as a junior officer,” he said, “but that’s maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population.”
McPeak also charged that Jews and Christian Zionists manipulated American foreign policy in Iraq. “Let’s say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq,” he said.
McPeak’s formulation uses a little more subtlety than most of the Jewish-cabal conspiracy theorists, but the thrust is the same. Jews and “Christian Zionists” operate from a concern for the interests of Israel over America. It’s not that protecting the region’s only democracy and our strongest ally somehow doesn’t fall within our own interests, but that this group of Americans act against our national interests to manipulate American policy at the expense of our country.
Basically, Jews and Christian Zionists are traitors, according to McPeak.
How can Obama explain this away? Will this be yet another “crazy uncle” whose views on Israel Obama will disavow while not repudiating McPeak? The last one, Jeremiah Wright, included anti-Israel rants in newsletter from the church that Obama has attended for 20 years and to which Obama has contributed tens of thousands of dollars. The animus towards Israel among Obama advisers has begun to form a distinct pattern, one that shrugs and wan, partial denials cannot hide.
And it’s not just the animus towards Israel that Obama has to explain, either. Why does Obama associate with people who indulge in conspiracy theories to explain reality? Wright believes that the government created HIV to commit a genocide; his replacement believes that the CIA created crack cocaine to destroy African-American communities; and now his military adviser believes that Jews and Christian Zionists conspire to undermine America. Is this the kind of Cabinet we can expect to see in an Obama presidency?
McPeak echos McCain’s sentiments about being in Iraq for a century, then he blames the Jews for forcing us into Iraq. I’d say he’s not doing Osamabama any favors by opening his piehole.
Yeah, that kind of dental work done by the Viet Cong torturers at the Hanoi Hilton tends to be a little on the shabby side. They’re kinda funny that way. Anywho, you know my policy of not linking to moonbat blogs, but if you want to read the whole thing for yourself, it’s at Minnesota Monitor. Excerpt:
If bloggers are saying one thing about John McCain this week it’s that the 71-year-old has some serious grit. Of course, that grit comes in the form of McCain Mouth, a deformity that apparently causes teeth to look like a mess of yellowed and contorted Chiclets. Today, BuzzFeed.com has picked up on the mouth meme, turning McCain’s piano-key chompers into an official phenomenon.
The consensus? “They’re old.” And, “He looks like Reverend Kane from Poltergeist II.” And, “Dude has had a ton of plastic surgery, can’t he afford a dentist?” While looks are an easy and lame target, it’s at least refreshing to see McCain’s teeth get a razzing (though, unfortunately, not a cleaning). It gets a little tiring listening to the same sexist cries that Hillary Clinton is just too ugly to be president. Hatin’ on the looks of all the candidates? Now that’s equality!
Stay classy, @ssh0les.
Someone must have taken a clue bat to the gourds in the comPost journalism room. I mean, it’s only been two months since National Journal proved that he was the #1 most liberal Senator serving today. The comPost is always on the cutting edge of news and events, aren’t they? Check it out:
Sen. Barack Obama offers himself as a post-partisan uniter who will solve the country’s problems by reaching across the aisle and beyond the framework of liberal and conservative labels he rejects as useless and outdated. (No, Barry O, your Marxist views are useless and outdated, not to mention demonstrably failed! – Ed.)
But as Obama heads into the final presidential primaries, Sen. John McCain and other Republicans have already started to brand him a standard-order left-winger, “a down-the-line liberal,” as McCain strategist Charles R. Black Jr. put it, in a long line of Democratic White House hopefuls.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign has also started slapping the L-word on Obama (pots and kettles are coming to mind, for some strange reason. – Ed.), warning that his appeal among moderate voters will diminish as they become more aware of liberal positions he took in the past, such as calling for single-payer health care and an end to the U.S. embargo against Cuba. “The evidence is that the more [voters] have been learning about him, the more his coalition has been shrinking,” Clinton strategist Mark Penn said.
The double-barreled attack has presented Democratic voters with some persistent questions about Obama: Just how liberal is he? And even if he truly is a new kind of candidate, can he avoid being pigeonholed with an old label under sustained assault?
