Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

WI scoundrel parents let their daughter die instead of seeking medical help

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.

March 27, 2008 Posted by | shameful, wingnuts | 5 Comments

Tax-oppressed Chicagoans creatively avoid bottled water tax

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.

March 27, 2008 Posted by | big government, taxes | Leave a Comment

CBS intentionally skews poll to render pro-Obama outcome

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!

March 27, 2008 Posted by | media bias, Obama, polls | 1 Comment

Obama: McCain, not I, guilty by association

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.

March 27, 2008 Posted by | hypocrisy, McCain, Obama | 2 Comments

Michelle Obama’s anti-Americanism…again

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?

March 27, 2008 Posted by | Obama | 4 Comments

LA Times learned nothing from Rathergate

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!

March 27, 2008 Posted by | Dan Rather, media bias | Leave a Comment

Why he is really called “Baghdad Jim”

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.

March 27, 2008 Posted by | Iraq, moonbats | 1 Comment

The source of Ted Kennedy’s and Michael Moore’s moonbattery discovered

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?

March 27, 2008 Posted by | Kennedrunk, Michael Moore | 3 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers