Hot Air reports that David Letterman is once agin offering an apology for his tasteless and disgusting remarks about Sarah Palin and her fourteen year old daughter Willow. Allahpundit asks:
Does this mean the “Fire Letterman” protest tomorrow is canceled? Aw. While you ponder, here’s a related clip from today’s Cavuto reminding us once again that Fred Thompson is the luckiest man in the world. Exit question: What really motivated Letterman to do this? Sincere remorse? A cynical play for more ratings? Or the simple fact that he was starting to lose sponsors over it?
If I were to guess I would choose B and C. I doubt that remorse plays a major factor in Letterman’s life; he simply doesn’t strike me as being that self aware. On the other hand, as a rapidly aging ‘comedian’ I am sure he is very aware of his downward drift in the ratings and I would bet his bosses care about the loss of sponsorship. I’m just not buying his “aw shucks, I didn’t mean anything by it” routine. Letterman thought he was being funny and that’s just sad.
The transcript of apology is back at the Hot Air link, but first enjoy the video.
UPDATE: I have it on good authority, Robert Stacy McCain no less, that David Letterman has done pissed off the wrong lesbian. Cynthia Yockey has Letterman in her sights and she’s not quitting till the job is done. Good for you, Cynthia! I just read the post and you can bet I’m going to do my best to stay on Cynthia’s good side.
Monday, June 15, 2009
DeMint To Endorse Rubio (Updated)
Via Memeorandum
It is being reported at Politico that Sen. Jim DeMint is poised to endorse Marco Rubio in the Florida Republican senate primary race:
But the fight over the Florida Senate race is a proxy battle over the future direction of the Republican Party. The battle pits conservatives pushing candidates who adhere strictly to conservative values even if they face a bigger risk of ultimately losing against more moderate candidates who may stray from the party’s bedrock principles but give the GOP better hope in the general election.DeMint, leader of the Senate’s conservative Steering Committee, has long advocated pushing more conservative candidates, establishing a political action committee designed to do just that. This cycle he’s backed former GOP Rep. Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who is seeking a second term in November 2010.
DeMint’s backing is in direct contradiction to the NRSC which has drawn criticism for their backing of Gov. Charlie Crist, who has angered many in Florida by breaking a campaign pledge not to raise taxes. Crist embraced stimulus money as a means to close gaps in the Florida budget rather than making cuts which have done more in the long term to ensure the state’s financial health. Many conservatives fear that if elected to the Senate, Crist will follow in the foot steps of Senators Collins and Snow, who along with formerly Republican Sen. Specter voted more with the Democrats than with their own party.
Rubio, the former Speaker of the Florida House, as a solid record of supporting conservative positions. Further, at the age of 38 and Hispanic, many feel that Rubio brings badly needed vitality to the party in sharp contrast to the perception that the GOP has become the party of “old, white men”.
As a Floridian, I welcome DeMint’s endorsement and look forward to more prominent conservatives taking a stand for Marco Rubio.
UPDATE:
The Daily Kos weighed in Florida race between Marco Rubio and Crist with a picture and a few snide remarks:
The Club for Growth will undoubtedly throw its considerable fundraising heft behind Rubio, and the conservative grassroots and teabagging crowd already see Rubio as one of their own. Crist, for his part, is a constant target of Florida (and even national) wingnut radio. True blood conservatives either hate him already, or WILL hate him before long.
That leaves Crist with ill-respected national GOP leaders as his "base", and they can be used as a foil to further attack him as a creature of DC entrenched interests. Really, that's not a good place to be in this political environment. More and more conservative politicians looking to curry favor with their shrinking but influential base will cast their lot with Rubio. Don't be surprised if some 2012 presidential hopefulls also roll the dice on Rubio. It would provide instant Conservative cred. I'd certainly do it if I was Palin, Sanford, Gingrich, or Romney.
Well Kos, Marco already has “Consevative cred” but if of the above named would like throw in an endorsement I and my fellow ‘wing nuts’ would be happy to have it.
UPDATE II: Speaking of The Club For Growth, Charlie Crist was defeated as the Comrade of the Month by Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts. Sorry Charlie, maybe next month.
Obama's Silence Says It All
Via Memeorandum
As hundreds of thousands of Iranians take to the streets to protest the sham election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the president of the world’s super-power remains silent. It is hard to imagine that Pres. Obama could act in a more shameful way.
Writing at Hot Air, Allahpundit links these pictures, as well as reaction to Obama’s lack of reaction from The Telegraph:
The Obama administration's response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fraudulent election victory is cowardly, lily-livered and wrong. The White House's refusal to officially question the result or even condemn the brutal suppression of opposition protestors, is undermining America's standing as a global power, and is little more than a face-saving, cynical exercise in appeasement that will all end in tears.
Gateway Pundit has a detailed report on the protests along with a video and some truly breathtaking pictures of the crowds.
Prof. William A. Jacobson writes:
As hundreds of thousands of Iranians protest fraudulent elections, and demand reform, Obama and his administration have been eerily silent. Even as protesters have sought a sign of support from the United States, the administration creates the appearance of leaving the protesters to the devices of the brutal Iranian regime. While it is a fair point that Obama should not be seen to meddle, a few words of support could make all the world of difference.
As it turns out, everyone has something to except the one person who’s words would be most welcome to the protesters risking their lives on the streets on Iran. Obama’s lack of response implies a lack of commitment to freedom. Repeatedly during the campaign candidate Obama promised to restore the United State’s image in the world. President Obama is tarnishing our image and leading us to disrepute.
As hundreds of thousands of Iranians take to the streets to protest the sham election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the president of the world’s super-power remains silent. It is hard to imagine that Pres. Obama could act in a more shameful way.
Writing at Hot Air, Allahpundit links these pictures, as well as reaction to Obama’s lack of reaction from The Telegraph:
The Obama administration's response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fraudulent election victory is cowardly, lily-livered and wrong. The White House's refusal to officially question the result or even condemn the brutal suppression of opposition protestors, is undermining America's standing as a global power, and is little more than a face-saving, cynical exercise in appeasement that will all end in tears.
Gateway Pundit has a detailed report on the protests along with a video and some truly breathtaking pictures of the crowds.
Prof. William A. Jacobson writes:
As hundreds of thousands of Iranians protest fraudulent elections, and demand reform, Obama and his administration have been eerily silent. Even as protesters have sought a sign of support from the United States, the administration creates the appearance of leaving the protesters to the devices of the brutal Iranian regime. While it is a fair point that Obama should not be seen to meddle, a few words of support could make all the world of difference.
As it turns out, everyone has something to except the one person who’s words would be most welcome to the protesters risking their lives on the streets on Iran. Obama’s lack of response implies a lack of commitment to freedom. Repeatedly during the campaign candidate Obama promised to restore the United State’s image in the world. President Obama is tarnishing our image and leading us to disrepute.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Bush Honored Democracy
Sometimes you come across a great post and there just isn’t any reason to add to it. Thank you Don.
“Bush had a simple idea, that the Arabs could be democratic, and at that particular moment simple ideas were what was needed, even if he was disingenuous,” said Michael Young, the opinion editor of The Beirut Daily Star. “It was bolstered by the presence of a U.S. Army in the center of the Middle East. It created a sense that change was possible, that things did not always have to be as they were.”
Every time someone says history will vindicate George Walker Bush, I smirk. Yea, right. History is made by the conservatives and re-written by the liberals.
They still credit Mikhail Gorbachev for the fall of the Soviet Union. Not Lech Walesa. Not Baroness Thatcher. Not Pope John Paul II. And certainly not Ronald Reagan. No, never Ronald Reagan. That would be an admission that peace comes through strength and that everything the Left told us for 70 years about the Soviets was a lie.
Gorbachev.
Sure, just like death cures cancer.
But Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has noticed a change in the Middle East. It is called democracy. The seeds were planted by President Bush in Iraq. At a great cost to him.
He never complained.
After 9/11, Bush did something extraordinary. He did not play cops and robbers with al-Qaeda, he went after the root cause of this evil: Tyranny.
Friedman credited technology for this spread of democracy. The Iranian Revolution 30 years ago was spread by a new thing called videotape. The videotapes of Ayatollah Khomeini from Paris spread like wildfire against a very evil regime — the Peacock Throne — Barbara Walters and other news media swells attended the 2,500th anniverary. It was really just 26, but hey, who is counting?
The Times of London recalled: “The family was so rich the Shah’s first wife bathed in milk, and to mark the 2,500th anniversary of the Peacock Throne he threw a £60 million party at Persepolis, the ancient capital, flying 165 chefs from Paris to serve guests more than a ton of caviar.”
President Carter took in the dethroned monarch/dictator.
Yes, the CIA had installed him. It was either that or let the country go communist. As with the 1968 presidential election, sometimes you go with the lesser of two evils.
But bless his soul, Friedman also acknowledged the real reason democracy may take hold in the Middle East: “Second, for real politics to happen you need space. There are a million things to hate about President Bush’s costly and wrenching wars. But the fact is, in ousting Saddam in Iraq in 2003 and mobilizing the U.N. to push Syria out of Lebanon in 2005, he opened space for real democratic politics that had not existed in Iraq or Lebanon for decades.”
There are millions — billions — of things to hate about any war.
But ridding Iraq of Hussein was worth every sacrifice Americans and their allies made.
Bush liberated Iraq in the hopes of liberating the entire Middle East.
Friedman knows that. He has been there long enough. He wrote:
When I reported from Beirut in the 1970s and 1980s, I covered coups and wars. I never once stayed up late waiting for an election result. Elections in the Arab world were a joke — literally. They used to tell this story about Syria’s president, Hafez al-Assad. After a Syrian election, an aide came in and told Assad: “Mr. President, you won 99.8 percent of the votes. It means that only two-tenths of one percent of Syrians didn’t vote for you. What more could ask for?”
Assad answered: “Their names!”
Bush did something else; he respected the Muslim faith. Religion of peace? His words first, not President Obama. Bush offered the olive branch to the people, not to the dictators who oppress them.
President Obama is using “soft power.”
It is called being a wimp. I do not want a president who wimps out in the battle against evil.
Bush didn’t. Bush was right. Bush’s plan will work in the long run.
The Friedman column is here
“Bush had a simple idea, that the Arabs could be democratic, and at that particular moment simple ideas were what was needed, even if he was disingenuous,” said Michael Young, the opinion editor of The Beirut Daily Star. “It was bolstered by the presence of a U.S. Army in the center of the Middle East. It created a sense that change was possible, that things did not always have to be as they were.”
Every time someone says history will vindicate George Walker Bush, I smirk. Yea, right. History is made by the conservatives and re-written by the liberals.
They still credit Mikhail Gorbachev for the fall of the Soviet Union. Not Lech Walesa. Not Baroness Thatcher. Not Pope John Paul II. And certainly not Ronald Reagan. No, never Ronald Reagan. That would be an admission that peace comes through strength and that everything the Left told us for 70 years about the Soviets was a lie.
Gorbachev.
Sure, just like death cures cancer.
But Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has noticed a change in the Middle East. It is called democracy. The seeds were planted by President Bush in Iraq. At a great cost to him.
He never complained.
After 9/11, Bush did something extraordinary. He did not play cops and robbers with al-Qaeda, he went after the root cause of this evil: Tyranny.
Friedman credited technology for this spread of democracy. The Iranian Revolution 30 years ago was spread by a new thing called videotape. The videotapes of Ayatollah Khomeini from Paris spread like wildfire against a very evil regime — the Peacock Throne — Barbara Walters and other news media swells attended the 2,500th anniverary. It was really just 26, but hey, who is counting?
The Times of London recalled: “The family was so rich the Shah’s first wife bathed in milk, and to mark the 2,500th anniversary of the Peacock Throne he threw a £60 million party at Persepolis, the ancient capital, flying 165 chefs from Paris to serve guests more than a ton of caviar.”
President Carter took in the dethroned monarch/dictator.
Yes, the CIA had installed him. It was either that or let the country go communist. As with the 1968 presidential election, sometimes you go with the lesser of two evils.
But bless his soul, Friedman also acknowledged the real reason democracy may take hold in the Middle East: “Second, for real politics to happen you need space. There are a million things to hate about President Bush’s costly and wrenching wars. But the fact is, in ousting Saddam in Iraq in 2003 and mobilizing the U.N. to push Syria out of Lebanon in 2005, he opened space for real democratic politics that had not existed in Iraq or Lebanon for decades.”
There are millions — billions — of things to hate about any war.
But ridding Iraq of Hussein was worth every sacrifice Americans and their allies made.
Bush liberated Iraq in the hopes of liberating the entire Middle East.
Friedman knows that. He has been there long enough. He wrote:
When I reported from Beirut in the 1970s and 1980s, I covered coups and wars. I never once stayed up late waiting for an election result. Elections in the Arab world were a joke — literally. They used to tell this story about Syria’s president, Hafez al-Assad. After a Syrian election, an aide came in and told Assad: “Mr. President, you won 99.8 percent of the votes. It means that only two-tenths of one percent of Syrians didn’t vote for you. What more could ask for?”
Assad answered: “Their names!”
Bush did something else; he respected the Muslim faith. Religion of peace? His words first, not President Obama. Bush offered the olive branch to the people, not to the dictators who oppress them.
President Obama is using “soft power.”
It is called being a wimp. I do not want a president who wimps out in the battle against evil.
Bush didn’t. Bush was right. Bush’s plan will work in the long run.
The Friedman column is here
Andrew Sullivan Shows His Ass (Again)
Only Andrew Sullivan could look at the events unfolding in Iran and use the subornation of the will of millions of people to take a swipe at Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and yes, Sarah Palin, to score some kind of ass backwards political point.
Is there nothing that Sullivan won’t twist to fit his polluted world view? Does he find it so necessary to make every event a pawn to his self absorbed agenda? Man up, Andy. Using a tragedy in this manner just makes you appear small. Are you emboldened by other equally small purveyors of dishonest Left wing propaganda?
Be proud. Nothing like using the First Amendment to shill for hate.
Is there nothing that Sullivan won’t twist to fit his polluted world view? Does he find it so necessary to make every event a pawn to his self absorbed agenda? Man up, Andy. Using a tragedy in this manner just makes you appear small. Are you emboldened by other equally small purveyors of dishonest Left wing propaganda?
Be proud. Nothing like using the First Amendment to shill for hate.
Anti-Semitism Is A Wholly Owned Subsiderary Of The Left
Taken straight from InstaPundit:
IN LIGHT OF MY EARLIER POST about how it’s not Rush Limbaugh hollering about “the Jewish Lobby,” a reader emails:
Rush has been downright forceful in defending Israel, yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Jew defend him.
It is frightening and sobering for me, as the child of Holocaust survivors, to see my co-religionists align with pals of unambiguous anti-semites like Rev. Wright.
I let my wife choose to raise our kids as protestants, rather than have them risk the fate of my grandparents.
American Jews have cast their lot as poorly as many German Jews did nearly a century ago. I can honestly say I never imagined in my blackest moments I’d see this.
Yes, the mainstreaming of anti-semitism (disguised as being tough on Israel or “Zionists”) has proceeded apace, even while people on the right are the ones called Nazis.
Israel, and Jews, have nothing to fear from “the right” or Christians in general. We support our our Jewish brothers and sisters and the the right of Israel to exist, flourish and prosper. But anti-Semitism does grow and prosper in the United States, aided and abetted by the Left. The following is a video taken in my home state. Ft. Lauderdale is a bastion of “progressiveness” and judging from the video, a center for Jew hate.
I'll leave you to consider Golda Meir's words:
To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don't be.
Support Israel.
IN LIGHT OF MY EARLIER POST about how it’s not Rush Limbaugh hollering about “the Jewish Lobby,” a reader emails:
Rush has been downright forceful in defending Israel, yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Jew defend him.
It is frightening and sobering for me, as the child of Holocaust survivors, to see my co-religionists align with pals of unambiguous anti-semites like Rev. Wright.
I let my wife choose to raise our kids as protestants, rather than have them risk the fate of my grandparents.
American Jews have cast their lot as poorly as many German Jews did nearly a century ago. I can honestly say I never imagined in my blackest moments I’d see this.
Yes, the mainstreaming of anti-semitism (disguised as being tough on Israel or “Zionists”) has proceeded apace, even while people on the right are the ones called Nazis.
Israel, and Jews, have nothing to fear from “the right” or Christians in general. We support our our Jewish brothers and sisters and the the right of Israel to exist, flourish and prosper. But anti-Semitism does grow and prosper in the United States, aided and abetted by the Left. The following is a video taken in my home state. Ft. Lauderdale is a bastion of “progressiveness” and judging from the video, a center for Jew hate.
I'll leave you to consider Golda Meir's words:
To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don't be.
Support Israel.
Paul Krugman Embraces Doom
The Other McCain quotes Nobel Prize winning, head up the ol’ tailpipe, Paul Krugman:
The risk for long stagnation is really high . . .The size of the shock to our systems is going to be much bigger than what happened to Japan in the 1990s. . . .
To which I say, "no, shit?” (sorry Mom, but after all, you were the one who always told me to “speak plainly”) My take is that Krugman knows full well that the administration’s current path will lead to diaster but he just doesn’t care. It seems that Krugman and his cronies have an image of the United States and that they are bound and determined to destroy this country and re-make it in that image.
Calling Krugman a self-serving, Marxist twit seems wholly insufficient. Unfortunately, it is the best I can do without risking my Mom washing my mouth out with soap.
The risk for long stagnation is really high . . .The size of the shock to our systems is going to be much bigger than what happened to Japan in the 1990s. . . .
To which I say, "no, shit?” (sorry Mom, but after all, you were the one who always told me to “speak plainly”) My take is that Krugman knows full well that the administration’s current path will lead to diaster but he just doesn’t care. It seems that Krugman and his cronies have an image of the United States and that they are bound and determined to destroy this country and re-make it in that image.
Calling Krugman a self-serving, Marxist twit seems wholly insufficient. Unfortunately, it is the best I can do without risking my Mom washing my mouth out with soap.
Dennis Kucinich, (D) Outer Space, Provides Cover For The Thug Administration
In April, 1989 Citizens and Southern Bank fought unsuccessfully to avoid a takeover from NCNB. The merger took place and NationsBank, the fore bearer to Bank of America was formed. I was an employee of Citizens and Southern at the time. Several months after the merger I was “separated”-I no longer had any desire to work for NationsBank and they had no desire to further employ me. All this is important only by means of explaining that I have absolutely no kind feelings towards Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America (or for Alex Sink formerly of NCNB/NationsBank/BOA and currently CFO of Florida and aspiring Florida governor) however, Dennis Kucinich, (D) Tin Foil, is being blatantly dishonest in his grilling of Ken Lewis. If Kucinich, (D) Beam Me Up Scotty, had any interest in the truth he would have let Mr. Lewis answer the question instead of trying to manipulating his words. Sadly, the current administration has become well known for its strong arm tactics. I would at least feel a little bit better if they would cut all the “yo, youse talkin about me” crap.
h/t Don Surber
h/t Don Surber
Sunday Chuckle
Continuing my life long habbit of being a day late and a dollar (or so) short, I am cripping my Sunday Chuckle from Babalu’s Saturday Chuckle. Read and enjoy.
Ain’t love grand?
Ain’t love grand?
Why Is Obama Silent On The Iranian "Election"?
The people of Iran were poised to take their country back from the evil Ahmadinejad. We know now that thanks to ACORN in Iran the citizens of Iran never had a chance. Former Prime Minister Mir Hussein Mousavi led in the polls throughout the campaign yet lost by a 2 to 1 margin, including in his own home district. Anyone with a brain recognizes that everything about this “election” stinks.
Writing in What Happened In Iran, Gordon Robison writes that there are three possible scenarios:
Scenario One: Ahmedinejad and his supporters stole the election, plain and simple. The revolutionary old guard felt threatened by the reformists so it rigged the vote to guarantee a conservative victory. As is usual in such cases there are rumors of ballot boxes stuffed, of precincts reporting numbers completely at variance with what poll watchers observed, etc., etc.
Scenario Two: There has been a coup. Ahmedinejad and the security services have taken over. The Supreme Leader has been preserved as a figurehead, but the structures of clerical rule have effectively been gutted and are being replaced by a National Security State.
Scenario Three: Ahmedinejad won.
There is no evidence that scenario three has any validity which begs the question, “how should the United States deal with Iran going forward?”
Prof Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has a very good suggestion for Pres. Obama:
Voice unequivocal support for the Iranian people. Withhold recognition of the election without international verification. Getting "out of the way" is not enough; widespread international support could be the key to whether the nascent Iranian revolution goes the way of Poland, the Soviet Union, Ukraine and Georgia .... or goes the way of Venezuela.
Should Pres. Obama support the illegitimate Ahmedinejad regime he will speak volumes to the United States’ commitment to freedom in the world.
Reaction to the election: Gateway Pundit, Cold Fury, RedState, The Riehl World, Hot Air, El Campeador
Update: I’ve been watching the Iranian election fairly closely, being one of those naïve types that (mistakenly) believes that in the end good always wins out. I have been decidedly wrong in this case. Unfortunately, some on the Left have decided to let their BDS over-rule their honesty. They would do well to inquire where the current administration stands than waste their time scurrilously bemoaning the previous administration. Unless, of course, freedom is less important to them than ideology.
Writing in What Happened In Iran, Gordon Robison writes that there are three possible scenarios:
Scenario One: Ahmedinejad and his supporters stole the election, plain and simple. The revolutionary old guard felt threatened by the reformists so it rigged the vote to guarantee a conservative victory. As is usual in such cases there are rumors of ballot boxes stuffed, of precincts reporting numbers completely at variance with what poll watchers observed, etc., etc.
Scenario Two: There has been a coup. Ahmedinejad and the security services have taken over. The Supreme Leader has been preserved as a figurehead, but the structures of clerical rule have effectively been gutted and are being replaced by a National Security State.
Scenario Three: Ahmedinejad won.
There is no evidence that scenario three has any validity which begs the question, “how should the United States deal with Iran going forward?”
Prof Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has a very good suggestion for Pres. Obama:
Voice unequivocal support for the Iranian people. Withhold recognition of the election without international verification. Getting "out of the way" is not enough; widespread international support could be the key to whether the nascent Iranian revolution goes the way of Poland, the Soviet Union, Ukraine and Georgia .... or goes the way of Venezuela.
Should Pres. Obama support the illegitimate Ahmedinejad regime he will speak volumes to the United States’ commitment to freedom in the world.
Reaction to the election: Gateway Pundit, Cold Fury, RedState, The Riehl World, Hot Air, El Campeador
Update: I’ve been watching the Iranian election fairly closely, being one of those naïve types that (mistakenly) believes that in the end good always wins out. I have been decidedly wrong in this case. Unfortunately, some on the Left have decided to let their BDS over-rule their honesty. They would do well to inquire where the current administration stands than waste their time scurrilously bemoaning the previous administration. Unless, of course, freedom is less important to them than ideology.
Flag Day
We live in the greatest country on the face of the Earth because of those who came before us. Men and women sacrificed, fought and died to give us a level of freedom unheard of in much of the world. We have a duty to pass our freedom on to the generations who follow us.
God bless the USA.
Others honoring Flag Day: And So It Goes In Shreveport, Jules Crittenden, Mark Steyn, Paco Enterprises
God bless the USA.
Others honoring Flag Day: And So It Goes In Shreveport, Jules Crittenden, Mark Steyn, Paco Enterprises
Uighers In Paradise
Well, everybody loves a story with a happy ending and for four Uighers the ending is very happy. The four frogs have left Gitmo and are now livings like princes on the island paradise of Bermuda.
We’re told that they are living to in a beautiful villa over-looking the ocean and free to travel about at will. All of this was made possible by Pres. Obama and 200 million of the tax payer's money.
Gateway Pundit has the video:
h/t Don Surber
We’re told that they are living to in a beautiful villa over-looking the ocean and free to travel about at will. All of this was made possible by Pres. Obama and 200 million of the tax payer's money.
Gateway Pundit has the video:
h/t Don Surber
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Does The Left Want To Limit Free Speech?
I found a relationship between two seemingly unrelated stories.
Instapundit links to Kathy Shaidle and Ezra Levant. Shaidle, Levant and Mark Steyn share the honor of being on the wrong(?) side of complaints brought before Canada’s Human Rights Commissions. For those of you unfamiliar with the CHRC, the commission is the government body in Canada that determines which Canadians will have their rights protected and which Canadians are screwed. The CHRC does not protect “rights” across the board, rather, it chooses which rights it wants to protect at any given moment and often rules in a manner contradictory to its previous rulings. By means of example, examine the every unequal treatment given to the Rev. Stephen Boisson, a Christian minister and Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Al-Hayiti, a Muslim cleric.
Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate that condemned homosexuality. The letter can be read here. The Reverend’s views were deemed “hate speech” by the CHRC.
In addition to be fined $5,000 the following was imposed:
Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.
Among other things, Al-Hayiti wrote:
Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life" "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded"
Of course, he didn’t reserve his bile only for gays:
Anyone who leaves Islam, cut his neck” in an Islamic state, Christians and Jews can keep their religion but they must pay a sum of money, the Jizyah. "The purpose of the Jizyah is to humiliate and punish Infidels to encourage them to accept Islam." The other Infidels (Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc.) have no options but to accept Islam or “be killed"
The Canadian Human Rights Commission rejected a human rights complaint filed against Al-Hayiti.
The danger is that when government is allowed to regulate the message, the government chooses the message, who delivers the message and how it can be delivered. The message becomes driven by the government’s agenda. No free man should ever allow his words to be filtered through politics.
In the United States we are blessed by a First Amendment which guarantees our right to free speech. The Amendment protects all speech including speech that can rightfully be called repugnant. In The Big Hate Paul Krugman frets about free speech, particularly speech by Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity whom he accuses inciting violence:
And that’s a threat to take seriously. Yes, the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril.
It isn’t hard to imagine Krugman, and others of his mindset, calling for Canadian style censorship in the United States. We are in a very difficult period in our country and Krugman’s attempt to link free speech to violence should serve as a wakeup call to all.
UPDATE:
A much needed correction is in the comments section, provided by Blazing Cat Fur. I’ve heard that he is the hardest workin CAT in Show Business.
Instapundit links to Kathy Shaidle and Ezra Levant. Shaidle, Levant and Mark Steyn share the honor of being on the wrong(?) side of complaints brought before Canada’s Human Rights Commissions. For those of you unfamiliar with the CHRC, the commission is the government body in Canada that determines which Canadians will have their rights protected and which Canadians are screwed. The CHRC does not protect “rights” across the board, rather, it chooses which rights it wants to protect at any given moment and often rules in a manner contradictory to its previous rulings. By means of example, examine the every unequal treatment given to the Rev. Stephen Boisson, a Christian minister and Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Al-Hayiti, a Muslim cleric.
Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate that condemned homosexuality. The letter can be read here. The Reverend’s views were deemed “hate speech” by the CHRC.
In addition to be fined $5,000 the following was imposed:
Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.
Among other things, Al-Hayiti wrote:
Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life" "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded"
Of course, he didn’t reserve his bile only for gays:
Anyone who leaves Islam, cut his neck” in an Islamic state, Christians and Jews can keep their religion but they must pay a sum of money, the Jizyah. "The purpose of the Jizyah is to humiliate and punish Infidels to encourage them to accept Islam." The other Infidels (Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc.) have no options but to accept Islam or “be killed"
The Canadian Human Rights Commission rejected a human rights complaint filed against Al-Hayiti.
The danger is that when government is allowed to regulate the message, the government chooses the message, who delivers the message and how it can be delivered. The message becomes driven by the government’s agenda. No free man should ever allow his words to be filtered through politics.
In the United States we are blessed by a First Amendment which guarantees our right to free speech. The Amendment protects all speech including speech that can rightfully be called repugnant. In The Big Hate Paul Krugman frets about free speech, particularly speech by Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity whom he accuses inciting violence:
And that’s a threat to take seriously. Yes, the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril.
It isn’t hard to imagine Krugman, and others of his mindset, calling for Canadian style censorship in the United States. We are in a very difficult period in our country and Krugman’s attempt to link free speech to violence should serve as a wakeup call to all.
UPDATE:
A much needed correction is in the comments section, provided by Blazing Cat Fur. I’ve heard that he is the hardest workin CAT in Show Business.
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Audacity of Oops!
From Don Surber:
BBC: President Obama’s administration did not tell London he was shipping 4 Uighur terrorists from Gitmo to Bermuda until they landed in the British territory.
Well that hardly seems cricket. After all, the British are our allies so you would think that we would talk it over with them before we dumped a bunch of terrorists in their lap. For someone you promised to improve the United States’ image in the eyes of the world, Pres. Obama sure seems to be starting off on the wrong foot.
We have some reaction from Toby Harnden of the London Telegraph:
The problem is that Bermuda is one of 14 British sovereign territories - the oldest in fact - and as such Britain has responsibility for its foreign policy and security.
A British diplomat told me, with that trademark stiff upper lip style, that David Miliband, Foreign Secretary, had called Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, immediately to protest.
"The Foreign Secretary registered his surprise. It was a regrettable mistake. Bermuda, the UK and the US now need to work together to fix it and make sure it doesn't happen again."
Roughly translated, that means that Miliband said: "WTF, Hillary?"
The Obama administration characterised the mood of British officials to ABC this way: "They are pissed."
Kinda makes you wonder how many times we can piss off the British before they tell us to “go pound sand”?
BBC: President Obama’s administration did not tell London he was shipping 4 Uighur terrorists from Gitmo to Bermuda until they landed in the British territory.
Well that hardly seems cricket. After all, the British are our allies so you would think that we would talk it over with them before we dumped a bunch of terrorists in their lap. For someone you promised to improve the United States’ image in the eyes of the world, Pres. Obama sure seems to be starting off on the wrong foot.
We have some reaction from Toby Harnden of the London Telegraph:
The problem is that Bermuda is one of 14 British sovereign territories - the oldest in fact - and as such Britain has responsibility for its foreign policy and security.
A British diplomat told me, with that trademark stiff upper lip style, that David Miliband, Foreign Secretary, had called Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, immediately to protest.
"The Foreign Secretary registered his surprise. It was a regrettable mistake. Bermuda, the UK and the US now need to work together to fix it and make sure it doesn't happen again."
Roughly translated, that means that Miliband said: "WTF, Hillary?"
The Obama administration characterised the mood of British officials to ABC this way: "They are pissed."
Kinda makes you wonder how many times we can piss off the British before they tell us to “go pound sand”?
How The Hell Did This Happen?
Global Warming be damned, Hell has just frozen over! I agree with Bill Maher. Yes, I do know it’s INCREDIBLE but Billy just showed insight. Maher just compared Pres. Barack Obama to Lindsay Lohan. What’s next, me and Paris Hilton become BFFs? I need to go lie down.
Guess I’m not alone: Bill Maher is sick of seeing Obama on TV. So are conservatives. But if a Right-side pundit suggested Obama giving a WH tour was akin to the television show "Cribs," they'd be fired for being a racist. Riehl World View
And this: Even a Libtard like Bill Maher, who is about as slimy as they come, a far left nutjob, and Obama slurper is getting tired of his Hussein Obama on TV so much! Maher writes in his LA Times Op-eD whine that Obama is on TV even more than Vince, than the Shamwow guy! Maybe Maher is just ticked off he didn’t get a bailout for his huge movie failure that was such a flop at the box office. FireAndreaMitchell
Guess I’m not alone: Bill Maher is sick of seeing Obama on TV. So are conservatives. But if a Right-side pundit suggested Obama giving a WH tour was akin to the television show "Cribs," they'd be fired for being a racist. Riehl World View
And this: Even a Libtard like Bill Maher, who is about as slimy as they come, a far left nutjob, and Obama slurper is getting tired of his Hussein Obama on TV so much! Maher writes in his LA Times Op-eD whine that Obama is on TV even more than Vince, than the Shamwow guy! Maybe Maher is just ticked off he didn’t get a bailout for his huge movie failure that was such a flop at the box office. FireAndreaMitchell
Because We Could All Use A Laugh
The Friday Night Funny is brought to us by Legal Insurrection. Somebody needs an ego check.
The Left Should Stop Using Murder As A Political Tool
Via Memeorandum
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote at The Atlantic a thought piece titled What Judith Warner Left Out
Reading Judith Warner's column this morning on the recent upsurge in hate crimes, I was struck by what she left out. Two weeks ago, a Muslim extremist shot two soldiers, killing one, outside a recruiting station in Arkansas. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad acted alone, just as James von Brunn apparently did. He was, like von Brunn, captive to a supremacist ideology that, in his mind, justified the murder of an innocent man. Like von Brunn, authorities said, he had mapped out Jewish targets for potential attack. And yet, no mention of the hate crime committed by a Muslim; only hate crimes committed by white, right-wing extremists were worthy of mention in Warner's column. This is true for other columnists on the liberal side of the spectrum. The murder of Private William Long seems to be of no concern, and without larger meaning.
Has anyone on the Left even heard of Private William Long? Not likely. It simply isn’t useful to the Left’s agenda and therefore, when an American soldier is shot to death on a street in Arkansas by a Muslim extremist, crickets chirp.
On the other hand, when a late term abortion doctor is murdered by a Christian extremist, and conservatives need to be honest and admit that Christian extremism does exist, the Left can’t scream the word “hate” loud enough.
The Left’s reaction to the murder of Stephen T. Johns puzzles me. Johns was murdered by a radical nutcase. Not rightwing; he hates Christians, conservatives, Israel. Not leftwing; he hates African Americans, Jews, liberals. The only thing everything everyone can agree on is that James W. von Brunn is consumed by hate and has been for decades. Why does the Left feel the need to use this tragedy to paint all conservatives as dangerous radicals?
When these types of horrific acts occur people across the political spectrum need to react in an honest and rational manner. Otherwise we will never be able to work together to end the hate.
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote at The Atlantic a thought piece titled What Judith Warner Left Out
Reading Judith Warner's column this morning on the recent upsurge in hate crimes, I was struck by what she left out. Two weeks ago, a Muslim extremist shot two soldiers, killing one, outside a recruiting station in Arkansas. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad acted alone, just as James von Brunn apparently did. He was, like von Brunn, captive to a supremacist ideology that, in his mind, justified the murder of an innocent man. Like von Brunn, authorities said, he had mapped out Jewish targets for potential attack. And yet, no mention of the hate crime committed by a Muslim; only hate crimes committed by white, right-wing extremists were worthy of mention in Warner's column. This is true for other columnists on the liberal side of the spectrum. The murder of Private William Long seems to be of no concern, and without larger meaning.
Has anyone on the Left even heard of Private William Long? Not likely. It simply isn’t useful to the Left’s agenda and therefore, when an American soldier is shot to death on a street in Arkansas by a Muslim extremist, crickets chirp.
On the other hand, when a late term abortion doctor is murdered by a Christian extremist, and conservatives need to be honest and admit that Christian extremism does exist, the Left can’t scream the word “hate” loud enough.
The Left’s reaction to the murder of Stephen T. Johns puzzles me. Johns was murdered by a radical nutcase. Not rightwing; he hates Christians, conservatives, Israel. Not leftwing; he hates African Americans, Jews, liberals. The only thing everything everyone can agree on is that James W. von Brunn is consumed by hate and has been for decades. Why does the Left feel the need to use this tragedy to paint all conservatives as dangerous radicals?
When these types of horrific acts occur people across the political spectrum need to react in an honest and rational manner. Otherwise we will never be able to work together to end the hate.
Sullivan Accuses Glenn Reynolds of "Partisan Shenanigans"
Via Memeorandum
So, Andrew Sullivan is ’taking on’ Instapundit? Heh.
Today, David Brooks has a fine column that makes many of the same points. And all Reynolds can talk about is pork and the stimulus! In fact, that's all he ever talked about. In this post bragging that he actually took on the GOP for their "big-spending ways", he cites two posts about pork. That is simply not serious; and never was. It was credentializing to cover for his own support for the most fiscally reckless administration in recent history. If you want to find an intellectually honest fiscal conservative who didn't shill for Bush for eight long years, read Bruce Bartlett, who is now honest enough to envisage a VAT. Or this blog, from 2001 onwards. I have some cred on this issue that extends beyond silly posturing about pork.
Sullivan says that the only thing Reynolds talks about or has ever talked about is pork. However, in the world according to Andrew, Reynolds may have said he was against pork during the Bush years but he didn’t really mean. Either Sullivan isn’t a long time Instapundit reader or he has a serious reading comprehension problem.
Anyone interested in Bruce Bartlett’s views on the VAT would do well to skip Sullivan’s link and go to here. That we are so deep in debt that enacting a VAT only points to how disastrous the Obama presidency has been. On the other hand, I could envision a VAT if it replaced our current system and was the only tax imposed. That would be fair. To enact it in addition to the current system would be burdensome to the breaking point.
As far as Sullivan’s cred, he did call Bush out on spending. If he wants to be “credible” he should call Obama as well. Calling out Glenn Reynolds, who has a long history of advocating fiscal prudence and responsibility is just silly.
Reaction at The Other McCain
Althouse has a poll up. Vote early, vote often
So, Andrew Sullivan is ’taking on’ Instapundit? Heh.
Today, David Brooks has a fine column that makes many of the same points. And all Reynolds can talk about is pork and the stimulus! In fact, that's all he ever talked about. In this post bragging that he actually took on the GOP for their "big-spending ways", he cites two posts about pork. That is simply not serious; and never was. It was credentializing to cover for his own support for the most fiscally reckless administration in recent history. If you want to find an intellectually honest fiscal conservative who didn't shill for Bush for eight long years, read Bruce Bartlett, who is now honest enough to envisage a VAT. Or this blog, from 2001 onwards. I have some cred on this issue that extends beyond silly posturing about pork.
Sullivan says that the only thing Reynolds talks about or has ever talked about is pork. However, in the world according to Andrew, Reynolds may have said he was against pork during the Bush years but he didn’t really mean. Either Sullivan isn’t a long time Instapundit reader or he has a serious reading comprehension problem.
Anyone interested in Bruce Bartlett’s views on the VAT would do well to skip Sullivan’s link and go to here. That we are so deep in debt that enacting a VAT only points to how disastrous the Obama presidency has been. On the other hand, I could envision a VAT if it replaced our current system and was the only tax imposed. That would be fair. To enact it in addition to the current system would be burdensome to the breaking point.
As far as Sullivan’s cred, he did call Bush out on spending. If he wants to be “credible” he should call Obama as well. Calling out Glenn Reynolds, who has a long history of advocating fiscal prudence and responsibility is just silly.
Reaction at The Other McCain
Althouse has a poll up. Vote early, vote often
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Left Uses Evil To Their Benefit
Don Surber: It turns out the Holocaust Museum killer is a registered Democrat who hates Fox News. If that is supposed to make me feel better, it does not.
It turns out that James von Brunn isn’t at all what every person on the Left has cracked him up to be. He isn’t the far right, Christian nutcase that fit the Left’s agenda to a “T”. In their scenario, Stephen T. Johns’ name doesn’t even rate a mention.
Prof. Jacobson nailed it when he wrote:
Although the shooting is only hours old, numerous blogs already are attempting to tie the act of violence to conservatives and criticism of the Obama administration's overly broad definition of those who are "extremists." Posts such as "this looks like the latest episode in what is looking like the spate of right-wing violence we've been predicting" or "the right wing has lost whatever restraint it had" or "perhaps it’ll be time to revisit all that criticism of the DHS report" are highly irresponsible attempts to take political advantage of this apparently lone-wolf tragedy.
The Left didn’t see the attack at the Holocaust Museum as the terrible tragedy-for them, it was a chance to smear conservatives. Stacy McCain, commenting on Joan Walsh’s diatribe, typical of her ilk, said, “OK, sweetie, that's two "extremes" and three "right-wings" in two paragraphs, which is laying it on a bit thick, don't you think?”
Sometimes the facts are simple. James von Brunn is a hater and he’s been a hater for decades. This isn’t a “right wing” attack. This is a lone crazy man who acted on his hate in a horrific way. He is the opposite of the hero he killed. Sadly, yesterday they both became tools for the Left..
It turns out that James von Brunn isn’t at all what every person on the Left has cracked him up to be. He isn’t the far right, Christian nutcase that fit the Left’s agenda to a “T”. In their scenario, Stephen T. Johns’ name doesn’t even rate a mention.
Prof. Jacobson nailed it when he wrote:
Although the shooting is only hours old, numerous blogs already are attempting to tie the act of violence to conservatives and criticism of the Obama administration's overly broad definition of those who are "extremists." Posts such as "this looks like the latest episode in what is looking like the spate of right-wing violence we've been predicting" or "the right wing has lost whatever restraint it had" or "perhaps it’ll be time to revisit all that criticism of the DHS report" are highly irresponsible attempts to take political advantage of this apparently lone-wolf tragedy.
The Left didn’t see the attack at the Holocaust Museum as the terrible tragedy-for them, it was a chance to smear conservatives. Stacy McCain, commenting on Joan Walsh’s diatribe, typical of her ilk, said, “OK, sweetie, that's two "extremes" and three "right-wings" in two paragraphs, which is laying it on a bit thick, don't you think?”
Sometimes the facts are simple. James von Brunn is a hater and he’s been a hater for decades. This isn’t a “right wing” attack. This is a lone crazy man who acted on his hate in a horrific way. He is the opposite of the hero he killed. Sadly, yesterday they both became tools for the Left..
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Media Matter's Dishonest Spin
Via Memeorandum
Matt Finklestein writing in Media Matters begins and ends his post with essentially that same thought:
Beginning:
Today marks the second time this month that "hate-oriented" extremists have opened fire in public, which is exactly the kind of tragedy the DHS anticipated.
Ending:
Today marks the second time this month that "hate-oriented" extremists have opened fire in public, which is exactly the kind of tragedy the DHS anticipated.
Will Republicans admit that their partisan "outrage" was misplaced?
There has indeed been two despicable terrorist attacks in the United States. Each was motivated by hate. The first by hate of Jews, Christians, and the United States military. The second by hate of Jews and African Americans. The first occurred on June 1st when a Islamic terrorist shot two soldiers standing in front of a recruiting station. Today the second attack was carried out at The Holocaust Museum by a white supremacist. Finklestein is factually correct in both of his statements.
However, if you follow Finklestein’s link you see that he wasn’t referring to Pvt. Long’s murder at the hands of an extremist, he was referring to the murder of Dr. George Tiller which occurred on May 31st. My point isn’t that Finklestein misspoke when he twice said, “this month.” I am accusing Finklestein of ignoring, thus discounting, Pvt. Long’s murder because a: it doesn’t fit his narrative of “right-wingers gone wild” and b: his ideology doesn’t recognize the death of a US soldier by a Muslim as extremist or murder.
If Finklestein were an honest and honorable man he would have noted that there have been three Americans murdered in separate terrorist attacks in the United States in the last month. Instead, he intentionally Pvt Long’s murder because he couldn’t use this young man’s death for his own agenda. He meant to slander conservatives. He ended up demeaning himself.
Reaction: Legal Insurrection, The Other McCain, Michelle Malkin, Kathy Shaidle, NTC News
Matt Finklestein writing in Media Matters begins and ends his post with essentially that same thought:
Beginning:
Today marks the second time this month that "hate-oriented" extremists have opened fire in public, which is exactly the kind of tragedy the DHS anticipated.
Ending:
Today marks the second time this month that "hate-oriented" extremists have opened fire in public, which is exactly the kind of tragedy the DHS anticipated.
Will Republicans admit that their partisan "outrage" was misplaced?
There has indeed been two despicable terrorist attacks in the United States. Each was motivated by hate. The first by hate of Jews, Christians, and the United States military. The second by hate of Jews and African Americans. The first occurred on June 1st when a Islamic terrorist shot two soldiers standing in front of a recruiting station. Today the second attack was carried out at The Holocaust Museum by a white supremacist. Finklestein is factually correct in both of his statements.
However, if you follow Finklestein’s link you see that he wasn’t referring to Pvt. Long’s murder at the hands of an extremist, he was referring to the murder of Dr. George Tiller which occurred on May 31st. My point isn’t that Finklestein misspoke when he twice said, “this month.” I am accusing Finklestein of ignoring, thus discounting, Pvt. Long’s murder because a: it doesn’t fit his narrative of “right-wingers gone wild” and b: his ideology doesn’t recognize the death of a US soldier by a Muslim as extremist or murder.
If Finklestein were an honest and honorable man he would have noted that there have been three Americans murdered in separate terrorist attacks in the United States in the last month. Instead, he intentionally Pvt Long’s murder because he couldn’t use this young man’s death for his own agenda. He meant to slander conservatives. He ended up demeaning himself.
Reaction: Legal Insurrection, The Other McCain, Michelle Malkin, Kathy Shaidle, NTC News
Carrie Prejean Fired
Via Memorandum
Fox News is reporting that Carrie Prejean has lost the Miss California crown. K2 Productions cited continued breach of contract as the reason behind the firing.
"This was a business decision, based solely on contract violations," Keith Lewis, executive director of K2 Productions, said in the documents. "After our press conference in New York we had hoped we would be able to forge a better working relationship. However, since that time it has become abundantly clear that Carrie has no desire to fulfill her obligations under our contract and work together.”
A series of emails between Ms. Prejean and Mr. Lewis were released showing that the relationship had continued to sour after the now famous press conference:
From: "Keith Lewis"Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:10:25 -0700To:Subject: RE: Messages
Carrie,
Although I do not agree with your directive nor is this letter an indication of our intent to waive our contract rights, we do not want to escalate the situation with you. In good faith, we will simply ask that you provide us all of the details so that we can block it in on our master calendar. We would also want to get the contact information should something come up - like you become missing after the event or you are in an accident before the event and need us to reach out for you. It is for your safety and our responsibility.
Best regards,
Ken Lewis
From: cprejeanXXXXSent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:57 AMTo: Keith LewisSubject: Re: Messages
You do not cooperate with me, and you pick and chose the the things YOU want me to do. That is not happening anymore. Stop speaking for me. I have MY own voice. What are u gonna do fire me for volunteering for the special olympics hahaha ur crazy No I am doing this appearance. You do not need details. Its for the SPECIAL OLYMPICS!!! You just need to know I will be doing it alright
You will not facilitate this appearance
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: "Keith Lewis"Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:01:35 -0700To:Subject: RE: Messages
Carrie,
As we have discussed, there is proper protocol and we have not waived our rights in any way to your contract. I am happy to try and facilitate the request. Please forward over the information along with the proper contact and we will try and confirm the appearance right away.
Best regards,
Keith Lewis
From: cprejeanXXXXSent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:40 AMTo: Keith LewisSubject: Re: Messages
I expect you to be forwarding me ALL email requests and interview requests to me. I know how you are and its not right if you are selecting things for me. Thanks for your cooperation And fyi I am a presenter of medals at the special olympics in a few weeks for the summer games. So now u know I am doing this and I expect your full support. Also I was asked to fill in for a dj on a local radio show.. Ill be reading from a show biz script monday. I am doing this
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
The emails indicate that K2 was trying to work with Prejean and that she wasn’t co-operating. Granted, the relationship got off on an extremely rocky start but Prejean did have a contract and an obligation to work with K2 to the best of her ability. The emails seem to indicate that Prejean was trying to dictate to K2 and it is the rare employer who will allow an employee get away with that type of behavior for long.
Allahpundit’s take at Hot Air: Said Trump to TMZ, “To me she was the sweetest thing. Everyone else — she treated like s**t.” Exit question one: Is the bloom off the rose? Doesn’t mean she can’t or won’t have her right to dissent on gay marriage defended, but the image of sweet, unassuming Carrie is, I dare say, shattered. Exit question two: Interesting how it was Fox News that dished the dirt on this when it was the Foxies who chased her down for guest-hosting duties. Was the info selectively leaked to FNC to enhance the embarrassment for her? Or did she alienate people there too and this is a measure of revenge?
Fox News is reporting that Carrie Prejean has lost the Miss California crown. K2 Productions cited continued breach of contract as the reason behind the firing.
"This was a business decision, based solely on contract violations," Keith Lewis, executive director of K2 Productions, said in the documents. "After our press conference in New York we had hoped we would be able to forge a better working relationship. However, since that time it has become abundantly clear that Carrie has no desire to fulfill her obligations under our contract and work together.”
A series of emails between Ms. Prejean and Mr. Lewis were released showing that the relationship had continued to sour after the now famous press conference:
From: "Keith Lewis"Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:10:25 -0700To:
Carrie,
Although I do not agree with your directive nor is this letter an indication of our intent to waive our contract rights, we do not want to escalate the situation with you. In good faith, we will simply ask that you provide us all of the details so that we can block it in on our master calendar. We would also want to get the contact information should something come up - like you become missing after the event or you are in an accident before the event and need us to reach out for you. It is for your safety and our responsibility.
Best regards,
Ken Lewis
From: cprejeanXXXXSent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:57 AMTo: Keith LewisSubject: Re: Messages
You do not cooperate with me, and you pick and chose the the things YOU want me to do. That is not happening anymore. Stop speaking for me. I have MY own voice. What are u gonna do fire me for volunteering for the special olympics hahaha ur crazy No I am doing this appearance. You do not need details. Its for the SPECIAL OLYMPICS!!! You just need to know I will be doing it alright
You will not facilitate this appearance
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: "Keith Lewis"Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:01:35 -0700To:
Carrie,
As we have discussed, there is proper protocol and we have not waived our rights in any way to your contract. I am happy to try and facilitate the request. Please forward over the information along with the proper contact and we will try and confirm the appearance right away.
Best regards,
Keith Lewis
From: cprejeanXXXXSent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:40 AMTo: Keith LewisSubject: Re: Messages
I expect you to be forwarding me ALL email requests and interview requests to me. I know how you are and its not right if you are selecting things for me. Thanks for your cooperation And fyi I am a presenter of medals at the special olympics in a few weeks for the summer games. So now u know I am doing this and I expect your full support. Also I was asked to fill in for a dj on a local radio show.. Ill be reading from a show biz script monday. I am doing this
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
The emails indicate that K2 was trying to work with Prejean and that she wasn’t co-operating. Granted, the relationship got off on an extremely rocky start but Prejean did have a contract and an obligation to work with K2 to the best of her ability. The emails seem to indicate that Prejean was trying to dictate to K2 and it is the rare employer who will allow an employee get away with that type of behavior for long.
Allahpundit’s take at Hot Air: Said Trump to TMZ, “To me she was the sweetest thing. Everyone else — she treated like s**t.” Exit question one: Is the bloom off the rose? Doesn’t mean she can’t or won’t have her right to dissent on gay marriage defended, but the image of sweet, unassuming Carrie is, I dare say, shattered. Exit question two: Interesting how it was Fox News that dished the dirt on this when it was the Foxies who chased her down for guest-hosting duties. Was the info selectively leaked to FNC to enhance the embarrassment for her? Or did she alienate people there too and this is a measure of revenge?
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Hiding Versus Standing Up
Via Memeorandum
The last couple of days the blogsphere has been all aflutter about an anonymous blogger being “outed.” Out of nowhere leftist bloggers suddenly developed a conscientious and were shocked, SHOCKED(!) that Publius’ actual name had been put out there, effectively destroying his family and laying his career to waste, except, it turned out to be much ado about nothing. Nobody’s career was jeopardized; the family is just fine. WHEW!
There are people whose careers can be destroyed if they espouse the ‘wrong’ world view-they are called Conservatives. The quickest way to get to Nowhere in Hollywood is to be (outwardly) conservative. The acceptable Hollywood model is personified by skankfest Megan Fox:
The "Transformers" bombshell-cum-uninhibited philosophizer also contemplates — reluctantly -- what she would say to Megatron to keep him from destroying the world. "I'd barter with him," she muses to the July issue Total Film UK, "and say instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?"
Knowing that he would effectively label himself as untouchable, how brave did Jon Voight have to be to speak out at the NRSC-NRCC fund-raiser last night? Judging from the comments at CNN.Com (I intentionally didn’t link), damn brave.
Reaction at Discussion: Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, theblogprof
The last couple of days the blogsphere has been all aflutter about an anonymous blogger being “outed.” Out of nowhere leftist bloggers suddenly developed a conscientious and were shocked, SHOCKED(!) that Publius’ actual name had been put out there, effectively destroying his family and laying his career to waste, except, it turned out to be much ado about nothing. Nobody’s career was jeopardized; the family is just fine. WHEW!
There are people whose careers can be destroyed if they espouse the ‘wrong’ world view-they are called Conservatives. The quickest way to get to Nowhere in Hollywood is to be (outwardly) conservative. The acceptable Hollywood model is personified by skankfest Megan Fox:
The "Transformers" bombshell-cum-uninhibited philosophizer also contemplates — reluctantly -- what she would say to Megatron to keep him from destroying the world. "I'd barter with him," she muses to the July issue Total Film UK, "and say instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?"
Knowing that he would effectively label himself as untouchable, how brave did Jon Voight have to be to speak out at the NRSC-NRCC fund-raiser last night? Judging from the comments at CNN.Com (I intentionally didn’t link), damn brave.
Reaction at Discussion: Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, theblogprof
Was Letterman Ever Funny?
I was perusing NTC News when I came across a post by Moe Lane at RedState in the sidebar:
David Letterman jokes about Alex Rodriguez raping Willow Palin
What kind of sick son of a bitch jokes about a fourteen year old girl being raped? Was he not satisfied with calling Sarah Palin slutty? Who is this bastard’s target audience, child molesters between the ages of sixty and eighty? Obviously Letterman has no sense of shame or decency or he wouldn’t “joke” about the sexual abuse of a child privately; to publicly josh(?) about something so grotesque takes the term ‘pervert’ to a whole new level.
I agree with my friend El Campeador, Todd Palin should knock the smug of Letterman’s face and send it sailing straight up his donkey ass.
More reaction from Ace of Spades, Jim Treacher, Conservatives for Palin, Hot Air, Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, Gateway Pundit
David Letterman jokes about Alex Rodriguez raping Willow Palin
What kind of sick son of a bitch jokes about a fourteen year old girl being raped? Was he not satisfied with calling Sarah Palin slutty? Who is this bastard’s target audience, child molesters between the ages of sixty and eighty? Obviously Letterman has no sense of shame or decency or he wouldn’t “joke” about the sexual abuse of a child privately; to publicly josh(?) about something so grotesque takes the term ‘pervert’ to a whole new level.
I agree with my friend El Campeador, Todd Palin should knock the smug of Letterman’s face and send it sailing straight up his donkey ass.
More reaction from Ace of Spades, Jim Treacher, Conservatives for Palin, Hot Air, Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, Gateway Pundit
When Ideology Trumps Decency
The absolutely dumbfounding post of the day comes from Gateway Pundit:
Leftwing Dutch Journalist: "Yes the Taliban Repeatedly Raped Me... But They Respected Me & Are Not Monsters"
Dutch journalist Joanie de Rijke traveled to Afghanistan in November of 2008 to interview members of the Taliban. Instead of granting an interview, the Taliban held her captive for six days during which she was repeatedly raped. Her reaction to this horrific treatment?
After her ordeal, she acknowledged that her captors “did horrible things to me,” but added in several media interviews “They also respected me,” and emphasized “They are not monsters.”
Let’s be clear; rape and respect are mutually exclusive. A man can rape a woman or he can respect a woman but he can not do both. It is sad that de Rijke is so invested in her left wing ideology that she accepts this treatment without recognizing the evilness of it. But it is absolutely tragic that she, and women on the left, ignore the fact that the treatment she received during those six days are what women living under Islam endure the whole of their lives.
De Rijke was released after a ransom was paid. For many Muslim women, there is no release while they live.
h/t The Other McCain
Leftwing Dutch Journalist: "Yes the Taliban Repeatedly Raped Me... But They Respected Me & Are Not Monsters"
Dutch journalist Joanie de Rijke traveled to Afghanistan in November of 2008 to interview members of the Taliban. Instead of granting an interview, the Taliban held her captive for six days during which she was repeatedly raped. Her reaction to this horrific treatment?
After her ordeal, she acknowledged that her captors “did horrible things to me,” but added in several media interviews “They also respected me,” and emphasized “They are not monsters.”
Let’s be clear; rape and respect are mutually exclusive. A man can rape a woman or he can respect a woman but he can not do both. It is sad that de Rijke is so invested in her left wing ideology that she accepts this treatment without recognizing the evilness of it. But it is absolutely tragic that she, and women on the left, ignore the fact that the treatment she received during those six days are what women living under Islam endure the whole of their lives.
De Rijke was released after a ransom was paid. For many Muslim women, there is no release while they live.
h/t The Other McCain
Monday, June 8, 2009
Sarah Palin: "Told Ya So"
Way back when, and it feels like so long ago, somebody saw something in a woman from Alaska and she became the Republican Vice Presidential candidate. She wasn't chosen because she was a beauty queen, she was chosen because she possessed uncommon common sense. Sarah Palin brought hope to Republicans, something that had long been in short supply. How different would things be today had she been allowed to deliver her message on her own terms? We can blame the MSM for shutting us out, they did, but our biggest problem is that our chosen candidate, John McCain, didn't allow Gov. Palin to show her true potential. What a terrible shame.
Further comment at Gateway Pundit, The Daley Gator, Sister Toldja and Don Surber
Further comment at Gateway Pundit, The Daley Gator, Sister Toldja and Don Surber
Charlie Crist Should Be Ashamed
Via Memeoradum
I posted earlier at Not One Red Cent that Florida Governor Charlie Crist has been named a finalist in The Club for Growth “Comrade of the Month” contest for May. No small feat when you consider the stiff competition at all levels in the current administration. In bestowing this ‘honor’ on Crist the Club sited:
Crist signed a no-tax pledge when he was running for governor of Florida a few years ago. Now, as the state's top elected official, he has proceeded to break that very pledge by signing a tax hike into law last week as part of the state budget. But Crist didn't stop there. Earlier this week, he signed another tax hike...this time a 20% tax increase on businesses. Crist sure is some "Republican."
During a time of economic crisis Crist is increasing taxes in the state of Florida. Apparently my Governor is unaware that raising taxes is counter-productive to growth. In Taxes: Chasing Out The Rich, I sited a study by Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore on the relationship between state income taxes and the effect those taxes have on states’ budget deficits. Laffer and Moore were able show conclusively that budget deficits increase when taxes increase.
The State of Florida needs to learn a lesson from Florida’s working families-don’t spend what you don’t have. Instead, Crist has tried to plug the budget gap by accepting stimulus money and increasing taxes on Florida families and Florida businesses. Granted, Florida has its share of ‘special interest’ groups crying poor mouth but that is no excuse for our state’s governor to act irresponsibly. Not only is he burdening the state’s citizens but by accepting stimulus money he has also placed a burden on the citizens of those states who have behaved in a fiscally responsible manner.
Being named a “comrade” by The Club for Growth should be an embarrassment to Gov. Crist. As a citizen of Florida, I certainly consider it shameful.
I posted earlier at Not One Red Cent that Florida Governor Charlie Crist has been named a finalist in The Club for Growth “Comrade of the Month” contest for May. No small feat when you consider the stiff competition at all levels in the current administration. In bestowing this ‘honor’ on Crist the Club sited:
Crist signed a no-tax pledge when he was running for governor of Florida a few years ago. Now, as the state's top elected official, he has proceeded to break that very pledge by signing a tax hike into law last week as part of the state budget. But Crist didn't stop there. Earlier this week, he signed another tax hike...this time a 20% tax increase on businesses. Crist sure is some "Republican."
During a time of economic crisis Crist is increasing taxes in the state of Florida. Apparently my Governor is unaware that raising taxes is counter-productive to growth. In Taxes: Chasing Out The Rich, I sited a study by Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore on the relationship between state income taxes and the effect those taxes have on states’ budget deficits. Laffer and Moore were able show conclusively that budget deficits increase when taxes increase.
The State of Florida needs to learn a lesson from Florida’s working families-don’t spend what you don’t have. Instead, Crist has tried to plug the budget gap by accepting stimulus money and increasing taxes on Florida families and Florida businesses. Granted, Florida has its share of ‘special interest’ groups crying poor mouth but that is no excuse for our state’s governor to act irresponsibly. Not only is he burdening the state’s citizens but by accepting stimulus money he has also placed a burden on the citizens of those states who have behaved in a fiscally responsible manner.
Being named a “comrade” by The Club for Growth should be an embarrassment to Gov. Crist. As a citizen of Florida, I certainly consider it shameful.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Partisan Closing of Dealerships is a National Disgrace
Via Memeorandum
President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are using the auto-industry bailout to ruin the lives of people they deem enemies. From Gateway Pundit:
Again here is what we know so far--
** Earlier it was reported that the Obama Administration may have targeted GOP donors in deciding which Chrysler dealerships would have to close their doors.
** Later it was discovered that a Big Dem Donor Group was allowed to keep all 6 Chrysler dealerships open.... And, their local competitors were eliminated.
** The Auto Task Force, which includes Obama cabinet members, is reportedly calling the shots on which dealerships will close and stay open.
** Steven Rattner leads The Auto Task Force and is married to the former National Finance Chair of Democratic Party, Maureen White.
** The closings in several instances appear to benefit Dem donating dealers where local GOP-linked dealerships were closed.
** Even Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla) lost his Chrysler dealership in Florida and found out from a colleague on the House floor.
** Lithia Motor Group's owners gave $15,000 to two Democrat candidates and support nationalized healthcare. They will likely lose just two of 29 dealerships and gain 5 more.
** One report claims the odds that these Chrysler closings occurred without partisan bias are less than 1%.
** After closing the 789 dealerships Chrysler announced that they are already looking to open new franchises.
** Chrysler dealership owners donated to Republicans over Democrats by a ratio of 76% to 24%.
** Using the list of all 789 dealerships to be closed, WND found that owners contributed $450,000 to GOP presidential candidates; $7,970 to Sen. Hillary Clinton; $2,200 to John Edwards and $450 to Barack Obama.
** 40 Democrat-friendly dealerships will become 42 dealerships after the dust settles. Their competition gutted as well.
** Quantitative analysis determined that the process to determine which dealerships were going to close indeed favored democrats.
Thousands of jobs will be lost and countless families’ lives ruined for the most base and evil of all reasons: political payback. This is nothing short of despicable. The Democratic Party should never again claim that they are the party of the working people. The Democrats have shown themselves to be fascist dictators who will stop at nothing to destroy this country and remake it into their personal fiefdom.
President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are using the auto-industry bailout to ruin the lives of people they deem enemies. From Gateway Pundit:
Again here is what we know so far--
** Earlier it was reported that the Obama Administration may have targeted GOP donors in deciding which Chrysler dealerships would have to close their doors.
** Later it was discovered that a Big Dem Donor Group was allowed to keep all 6 Chrysler dealerships open.... And, their local competitors were eliminated.
** The Auto Task Force, which includes Obama cabinet members, is reportedly calling the shots on which dealerships will close and stay open.
** Steven Rattner leads The Auto Task Force and is married to the former National Finance Chair of Democratic Party, Maureen White.
** The closings in several instances appear to benefit Dem donating dealers where local GOP-linked dealerships were closed.
** Even Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla) lost his Chrysler dealership in Florida and found out from a colleague on the House floor.
** Lithia Motor Group's owners gave $15,000 to two Democrat candidates and support nationalized healthcare. They will likely lose just two of 29 dealerships and gain 5 more.
** One report claims the odds that these Chrysler closings occurred without partisan bias are less than 1%.
** After closing the 789 dealerships Chrysler announced that they are already looking to open new franchises.
** Chrysler dealership owners donated to Republicans over Democrats by a ratio of 76% to 24%.
** Using the list of all 789 dealerships to be closed, WND found that owners contributed $450,000 to GOP presidential candidates; $7,970 to Sen. Hillary Clinton; $2,200 to John Edwards and $450 to Barack Obama.
** 40 Democrat-friendly dealerships will become 42 dealerships after the dust settles. Their competition gutted as well.
** Quantitative analysis determined that the process to determine which dealerships were going to close indeed favored democrats.
Thousands of jobs will be lost and countless families’ lives ruined for the most base and evil of all reasons: political payback. This is nothing short of despicable. The Democratic Party should never again claim that they are the party of the working people. The Democrats have shown themselves to be fascist dictators who will stop at nothing to destroy this country and remake it into their personal fiefdom.
The National Healthcare 'Outline'
We all knew Nationalized Healthcare was coming, deficit be damned, and now the ‘outline’ has been released. Take a moment to savor this tidbit from Bloomberg:
House Democrats are weighing health care overhaul legislation that would require Americans to have health insurance, with some exceptions, according to an outline circulating in Washington.
The exceptions will likely include those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy, and there could be a tax penalty for those with adequate financial resources who don’t elect to get insurance, according to the outline. (the emphasis is mine)
So, if some healthy twenty-five year old decides he would rather spend his discretionary income chasing skirts rather than insurance premiums, the Government is going to step in and foist tax penalties on the him. Nothing over-reaching about that. Well not if you accept that the Government has the right to tell individuals how to behave and thus, punish individuals when they misbehave. Perhaps we should throw health insurance in with seatbelt laws and other nonsense that really isn’t any Government’s business but they get away with anyway. It is not as if individual liberty, including the liberty to be stupid or irresponsible, has been cherished and upheld in this country for over two hundred years.
I also find it interesting that the Government would make an exception for “those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy.” Um, aren’t they the majority of people who make that ‘46 million’ uninsured we keep hearing about? Since the whole point of this over-haul is to ensure that we insure every man, woman and child within our borders does anyone believe that “those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy” will be exempt? No, that would be pointless. They will be covered under this Administrations “what is in your wallet” policy. Namely, bend over taxpayer, your government is about to make an entrance.
The Republicans in Congress, along with any reputable Blue Dogs, need to fight this craziness tooth and nail. This Administration is copycatting Castro and there is no reason to believe that the end results will be any prettier.
h/t NTC News
House Democrats are weighing health care overhaul legislation that would require Americans to have health insurance, with some exceptions, according to an outline circulating in Washington.
The exceptions will likely include those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy, and there could be a tax penalty for those with adequate financial resources who don’t elect to get insurance, according to the outline. (the emphasis is mine)
So, if some healthy twenty-five year old decides he would rather spend his discretionary income chasing skirts rather than insurance premiums, the Government is going to step in and foist tax penalties on the him. Nothing over-reaching about that. Well not if you accept that the Government has the right to tell individuals how to behave and thus, punish individuals when they misbehave. Perhaps we should throw health insurance in with seatbelt laws and other nonsense that really isn’t any Government’s business but they get away with anyway. It is not as if individual liberty, including the liberty to be stupid or irresponsible, has been cherished and upheld in this country for over two hundred years.
I also find it interesting that the Government would make an exception for “those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy.” Um, aren’t they the majority of people who make that ‘46 million’ uninsured we keep hearing about? Since the whole point of this over-haul is to ensure that we insure every man, woman and child within our borders does anyone believe that “those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy” will be exempt? No, that would be pointless. They will be covered under this Administrations “what is in your wallet” policy. Namely, bend over taxpayer, your government is about to make an entrance.
The Republicans in Congress, along with any reputable Blue Dogs, need to fight this craziness tooth and nail. This Administration is copycatting Castro and there is no reason to believe that the end results will be any prettier.
h/t NTC News
Spying Is Not Legitimate Dissent
JammieWearingFool, weighing in on the whole "The Spy Who Did't Love Us" thing quotes Myers:
"I have become so bitter these past few months. Watching the evening news is a radicalizing experience," he wrote in his diary in 1978, referring to what he described as greedy U.S. oil companies, inadequate health care and "the utter complacency of the oppressed" in America. On a trip to Cuba, federal law enforcement officials said in legal filings, Myers found a new inspiration: the communist revolution.
And asks:
Who was president in 1978? Who controlled Congress and the Senate in 1978?
The year 1978 was certainly a transformative time for me. I was living in Turkey, had just given birth and Jimmy "boycott the Olympics" Carter was president. When my (then) husband and I returned to the United States we discovered gas rationing, exorbitant interest rates and a soul stifling "national malaise." Funny, looking back, I don't recall spying on my country for a repressive communist dictatorship, being a consideration. I did decide that if I did't like the direction was taking I should work to change it. Step one for me was changing my party affiliation to "Republican."
Walter Kendall Myers and his wife, much like Bill Ayers, had no intention of improving their country. They were out to destroy it. They possess a smug, elitist disdain for our country that has become much too common place of late. How their case plays out will say a lot about the true character of the current administration.
UPDATE: The Daley Gator has a keen insight gleaned from Babalu:
de la Cruz points out the irony that a couple of privilege, privilege gained here, in America, somehow learns to despise the country that allowed them their prosperity. It is truly mind boggling isn’t it? So many affluent Liberals, rather than celebrating the country that enabled them to be rich, instead loathe America. Some, like these two traitors, even seek to destroy America
"I have become so bitter these past few months. Watching the evening news is a radicalizing experience," he wrote in his diary in 1978, referring to what he described as greedy U.S. oil companies, inadequate health care and "the utter complacency of the oppressed" in America. On a trip to Cuba, federal law enforcement officials said in legal filings, Myers found a new inspiration: the communist revolution.
And asks:
Who was president in 1978? Who controlled Congress and the Senate in 1978?
The year 1978 was certainly a transformative time for me. I was living in Turkey, had just given birth and Jimmy "boycott the Olympics" Carter was president. When my (then) husband and I returned to the United States we discovered gas rationing, exorbitant interest rates and a soul stifling "national malaise." Funny, looking back, I don't recall spying on my country for a repressive communist dictatorship, being a consideration. I did decide that if I did't like the direction was taking I should work to change it. Step one for me was changing my party affiliation to "Republican."
Walter Kendall Myers and his wife, much like Bill Ayers, had no intention of improving their country. They were out to destroy it. They possess a smug, elitist disdain for our country that has become much too common place of late. How their case plays out will say a lot about the true character of the current administration.
UPDATE: The Daley Gator has a keen insight gleaned from Babalu:
de la Cruz points out the irony that a couple of privilege, privilege gained here, in America, somehow learns to despise the country that allowed them their prosperity. It is truly mind boggling isn’t it? So many affluent Liberals, rather than celebrating the country that enabled them to be rich, instead loathe America. Some, like these two traitors, even seek to destroy America
Sometimes "Anonymous" Is Just Another Way Of Saying, "I want It Both Ways"
When I came across Outer Objects To Outing at Legal Resurrection I was a bit amused by the whole outing an anonymous blogger thing. When I decided to join the 100 million or so in the blogging community a co-worker was shocked that I would post under my real name.
The “closet” in “Carol’s Closet” doesn’t refer to that messy, disheveled spot in my bedroom. At my place of employment there is an inside joke that I serve as the token ‘out of the closet’ conservative. To be certain, my ‘outing’ was partially my fault. I was hired shortly before the 2000 presidential race. For context, it is important to know that I work for a credit union whose membership is only open to union members in the building trades: electricians, sheet metal workers, ironworkers, etc., stalwarts of the Democratic Party. Once the primaries were over in 2000 and Bush and Gore were established as the presidential candidates, a member of one of our union groups began passing out Gore campaign buttons. When he handed me a button I smiled, said “no, thank you” and that was it. Or so I thought.
Within a couple of days it felt like every member had something to say about my political persuasion. I would have been deeply discouraged (remember, I was new on the job) except more than few union members told me privately to “hang in there”. It has been almost ten years and I have grown very close to a lot of people whose political beliefs are the polar opposite of my own. I wasn’t hired to deliver the political message of the day and therefore, unless someone gets in my face and is either dishonest or disrespectful, I do my job and let everything else roll.
Which brings me to Stacy McCain's main point-no harm, no foul. John Bivens aka publius, is doing a lot of whining that being out will affect his job and family relationships but he isn’t offering much proof. First, when has a college professor ever been sanctioned for being too liberal? Second, if he keeps his political views out of the classroom, why would his students care? Last but not least, what kind of family doesn’t have disagreements, lots of them?
It seems to me that Bivens wants it both ways; he wants to be free to conduct drive-bys on those he disagrees with while walking around wearing a fake facade. He apparently has never learned what I learned along time ago; if you treat people with respect they will reciprocate. They won’t agree necessarily, but respectful disagreement enhances life.
Instead of crying over spilled milk, Bivens should take this opportunity to look inward and ask himself if he has been expecting other to treat him more fairly than he has treated those whom he disagrees with.
Reaction from around the web:
American Power: So yeah, screw Ed Whelan. The guy's coming off like a thin-skinned prick. But just know that all the faux-outrage on the left is totally hypocritical. These folks get off on outing, snarking, shaming, and demonizing conservatives. That's their livelihood. This secular demonology has no counterpart on the right. Sure, some conservatives are puerile, but leftists are masters at the game.
And So it Goes in Shreveport: My blog comments are not moderated because frankly, I don't get enough for it to be a problem. I've had both types of commenters Stacy mentions though, I've had anonymous commenters who want to push their agenda and I've had the ones who are so ignorant I don't have to bother with them. The point is, they choose to be anonymous. In some ways I find it cowardly but then I also understand that maybe they have valid reasons.
Instapundit: IS IT WRONG TO “OUT” ANONYMOUS BLOGGERS? I think blogging anonymity is fine — though in the absence of a track record I tend to trust anonymous bloggers less — but is it a “despicable” act to identify an anonymous blogger? I’d say it depends. Certainly the political operative who leaked the Foleygate story via an anonymous blog had no right to anonymity. On the other hand, what about people who blog in a non-hit job fashion but just want to avoid job repercussions? I’m more sympathetic there. But if you appoint yourself someone’s anonymous blogging nemesis, you can probably expect to be outed.
Don Surber: OK. I usually refrain from commenting on blogging. But I cannot contain my laughter over the controversy over Ed Whelan looking behind the curtain and unmasking the little sniveling coward who hides behind the pen name “publius” to call other people ugly…This little twit is under the impression that he can hide behind hurl his little petty verbal bombs at people who use their real names.
I want to clarify my position. My CEO, CFO and Board of Directors would be unhappy with the majority of what I write. Very unhappy. But that is far as it would go. I don’t have to worry about being fired because of opinions I express outside of my employment. I realize that not everyone is so lucky. However, if you’re going to throw rocks somebody have the courage of conviction not to hide while doing it. And for goodness sakes, don’t go all crybaby when somebody throws a rock back.
The “closet” in “Carol’s Closet” doesn’t refer to that messy, disheveled spot in my bedroom. At my place of employment there is an inside joke that I serve as the token ‘out of the closet’ conservative. To be certain, my ‘outing’ was partially my fault. I was hired shortly before the 2000 presidential race. For context, it is important to know that I work for a credit union whose membership is only open to union members in the building trades: electricians, sheet metal workers, ironworkers, etc., stalwarts of the Democratic Party. Once the primaries were over in 2000 and Bush and Gore were established as the presidential candidates, a member of one of our union groups began passing out Gore campaign buttons. When he handed me a button I smiled, said “no, thank you” and that was it. Or so I thought.
Within a couple of days it felt like every member had something to say about my political persuasion. I would have been deeply discouraged (remember, I was new on the job) except more than few union members told me privately to “hang in there”. It has been almost ten years and I have grown very close to a lot of people whose political beliefs are the polar opposite of my own. I wasn’t hired to deliver the political message of the day and therefore, unless someone gets in my face and is either dishonest or disrespectful, I do my job and let everything else roll.
Which brings me to Stacy McCain's main point-no harm, no foul. John Bivens aka publius, is doing a lot of whining that being out will affect his job and family relationships but he isn’t offering much proof. First, when has a college professor ever been sanctioned for being too liberal? Second, if he keeps his political views out of the classroom, why would his students care? Last but not least, what kind of family doesn’t have disagreements, lots of them?
It seems to me that Bivens wants it both ways; he wants to be free to conduct drive-bys on those he disagrees with while walking around wearing a fake facade. He apparently has never learned what I learned along time ago; if you treat people with respect they will reciprocate. They won’t agree necessarily, but respectful disagreement enhances life.
Instead of crying over spilled milk, Bivens should take this opportunity to look inward and ask himself if he has been expecting other to treat him more fairly than he has treated those whom he disagrees with.
Reaction from around the web:
American Power: So yeah, screw Ed Whelan. The guy's coming off like a thin-skinned prick. But just know that all the faux-outrage on the left is totally hypocritical. These folks get off on outing, snarking, shaming, and demonizing conservatives. That's their livelihood. This secular demonology has no counterpart on the right. Sure, some conservatives are puerile, but leftists are masters at the game.
And So it Goes in Shreveport: My blog comments are not moderated because frankly, I don't get enough for it to be a problem. I've had both types of commenters Stacy mentions though, I've had anonymous commenters who want to push their agenda and I've had the ones who are so ignorant I don't have to bother with them. The point is, they choose to be anonymous. In some ways I find it cowardly but then I also understand that maybe they have valid reasons.
Instapundit: IS IT WRONG TO “OUT” ANONYMOUS BLOGGERS? I think blogging anonymity is fine — though in the absence of a track record I tend to trust anonymous bloggers less — but is it a “despicable” act to identify an anonymous blogger? I’d say it depends. Certainly the political operative who leaked the Foleygate story via an anonymous blog had no right to anonymity. On the other hand, what about people who blog in a non-hit job fashion but just want to avoid job repercussions? I’m more sympathetic there. But if you appoint yourself someone’s anonymous blogging nemesis, you can probably expect to be outed.
Don Surber: OK. I usually refrain from commenting on blogging. But I cannot contain my laughter over the controversy over Ed Whelan looking behind the curtain and unmasking the little sniveling coward who hides behind the pen name “publius” to call other people ugly…This little twit is under the impression that he can hide behind hurl his little petty verbal bombs at people who use their real names.
I want to clarify my position. My CEO, CFO and Board of Directors would be unhappy with the majority of what I write. Very unhappy. But that is far as it would go. I don’t have to worry about being fired because of opinions I express outside of my employment. I realize that not everyone is so lucky. However, if you’re going to throw rocks somebody have the courage of conviction not to hide while doing it. And for goodness sakes, don’t go all crybaby when somebody throws a rock back.
Women's Rights And The Hijab
This is a brief follow-up on my post concerning Obama’s remarks on a woman’s right to wear a hijab. At Legal Insurrection William Jacobson wrote on the same subject:
Obama really would have been brave if he told the Muslim world that just as we will fight for the right of Muslim women in the West to wear hair covering, we will stand up for the right of all women not to wear hair covering or other restrictive clothing. That would have been a truly historic statement, rather than politically correct nonsense:
And what's all this about head scarves? "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal," Obama said. Talk about a straw man. Isn't the real wardrobe issue for many Muslim women that they must cover, smother and nearly blind themselves in burqas, whether that's their choice or not?
And Obama could break with the tradition, not unique to Obama or to any one political party, of refusing to have American women representing this country forced to wear head covering when visiting Muslim countries. Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, Nancy Pelosi, and many other women who are successful and supportive of women's rights have engaged in this practice when traveling to Muslim countries.
President Obama, when ‘speaking out’ on women’s rights choose a subject that is the least of Muslim women’s worries and he did so without even acknowledging the oppression of women personified by the hijab and other restrictive clothing. Further, Obama was speaking to the right of women to were the hijab in the United States, not to the right of women not to wear restrictive clothing in Muslim countries. In other words, he wasn’t really saying anything.
Obama really would have been brave if he told the Muslim world that just as we will fight for the right of Muslim women in the West to wear hair covering, we will stand up for the right of all women not to wear hair covering or other restrictive clothing. That would have been a truly historic statement, rather than politically correct nonsense:
And what's all this about head scarves? "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal," Obama said. Talk about a straw man. Isn't the real wardrobe issue for many Muslim women that they must cover, smother and nearly blind themselves in burqas, whether that's their choice or not?
And Obama could break with the tradition, not unique to Obama or to any one political party, of refusing to have American women representing this country forced to wear head covering when visiting Muslim countries. Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, Nancy Pelosi, and many other women who are successful and supportive of women's rights have engaged in this practice when traveling to Muslim countries.
President Obama, when ‘speaking out’ on women’s rights choose a subject that is the least of Muslim women’s worries and he did so without even acknowledging the oppression of women personified by the hijab and other restrictive clothing. Further, Obama was speaking to the right of women to were the hijab in the United States, not to the right of women not to wear restrictive clothing in Muslim countries. In other words, he wasn’t really saying anything.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Hyperbole
NewsBusters via Memeorandum:
Any shred of creditability that Newsweek retained after naming Stephen Colbert as its first guest editor was forfeited last night when the news magazine’s editor Evan Thomas appeared on Hardball. Speaking of the President Obama Thomas said, "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." As if that weren’t gushy enough, Thomas also stated, "I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful...But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility...The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world."
On the surface Thomas doesn’t appear to be the typical crack smoker. Obviously, appearances are deceiving.
The best Newsweek smackdown ever! Grab a beer, kick back and savor.
Any shred of creditability that Newsweek retained after naming Stephen Colbert as its first guest editor was forfeited last night when the news magazine’s editor Evan Thomas appeared on Hardball. Speaking of the President Obama Thomas said, "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." As if that weren’t gushy enough, Thomas also stated, "I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful...But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility...The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world."
On the surface Thomas doesn’t appear to be the typical crack smoker. Obviously, appearances are deceiving.
The best Newsweek smackdown ever! Grab a beer, kick back and savor.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Gentlemen, what you are about to see is the very definition of "twits." In other words, you may hold a door for me, you may buy me a beer, and by all means, should we ever find ourselves rushing towards a lifeboat, you may absolutely allow me to go first. I promise I won't call you names.
h/t The Daley Gator
h/t The Daley Gator
Whose Stock Is It Anyway?
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) TN, has introduced a bill that would require that within one year of Chrysler and GM emerging from bankruptcy the Administration divvie up its holdings in the two companies among the American taxpayers. This issue is addressed by Smitty in The Other McCain: I'm not sure this was part of the narrative. Not a day has gone by since this whole boondoggle began that I haven’t heard that same idea expressed by one of my friends After all, the taxpayers are the ones on the hook for this entire mess and we should get something out of it besides the undying gratitude of the UAW. Snark. Somehow, that solution just doesn’t feel right to me.
People invested in the car companies to fund their retirement and to provide for their children’s education. This administration kicked those investors to the curb without so much as a second thought. If their shares end up being distributed to the taxpayers isn’t that just another way for the government to re-distribute the wealth? Yes, it is my tax dollars at stake. But I didn’t choose to invest in GM and Chrysler and because I didn’t choose to take that risk I am not sure that I should (potentially) profit from another taxpayer’s risk. The government wrongly stepped in to what should have been a private matter. Accepting stock, which prior to this administration, legally belonged to someone else is also wrong.
Even under Socialism, two wrongs don’t make a right
People invested in the car companies to fund their retirement and to provide for their children’s education. This administration kicked those investors to the curb without so much as a second thought. If their shares end up being distributed to the taxpayers isn’t that just another way for the government to re-distribute the wealth? Yes, it is my tax dollars at stake. But I didn’t choose to invest in GM and Chrysler and because I didn’t choose to take that risk I am not sure that I should (potentially) profit from another taxpayer’s risk. The government wrongly stepped in to what should have been a private matter. Accepting stock, which prior to this administration, legally belonged to someone else is also wrong.
Even under Socialism, two wrongs don’t make a right
Progressive Hate
Ask any "Progressive" and they will tell you that by virtue of their innate superiority and advanced state of enlightenment that their hate is entirely justified. In fact, they are actually taking the moral high ground when they hate.
I'm not talking about run of the mill hate. You know, the "BushHitler McChimpy" yada, yada stuff. Progressives tittered at all that but even they knew that it was amature. The pros operated on a much higher level. The best and brightest of the Progressives wrote articles, created games and made a movie fantasizing about the assassination of the President. This was all perfectly acceptable because they were endowed by their Creator to speak truth to the power.
As if they hadn't been embarrassed enough in the eyes of The World by the wretched Bush, up from the bowels of absolutely NoWhere, Alaska came a beauty queen who thought she was qualified to represent them? The woman had five children by the same man for goodness sakes! The Progressives had no choice but speak out. They couldn't possibly allow the French to believe that Sarah "Caribou Killer" Palin was representative of American women. Thank goodness for brave, liberated Sandra Bernhard who put that she-beast in her place!
That is the crux of the problem, isn't it? Those ill-informed, low life, redneck conservatives just don't know their station in life. If they would simply keep to themselves (and stop breeding) Progressives would be most happy to ignore them. Now, as if things could get any worse, there is a whole gaggle of conservative women who insist on expressing opinions! Honestly!
What will come of this country if women like this are allowed to speak out:
A Progressives' work is never done.
I'm not talking about run of the mill hate. You know, the "BushHitler McChimpy" yada, yada stuff. Progressives tittered at all that but even they knew that it was amature. The pros operated on a much higher level. The best and brightest of the Progressives wrote articles, created games and made a movie fantasizing about the assassination of the President. This was all perfectly acceptable because they were endowed by their Creator to speak truth to the power.
As if they hadn't been embarrassed enough in the eyes of The World by the wretched Bush, up from the bowels of absolutely NoWhere, Alaska came a beauty queen who thought she was qualified to represent them? The woman had five children by the same man for goodness sakes! The Progressives had no choice but speak out. They couldn't possibly allow the French to believe that Sarah "Caribou Killer" Palin was representative of American women. Thank goodness for brave, liberated Sandra Bernhard who put that she-beast in her place!
That is the crux of the problem, isn't it? Those ill-informed, low life, redneck conservatives just don't know their station in life. If they would simply keep to themselves (and stop breeding) Progressives would be most happy to ignore them. Now, as if things could get any worse, there is a whole gaggle of conservative women who insist on expressing opinions! Honestly!
What will come of this country if women like this are allowed to speak out:
A Progressives' work is never done.
The Pay Czar
Via Memeorandum
Holy Jack and Diane! Is it just me or does President Obama create ‘czar’ positions at breakneck speed or what? According to the Wall Street Journal the White House will soon be announcing the appointment of a Pay Czar.
It is expected that Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the compensation for the families of 9/11 victims will be appointed sometime next week. As Pay Czar, Feinberg will set the guidelines and monitor the compensation of employees who work for companies that received bailout money. On one hand it doesn’t pass the smell test to have Washington tell a private company what they are allowed to pay their employees; on the other, if those employees are being compensated via tax dollars, the public has the right to know that the compensation is appropriate.
How will the Czar choose which companies to monitor? Will he stick to banks and car companies or will he oversee the compensation for everyone being paid with stimulus money? For instance, if ACORN wins a “competitive” bid to head up some make ‘make work’ project paid for by taxpayers, will the Czar set the compensation for the ACORN execs and employees involved in the project?
Further, when Americans are cutting back on their family budgets, why is the Administration creating even more bureaucracy? The Czar will have a staff and a budget and everything else that a new department entails. What will it cost the taxpayers to have another Czar?
We need less bureaucracy in this country, not more. At a time when Americans are being forced to downsize, the Administration should not be growing the government.
Holy Jack and Diane! Is it just me or does President Obama create ‘czar’ positions at breakneck speed or what? According to the Wall Street Journal the White House will soon be announcing the appointment of a Pay Czar.
It is expected that Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the compensation for the families of 9/11 victims will be appointed sometime next week. As Pay Czar, Feinberg will set the guidelines and monitor the compensation of employees who work for companies that received bailout money. On one hand it doesn’t pass the smell test to have Washington tell a private company what they are allowed to pay their employees; on the other, if those employees are being compensated via tax dollars, the public has the right to know that the compensation is appropriate.
How will the Czar choose which companies to monitor? Will he stick to banks and car companies or will he oversee the compensation for everyone being paid with stimulus money? For instance, if ACORN wins a “competitive” bid to head up some make ‘make work’ project paid for by taxpayers, will the Czar set the compensation for the ACORN execs and employees involved in the project?
Further, when Americans are cutting back on their family budgets, why is the Administration creating even more bureaucracy? The Czar will have a staff and a budget and everything else that a new department entails. What will it cost the taxpayers to have another Czar?
We need less bureaucracy in this country, not more. At a time when Americans are being forced to downsize, the Administration should not be growing the government.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Obama Speaks Out On Muslim Women's Rights-In America
Via Memeorandum
"The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it."
President Obama, ever eager to point out any perceived American injustice, told his Egyptian audience that our government protects a woman’s right to wear a hijab. While he was at it he should have mentioned that in Muslim countries nobody protects a woman’s right to wear whatever she damn well pleases. He should have mentioned that women are beaten in Muslim countries for not ‘properly’ covering up. He should have mentioned that in Muslim countries the ‘decency police’ throw acid on women who are immodest. He should have mentioned that in Muslim countries little girls are raped and then publically stoned to death when they report the rape. But he didn’t. He also didn’t mention honor killings, genital mutilation or forced marriages.
You can tell a lot about a man by what they don’t mention.
Reaction to Obama's weak stance from around the blogosphere:
And So it Goes in Shreveport: Obama v. Bush on Women's Rights in Muslim Countries
The Daly Gator weighs in on perceived reality
No Sheeples Here!: Postcards From The Apology Tour 2
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Obama Speech In One Sentence
"The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it."
President Obama, ever eager to point out any perceived American injustice, told his Egyptian audience that our government protects a woman’s right to wear a hijab. While he was at it he should have mentioned that in Muslim countries nobody protects a woman’s right to wear whatever she damn well pleases. He should have mentioned that women are beaten in Muslim countries for not ‘properly’ covering up. He should have mentioned that in Muslim countries the ‘decency police’ throw acid on women who are immodest. He should have mentioned that in Muslim countries little girls are raped and then publically stoned to death when they report the rape. But he didn’t. He also didn’t mention honor killings, genital mutilation or forced marriages.
You can tell a lot about a man by what they don’t mention.
Reaction to Obama's weak stance from around the blogosphere:
And So it Goes in Shreveport: Obama v. Bush on Women's Rights in Muslim Countries
The Daly Gator weighs in on perceived reality
No Sheeples Here!: Postcards From The Apology Tour 2
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Obama Speech In One Sentence
Glad To See This Guy Has His Priorities Straight
Recently Michelle Obama went to serve food to the homeless at a government funded soup kitchen.
Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter: $0.00 dollars
Having Michelle Obama Serve you your soup: $0.00 dollars
Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Black Berry cell phone: Priceless
Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter: $0.00 dollars
Having Michelle Obama Serve you your soup: $0.00 dollars
Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Black Berry cell phone: Priceless
Adnan Barqawi, An Incredible Young Man
The videos are of Adnan Barqawi speaking at the Virginia Republican Party Convention. Enjoy the speech, it absolutely awe inspiring.
Thank you Dave C for sharing this with me. This young man blew me away as he ticked off reason after reason why each and everyone of us is blessed to be citizens of this great country.
Please pass these inspiring videos on.
Videos courtesy of At The Point Of A Gun
Thank you Dave C for sharing this with me. This young man blew me away as he ticked off reason after reason why each and everyone of us is blessed to be citizens of this great country.
Please pass these inspiring videos on.
Videos courtesy of At The Point Of A Gun
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Freddie, Fannie and Failure
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are the ultimate example that the path to Hell is paved with good intentions. Owning a home is the American dream, but the well-meaning Left took the dream one step further. The dream became an entitlement and a nightmare was born.
Add CRA into the mix. Under the Community Re-Investment Act financial institutions had to show that they were meeting the needs of their communities. Resistance was futile. Failure to meet CRA goals could result in fines, prevent a merger or stop an institution from opening a new branch.
The truth is, not everyone qualifies to own a home. I know all about good intentions and how hard it is to look at a young coupe or a single mother and say, “no.” I've done it. I also know how lucky I am that I got out before the rule became ‘everybody qualifies’.
Financial institutions discovered the wonderful world of creative financing. Thanks to a myriad of new programs everybody qualified on the day they signed on the dotted line. If the following day or the following year the new home owner no longer qualified that was Freddie’s or Fannie’s problem. The government, with all good intentions, created a false sense of confidence by relieving mortgage originators of most, though obviously not all, of the risk.
The bubble has imploded resulting in taxpayers bailing out Freddie and Fannie to the tune of 400 million dollars. We don’t know yet if that will be enough. Hopefully, we have learned that it is sometimes kinder to say “no” upfront than evict someone later. Somehow, I doubt it.
h/t Not Tucker Carlson
Add CRA into the mix. Under the Community Re-Investment Act financial institutions had to show that they were meeting the needs of their communities. Resistance was futile. Failure to meet CRA goals could result in fines, prevent a merger or stop an institution from opening a new branch.
The truth is, not everyone qualifies to own a home. I know all about good intentions and how hard it is to look at a young coupe or a single mother and say, “no.” I've done it. I also know how lucky I am that I got out before the rule became ‘everybody qualifies’.
Financial institutions discovered the wonderful world of creative financing. Thanks to a myriad of new programs everybody qualified on the day they signed on the dotted line. If the following day or the following year the new home owner no longer qualified that was Freddie’s or Fannie’s problem. The government, with all good intentions, created a false sense of confidence by relieving mortgage originators of most, though obviously not all, of the risk.
The bubble has imploded resulting in taxpayers bailing out Freddie and Fannie to the tune of 400 million dollars. We don’t know yet if that will be enough. Hopefully, we have learned that it is sometimes kinder to say “no” upfront than evict someone later. Somehow, I doubt it.
h/t Not Tucker Carlson
The Coming Healthcare Nightmare
Please take a look at Megyn Kelly interviewing Socialist Bernie Sanders on nationalized health care:
Note that Sanders is throwing around "46 million uninsured" without any qualifiers. He doesn't mention that included in that figure is upwards to 20 million illegal aliens who do receive health care on the taxpayer's dime at both clinics and emergency rooms throughout the United States. He doesn't mention that his figure may include as many as 10 million people who may be eligible for health care through their employer. And when confronted with the estimated cost of universal health care he feigns ignorance.
The Democrats are trying to ram this through Congress without debate and without regard to taxpayers who have made it quite clear that they do not want government sponsored health care. Democrats are dismissing the very real fear that people will end up with health care that inferior to what they now enjoy.
Taxpayers are being ignored by the elected representatives at every turn. No American should take 'wait and see' attitude about this. Now is the time to speak out.
h/t Gateway Pundit
Note that Sanders is throwing around "46 million uninsured" without any qualifiers. He doesn't mention that included in that figure is upwards to 20 million illegal aliens who do receive health care on the taxpayer's dime at both clinics and emergency rooms throughout the United States. He doesn't mention that his figure may include as many as 10 million people who may be eligible for health care through their employer. And when confronted with the estimated cost of universal health care he feigns ignorance.
The Democrats are trying to ram this through Congress without debate and without regard to taxpayers who have made it quite clear that they do not want government sponsored health care. Democrats are dismissing the very real fear that people will end up with health care that inferior to what they now enjoy.
Taxpayers are being ignored by the elected representatives at every turn. No American should take 'wait and see' attitude about this. Now is the time to speak out.
h/t Gateway Pundit
The Islamic Republic of America
Pop quiz. When President Barak Hussein Obama said, "If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world" was it:
A. Pandering
B. Lying
C. Wishful thinking
D. All of the above
Whether the President was talking about Muslims as a percentage of the population or he was referring to the actual number of Muslims in the United States, Obama wasn’t merely wrong; he was off in Whopper Land wrong. There are between 5 and 8 million Muslims in the United States, representing less than three percent of the country’s population. Contrast this comment with his comment during a speech in Ankara, Turkey, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation...” Vast numbers of Americans absolutely do consider this to be a Christian nation, yet the President downplays our Christianity and then exaggerates the Muslim influence on the country.
The President is embarking on the latest leg of the Barack World Wide Apology tour. He will be speaking in Cairo on Thursday. If the purpose of making such a ridiculous statement was to ‘warm up’ his audience I’d suggest he find a more honest, and less offensive, approach.
h/t Memorandum
A. Pandering
B. Lying
C. Wishful thinking
D. All of the above
Whether the President was talking about Muslims as a percentage of the population or he was referring to the actual number of Muslims in the United States, Obama wasn’t merely wrong; he was off in Whopper Land wrong. There are between 5 and 8 million Muslims in the United States, representing less than three percent of the country’s population. Contrast this comment with his comment during a speech in Ankara, Turkey, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation...” Vast numbers of Americans absolutely do consider this to be a Christian nation, yet the President downplays our Christianity and then exaggerates the Muslim influence on the country.
The President is embarking on the latest leg of the Barack World Wide Apology tour. He will be speaking in Cairo on Thursday. If the purpose of making such a ridiculous statement was to ‘warm up’ his audience I’d suggest he find a more honest, and less offensive, approach.
h/t Memorandum
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
I love This Guy
From Don Surber's Daily Scoreboard:
President Obama supports the right of Iran to… well, here are his words:
“Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region.”
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya. Someone’s smoking crack, kumbaya.
Naive and naivete is…
EVIL.
I love Don Surber’s blog. I like that Surber is able to deliver commentary with humor. I am also convinced that he is much nicer than I am. I wouldn’t call Obama’s position on Iran naïve; I would call his position dangerous. Ahmadinejad is a nutcase who has told everyone will listen that he intends to wipe Israel off the map. Israel has long been our staunchiest ally in th Middle East. Knowing Iran’s ultimate ambition, the only way we can support a nuclear Iran is if we abide that ambition. Obama's position on Iran is crazy dangerous.
Crazy dangerous is...
Evil.
President Obama supports the right of Iran to… well, here are his words:
“Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region.”
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya. Someone’s smoking crack, kumbaya.
Naive and naivete is…
EVIL.
I love Don Surber’s blog. I like that Surber is able to deliver commentary with humor. I am also convinced that he is much nicer than I am. I wouldn’t call Obama’s position on Iran naïve; I would call his position dangerous. Ahmadinejad is a nutcase who has told everyone will listen that he intends to wipe Israel off the map. Israel has long been our staunchiest ally in th Middle East. Knowing Iran’s ultimate ambition, the only way we can support a nuclear Iran is if we abide that ambition. Obama's position on Iran is crazy dangerous.
Crazy dangerous is...
Evil.
The Left Shows its True Self-Again
A religious extremist targets and kills a man because he disapproves of the victim’s vocation. There is an immediate outcry from the Left, who distain people of faith. Apparently not.
The victim is Pvt. William Long, a military recruiter, and the murderer is Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad a convert to Islam. Cassy Fiano writes:
A 23-year-old convert to Islam with “political and religious motives” killed a soldier just out of basic training and wounded another in a targeted attack on a military recruiting center in Arkansas, police said.
The suspect, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, reportedly had been under investigation by an FBI joint terrorism task force after he traveled to Yemen and was arrested there for using a Somali passport. The probe was in its early stages and based on Muhammad’s trip to Yemen, according to ABC News.
While there, Muhammad — a U.S. citizen from Memphis who is a convert to Islam and was previously known as Carlos Bledsoe — studied jihad with an Islamic scholar, Jihadwatch.org reported.
Muhammad told authorities that he approached the recruiting center in Little Rock by car on Monday and started shooting at two soldiers in uniform, according to a police report.
The obvious conclusion is that the Left is quite comfortable picking and choosing which faiths are subject to condemnation and which are not. Christians and Jews = bad; Muslims = good. All those people who rushed to their blogs to spew hate towards Christians after George Tiller was murdered on Sunday are suddenly sitting on their hands. Of course there is another factor in play-Pvt. Long’s vocation. The Left has long held that the men and women who serve our country in the military are "fair game".
Finally, where is the Commander in Chief’s condemnation of Pvt. Long’s murder? It certainly calls into question Obama’s character that he would speak out against the murder of a man who performed late term abortions but offer no words comfort for the family of a murdered soldier.
Once again, the hypocrisy of the left is on full display. I would suggest that they take a look in the mirror but I doubt they are capable of seeing their own reflection.
The victim is Pvt. William Long, a military recruiter, and the murderer is Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad a convert to Islam. Cassy Fiano writes:
A 23-year-old convert to Islam with “political and religious motives” killed a soldier just out of basic training and wounded another in a targeted attack on a military recruiting center in Arkansas, police said.
The suspect, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, reportedly had been under investigation by an FBI joint terrorism task force after he traveled to Yemen and was arrested there for using a Somali passport. The probe was in its early stages and based on Muhammad’s trip to Yemen, according to ABC News.
While there, Muhammad — a U.S. citizen from Memphis who is a convert to Islam and was previously known as Carlos Bledsoe — studied jihad with an Islamic scholar, Jihadwatch.org reported.
Muhammad told authorities that he approached the recruiting center in Little Rock by car on Monday and started shooting at two soldiers in uniform, according to a police report.
The obvious conclusion is that the Left is quite comfortable picking and choosing which faiths are subject to condemnation and which are not. Christians and Jews = bad; Muslims = good. All those people who rushed to their blogs to spew hate towards Christians after George Tiller was murdered on Sunday are suddenly sitting on their hands. Of course there is another factor in play-Pvt. Long’s vocation. The Left has long held that the men and women who serve our country in the military are "fair game".
Finally, where is the Commander in Chief’s condemnation of Pvt. Long’s murder? It certainly calls into question Obama’s character that he would speak out against the murder of a man who performed late term abortions but offer no words comfort for the family of a murdered soldier.
Once again, the hypocrisy of the left is on full display. I would suggest that they take a look in the mirror but I doubt they are capable of seeing their own reflection.
I'm Back Online!
My little netbook, my only lifeline to the outside world, took its last breath Sunday night. Fortunately, the people at BEST BUY were really stand up and replaced my netbook with a new improved product. Hopefully, I'll be back to normal (or least my version of normal) by this evening.
In the meantime, congratulations to RS McCain & Co. They have a new site up, NTC NEWS and every indication is saying "winner". Good luck to everyone involved.
In the meantime, congratulations to RS McCain & Co. They have a new site up, NTC NEWS and every indication is saying "winner". Good luck to everyone involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)