The lies about criminal behavior of HERMAN CAIN hurt him, and America, in 2011, in the 2012 election cycle. This educated guy, this business leader, this free thinker, this open book, this conservative American, is owed more than an apology (which has yet to be given) from the attention-craving Gloria Allred and the two lying women who made headlines claiming that Cain sexually harassed them (link: http://ow.ly/qF0QX).
Americans are owed better than this lowest of political tactics in the age of social media and in-the-moment news reporting. If leading Democrats had any lack of cynicism among them, they'd have discouraged the effect of these unfounded claims during the campaign. I know some pundits on either side were frustrated by this bad showing, but I heard not a leader among Democrats say a thing against it certainly not the first black in the White House.
This was, in a way, the tale of two black men: the Conservative Black Man and the Liberal Black Man. It allows a comparison of the behavior of media and the supposed spokespeople for black people -- Democrats and black "liberal" pundits. The way they treat Cain, and other non-leftist thinkers such as Ben Carson, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, is not compatible with their pandering habits toward blacks and other "special label" groups (minorities of whatever kind) in general. Yet, they give extra room to Barack Obama and ninnies such as former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin (with a federal indictment on corruption charges and soon to be in court for it) and former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (convicted to 26 years for his office's bribery practices). Democrats and most of the mainstream media looked the other way in the midst of corruption by these last two fellows, until the story was essentially over.
Ruining the campaign of Herman Cain bolstered the left's authority and dominion over blacks in America. The great majority of our black community, it seems, were fine with it, too. Or, they simply didn't speak out against it. Too many are too happy to resent those who have known success to the extent of cheering even unreasonable attacks on the successful, black or not. Sadly, that's another thing that the rhetoric of the Democrats feeds.
Today's "liberals" (modern American leftists, really, sparsely liberals in any true sense) need some of those who are successful on their side, but can only win elections, as I see it, by pandering to the less-informed unsuccessful with promises of... ease without effort. The rhetoric of Barack Obama, especially during 2008 and since his presidency, have only made this cynical tactic of the Democrats more familiar. Not less. Not less, as Obama pledged the divisiveness would be. (He pledged a lot of things that proved to be nothing, didn't he?)
The minority pandering, low-information voter wholesaling, diversity rejecting (they accept diversity only on their terms, after all), status quo adoring, big government, control-addicted Democrats and their media pledges want to keep minority conservatives down, and that hurts America.
Their habit to passionately reject traditionalist, Constitutionalist, limited government, conservative thinkers, and especially those who think this way who are not old white men, hurt America's ability to get beyond the wrongs of racism and social and economic ruts that plague groups of people, black or not. Democrats claim to be the party of caring. Yet they have been proven to be the party of lies, spying, control, monetary abuse, budgetary disregard, growth in bureaucracy, and intolerance toward individualism.
Democrats and others of such thinking are, intentionally or not, pigeonholing people in certain special groups - race, sexuality, sex, regions, etc. - into easy stereotypes that suit them. In an official way. Everyone deserves the sense of liberty that America was founded upon. That's inconvenient for relativist leftists.
They are convinced it is their duty, as folks such as Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Al Sharpton, prove again and again, to be the spokespeople for these groups, to take from others and give to those groups, to coddle them for the sake of the great statist plan. That's not American. That's utopian. It's absurd. It's anti-American.
Black conservatives have for a long time felt they needed to be quiet because Borg-like neighbors who are long entrenched in the pandering, Democratic race machine would think they were betraying race for their affinity for traditional American ideals. So much misinformation about conservatism persists that it's as if being a conservative was equivalent to being a slave salesman in Africa in the 1700s.
Modern Democrats, this current, bureaucracy-loving, conceited, elitist leadership of theirs, seek a wholesale plan to buy votes to take more and more liberties away from Americans in the name of helping everyone reach an equal playing field, with welfare politics, driving the poor to their side in a cynical effort to hold power by mob, rather than by principle or love of the citizen and the individual. They love the idea of the state being the leader of society in every way, it seems, not the servant of a free people.
People like Herman Cain certainly get in the way of that.
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Elite-led media resents a hero they don't understand: Ben Carson and the real world
Dr. Ben Carson dared to suggest that gay couples deserve to be treated equally, but to stop short of giving that the word "marriage." He mentioned NAMBLA and beastiality in the same sentence as gays, upsetting some folks. He apologized and clarified what he meant. More than once. On televison. But that's not good enough for the bigotos of the left, in this drippy, no-detractors echo chamber pep rally that is most of the mainstream media.
From the article, NBC News on Dr. Ben Carson: 'Blinded by the White', on Breitbart.com:
Carson ... said he was in favor of giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, short of marriage.NBC News obviously wants to destroy the threat of any independent-thinking black man as quickly as possible. So it should come as no surprise that, by the time Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart filled in for MSNBC's Martin Bashir, Carson's apology was treated as far from sufficient. In short, Capehart and his guests, Toure' and Krystal Ball, treated the apology as a lie.This is all par for the course at NBC News.Sadly, so is the chryron pictured above -- "Blinded by the White" -- which was used as the clip of Dr. Carson played during the segment.NBC News is notorious for using this kind of race-baiting to further its left-wing agenda, including fraud
Indeed.
While it's easy to pass it off as a given that media is left-leaning, that's not enough to indict the media. And it doesn't have to be.
The leaders of our media are part of the most insular, closed-quarter, often the most highfalutin, parts of this country and the world. If they aren't humble enough to recognize that, and if they don't instill such humility in writers (not opinion writers, journalists!) and demand that they work against their own biases, then these media leaders and their writers are part of the problem. As it happens, these leaders are dragging newbies panting and eager to please, every year, into that same highrise with a limited perspective. Arrogance begets arrogance.
It encourages an ignorance of the great outside: the real world. The world in which Dr. Ben Carson grew up.
It encourages an ignorance of the great outside: the real world. The world in which Dr. Ben Carson grew up.
There's NBC, The Washington Post (often, not decisively), TIME, Huffinton Post (madhouse filled with nut-job leftist commenters, to boot), GQ, CBS, CNN, etc., etc., all seeming to be trying to be the big man on the left. It's a tone deafness of those who live in certain quarters believing they have the answers for the whole.
And they will treat those who aren't on their side not with curiosity or even cynicism, but snide disregard and putrid insults, like MSNBC treats Dr. Carson.
They need some humility.
- jR, aka AirFarceOneObama exposed himself as using Benghazi for politics in 2nd debate: 'Please proceed, Governor'
Obama was helped in setting up one of his best put-down speeches of the second debate, thanks to moderator Candy Crowley's chiming in when Obama refused to speak. This portion of a Washington Times Communities blog post by Henry D'Andrea makes the point I hope anyone can agree to, at least silently (liberals and Obamasexuals, maybe not):
-----
As we all have heard, moderator Candy Crowley stepped in and muddled things since Romney was trying to outline the facts and Obama refused to chime in as Romney was seeking confirmation. For me this action by the seasoned (thus someone who ought to have known better) CNN host was the most disappointing part of the debate, not considering omissions and a few obvious attempts to demonize Romney. The candidates had their low moments, but this involvement ruined the debate. People will, however, simply make of it what they wish, facts and order of events need not affect them. If they are of a certain stubborn mind to begin with.
Importantly, you could extend Crowley's offense to Obama as well: He could have easily confirmed the order of things -- or just stuck with the spin, rather than voting present on it at that stage in the debate -- when given the chance by Romney. When Obama said, "Please proceed, Governor," I think it's clear that Obama was counting on a lead-in, from Romney, to what proved to be a prepared, over-the-top campaign cheap shot minutes later.
Here's how: I believe Obama was hoping Romney was going to take more of a cheap shot at him on the Benghazi affair, or at least talk about it in a way that didn't include requesting a clarification from Obama. The President didn't get the lead-in he might have preferred, since Romney sought clarification from Obama of some of the what-where-when of the Benghazi attack. We heard a request for agreement by Romney, and Obama's "Please proceed, Governor." Yes, please proceed, without my confirming anything, because I have a great diatribe prepared once you're finished setting me up for it.
Obama was interested in giving one of his prepared gotcha attacks, to take some heat off of himself. Since Obama is well informed about speaking -- much more informed than he is about economics, military matters, security, and the varied threats from Muslim extremists -- he fashioned the debate himself to get to his prepared outrage. It happened to be in part thanks to Crowley's feckless assistance.
Obama gave what I believe was a well-prepared rant about his being insulted by any suggestion that he or his Administration was lackadaisical about the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three former military men. He used it, it just wasn't as perfectly set-up as it could have been, because Romney wasn't taking a cheap shot. There must have been some slight disappointment about Romney's taking a higher road in the Obama camp.
Watch the Benghazi attack portion from the second debate again, and consider Obama's chess game, holding the complete facts like cherished pieces and moving forward all of his self-protecting rhetorical pieces -- his pawns. Ironically, I should add, because he tried to refute any idea that he was making political hay of Benghazi, when it seems, no matter how he feels about it, that he has been doing exactly that, and in the debate did it once again.
I think it's a clear effort to make a political game of the Benghazi event, using games to put his own failings on the back burner by trying to suggest his opponent is making it political, not he.
This intentional, political gaming by Obama with the facts of Benghazi -- and his embarrassing handling of it -- is similar to a child claiming his little sister was at fault for his being grounded for a broken cookie jar because she pointed out to the parents that he had broken the jar. It's childish head games.
Obama had no humility regarding the Benghazi attack and his errors in handling that event while his fundraising trips were not taking a break. Obama was not interested in admitting the facts of his unseemly preference to campaigning over being the president. He went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas and onto TV shows in the attack's immediate aftermath.
Fact is, Obama was not admitting to a direct challenge to the United States, treating it as an upswelling of a popular demonstration. For many days. He didn't want the Arab Spring to turn so cold. But it did. He's doing clean-up now, attempting to throw his shame on his political foe. How could the president ever be convinced that a shoulder-fired missile might have been part of a popular demonstration? Is there such a thing as a sudden, unplanned militant action? I don't think so.
Obama is trying to make political hay of the Benghazi deaths. Romney has pointed out what was done wrong, if he is doing anything with this event. Mostly detached, guilt-ridden and fanatical masses are taking Obama's bait to attack Romney unreasonably for Benghazi, when they should be wondering why Obama kept avoiding the use of the word "terror" connected directly to the Benghazi attack.
Obama cares about our embassies and the Americans serving in them, I'd imagine, but he seems to be equally interested in using the event to his political advantage.
I wonder if the folks at that Las Vegas fund-raising event that followed the Benghazi attack felt like Obama cared about them? Or, at least, that he cared about their money? I think they should have felt honored by his desire for campaign cash.
-----
Read more of the Wash. Times blog: Candy Crowley gets it wrong: Obama never called Benghazi a ‘terror attack’ in Rose Garden speech | http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2...
Follow them: @wtcommunities on Twitter
---
- jR @airfarceone on Twitter
"...an audience member asked the president, "We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"
Obama gave a lengthy response which never addressed the question. During his rebuttal Romney said, “I think it’s interesting, the president just said something which is that the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this is was an act of terror?
"It was not a spontaneous demonstration; is that what you’re saying?”
“Please proceed, governor,” Obama replied.
Romney looked at him with consternation as the president didn’t say whether he called the Libya attack an act of terrorism on September 12. "
-----
As we all have heard, moderator Candy Crowley stepped in and muddled things since Romney was trying to outline the facts and Obama refused to chime in as Romney was seeking confirmation. For me this action by the seasoned (thus someone who ought to have known better) CNN host was the most disappointing part of the debate, not considering omissions and a few obvious attempts to demonize Romney. The candidates had their low moments, but this involvement ruined the debate. People will, however, simply make of it what they wish, facts and order of events need not affect them. If they are of a certain stubborn mind to begin with.
Importantly, you could extend Crowley's offense to Obama as well: He could have easily confirmed the order of things -- or just stuck with the spin, rather than voting present on it at that stage in the debate -- when given the chance by Romney. When Obama said, "Please proceed, Governor," I think it's clear that Obama was counting on a lead-in, from Romney, to what proved to be a prepared, over-the-top campaign cheap shot minutes later.
Here's how: I believe Obama was hoping Romney was going to take more of a cheap shot at him on the Benghazi affair, or at least talk about it in a way that didn't include requesting a clarification from Obama. The President didn't get the lead-in he might have preferred, since Romney sought clarification from Obama of some of the what-where-when of the Benghazi attack. We heard a request for agreement by Romney, and Obama's "Please proceed, Governor." Yes, please proceed, without my confirming anything, because I have a great diatribe prepared once you're finished setting me up for it.
Obama was interested in giving one of his prepared gotcha attacks, to take some heat off of himself. Since Obama is well informed about speaking -- much more informed than he is about economics, military matters, security, and the varied threats from Muslim extremists -- he fashioned the debate himself to get to his prepared outrage. It happened to be in part thanks to Crowley's feckless assistance.
Obama gave what I believe was a well-prepared rant about his being insulted by any suggestion that he or his Administration was lackadaisical about the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three former military men. He used it, it just wasn't as perfectly set-up as it could have been, because Romney wasn't taking a cheap shot. There must have been some slight disappointment about Romney's taking a higher road in the Obama camp.
Watch the Benghazi attack portion from the second debate again, and consider Obama's chess game, holding the complete facts like cherished pieces and moving forward all of his self-protecting rhetorical pieces -- his pawns. Ironically, I should add, because he tried to refute any idea that he was making political hay of Benghazi, when it seems, no matter how he feels about it, that he has been doing exactly that, and in the debate did it once again.
I think it's a clear effort to make a political game of the Benghazi event, using games to put his own failings on the back burner by trying to suggest his opponent is making it political, not he.
This intentional, political gaming by Obama with the facts of Benghazi -- and his embarrassing handling of it -- is similar to a child claiming his little sister was at fault for his being grounded for a broken cookie jar because she pointed out to the parents that he had broken the jar. It's childish head games.
Obama had no humility regarding the Benghazi attack and his errors in handling that event while his fundraising trips were not taking a break. Obama was not interested in admitting the facts of his unseemly preference to campaigning over being the president. He went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas and onto TV shows in the attack's immediate aftermath.
Fact is, Obama was not admitting to a direct challenge to the United States, treating it as an upswelling of a popular demonstration. For many days. He didn't want the Arab Spring to turn so cold. But it did. He's doing clean-up now, attempting to throw his shame on his political foe. How could the president ever be convinced that a shoulder-fired missile might have been part of a popular demonstration? Is there such a thing as a sudden, unplanned militant action? I don't think so.
Obama is trying to make political hay of the Benghazi deaths. Romney has pointed out what was done wrong, if he is doing anything with this event. Mostly detached, guilt-ridden and fanatical masses are taking Obama's bait to attack Romney unreasonably for Benghazi, when they should be wondering why Obama kept avoiding the use of the word "terror" connected directly to the Benghazi attack.
Obama cares about our embassies and the Americans serving in them, I'd imagine, but he seems to be equally interested in using the event to his political advantage.
I wonder if the folks at that Las Vegas fund-raising event that followed the Benghazi attack felt like Obama cared about them? Or, at least, that he cared about their money? I think they should have felt honored by his desire for campaign cash.
-----
Read more of the Wash. Times blog: Candy Crowley gets it wrong: Obama never called Benghazi a ‘terror attack’ in Rose Garden speech | http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2...
Follow them: @wtcommunities on Twitter
---
- jR @airfarceone on Twitter
Rape is rape, except when it's done by a liberal artiste
Updated at 3:30 p.m ET
(CBS News) Republican Rep. Todd Akin on Monday apologized for the controversial remarks he made over the weekend about abortion and rape, but he said he has no plans to drop out of the Missouri Senate race despite building pressure from within the GOP.
"What I said was ill-conceived, and it was wrong," Akin said on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's radio show Monday. "I really just want to apologize to those that I've hurt."
Akin's apology came as President Obama suggested the Republican's remarks illustrated the broad differences between Democrats and Republicans on issues like health care and reproductive rights.
"Rape is rape," Mr. Obama told reporters at the daily White House briefing Monday. "And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we're talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me."
Mr. Obama added that Akin's remarks underscore "why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women."
The president acknowledged that his GOP rival Mitt Romney and other Republicans have distanced themselves from Akin's statements. However, he said, "The underlying notion that we should be making decisions on behalf of women for their health care decisions, or qualifying 'forcible rape' versus 'non-forcible rape' -- those are broader issues....between me and the other party."
The controversy started after Akin, a six-term Missouri conservative now running against Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, was asked in a local interview on Sunday whether he would support abortions for women who have been raped.
"It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Akin said in the interview. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin said of a rape victim's chances of becoming pregnant.
Romney abortion view overrides Ryan in Akin response
Romney, Scott Brown rebuke Akin's rape comments
Mo. Rep. Todd Akin: Rape rarely leads to pregnancyRomney called the remarks "inexcusable," while some Republican senators like Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin called for him to drop out of the Senate race.
Some liberals tried to tie other Republicans to Akin's comments, noting that Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, co-sponsored an abortion-related bill with Akin that would have limited federal funding for abortions to victims of forcible rape," rather than just rape. The FBI's definition of rape is known as "forcible rape," and it is used to distinguish between statutory rape and other kinds of rape.
Huckabee asked Akin whether he was talking about "forcible rape" when he used the term "legitimate rape."
"I was talking about forcible rape, and it was absolutely the wrong word," Akin said.
Akin said he understands that women can become pregnant from rape. "I didn't mean to imply that wasn't the case," he said. "That does happen."
While Akin acknowledged he made a "very, very serious error," he added that he's not dropping out of the Senate race.
"I don't know that I'm the only person in public office who suffered from foot-in-mouth disease," he said. "I feel just as strongly as ever that my background and ability will be a big asset in replacing Claire McCaskill... Just because someone makes a mistake doesn't make them useless."
Later in the day, Akin wrote on Twitter, "I am in this race to win. We need a conservative Senate." His Twitter message also included a link to his fundraising page.
As the Washington Post notes, the Republican Party can't force Akin to drop out of the race, but he could voluntarily resign by 5 p.m. Tuesday, or he could withdraw from the race by court order by Sept. 25.
In spite of Akin's insistence that he'll stay in the race, the pressure Monday continued to build against him. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) told Akin Monday it would no longer financially support his Senate bid if he chose to stay in the race, a GOP source told CBS News.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the NRSC, said in a public statement that Akin's comments were "wrong, offensive, and indefensible," though he stopped short of explicitly calling on him to exit the race.
"I recognize that this is a difficult time for him, but over the next twenty-four hours, Congressman Akin should carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party, and the values that he cares about and has fought for throughout his career in public service," Cornyn said.
Meanwhile, the Karl Rove-backed super PAC American Crossroads confirmed to CBS News that it is pulling its ads from Missouri. "The act speaks for itself," Crossroads said to CBS regarding its decision to pull its ads.
The editors of the conservative magazine the National Review wrote Monday that it was time for Akin to step aside.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell also called Akin's comments "totally inexcusable."
"What he said is just flat wrong in addition to being wildly offensive to any victim of sexual abuse," McConnell said in a statement. "Although Representative Akin has apologized, I believe he should take time with his family to consider whether this statement will prevent him from effectively representing our party in this critical election."
via cbsnews.com
Remember when that master of relevant social commentary, Whoopi Goldberg, said that what Roman Polanski did to a young teenager in the 1970s wasn't "rape rape"? I won't say she is as vital to anyone as this Akin dude, but, really, where was THIS sort of broad shock across the media then?!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57496599-503544/akin-apologizes-for-ra...
Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous
Rape is rape, except when it's done by a liberal artiste
via cbsnews.com
Remember when that master of relevant social commentary, Whoopi Goldberg, said that what Roman Polanski did to a young teenager in the 1970s wasn't "rape rape"? I won't say she is as vital to anyone as this Akin dude, but, really, where was THIS sort of broad shock across the media then?!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57496599-503544/akin-apologizes-for-ra...
Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous
Amid the Schwartz/Soros furor, a major Jewish group defends Beck
The wacky hedge fund, god-fantasizing, ethically two-faced Hungarian rambler George Soros doesn't have every Jewish group, and human rights group, adoringly -- half-blind, politically correct and sheepishly, in my view -- at his side.
I did not see Glenn Beck's series about Soros, and I am sure something he said has been taken out of context by knee-jerk liberal groups, Jewish groups and missing-the-point apologists for Soros. I am also sure that Beck probably upset some people for being blunt in his characterization of Soros' actions during the Nazi regime's control of his homeland, and his activity today. Well, suck it up, people. Soros is not your local charity group. He's a bit melted in the head, loaded with cash and awfully eager to shut up his opponents through his funded groups -- like any good god-fantasizing autocrat would be.
Beck may be some things, but in pursuit of world power he is not. That's the other guy, Soros. So, right there, Soros must prove that concern wrong. And I don't think he will. So, Beck has the handicap in this battle of public personalities. People seem to spend a lot of time shooting down Beck, while getting many facts wrong. Is he ever incorrect? Duh, yeah. Not so often as those who attack him by habit wish he were. And he's hardly dangerous. Also, take whatever you want away from him, but at least Beck's books are coherent, unlike the Soros drivel I have tried to read.
I have educated myself and seen enough, often through personal experience, half-twisted people with some good intentions but very bad traits (Soros, I mean, not Beck, dammit), the Holocaust, Nazi Germany, Hitler, anti-Semitism, world parity groups, utopian fantasies, and other stuff. That Soros does not regret doing what he did to his fellow citizens -- helping to turn Jews over to the Nazis -- is a step too far in the direction of amoral to meet acceptable criteria in the survival game. Survival is a solid instinct. To not regret what was done is akin to the rest of the placation and apathy that allowed the Nazis to flourish for a while.
Major Jewish Group Defends Beck Amid Soros Furor | The Blaze :
Investment success is not wrong -- I am not against informed investing, just the opposite -- but an apparent underlying kookiness, which Soros seems to have (ever tried to read one of his rambling, poorly edited books?), no matter the person's success, or half of his stated goals, is not to be lauded. How anyone could have faked their way through the Holocaust in the manner that Soros -- originally Schwartz -- did and not feel remorse is a sign of very distorted emotional/ethical wiring. It does not deserve reward, as some Canadian group (Canadian International Council) bestowed upon Soros (see this link) nor some absolutist appreciation. It needs to be looked at carefully, not set aside. I am glad Beck and ZOA, among others, can see that.
It is shameful that some Canadian blind mice chose to reward Soros for one thing while overlooking a glaring problem: he has an obviously autocratic, anti-liberty intent in his approach to economics, politics and media. He wants to control the money and the message. Seems like a kind of thinking ripe for regret down the line. Not the regret of Soros, but of the Canadians.
I can only imagine -- for lack of understanding it -- that the Canadian group and the many others who adore Soros on the one hand care nothing of -- excuse or don't even understand -- his other hand. Hopefully the other hand will slap them in the face some day. In the process, I hope some complete sense of his grand scheme will sink in. (Not only the money-making, anti-Communist influence-peddling part, but the part that madly craves what I suspect as a benevolent autocracy of his doing, a worldview of his making.) Fortunately, mad geniuses don't tend to hang onto real power for long. Not against truly free societies, at least. Let's hope Soros run out of time before anyone, in economic desperation, appoints him the chancellor, or god, of anything.
- jR
I did not see Glenn Beck's series about Soros, and I am sure something he said has been taken out of context by knee-jerk liberal groups, Jewish groups and missing-the-point apologists for Soros. I am also sure that Beck probably upset some people for being blunt in his characterization of Soros' actions during the Nazi regime's control of his homeland, and his activity today. Well, suck it up, people. Soros is not your local charity group. He's a bit melted in the head, loaded with cash and awfully eager to shut up his opponents through his funded groups -- like any good god-fantasizing autocrat would be.
Beck may be some things, but in pursuit of world power he is not. That's the other guy, Soros. So, right there, Soros must prove that concern wrong. And I don't think he will. So, Beck has the handicap in this battle of public personalities. People seem to spend a lot of time shooting down Beck, while getting many facts wrong. Is he ever incorrect? Duh, yeah. Not so often as those who attack him by habit wish he were. And he's hardly dangerous. Also, take whatever you want away from him, but at least Beck's books are coherent, unlike the Soros drivel I have tried to read.
I have educated myself and seen enough, often through personal experience, half-twisted people with some good intentions but very bad traits (Soros, I mean, not Beck, dammit), the Holocaust, Nazi Germany, Hitler, anti-Semitism, world parity groups, utopian fantasies, and other stuff. That Soros does not regret doing what he did to his fellow citizens -- helping to turn Jews over to the Nazis -- is a step too far in the direction of amoral to meet acceptable criteria in the survival game. Survival is a solid instinct. To not regret what was done is akin to the rest of the placation and apathy that allowed the Nazis to flourish for a while.
Major Jewish Group Defends Beck Amid Soros Furor | The Blaze :
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/major-jewish-group-slams-attacks-on-beck-over-soros-programs/
In a three-part series on Beck's Fox program last week, Beck portrayed Soros as the "puppet master" behind, among other things, world financial collapses. While describing Soros, Beck told how, during the Holocaust, the 14-year-old Hungarian Jew "used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off."George Soros is what is wrong with making money off of other people making products and services while we bet against them. He creates influence with his cash the way some James Bond antagonist holds the world hostage with satellite-born death lasers.
The "anti-Semite" was Soros's fake grandfather, who was paid off by his real father in an effort to conceal the young Soros's Jewish identity. He has not shown remorse or regret for those actions.
"A number of American Jewish leaders condemned Mr. Beck for these remarks," ZOA's statement says, "yet a 1998 interview with Soros conducted by Steve Kroft on '60 Minutes' shows that Beck did not misstate the facts."
The group goes on to detail a litany of "anti-Israel, anti-American" remarks made by Soros over the years....
Investment success is not wrong -- I am not against informed investing, just the opposite -- but an apparent underlying kookiness, which Soros seems to have (ever tried to read one of his rambling, poorly edited books?), no matter the person's success, or half of his stated goals, is not to be lauded. How anyone could have faked their way through the Holocaust in the manner that Soros -- originally Schwartz -- did and not feel remorse is a sign of very distorted emotional/ethical wiring. It does not deserve reward, as some Canadian group (Canadian International Council) bestowed upon Soros (see this link) nor some absolutist appreciation. It needs to be looked at carefully, not set aside. I am glad Beck and ZOA, among others, can see that.
It is shameful that some Canadian blind mice chose to reward Soros for one thing while overlooking a glaring problem: he has an obviously autocratic, anti-liberty intent in his approach to economics, politics and media. He wants to control the money and the message. Seems like a kind of thinking ripe for regret down the line. Not the regret of Soros, but of the Canadians.
I can only imagine -- for lack of understanding it -- that the Canadian group and the many others who adore Soros on the one hand care nothing of -- excuse or don't even understand -- his other hand. Hopefully the other hand will slap them in the face some day. In the process, I hope some complete sense of his grand scheme will sink in. (Not only the money-making, anti-Communist influence-peddling part, but the part that madly craves what I suspect as a benevolent autocracy of his doing, a worldview of his making.) Fortunately, mad geniuses don't tend to hang onto real power for long. Not against truly free societies, at least. Let's hope Soros run out of time before anyone, in economic desperation, appoints him the chancellor, or god, of anything.
- jR
Crist no likee gogo juice wastee, say Sun-Sentinel
Charlie Crist is not being up front about spending for private flights, in full. He is also being tight-lipped about it. Unfortunately, while my guv jetting around on my tax dollars (everyone's, whatever) I find foul, I suspect we're simply going to discover that it is GOPers funding these quick trips, thus making this a bit of a distraction, and a bit of a NON-STORY. Time will tell!
Who pays the bill when Florida Governor Charlie Crist flies? -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
Gov. Crist promotes polices to curb gases but trips leave big carbon footprint -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
What kind of headline is "Gov. Crist promotes polices to curb gases but trips leave big carbon footprint," the headline I found for the second article as part of the "print edition" version of the article? Was that translated, poorly, from the Spanish or something? Was this originally an El Sentinel article? Perhaps they meant any of the following:
The Sun-Sentinel is not exactly a company that one can be proud of. The Sun-Sentinel Company refused, in a practice that they apparently were never castigated for -- for quite some time, according to people I know -- to pay underpaid salaried employees overtime. They did something so, foul, so greedily elitist, yet insist on accusing the governor of anything untoward regarding mere travel? That's rich!
The media hacks and that swath of willing managerial crooks at Tribune care about as much about anything but their own bottom line as Pelosi cares about getting average Americans jobs (if it costs her her precious "patriotic" illegals). Still, I want to know what Crist has to say about these expenses. And, historically, just how much tax money that could be going to schools, for instance, is spent on jet-setting by him and other state officials.
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Who pays the bill when Florida Governor Charlie Crist flies? -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
Crist's office would not reveal who paid for specific flights or answer questions about them, despite the governor's vow of transparency when he took office. "Our constitution requires that our government be open and transparent," Crist said in his January 2007 inaugural address. "And under my administration it will be like never before."The Sun-Sentinel is, of course, quite good at their jobs, so this must mean something. This related story, however, means one thing while the headline, well, I don't know what it means....
Years ago, as a state senator, Crist took aim at then-Gov. Lawton Chiles for accepting about 30 flights on private jets to watch football games or go turkey hunting. Chiles later reimbursed the planes' owners more than $7,000. "The whole thing smells," Crist said at the time, calling for elected officials to fully disclose private flights.
Now, as governor, Crist is mum about his own extensive use of private planes.
Gov. Crist promotes polices to curb gases but trips leave big carbon footprint -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
What kind of headline is "Gov. Crist promotes polices to curb gases but trips leave big carbon footprint," the headline I found for the second article as part of the "print edition" version of the article? Was that translated, poorly, from the Spanish or something? Was this originally an El Sentinel article? Perhaps they meant any of the following:
- Gov. Crist promotes police who curb gases from trips that leave big carbon footprint
- Gov. Crist promotes police's curbing of gases, then trips leaving a big imprint
- Gov. Crist promotes police, is to curb gases, trips and has to leave, offers big carbon footprint
"We cannot afford to ignore that carbon emissions are contributing to global climate change that may put Florida's residents and 1,200 miles of coastline at risk," Crist said that day.While Crist has promoted policies to curb global warming, his own air travel has left a considerable carbon footprint. The governor has flown extensively on state and private planes since he took office two years ago.Oh, so it was meant to be "policies" not "polices". I understands nows. Except for "gases". What did they mean there? Should that be "emissions", perhaps?
The Sun-Sentinel is not exactly a company that one can be proud of. The Sun-Sentinel Company refused, in a practice that they apparently were never castigated for -- for quite some time, according to people I know -- to pay underpaid salaried employees overtime. They did something so, foul, so greedily elitist, yet insist on accusing the governor of anything untoward regarding mere travel? That's rich!
The media hacks and that swath of willing managerial crooks at Tribune care about as much about anything but their own bottom line as Pelosi cares about getting average Americans jobs (if it costs her her precious "patriotic" illegals). Still, I want to know what Crist has to say about these expenses. And, historically, just how much tax money that could be going to schools, for instance, is spent on jet-setting by him and other state officials.
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Powered by ScribeFire.
GOP comment: Rush's role as firewall
Have a look. Keep reading, hitting the link.
TheHill.com - Rush’s role as firewall
Certain fight-eager, evasive and power-lusting "liberals" (ironic though that self-ascribed tag for the Obamatized may be in light of current statist activity) insist on puking misquotes of Rush, and the president, amazingly and quite humorously, is one of those. When the president personally cannot rise above such street fights, we're all in trouble. Every time it happens, it suggests we're in trouble (this president and past presidents). The likes of super-fake Katie Couric again and again prove by their response to it all of being biased liberals, further embarrassing the purpose of journalism in a free country (this is not Iran, or Cuba, or even France, and it is not going to be Obamastan, either).
Just one viewing of Couric's very recent visit to David Letterman's gabfest will show just how out of touch and disinterested she is with the true value -- barring her career-long far left liberal biases -- of her role on the news. (She's one of many, but one of the largest, at least in title and status, if not believability.) It isn't a news show with her on it, CBS Evening News is a propaganda hour for liberals and missing half of any relevant Obama-related news. She actualy invoked Keynes on the Letterman show, lending her belief in that big government, small free market view of business.
Jacobus is a GOP strategist.
- jR
TheHill.com - Rush’s role as firewall
It is becoming increasingly clear that the success of Barack Obama and the success of our nation are mutually exclusive endeavors. Talk radio king Rush Limbaugh was the first to say it out loud, but far from the last. I, too, want Obama to fail. Because I want the United States to succeed.Cheri Jacobus appreciates the point to what Rush meant in his now famous and infamous (depending on how well your ears and mind work), takes no shame in accepting his actual point, as oppsoed to taking one sentence and demonizing him over that. She shows just what Rush is (willingly) putting up with, too.
While Republicans regroup to regain footing as strong voices for freedom, liberty and fiscal conservatism after the November election losses, Rush Limbaugh serves as a firewall against the unprecedented assault on our freedoms by Obama and the far left. Rush doesn’t lose his footing after an election, nor is he cowed by mainstream media attacks and those from (other) top Obama operatives. He is emboldened by them.
Certain fight-eager, evasive and power-lusting "liberals" (ironic though that self-ascribed tag for the Obamatized may be in light of current statist activity) insist on puking misquotes of Rush, and the president, amazingly and quite humorously, is one of those. When the president personally cannot rise above such street fights, we're all in trouble. Every time it happens, it suggests we're in trouble (this president and past presidents). The likes of super-fake Katie Couric again and again prove by their response to it all of being biased liberals, further embarrassing the purpose of journalism in a free country (this is not Iran, or Cuba, or even France, and it is not going to be Obamastan, either).
Just one viewing of Couric's very recent visit to David Letterman's gabfest will show just how out of touch and disinterested she is with the true value -- barring her career-long far left liberal biases -- of her role on the news. (She's one of many, but one of the largest, at least in title and status, if not believability.) It isn't a news show with her on it, CBS Evening News is a propaganda hour for liberals and missing half of any relevant Obama-related news. She actualy invoked Keynes on the Letterman show, lending her belief in that big government, small free market view of business.
Jacobus is a GOP strategist.
- jR
Powered by ScribeFire.
House GOP budget leader says something about 'change'
Ryan on Obama's Budget - Power Line
Powerline is apparently a hot blog (I've only just now been made aware of it through my current Twitter addiction) from the conservative side of things.
- jR
RYAN: Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for this hearing. I look forward to having a number of these hearings on this budget. What a week we just had last week. Let's go through it for a second. On Monday, we had the Fiscal Responsibility Summit. On Tuesday, we witnessed a very eloquent, ambitious and even inspiring speech by the president of the United States echoing those themes of fiscal responsibility. Then on Wednesday, Congress passed a bloated $410 billion spending bill with 9,000 earmarks. And on Thursday, we received the mother of all budgets, a truly sweeping transformation of the federal government, the likes of which we have not seen since the New Deal.Those were the words today of the ranking Republican on the House Committee on the Budget. Essentially, they were a transcription, and I am glad I found them. That's only the start of it, too.
Finally, on Saturday, the president threw down the gauntlet. Rather than echoing the theme of changing the tone in Washington or bringing people together to forge a bipartisan compromise, he essentially said, "You're either with me or you're against me." He claimed opponents of this transformative budget are quote, "Tools of special interest and the powerful."
Powerline is apparently a hot blog (I've only just now been made aware of it through my current Twitter addiction) from the conservative side of things.
- jR
Powered by ScribeFire.
Rush Hitler and Uncle Tom Steele are the latest characters from MSNBC guests
NewsBusters must be lying, because they are part of the Hitler squad Garofalo is talking about. But wait! They're using the people's own words.
Olbermann & Garofalo See ‘Self-Loathing’ ‘Black Guy’ Michael Steele, Limbaugh Compared to Hitler | NewsBusters.org
Oh, ick. Just ick.
- jR
Olbermann & Garofalo See ‘Self-Loathing’ ‘Black Guy’ Michael Steele, Limbaugh Compared to Hitler | NewsBusters.org
Garofalo: "any female or person of color in the Republican party is struggling with Stockholm Syndrome."Even for Oblubberman's show, this is odd. There's not even any fake maturity to the opinions shared typically on the show. Perhaps he should offer all of his guests a stiff drink prior to going on. Might prove to make them funny to anyone who isn't as rabidly biased and tactlessly cynical as he.
Oh, ick. Just ick.
- jR
Powered by ScribeFire.
A little radio control comedy
(The "radio control" I am referring to is what certain liberal factions want to do with AM radio: control it's content.)
Today's broadcast brought to you by Equal Time Radio:
We don't understand free markets, we're just going to give the audience what we know they want.*
* What the audience wants is set, programmed equal time for opposing opinions as sanctioned by one side of the political spectrum. If advertisers won't sponsor the programming we define, we'll fund it with freshly printed dollars. After we buy the radio stations from the existing, free market owners, of course, since they'll be bankrupt since the regular audience abandons them for roughly half of every day.
- jR
Today's broadcast brought to you by Equal Time Radio:
We don't understand free markets, we're just going to give the audience what we know they want.*
* What the audience wants is set, programmed equal time for opposing opinions as sanctioned by one side of the political spectrum. If advertisers won't sponsor the programming we define, we'll fund it with freshly printed dollars. After we buy the radio stations from the existing, free market owners, of course, since they'll be bankrupt since the regular audience abandons them for roughly half of every day.
- jR
The year of excessive bias
Liberal media bias puts a chill in everyone else's legs, Chris Matthews. Well, those who desire some semblance of truth and objectivity with their news.
Where did they find the quotes to lampoon? All over the place, says Bozell.
"I could give you 10,000 quotes from election night alone that would qualify. This was the worst year ever. This was shameless,"Bozell said on the "Fox & Friends" interview. "When Dan Rather bemoans liberal media bias, like he did this year, you know there's a problem."
Bozell began the interview by stating he had a "thrill" running up leg to be on the show, a reference to the Chris Matthews line that was not only mocked by [the GOP prez candidate] John McCain's website.
MSNBC's Chris Matthews achieved the distinction by gushing over an Obama speech in February [2008], saying, "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. … And that is an objective assessment."[Objective. Because he's Chris Matthews, how could he not be objective. Please.]
It was far beyond the ever-vigilantly lame Matthews to be merely an objective journalist, though it seems he's the only one unaware of that. Reuters, the ever-present European version of the AP, won them over, too.
Coming in behind Chris Matthews as the top runner-up for "Quote of the Year" was a Reuters post-election headline: "Media bias largely unseen in U.S. presidential race."Huh?
At least Reuters -- which I generally prefer to read over U.S. providers simply because they are foreign (it appears that was a meaningless reason to read them that I've held) -- did not profess that it was their job to assure Obama's administration succeeded. Chris Matthews did this. Quite literally, and he even clarified it. If he were not blind to objective reporting, he might see how funny his one-sided "politi-sex" affair with Obama is to the unconvinced chunk of aware citizens.
Need I remind you that MSNBC is the LEAST watched news network by a massive margin? Is it hard to wonder why? It is more like the Fox Reality Channel for liberals -- mindless entertainment pretending to be representative of reality.
New terminology alert: politisexual reporting. Example: Chris Matthews, especially when regarding his Obama coverage.
- jR
Powered by ScribeFire.
U.S. busts Mexican drug network in Ariz., Mexican pageant queen gets nabbed
U.S. police bust Mexican drug gang | Reuters
Over the past five years the network moved up to 1,000 tons of marijuana with an estimated wholesale value $1 billion dollars through Phoenix, much of which was subsequently redistributed throughout the United States, the office said.I am curious to see how much traction this gets in the mainstream media. So far, it has NONE, and only four pieces written about it in Arizona press (one example), even. Minor story? Is it? Is it really? Shame. It ought to get some coverage, but I suspect, as some ICE raids on illegals and anything else that has anything to do with negative impressions of our poor, helpless neighbors to the south, it will get less coverage than beauty pageants.
Most illegal drugs used in the United States enter the country from Mexico, where drug trafficking has become an increasingly bloody activity in recent years.
Mexican cartels have killed around 5,300 people south of the border so far this year, as they fight each other for turf and wage an all-out war with Mexican authorities.
That is a none-too-subtle segue into a related story, odd as it is: In another recent drug gang story there are ties to beauty contests and Mexico! "Mexican beauty queen caught in anti-drug raid": A Mexican pageant queen, Laura Zuniga (center, in picture, the only girl), was caught in a raid in the pot-growing land of Sinaloa (a Mexican state, this is where Mazatlán is located).
"No one expected this young woman to be aboard, along with more than a dozen cell phones, lots of cash, pistols, bullets and two rifles," the spokesman said.
With such bizarre happenings as this, perhaps the overly-sensitive-to-offending-the-perceived-downtrodden U.S. mainstream media will actually cover the story beyond special reports on Nightline or the occasional online or print exposé. Let's hope!Keep up the good work, drug cartels and drug selling gangs -- the more dumb moves you make, the more public your friends, the better for the rest of us, you slimey creeps. The more publicity you mean dopes get, the more likely someone will have to react against it. Here's hoping for Sean Penn to come visit you next, and write a story about how wonderful you are to the residents of impoverished villages!
I have noted similar stories, including ICE raids that net nearly 500 illegals working at a single company location, and the like, and these stories receive literally no national coverage. I never cease to be amazed at how unimportant such stories are to the alleged news media. It is downright depressing to think the news media is so bogged down with stories about Obama that one writer cannot be pulled away to write about gang arrests. At NY Times, at the Washington Post, at the Houston Chronicle, at the darned Arizona Republic, even.
Lou Dobbs, where are you on this one?
- jR
Powered by ScribeFire.
The super-evil conservatives must die! Nut jobs alive and well on the Internet
Counterpunch.org: George Ciccariello-Maher: By the Time I Get to Arizona
Much has been eclipsed in the post-election euphoria, not least of which is the continuity of racist violence in the United States. The election of Barack Obama notwithstanding, the black population still bears the overwhelming brunt of this violence, in its systematic and informal guises, in prisons and on the streets, and with the far-right gearing up we can expect more of the same. [The far-right, in this instance, is actually the radical fascist far-right, or the Nazis and white supremacists, according to what I found in a link. That's sensible, yup. GW Bush is a Nazi. Uh-huh.] But with new dynamics, political and geopolitical, come new violences, and we have seen in recent years a steady increase in anti-Latino or anti-immigrant violence alongside a notable spike after September 11th in anti-“Arab” violence.Let's forget that 20 full-fledged gang members were picked up in one little raid alone. Foreign, illegal, and trouble. Let's forget that hate crimes are CRIMES. Let's forget that these folks, if committing hate crimes, actually serve time for it. That's inconvenient and rational. Let's forget about rational! Further, in another section of the piece:
Recently-released statistics show violence against Latino immigrants to be the fastest growing of all hate crimes, fuelled by an atmosphere of linguistic-racial hatred and permissiveness to violence against all those deemed to be from “elsewhere.” In a recent report, the Southern Poverty Law Center noted the shocking growth in anti-Latino hate crime, and in early November, an Ecuadorian man was beaten and stabbed to death on Long Island, New York, by a lynch mob of young, mostly white teens looking for some racist fun “hunting beaners,” a game they claim to have played weekly. Less than a month later yet another Ecuadorean was beaten until brain-dead in Brooklyn, this time allegedly by black men who shouted ethnic and homophobic slurs.
Such informal violence has always gone hand-in-hand with the structural violence of the state. ...
In this rising tide of state and informal violence, Arizona has come to be ground zero. There, Lou Dobbs darling “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio of Maricopa County has institutionalized a “Posse” program, deputizing civilians to enforce anti-immigration laws.
Ahem, that would be anti-ILLEGAL immigration. You know: people who are coming over here, flouting our laws, taking SS numbers from dead people -- and the living -- and generally adding to our legal and social problems, not reducing them. Which includes criminal creeps illegally creeping across our borders. Note that there is ABSOLUTELY no concern for the rape, murder and other crimes committed by the truly despicable illegals in thisa, uhhh, thoughtful piece about poor, poor victims of crimes who are in fact also criminals themselves. No, hurting or killing them is not a solution -- DUHH -- but neither is this drivel from the counterpunch'org crackpots. What of deaths of Pakistanis, Indians, for any variety of violent reasons? I guess they specialize in the Hispanic and black victims. It's good to specialize, as one evil whitey showed us with the assemply line (Henry Ford, that was).
This is not here to comment too deeply on it, but simply to note that counterpunch.org goes to lengths to connect conservatives -- and those not interested in a free-for-all society of anarchy -- with radical fascist and hate groups such as the KKK and neo-Nazis.
If you want to read this garbage, go for it. Don't try to claim any rational learning out of it, however. Please note that every time I come across this site I find thoughts that are anarchist, radical socialist, race-baiting, pure prose for preying on those who feel victimized -- especially if they are Hispanic or black. These guys LOVE to bait the illegals and blacks!
Here's one things that makes this especially offensive stuff, in my mind: Tragic and contrary to counterpunch.org's madness, there has been a lot of black folks shooting other black folks in my area. In front of nightclubs, etc. I guess there's some clever reason why that is the conservatives' faults, too. Can't blame that on Ted Kennedy or any other long-serving liberals, huh?!
So, race war, anyone? Yeah, I think counterpunch.org writers have dreams about race wars. They want to be the great white leaders of a black and Hispanic war against non-liberal whitey. So, think for yourself, not according to these kooks. I've yet to read anything on this site that doesn't smack or paranoia, race-baiting, some sort of crude race-rage-inducing victimization fantasy. Half-truths are still half-truths, no matter which side is served. These guys excel at telling a very queer, unsavory, one-sided story.
I figure that sites like it are part of the problem, not interested in a sensible solution. Not interested in a solution at all.
So, watch out for anything and anyone linked however loosely to the nuts at counterpunch.org. Enough said.
- jR
Powered by ScribeFire.
Best-kept 'secret' in Chicago: crooked governor's party
Note: These odd omissions have ceased after a few days, or they are at least not going to serve any purpose any longer (for those who even slightly pay attention, that is, now know that Blago is a Dem), but it is always odd to see such things as this. Read on.
Dem Label AWOL for Blagojevich in ChiTrib, Sun-Times Coverage | NewsBusters.org
Gov. Rod Blagojevich's (D-Ill.) name has cropped up quite a few times in the ongoing trial of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) benefactor Tony Rezko. Yet in their latest coverage, both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times left out Blagojevich's party affiliation. The Sun-Times, however, did take note of the Republican party affiliation of another politico caught up in the maelstrom, William Cellini [note: see photos via AP/Sun-Times at the linked story].
The caption for a photo montage accompanying the April 3 article "Levine: Blagojevich knew", reads, "Clockwise from left: Gov. Rod Blagojevich; Tony Rezko; Stuart Levine; Chicago businessman-turned-Hollywood producer Tom Rosenberg; longtime Illinois Republican Party power William Cellini."
Tribune staffers Bob Secter and Jeff Coen also covered the development in a story filed shortly after midnight Eastern time on April 3.
Noting a GOP guy's party while altogether ignoring the party of the central figure in an image (see the linked story, its image showing this gaff) is a bit weird! Since this is home ground for Obama, I am a bit astounded by the lack of ties to Blagojovich, too. Obama moved quickly from community organizer to state senate to U.S. Senate. His own caretakers in his state senate days have stated they wanted to protect him from anything controversial -- like abortion, making a yay or nay vote on most things (sarcasm: check!). And it would seem they kept him away from Blago? Hmmm.
I was wondering what the deal was with this, as I had to do a search of the gov's name and the word "party" to find his affiliation noted somewhere, just because I was trying to figure it out -- it is odd, blatantly odd, that the affiliation was omitted. (Go ahead, say I should find the state web site; I don't live in Illinois, don't have that handy, thanks. Get over that.) Blagojevich's party is not mentioned until it is deep into one article, from the Tribune, that I noted just today.
What a stupid, petty way to exacerbate bias and division, and a lack of one-country-feeling. Great job, Trib. The strangest thing about this effort to omit his party is that the Chicago Tribune -- which was being directly attacked in a variety of ways by this governor, please note -- was the one breaking this story along the way.
The road was a bit tougher to get to the White House than to the guv's office in Illinois. Thank goodness. It is such a failure of politics, news media and clued-in leaders of every kind that so many are able to believe that people such as this crooked governor are not bad folks until they make it so blatantly obvious -- and leave proof, no less -- that they get hauled away by the FBI. Amazing.
This constant omission is laughable, really. Is it a broad problem, though? An in, a full-blown media bias issue? I suspect not. I think NewsBusters.org is wise to not call this a broad habit. They didn't. And the fact is, if you looked up old stories in a variety of locations (CNN.com, for instance) on GOP or Dem folks involved in scandals, and you'll find mention of party way down near the bottom of articles. At least, in some instances. It tends to be a policy. (Of course, CNN is among those guilty of assuming that most scandals are by the GOP's folks, not pretty even-handed. Gary Hart? Kwame Fitzpatrick? Bill Clinton's cigars? Hello?)
NewsBusters.org points out holes in stories -- odd omissions, bias, etc. NewsBusters.org is clearly a conservative site. However, not a rabid one. The site does a darn good job pointing out hypocrisy -- namely liberal and/or Dem bias -- in media. I am impressed with how they keep it to useful specifics, unlike many similar operations on either side of the political fence (far-left-leaning or far-right-leaning). This is worthy for many reasons, but here's one: Sites so broad in their range (that is, not apparently politically or ideologically motivated, covering a wide range of subjects) such as Salon.com pan the White House as being censors -- yes, they used that word -- for not choosing to hang a Christmas tree ball that states, among other uncheery things, "Impeach Bush." Wow. Idiots.
Being a bit cynical is one thing, but being outright unabashedly one-sided and proudly hateful of GW Bush and friends -- that's entirely another thing. Being that simplistic and ignorant is stunning for those who claim to be reflecting some sort of narrative of our lives. Our lives are very rarely one-sided. Salon.com and one Christmas decoration artist have proven themselves -- jointly, in one story, keeping it simple to present the case -- to be so shallow. I hope the Tribune and Sun-Times and other such doddering media can control themselves and find some road to balanced reporting in the future. I hope it won't take an outright assualt on a paper's board of directors to get a large or small media org to to the right thing -- and by right, I mean the correct thing.
- jR
Powered by ScribeFire.
A Wonder Boy from Illinois gets his: not Obama, not in a good way
At last, someone recognizes how crooked Chicago and Illinois politics is, this year. I think this comes up every year or so, but this was the first truly big story (only murmurs about it while Obama was running to be prez). Too bad this didn't occur before Obama was elected our president, it might have forced him to spend closer to five times more money to get elected, rather than merely four times as much as the GOP candidate. (Natch.)
Rod Blagojevich, Illinois governor arrest by FBI
The stunning, early morning visit by authorities to the governor's North Side home came amid revelations that federal investigators had recorded the governor with the cooperation of a longtime confidant and had begun to focus on the possibility that the process of choosing a Senate successor to President-elect Barack Obama could be tainted by pay-to-play politics.It is nice to see that at least a few of the corrupt, self-serving and deceptive Democratic politicians are finally getting their due. Rep. Jefferson in Louisiana, who was storing $90,000 in cash in his freezer (you know, to keep it from going sour), lost to a conservative with a immigrant American Dream story; now, a crooked governor gets his. What's so stunning is that this guy is merely 52, this was his second term, and he racked up loads of crooked dealings yet got reelected. Not a finer abuser of power can one find than this dirtbag, it would appear. So now we have to ask: is this what Obama is bringing to America? I cannot believe that that is so. But this is likely to impact his presidency, but to what level, who knows.
Now if Sen. Chris -- the mortgage sweetheart -- Dodd and sociopathic -- there is nothing risky about CRA mortgages (grin) -- Barney Frank could be ejected, perhaps some balance will come in this government-led economic recovery effort. Until then, we are just feeding a still-devious pack of crooked and all too comfortable leaders.
- jR
Powered by ScribeFire.
In the end, did money win the White House?
Obama Spent Four Times as Much as McCain at Race End | Bloomberg.com
McCain spent $26.5 million in the final weeks of the campaign, with $9.5 million going for advertisements, $4.5 million for message phone calls and $2.2 million for salaries. He ended up with $4.9 million in bills still to be paid. McCain also had $25 million in his legal and accounting fund, which can cover expenses incurred during a mandatory FEC audit.The vast difference in the finances of the get-out-the vote efforts -- in the end, it's all about getting votes -- suggests that the soon-to-be president is wise to not dance to the tune sung by his goofy worshipers. They are claiming that his election was a landslide. Landslide is a fun word that is often used by people unwittingly showing their own lack of logical, factual awareness (to be kind). Take Chris Matthews of MSNBC as an example.
After Oct. 15, Obama reported spending at least $80 million on advertising, mostly on television. He listed another $14.5 million in expenses for travel and lodging, $7.9 million for “staging, sound, lighting,” $7.9 million for payroll and $4.3 million for telemarketing.
Obama also listed $14.7 million in contributions. As in the past, he made payments to state political parties. The Minnesota Democratic Party, for instance, got $350,000, and the Missouri Democratic Party got $550,000.
First, it is absurd to presume that this was a landslide since the difference between the Dem and GOP takes were not even into double digits. So, no, not a landslide. Compare it to Reagan's 1984 victory, and his 1980 win, which was a solid win -- in double digits -- in both popular votes and states won. Second, it was simply not a landslide, if so much money was spent and they won by a very small margin.
Historically, even when Democrats lose, they spend more money than the GOP, in national elections. While this lends itself to a good joke about the difference in money and economic policy of the two parties, it also points out that, having won with such a small margin against a foe with such a small cash amount, that Obama ought to assure his victory is sweet by having it be a realist's victory, not an MSNBC-style, MoveOn.org-style, Karl Rove-style victory.
The Democrats will flaunt the win at their peril -- and are, evidenced by the blow-hard tactics of Sen. Chris Dodd (D, Conn.) in the midst of this economic crisis. Doddering Mr. Dodd has proclaimed quite loudly that it the fault of the Fed Reserve and Treasury that the banks -- which he oversees as a Congressional leader -- are not giving out loans with the money shoved at them.
- jR
Note: Have a look at this later post, for a more concise and easier to digest view of what the organizer and money-spender sides evoke in one little pontificater: http://totally-political.blogspot.com/2008/12/organizer-check-money-spender-check.html
Powered by ScribeFire.
NewsBusters: gotcha on the liberal media's 'have it both ways' ways.
Liberal TV News strikes again. (Did you expect anything else?)
The people who have been appointed, by some odd accident, to run American news media, at times really make it seem as if we ought to just close down TV altogether. Hit reboot, try again.
Granted, it seems that NBC and anything with those three letters in it, and TIME magazine and its buddies (including CNN), have really got a stranglehold on have-it-both ways, biased coverage, but this piece only proves one thing: the news media bias can't tell it's nose from its ass. Here's just a few snippets, but read the whole thing so you see the expert media blunderers and the author's contrariness in their whole glory.
NBC Exec: Obama's Skin Color Gives Him More Legitimacy Than Any American Leader In History | NewsBusters.org
Sucks, huh? The liberal B.S. continues, and will be in force, for at least four years. No matter what Obama does, in fact, the liberal B.S. will go on. They will go against him at some point, and that is when I think I will celebrate. Because they have acted shamefully. They have veiled their own interests as they do their deeds, unlike conservative or liberal radio guys. They are dishonest. And for that, I heap loads of disrespect on them.
The people who have been appointed, by some odd accident, to run American news media, at times really make it seem as if we ought to just close down TV altogether. Hit reboot, try again.
Granted, it seems that NBC and anything with those three letters in it, and TIME magazine and its buddies (including CNN), have really got a stranglehold on have-it-both ways, biased coverage, but this piece only proves one thing: the news media bias can't tell it's nose from its ass. Here's just a few snippets, but read the whole thing so you see the expert media blunderers and the author's contrariness in their whole glory.
NBC Exec: Obama's Skin Color Gives Him More Legitimacy Than Any American Leader In History | NewsBusters.org
The number two man at NBC News believes Barack Obama's skin color gives him more legitimacy around the world than possibly any American leader in history.
Imagine that. Because Obama is black, before he even steps into the White House and accomplishes one darned thing he already has more legitimacy around the world than possibly every American president that came before him.
Another quote out of the NewsBusters piece:
MATTHEWS: One reason for the rage from the east, and I’m no expert. All these years that have led to the terrorism, the undercurrent of rage against the west, us, is the sense that we have disrespected them, their culture, we have looked down on them. In fact, we have defeated them technologically in some cases. But there’s that sense that they feel they're reacting to the hatred of the west. By electing somebody with this name, are we going to diffuse some of that? I think that would be very hopeful if we could.
Imagine that. Throughout the campaign we were told by liberal media members that any reference to Obama's middle-name was racist. Now that he's about to be president, his middle-name is an asset that can be freely discussed.Those who thought the Obama-loving media would become more impartial once he was elected were clearly kidding themselves.
Sucks, huh? The liberal B.S. continues, and will be in force, for at least four years. No matter what Obama does, in fact, the liberal B.S. will go on. They will go against him at some point, and that is when I think I will celebrate. Because they have acted shamefully. They have veiled their own interests as they do their deeds, unlike conservative or liberal radio guys. They are dishonest. And for that, I heap loads of disrespect on them.
Powered by ScribeFire.
MoveOn announces 'most important campaign ever'
MoveOn announces 'most important campaign ever'
Impressive. MoveOn.org says they're going after the lobbyists. Who would believe this who is not a full-fledged liberal Kool-Aid drinker? I frankly find it hard to believe.
It's obvious, it is true: We need to get rid of myopically motivated, morally questionable corporate-agenda-floggers to achieve legitimate progress and improvements in a wide variety of areas. There are many people seeking sway in Washington, though. MoveOn.org is of course omitting many in this email from their tiny little far-left liberal CentCom in NYC.
It's obvious, it is true: We need to get rid of myopically motivated, morally questionable corporate-agenda-floggers to achieve legitimate progress and improvements in a wide variety of areas. There are many people seeking sway in Washington, though. MoveOn.org is of course omitting many in this email from their tiny little far-left liberal CentCom in NYC.
I think MoveOn.org is invested in blockading others so that special-interest liberal lobbyists -- those who favor and fund Democrats -- will have more room to proceed. It is that simple, I would gamble. They ought to be called on it.
They are speaking to a pack of amateur activists with little use for in-depth facts, perhaps, but their omission of the more powerful lobbies needs to be brought out, loud and strong. Notice that there is no mention of education lobbies -- which are steadily eroding the value of our public education with the watering down (and filtering all leaders from fed to state to local) with interest to protecting bad teachers and apathetic education leaders, the broad reach and influence of labor lobbies (a wide range, they give members' money to liberal ideals only, and force-feed influence about liberal agendas to their members), and the state and local government employee lobbies (these guys fund more politicians than anyone and are around 98% Democrat-funding, which makes me thoroughly suspicious of every government worker statewide and locally). There's the common joke, for government workers, that they would have to kill their supervisor to lose their job, generally. There's a logical motivation for that absurd comment, and the monstrous lobby machine for gov't workers is clearly party to that problem.
See for yourself at OpenSecrets.org -- the "Heavy Hitters" lists shows who is leading among cash cows for political parties.
See for yourself at OpenSecrets.org -- the "Heavy Hitters" lists shows who is leading among cash cows for political parties.I am for excellent teachers and effective workers. I am one. Or, I have thought so. I.Q. of 130, business educated, helped start three companies and I find myself a bit off the tracks right now. That's unfortunate for me and my wife, but no one else. But the lobbying problem is a bigger, broader problem.
It seems there is a goal with lobbyists to level the playing field not for excellence, but for the mundane and uninspired to excel in teaching, but gaining ridiculously high incomes for very nontechnical jobs, and other offensive things that are ruining education, manufacturing, and more. If the lobbies, all lobbying groups, were at all balanced in their motivations, it would be a good thing. They prove they do not have any balance -- they are not only self-serving, but vacuously so.
Begin forwarded message:
There are literally tens of thousands of lobbyists in Washington, funded by countless millions from corporations and industry groups. The oil and coal companies. The pharmaceutical industry. The HMOs. The telecoms. They're all gearing up right now to stop any bold health care bill or energy plan dead in its tracks.
They're going to fight Obama at every step. We have to be prepared to fight back harder.
That's why we've launched a huge campaign to flood Washington with the voices of real Americans who are crying out for change. On TV, on billboards and buses, in district offices and the halls of Congress, we're going to amplify the voices of MoveOn members and make Barack Obama's progressive mandate impossible to ignore.
Our plan is really ambitious. And it'll take serious money. MoveOn doesn't have Exxon or Pfizer to go to—we only have each other. Can you chip in $15 per month to fund this big campaign? It's easy—we bill your credit card each month, and you can cancel any time. Just click here:
https://pol.moveon.org/donate/gobig.html?id=15164-6281706-tz9M5jx&t=3
After the election, MoveOn members felt strongly that we needed to keep the momentum going and continue organizing for change.
Right now, volunteers are gathering hundreds of thousands of stories and photos and signatures of the real Americans who are hungry for change. We'll deliver them to our representatives in Washington in January, in the biggest day of grassroots action MoveOn has ever organized.
Obama won a powerful mandate, and we're going to make sure nobody forgets that.
Even with volunteers doing almost all the work, we'll still need money to pay organizers, print materials, and run ads. Can you help out with a monthly contribution of $15?
https://pol.moveon.org/donate/gobig.html?id=15164-6281706-tz9M5jx&t=4
Thanks for all you do.
–Peter, Ilyse, Justin, Wes and the rest of the team
Today there's Bill Maher; before there was... Chevy Chase?
A BLAST FROM THE CYNICAL PAST:
Chevy Chase, in a recent CNN interview, the cynical man proudly proclaimed himself as being (allegedly) a funny man who hoped to humiliate Ford out of the White House with his take-offs of the president. I think that insincerity has "paid off" in droves: Chase is the butt of more jokes about a formerly (possibly never) funny man than Jim Belushi (except some argue Jim B. was never funny -- a bit harsh, but only a bit).Considering that, I guess Chase admitting that he was always a cynic, especially while flopping about as Gerald Ford on Saturday Night Live, cannot hurt him.
It is disappointing to know someone I (and millions) once found pleasantly humorous proves he was incapable of being funny without doing it for deliriously ill-willed reasons. Chevy Chase needed to retire somewhere between Spies Like Us and his appearance on the annual Amnesty Int'l fund-raising event, "Secret Policeman's Ball" in 2007 or 2008 (whichever he was on, he sucked). Probably far closer to the wrap-up of Spies Like Us.
Today Chase is closer to a cynical goof-ball the likes of a Simpson's TV clown than he is to his SNL pal, the short-lived John Belushi, and such time-proven talents he worked with back then, as Gilda Radner, Dan Ackroyd and Steve Martin. (I am, of course, ignoring that Martin did that remake of The Pink Panther. It was a Razzies nominee. One more move like that and he's dead to me, simply dead. Pink Panther 2 is coming.)
Today Chase is closer to a cynical goof-ball the likes of a Simpson's TV clown than he is to his SNL pal, the short-lived John Belushi, and such time-proven talents he worked with back then, as Gilda Radner, Dan Ackroyd and Steve Martin. (I am, of course, ignoring that Martin did that remake of The Pink Panther. It was a Razzies nominee. One more move like that and he's dead to me, simply dead. Pink Panther 2 is coming.)
Chase also comments in that interview that Ford and he later became friends. Fascinating. Especially seeing these comments. I suspect there is a difference here in the two men that Chevy never understood. I can only suggest it, as I have no proof: Gerald Ford was a respectful man. Chevy Chase isn't and he wasn't back then, either. He is not only no longer funny, he is cynical. Just like Larry King's favorite comic, Bill Maher.Chase: I just went after him. And ... obviously my leanings were Democratic and I wanted [Jimmy] Carter in and I wanted [Ford] out, and I figured look, we're reaching millions of people every weekend, why not do it."
Over the years, "Saturday Night Live's" political satires have become a mainstay of the show, sometimes to startling effect.
CNN: You mean to tell me in the back of your mind you were thinking, 'hey I want Carter ' ...
Chase: Oh, yeah.
CNN: And, 'I'm going to make him look bad.'
Chase: Oh yeah. What do you think they're doing now, you think they're just doing this because Sarah's funny? No, I think that the show is very much more Democratic and liberal-oriented, that they are obviously more for Barack Obama. [That was the '70s], out of the Nixon era, and it was not unlikely that I might go that direction.
CNN: I talked to one political pundit who said, 'I think Chevy Chase cost Ford the presidency.'
Chase: When you have that kind of a venue and power where you can reach so many millions of people and you've become a show that people watch, you know, you can affect a lot of people, and humor does it beautifully, because humor is perspective and has a way of making judgment calls.
Aside from that vitriol, have a read of this. Chase was actually given space in the NY Times a while after Ford's death to reflect on the man he panned so mischievously. "If it hadn’t been for the courage of Mr. Ford’s wife, Betty, for admitting to an alcohol problem, I would never have received the help I needed in the early 1980s at the Betty Ford clinic," Chase wrote. Read the whole commentary at the NY Times site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)