That said, Wehner added, Obama is vulnerable because he can point to no major area where he has broken with liberal orthodoxy, as Bill Clinton did with welfare reform in his 1992 campaign.
Obama indicated early last year that he might push merit pay for teachers, which is unpopular with teachers unions, but he makes little mention of that now. The one point in his stump speech where he presents himself as speaking hard truths is in telling automobile executives that they must improve fuel efficiency — already a popular idea with Democrats. …
Way to show your fierce “independence” there, Barry O! You man of courage, you! Anywho, what would a comPost “article” be without a bit of historical revisionism?
Among those watching the criticism take shape is Dukakis, whose campaign ran aground 20 years ago after Republicans were able to paint the former Massachusetts governor, a relatively moderate technocrat, as a weak-willed lefty. He is confident that Obama can avoid the tag, but only if he is prepared to fight back more than Dukakis did.
If Dukakis is “relatively moderate”, then Ted Kennedy is sober and monogamous (Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment). But nope…no liberal media bias!
I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.
He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.
“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
This is no surprise. In 2000, Gore won about 500k more popular votes than did Bush. The left screamed about what a travesty that was, that the Electoral College was antiquated, and that the popular vote loser should never be president. In 2004, Bush won about 3.1 million popular votes more than did Kerry. The left screamed that Kerry should mine for votes in OH like Gore tried in FL, so he could eke out an electoral vote majority despite having lost the popular vote, and that the Electoral College could be used to defeat Bush if Kerry could steal OH.
In other words, the Electoral College sucks when it doesn’t work for you, but it rules when it does work for you. Got it?
Criminal aliens at it again! But hey, they’re just otherwise law-abiding criminals workers looking for a better life! From central FL:
A Lake County Sheriff’s Deputy is recovering after being ambushed while making an arrest.
Investigators say Lake County Deputy Cliff McMikeenamy responded to a noise complaint near Long Acres Road in Sorento Sunday evening. While on scene, the deputy said an unknown suspect threw a beer bottle at his patrol car. McMikeenamy chased the suspect down and attempted to subdue him with a taser gun but before the deputy could secure the man, about a dozen other men attacked the deputy. “As he was securing the subject with his handcuffs, several other people here at the residence began attacking him. They struck him repeatedly, began kicking him, and his injuries lead us to believe that one subject even struck him over the head with a beer bottle,” said Sergeant John Herrell from the Lake County Sheriff’s Office.
Deputy McMikeenamy was transported to a Florida Hospital Waterman in Eustis and treated for cuts and bruises.
At least two men were taken into custody. Authorities say the two who were apprehended have been identified as illegal immigrants.
They saved the best for last, didn’t they?
Hey, I’ve got an idea! Maybe Juan McLame could pay them $50/hr to pick lettuce in AZ, so they’ll get the hell out of my state!
Police: “Hey, can we come in and take your guns and drugs? We won’t arrest you. Scout’s honor!” I’m sure that’s about as effective as a fart in a tornado. Considering that the district is about to have their gun ban overturned by the Supreme Court, it seems clear that DC is hoping to clear out as many soon-to-be-lawful guns as possible, out of blind fear that the residents may actually exercise their Second Amendment rights. Anywho, from DC:
D.C. police are going door-to-door Monday in one of the city’s crime-plagued neighborhoods, asking residents for permission to search their homes for guns and other illegal contraband.
The program, called the Safe Homes Initiative, will offer homeowners and renters limited amnesty for possessing any contraband found by police.
The program is aimed at removing guns and drugs kept by children and young adults in their parents’ homes. The homeowners will be asked to sign a form, consenting to the search…
Ward 8 Councilman Marion Barry supports the initiative’s aims, but has some problems with it.
“I don’t understand it. In fact we will fight against it until we find out what will be the end point,” says Barry. “That’s a parental responsibility. Not the government’s responsibility to know what kids are doing, when they come home, who their friends are and what they have in the house.”
It’s a sad state of affairs when you have a convicted crackhead making the most sense in this situation.
