Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Rush & Beck on Dem Hypocrisy and Supposed Threats to Them vs. Threats to Republicans
....Incidentally, this is now the third incident involving alleged political intimidation that appears to have been blown out of proportion. The casket that so frightened Russ Carnahan was part of a prayer vigil meant to symbolize the death of liberty. And the bullet that broke that window in Cantor’s campaign office was, according to preliminary investigations, not fired directly at the building but up in the air, suggesting that it landed through the window through happenstance. Let’s all take a deep breath. Please?
Update: If you’re troubled by this alarming episode involving spittle unintentionally striking a Democrat, assuage your guilt by donating $5 to Obama’s money machine.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
(Red Eye Added) Great Question About Massa from HotAir About "Junk" -- per Washington Times & Glenn Beck, Text Messages
Mr. Beck homed in. "Are there Tiger Woods phone calls that are going to happen, or text messages?"
In the show's most newsworthy moment, Mr. Massa said frankly of his interactions with staff members: "I'm sure there are text messages because we bantered back and forth all the time."
Text messages!
Does climbing into a guy’s bunk and tickling his junk while he fends you off count as a “tickle-fight”?(HotAir, "New details emerge: How Massa tried to, er, 'snorkel' his Navy shipmates")
According to Peter Clarke, a Navy shipmate, Massa was notorious for making unwanted advances toward subordinates. He tells the story of his friend Stuart Borsch, with whom Massa shared a hotel room while on leave during the first Gulf War. “Stuart’s at the edge of the bed,” Clarke says Borsch told him at the time, “and [Massa] starts massaging him. Massa said, ‘You’ll have to get one of my special massages.’ He called them ‘Massa Massages.’” Ron Moss, a Navy shipmate and Borsch’s roommate, confirmed that Borsch told him this story at the time.Borsch, now a history professor at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts, didn’t addresss that specific incident, but did confirm to me in an email that he was groped by Massa: “In 1990, aboard the U.S.S. Jouett, I was awakened when a senior officer, Lt. Commander Massa, seemed to be groping me. (I was a lieutenant at the time.) I believe he may have been drinking. I shouted at him and he left. I mentioned the incident to several other officers. I did not officially report it.”Clarke says that Massa’s roommate, Tom Maxfield was also assaulted. “Tom lived on upper bunk,” Clarke say. “When you’re on ship, you’re almost exhausted 24-7. So a lot of times you sleep with your uniform on. Tom and Massa shared a stateroom together. Massa climbed up on the top of his bunk, which is hard to do–you never crawl up on somebody else’s bunk. He wakes up to Massa undoing his pants trying to snorkel him.” Ron Moss also confirmed hearing this story from Maxfield. Maxfield did [not] return calls and messages left for him–I’ll update if he does.Why waste a post on this when, thanks to yesterday’s fiasco, this guy’s credibility is already destroyed? Three reasons. One: The snorkeling euphemism deserves a link, damn it. Two: I linked that Bob Lonsberry piece reciting the allegations against Massa during his naval career several times and figured you guys might want to compare and contrast. Lonsberry’s account is strikingly similar to what the Atlantic heard — except that the Atlantic notably now has people willing to go on the record. And three: To no one’s surprise, because of Massa’s resignation, the less-than-worthless House ethics committee has ended its investigation into his alleged misconduct. Barring a sexual harassment lawsuit by one of his victims, the only justice this guy’s going to get is from reporters. The Atlantic is the beginning but probably not the end.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Monday, February 08, 2010
Arianna Huffinton vs. Glenn Beck -- BUT WAIT! Do I See Sharia Law in Her Future?
Arianna Huffington Denounces 'Extremist' Beck Yet Employs Sharia Advocate
Does Arianna Huffington consider Glenn Beck more radical and dangerous than an advocate of Islamic Sharia law? She's let off a lot of hot air lately criticizing Fox News president Roger Ailes for employing Beck, but it turns out that on the Huffington Post's payroll is an envoy to the United States from the Somali Unity government, led by the Islamic Courts Union.
The ICU is a strong proponent of Sharia law, and an organization dubbed by some the Taliban of Africa for its radical interpretation of Islam and its support for some violent elements of the Islamic community (like Osama Bin Laden)....
....But Arman is clearly a propagandist who wishes to whitewash what has happened in Somalia and disconnect all of the many atrocities done there from the ideology which inspired those very same atrocities -- political Islam.
Arman reminds me of one of those apologists for Communism who were all the rage on the Left during the height of the Cold War and which were endlessly quoted in the Soviet Press. And the HuffPo has become his Pravda.
....(read more)....
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Monday, February 01, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Friday, December 11, 2009
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Gibbs On Climategate: "There's No Real Scientific Basis" Refuting Global Warming (PLUS: 31,000 Scientists Disagree)
Kinsolving then asked about the Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered. It now lists well over 31,000 scientists, including over 9,000 with doctorates, who subscribe to the following statement:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.""Are you aware of a list, the published list of 31,000 scientists who oppose this idea of global warming?" Kinsolving asked.
"I don't doubt that there's such a list, Lester. I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this," Gibbs said.... (more)...
Monday, November 30, 2009
"[There's] no known proof there's God, either!" ~ Eleanor Clift ... Emotions Run "a Dither" as Democrats Circle Their Wagons Around Their Religion of Global Warming
“When a man ceases to believe in God he does not believe in nothing, he believes almost in anything.”
~ G. K. Chesterton
If you're curious to see how the mainstream Washington, D.C. press views the global warming debate, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift may have tipped off the public off.
On the Nov. 29 edition of "The McLaughlin Group," host John McLaughlin asked about the prospects of a Copenhagen climate change treaty and its possible impact on the U.S. economy. MSNBC and "The McLaughlin Group" regular Pat Buchanan gave some spot-on analysis on global warming alarmist about former Vice President Al Gore and how it pertains to the climate change issue....
Later in the show, Buchanan reiterated his point that global warming wasn't going on and said there was no proof that any of the warming that has occurred in recent history was caused by man.
"It was warming, John," Buchanan said. "It's not been warming since '98. Secondly, there's no known proof it's because of man and there's no known proof it's a great danger."
However, Clift felt inclined to responded, rather emphatically. She said she believes U.S. policy should be proactive toward the issue. Her view is arguably indicative of the mainstream media's sentiment on the debate, and she equated it to blind faith when she told Buchanan there's no proof there's a God either, which didn't mean global warming wasn't a danger.
"It's no known proof there's God, either. How much proof do you need, Pat?" Clift replied. "Oh, it is a danger. It's a danger in many places."
- Some comments from the linked NewsBusters post:
- Now the liberals have a religion...finally. Global Warming. For years they've harped on separation of church and state to justify tossing out anything that is connected to religion where government is concerned. Well, they've declared Climate Change to be their leap of faith. So why is the government funding a religious based movement? It's on record by empty headed liberals that science is no longer the engine that moves this train wreck...it's faith. Faith that something dangerous is lurking and now, as a government, we all have to fund their religion. We've just nailed them to their own phony cross.
- We've gone from "the science is settled" to "prove there's no God" in less than a month.
- Were not the "flat-earthers" the one's with the "consensus" that made it OK to ridicule those who protested? Maybe I'm just forgetting my history. Hmmmmmm........... Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
- When you can't refute and argument, then go right for the "there's no proof that God exists". The battle cry of the truly desperate. What better way to ignore the question at hand - just change the subject! Clift knows darn well that the jig is up regarding this whole global warming debacle. It's never been true, and now it's being proven and these liberals just don't know what to do with themselves. So let's go after God - I'm sure He won't mind!
- That is exactly what I was going to say: she is saying that belief in global warming is an act of faith, similar to believing in God.
- Believing in God does not cost trillions of dollars. God is free.
- Clift has pictures to prove her GOD (AL Gore) is real.
- Well the right tends to be much more tolerant of a belief in God. While the left tends to replace a belief in god with a belief that humans are all powerful. Some more than others at that. So AGW [anthropogenic global warming] is a perfect religion for the left. You have the all powerful human responsible for global climate change and the only answer is a larger and more powerful nanny state government. So Buccanan is attacking her religion so she of course responds by attacking his. But I'm sure Buchanan will readily admit his religion is based on faith while she would never admit her religion is based on faith. She would rather believe the ponzi scheme is real science. As they say, fake but accurate.
- So she is basically saying it IS a Religion... lol. We already knew that!
- You *know* the left is panicking when they're comparing global warming to God.
- Yes. We have separated Church and State in this country. We are not writing any laws based on the proof of God. Let us not write any laws based on the proof of global warming either
- Well Clift... when Al Gore performs a couple thousand miracles, gets nailed to a cross for doing nothing wrong, fulfils over 300 prophecies, and raises from the dead with over 400+ witnesses maybe we will consider the religion of Al Gore Warming.
- There's also no proof that Eleanor Clift's head isn't filled with boiled turnip pulp. But, there *is* a pretty solid proof that the lady is a certified moron: just listen to her.Ya know, if all the GW alarmists would just press their lips firmly together and squeeze their butt muscles for 5 minutes, the average temperature of the Earth would drop 5 degrees from the drop in hot gaseous emissions.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Glenn Beck on Progressives
Friday, October 23, 2009
Obama's Choices are Radicals! Know Your Czars (Glenn Beck)
The U.S. government should abolish its sanctioning of marriage, argued Cass Sunstein, President Obama's regulatory czar.
Sunstein proposed that the concept of marriage should become privatized, with the state only granting civil union contracts to couples wishing to enter into an agreement.
Sunstein explained marriage licensing is unnecessary, pointing out people stay committed to organizations like country clubs and homeowner associations without any government interference.
"Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," wrote Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler in their 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness."
In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein explains his approach would ensure that "the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people." ...
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Penn Jillette Gets Yelled At By One of His Boyhood Idols for Going On the Glenn Beck Show
Language Warning
Penn Jillette:
- I sat on TV, while my hero Tommy Smothers yelled in my face how pissed off he was at me for appearing on Glenn Beck. It broke my heart. When Penn Jillette has an opinion it's a safe bet he won't hold back. Upload your own reaction and get the rants rolling! Tune in each week for new insight and agitation.
Democrats, Communists, and Attacking FOX News -- Analysis
We already know where Jake Tapper stands on this point, but the real question is why more journalists in the White House aren’t making their position clear. Brit Hume wondered whether American journalists from other news organizations really will become the lackeys of the Obama administration by ignoring news stories originating at Fox, just because Robert Gibbs disapproves of Fox (via Instapundit):
“How do you like being patted on the head by the White House?” Except for Tapper, the entire White House press corps seems to like it just fine. While Helen Thomas has expressed her disgust with Gibbs for conducting this vendetta, to her credit, so far only Tapper has openly challenged it during the briefings. Every other news organization has stood silently by, apparently hoping for the Robert Gibbs Seal of Journalistic Approval.
Toby Harnden of the London Telegraph channels Pastor Niemoller in his blog today:
Those journalists sitting this one out need to ask themselves what they will do when the White House comes after them or their news organisation.
Because if Fox is allowed to be placed out of respectable bounds in this way then when the going gets tougher – as it will – the White House will simply move on to another target.
Who will be the next target? Probably the man who challenged Gibbs.
This seems so obviously correct that I feel embarrassed for not having figured it out sooner.
The rationale of the White House offensive against Fox News has been a topic of much puzzlement lately. Is this just the White House lashing out? Are they trying to rally the base?
But I think Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein nail the real explanation in their story today: The White House is working to prevent stories born on Fox from crossing over into more widely-viewed media. Most Americans still haven’t heard of Van Jones, for instance; and the strategy is now all about containment…
“We’re doing what we think is important to make sure news is covered as fairly as possible,” a White House official told POLITICO, noting how the recent ACORN scandal story started because Fox covered it “breathlessly for weeks on end.”
“And then you had a couple days of breast-beating from The Washington Post and The New York Times about whether or not they were fast enough on the ACORN story,” the official said. “And it’s like: Wait a second, guys. Let’s make sure that we keep perspective on what are the most important stories, and what’s being driven by a network that has a perspective. Being able to make that point has been important.”…
“They’re not really a news station,” Axelrod told ABC’s “This Week.” “It’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming if you watch, it’s really not news….The bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate, but understanding that they represent a point of view.”
“It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective,” Emanuel said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “More importantly, is to not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization.”
Both Politico and Mediaite note that the expected righteous indignation at being lectured by politicians on what they should consider news is strangely absent from most of the press corps — with the important exception of Jake Tapper. Go figure. Even the reliably liberal Ruth Marcus felt obliged to wonder what the reaction would have been had Dubya declared war on MSNBC and encouraged other news outlets to ignore the nightly spiel on “Countdown.” Olby would have duly clambered up onto the cross as a free-speech martyr — after a 40-minute special comment on freedom of the press and the “chill winds” of totalitarianism, natch — and the rest of the media would have gladly circled the wagons. Does anyone seriously think otherwise?
The irony of this story, though, is that the press was already happy to quarantine “wingnut” stories emanating from Fox, be it Van Jones or ACORN or the White House trying to politicize the NEA. Compare the first boldfaced quote in the blockquote above to this one from Chuck Todd more than a month ago. In fact, here’s what I wrote on September 4, while the Jones thing was roiling, on how Tapper — again — seemed to be the only non-Foxy willing to break the wider media embargo on covering what Fox News was covering.
That’s from Tapper, who to my knowledge remains the one and only reporter from big media pursuing this story. The Times, WaPo, broadcast news — it’s a complete blackout, at least as of early this afternoon. (NBC’s blog mentioned it in passing at the end of this morning’s news recap, in a sneering aside about the “conservative media machine.”) Why would they cede the field to Jake when he’s pulling big traffic from the righty blogosphere for covering this? I don’t think it’s simply to protect The One; they covered Geithner’s and Daschle’s tax problems and they’re much bigger fish. I think it’s that they know Glenn Beck’s been after Jones for weeks and it pains them too much to give him credence by following his lead. It’s analogous to the NYT refusing to review Michelle’s book even though she’s been number one on their own bestseller list for more than a month. Who cares if her thesis about Obama’s culture of corruption is correct and newsworthy and obviously of great public interest? They’re not going to help promote the work of someone whom they dislike. The state of the media, 2009. As for Tapper, his willingness to take up stories circulating in the righty blogosphere that other outlets try to suppress might give him a lot more influence as a reporter going forward. The White House can spin the Jones story as just another Fox News vendetta against the administration if it’s only FNC covering it; if ABC’s on it too, that becomes impossible and the story becomes “legitimate.” From now on, think of Tapper as the swing vote in the press pool, I guess.
Boldface added. That last part is truer now than it was then, before the ACORN story broke big and Beck’s ratings soared even higher. The White House must be panicking at the thought that the “legitimate” media will only ignore these stories for so long before the lure of bigger, Foxier ratings finally proves too much. Ideological solidarity only goes so far; as Axelrod himself acknowledged about FNC, ultimately the news nets are in business to make money. So here he and Emanuel are, leaning on them not only to ignore Fox but to ignore stories that Fox covers, as if the underlying facts are somehow tainted by association (“Let’s make sure that we keep perspective on what are the most important stories”). Creepy.