Who knew that the laws of physics operated differently around those with different skin pigmentation? But hey, don’t try and tie such moonbattery to Obama, m’kay? From Gateway Pundit:
More Dirt on a Dirty Church–
Obama’s Church published anti-Semitic articles claiming Jews were working on “ethnic bombs.”
Sweetness and Light and American Thinker discovered this “Open Letter to Oprah” today from Obama’s church newsletter the Trinity United Church of Christ. The letter describes how Israel was working on an ethnic bomb that would kill Arabs and Blacks:
[ pictures of the newsletter here ]
Carl from Jerusalem reported this ethnic bomb:
Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.
Arabs have always supported the dismantling of this racist government. In 1962, African-Arab Sudan granted Mandela a passport to travel with to gain international support in his struggle to free his people. Libya, among other Arab states, provided Mandela and other African liberation movements, political as well as material support. As a result, Libya was designated by the White House as a terrorist rogue state. What a great honor!
That’s going to be hard to explain.
Obama was not only listening to a nutty racist anti-American preacher but he was reading anti-Semitic literature from the church bulletin.
It looks like its time for Bambi to start working on another race speech.
Maybe he can blame white America for this, too.
I’m sure Barry O didn’t know anything about this, just like he didn’t know his pastor was a barking bigoted moonbat (before he confessed that he did know), right?
This is yet another reason why I slam government schools: more often than not, they’re political tools for the left. From Minnesota:
A national tour featuring decorated veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan won’t be stopping at Forest Lake Area High School today as planned, after school leaders abruptly canceled the visit.
Steve Massey, the school principal, said the decision to cancel was prompted by concerns that the event was becoming political rather than educational and therefore was not suitable for a public school.
“I think it’s extremely unfortunate that a school would bow to the political pressure of outside groups and not bring in a veterans organization,” Hegseth said. “Are we saying that patriotism and duty and honor have no place in our public schools?” So far, the tour has visited one school, albeit a private school. …
Nice job, MN! Now go ahead and complete the circle of moonbattery by electing Stuart Smalley to be your Senator this November.
By the way, if you have not yet done so, feel free to go ahead and question the left’s patriotism.
If, by “misstate”, you mean “lying through my teeth”, then yeah…”misstate”! From Politico:
Her campaign spokesman conceded the point this morning, and she met later in the day with the Philadelphia Daily News and Inquirer, where she was grilled by columnist Will Bunch:
Earlier this afternoon, Sen. Hillary Clinton came to the Daily News and Inquirer building here in Philadelphia — where she’s seeklng the Daily News editorial board endorsement — and I had a chance to ask her about a controversy that’s increasingly dogged her campaign the last few days: Whether she misrepresented the danger of her March 1996 trip to a U.S. military base in Bosnia in an effort to boost her foreign policy credentials.
Clinton acknowleged today for the first time that it was a “misstatement” when she said in a major prepared foreign policy speech last week that “I remember landing under sniper fire” but also tried to brush off the entire issue as “a minor blip.” She also gave a revised account of her airplane landing and her tarmac greeting at the Tuzla Air Force base 12 years ago — seeking to explain a picture re-published this weekend in the Washington Post showing her and daughter Chelsea calmly greeting an 8-year-old girl.
In her speech last week at George Washington University, Clinton maintained “[t]here was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base. Today, she told our group at the Daily News that she was informed that we “had to meet this 8-year-old girl,” so “I took her stuff and left.”
No, I’m not surprised that Her Highness lied. She’s a Clinton, after all. But she’s actually getting called out for it for once? Better late than never, I suppose.
Dems hammer John McCain for comments he made about how we could possibly be in the Middle East in general (Iraq in particular) for 100 years. Granted, I doubt he meant that we’d be there for 100 years at our current military capacity, but considering we still have a military presence in Korea, Japan, and Germany over half a century later, it’s not far-fetched.
Anywho, while the Dems get themselves worked into a froth over Juan McLame’s assertion, I wonder if they can take time out of their busy schedules being shameless hypocrites and liars to similarly hammer Obama’s military adviser who says the same damned thing as McCain! Somehow, I seriously doubt it.
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett