Believe me, my friends, this is truly priceless. And please, do not read this while drinking something hot.
In this post over at HotAir, John Sexton gives us this quote from the MSNBC Vice President of primetime programming, Bill Wolff:
Wolff called it “nonsense” that MSNBC is driven by politics or even profits when it comes to how much airtime it devotes to Palin.
“MSNBC does not have a political agenda. The idea that we’re beholden to one side or the other is ridiculous,” he says. “And if Sarah Palin is so good for business, why would we want to destroy her? We tell the truth. We hold up a mirror and say, ‘This is what’s going on.’ We’re not so crass to think that she’s good for business, therefore we’ll talk about her.”
Wolff is also executive producer of The Rachel Maddow Show, which ran 90 segments on Palin in 2009 and 99 in 2010, according to LexisNexis.
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
OK, there is a serious story that the above quote is from.
This story appeared in The Hollywood Reporter. And it deals with MSNBC and its orgasm over the former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin.
According to the article, the former MSNBC so-called host, Keith Olbermann, discussed Mrs. Palin a total of 320 segments since July 1, 2008. But hey, Mr. Olbermann is a piker compared with Chris Burp Matthews. Burp Matthew has had 4 2 0 segments on Mrs. Palin. There is a joke or a toke somewhere in that number. Hmm. But I digress. And Mr. Wolff may have more than he lets on about the Palinpalooza at MSNBC. Mr. Wolff is the executive producer of the Rachel Madcow show. And Miss Madcow has had 99 segments on Mrs. Palin since last year.
Why in the name of God does MSNBC care so much about Mrs. Palin? She is no longer the governor of Alaska. She delivers political commentary on the Fox News Channel. She had a travelogue on TLC earlier this year. And maybe she is considering running for president. But why are the folks over at the Lean Forward network so worked up over her?
Look, there are a lot of Republicans considering taking the plunge and running against the Dear Leader, President Obama. But none seem to matter to the Kool-aid drinkers over at MSNBC.
I suppose there is some interest in the former Alaska governor. But as much as this network gives to her? When this network is usually battling CNN for the least viewers in cable news, how can it justify about 750 separate segments on Mrs. Palin?
It can not.
Yet, here comes Mr. Wolff to say there is no agenda.
Really, are ye serious Mr. Wolff?
Of course the agenda is to discredit Mrs. Palin now and make her decide not to run for president. No, Mr. Wolff et al will never admit it directly.
Fine, don't.
But do not lie about the obsession MSNBC has with Mrs. Palin. Hell, even the house "conservative", Joe Scarbourough, seems to like the pile-on Mrs. Palin.
It is funny to see that someone who should have credibility show how little he has.
Mr. Wolff, take back the malarkey. Admit that you are fudging just a bit. Admit it. You're addicted to Sarah Palin.
There is a song in there.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Is The Dear Leader Done Speaking?
Oh, finally, the Dear Leader, President Obama, has finished his long-awaited State Of The Union side show, er speech, and it was a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Really, I do not want to send you to a site where you can watch the Dear Leader, President Obama, putting many Americans to sleep. So, you can read his comments at this link.
Why it only took the Dear Leader, President Obama, seconds to twist the Massacre In Tucson to somehow fit the lefty view that Jared Loughner was some crazed Tea Party reject trying to stifle debate in this nation. While the Dear Leader, President Obama, did start off by noting the abscence of Congressman Gabrielle Giffords, the target of Mr. Loughner's rampage, here is what he said about the outcome of the Massacre In Tucson:
But there's a reason the tragedy in Tucson gave us pause. Amid all the noise and passions and rancor of our public debate, Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater - something more consequential than party or political preference.
Again, the fact is that Jared Loughner is at worst a crazed schizophrenic that had no discernable political point of view. It appears that Mr. Loughner really got off on some movie called Zeitgeist in which a just as disjointed world view is explored.
But enough of that pap.
On some substance, the Dear Leader, President Obama, threw some bones to Republicans by wanting to streamline federal government regulations, cutting the budget deficits and the like.
But then, the Dear Leader, President Obama, strayed into that territory. The territory of more government spending. Oh, my bad. Investment. Yeah, that is the new lefty term for more government.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, talked about repairing our transportation infrastructure, rebuilding roads and bridges.
Hey, I thought that was what the American Recovery Act was supposed to do?! Once again, my bad! I guess that is why there are still tons of potholes around these parts!
And somehow, this president really believes that the government made America great.
Really, did those that he cited, Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, go to the federal government for a handout? Not to my knowledge.
Yet there he goes again, touting the fraudulent Green economy.
The free market, not the government and their business allies looking for cash, will determine if there is a real market for Green.
But this guy and his minions think that the federal government can just wave a wand, or a wad of cash, and suddenly jobs will come down like manna from heaven.
And the Dear Leader, President Obama's comments on education are a joke.
If he had proposed getting rid of the Department of Education, then he would be on to something.
But because of the DOE, we have seen our education system become an ungodly mess.
If he really wants bottom up education innovation, get rid of the DOE and its mandates and let the local school boards have the power that they once had.
All in all, it was a somewhat Clintonian speech. But I think that it will not have any effect in the long run. After all, the Dear Leader, President Obama, has a split congress. Anything that he wants to get done has to start and get passed the Republican House. And unless he steps away from some of what he talked about, it is going to be a long two years.
Maybe then he will stop speaking.
Really, I do not want to send you to a site where you can watch the Dear Leader, President Obama, putting many Americans to sleep. So, you can read his comments at this link.
Why it only took the Dear Leader, President Obama, seconds to twist the Massacre In Tucson to somehow fit the lefty view that Jared Loughner was some crazed Tea Party reject trying to stifle debate in this nation. While the Dear Leader, President Obama, did start off by noting the abscence of Congressman Gabrielle Giffords, the target of Mr. Loughner's rampage, here is what he said about the outcome of the Massacre In Tucson:
But there's a reason the tragedy in Tucson gave us pause. Amid all the noise and passions and rancor of our public debate, Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater - something more consequential than party or political preference.
Again, the fact is that Jared Loughner is at worst a crazed schizophrenic that had no discernable political point of view. It appears that Mr. Loughner really got off on some movie called Zeitgeist in which a just as disjointed world view is explored.
But enough of that pap.
On some substance, the Dear Leader, President Obama, threw some bones to Republicans by wanting to streamline federal government regulations, cutting the budget deficits and the like.
But then, the Dear Leader, President Obama, strayed into that territory. The territory of more government spending. Oh, my bad. Investment. Yeah, that is the new lefty term for more government.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, talked about repairing our transportation infrastructure, rebuilding roads and bridges.
Hey, I thought that was what the American Recovery Act was supposed to do?! Once again, my bad! I guess that is why there are still tons of potholes around these parts!
And somehow, this president really believes that the government made America great.
Really, did those that he cited, Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, go to the federal government for a handout? Not to my knowledge.
Yet there he goes again, touting the fraudulent Green economy.
The free market, not the government and their business allies looking for cash, will determine if there is a real market for Green.
But this guy and his minions think that the federal government can just wave a wand, or a wad of cash, and suddenly jobs will come down like manna from heaven.
And the Dear Leader, President Obama's comments on education are a joke.
If he had proposed getting rid of the Department of Education, then he would be on to something.
But because of the DOE, we have seen our education system become an ungodly mess.
If he really wants bottom up education innovation, get rid of the DOE and its mandates and let the local school boards have the power that they once had.
All in all, it was a somewhat Clintonian speech. But I think that it will not have any effect in the long run. After all, the Dear Leader, President Obama, has a split congress. Anything that he wants to get done has to start and get passed the Republican House. And unless he steps away from some of what he talked about, it is going to be a long two years.
Maybe then he will stop speaking.
Please, Dems And GOP, Don't Sit Together And Other State Of The Union Thoughts
Although this is falling on some deaf ears, I really, really wished that Democrat and Republican members of congress would not sit together tonight at the State of the Union speech.
Really, it is meaningless gesture in a supposed response to the Massacre In Tucson.
Because it turns out that the man that shot Congressman Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people was not doing so for a political statement.
Nonetheless, somehow there is this era of getting along because, well even though we know that there not a political angle to the attempted murder of Mrs. Giffords, it just seems swell.
Well, it is not swell.
Look, no matter what one reads or hears, there are absolute and fundamental differences between the Democrat vision of the federal government and that of the Republicans. No amount of sitting together to hear a speech is going to wash that away.
While the Dear Leader, President Obama, is going to talk about "investment"-which is really going to be federal government spending, the Republicans are going to be talking about cutting the federal government. Now the cuts will simply put federal government spending at 2008 levels. Still much too high.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, will talk a good game about having to rein in spending, yet he will not offer any meaningful reforms, say social security. And please note that this is the result of a much touted commission he appointed. So much for courage.
A great opportunity for the Republicans is to endorse the commission and propose legislation implementing it. I am sure some Republicans would like to do just that.
Sitting together in the House chamber will not change the differences between the parties. The reason for it is phony. Fake. It is to make conservatives and Republicans less likely to have a Joe Wilson moment. Which is too bad.
I do not have a problem with politicians actually speaking the truth. And the Dems are using the Massacre In Tucson to shut down those of us that have a different vision where the United States should go.
And please, if anyone really believes that the political discourse is soooo bad, I recommend this book A Magnificent Catastrophe, a book about the presidential election of 1800. It is how the Democrat party came to be. And the forerunner to the Republicans. It is about the viciousness of that campaign and how it eventually had to be decided in the House of Representatives.
So please, we do not need phony kumbaya sitting together like cheap prom dates. We need to have a real debate on the future of this Great Land.
Really, it is meaningless gesture in a supposed response to the Massacre In Tucson.
Because it turns out that the man that shot Congressman Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people was not doing so for a political statement.
Nonetheless, somehow there is this era of getting along because, well even though we know that there not a political angle to the attempted murder of Mrs. Giffords, it just seems swell.
Well, it is not swell.
Look, no matter what one reads or hears, there are absolute and fundamental differences between the Democrat vision of the federal government and that of the Republicans. No amount of sitting together to hear a speech is going to wash that away.
While the Dear Leader, President Obama, is going to talk about "investment"-which is really going to be federal government spending, the Republicans are going to be talking about cutting the federal government. Now the cuts will simply put federal government spending at 2008 levels. Still much too high.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, will talk a good game about having to rein in spending, yet he will not offer any meaningful reforms, say social security. And please note that this is the result of a much touted commission he appointed. So much for courage.
A great opportunity for the Republicans is to endorse the commission and propose legislation implementing it. I am sure some Republicans would like to do just that.
Sitting together in the House chamber will not change the differences between the parties. The reason for it is phony. Fake. It is to make conservatives and Republicans less likely to have a Joe Wilson moment. Which is too bad.
I do not have a problem with politicians actually speaking the truth. And the Dems are using the Massacre In Tucson to shut down those of us that have a different vision where the United States should go.
And please, if anyone really believes that the political discourse is soooo bad, I recommend this book A Magnificent Catastrophe, a book about the presidential election of 1800. It is how the Democrat party came to be. And the forerunner to the Republicans. It is about the viciousness of that campaign and how it eventually had to be decided in the House of Representatives.
So please, we do not need phony kumbaya sitting together like cheap prom dates. We need to have a real debate on the future of this Great Land.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Beware Of Reagan Revisionism From The Left
As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the birth of former President Ronald Reagan, the left in ramping up revisionist history to try to use against those that are now the leaders of the Republican party. Those of us that came of age politically during the Reagan presidency.
The latest installment is courtesy of the Left Angeles Times and Jacob Helibrunn.
The column is a lefty attempt to paint a picture of Ronald Reagan not really believing in all that conservative stuff. You know, like cutting the size of government. Returning many responsibilities that used to be the states usurped by the federal government. A strong foreign policy that always put American interests first. Nah, according to Mr. Heilbrunn. Never believe that. It was all a wink and a nod.
Firstly, this column's main point is that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is really just like the Great Man. A real pragmatist. Not an ideologue at all.
Rubbish.
Mr. Heilbrunn, actually correctly, points out that Mr. Reagan did compromise on some issues. What Mr. Heilbrunn fails to point out that the House of Representatives was dominated by Democrats all eight years of the Great Man's tenure in the White House. And while the senate was Republican for six of eight years of the Reagan tenure, it should be pointed out that the RINOs* were a stronger force within the Republican party than it is today.
While Mr. Reagan led a Republican landslide in 1980, a lot of those that won election were out by 1982 in the House and 1986 in the senate. So, of course Mr. Reagan could have not gotten everything that he wanted. And he did compromise and even made mistakes. But that does not go against the fact that Mr. Reagan was a solid conservative Republican.
Take a domestic policy issue, abortion.
The United States was in the early stage of the awful Roe vs Wade decision that made abortion legal in all the United States. And ended state laws on the issue. An overwhelming majority of Americans supported the decision and did not realize the end result. Mr. Reagan knew that his position against abortion was a minority one. Even within his own party. Thus he knew that he could not legislatively reverse Roe vs Wade. He spoke about it. Wrote about it in this piece. And in a way that lefties could never get, he was able to shape a lot of the federal judiciary. The same judiciary that made the mistake in the first place. And the so-called lip service that Mr. Reagan paid to banning unfettered access to abortion is what I believed has changed so many American minds on the subject. Now a majority of Americans support stronger restrictions on abortion. What that means is sometimes, some things can not be legislated. And Mr. Reagan knew that it would not change in his presidency. But he set up the future debate and it was President George W. Bush that signed legislation banning the so-called late-term abortions in the United States. And yes, this is the same Ronald Reagan that did sign the most liberal abortion law to date in the United States in 1967. So, he did change his mind and took a much more traditional position on abortion.
On taxes, yes I believe that Mr. Reagan did make a mistake as governor and as president by agreeing to massive tax hikes. But, what Mr. Helibrunn does not like to admit, as president Mr. Reagan supported the Kemp-Roth tax bill that cut taxes across the board for all Americans. And also was successful in the tax reform act of 1986 that made the highest tax rate only 28%. That was from a high of 70% when Mr. Reagan had taken office in 1981. But, Mr. Helibrunn throws in the lefty canard that because of all the tax reform, the deficit ballooned and that former President Bill Clinton had to clean up the mess. Oh yeah, darn, Mr. Clinton had a Republican congress to help him out. And a huge peace dividend from the demise of the Soviet Union.
But never fear, Mr. Reagan was really a dove on foreign policy according to Mr. Heilbrunn.
Mr. Heilbrunn claims that somehow, Mr. Reagan ended the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet Communism by "making common cause with the enemy" as Mr. Heilbrunn puts it.
Hmm, not really.
While Mr. Heilbrunn points out that Mr. Reagan wanted to cut a deal to eliminate nuclear weapons in Reykjavik, Iceland in 1987, he fails to explain why the deal was not done. Because Mr. Reagan thought that it was not in the best interests of the United States. And had he listened to those on the left, he would not have fought to reduce nuclear weapons but to just stop their growth. On this, Mr. Reagan was right and some of us on the right may have been wrong.
Mr. Reagan, who opined in March of 1983 that "Communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written", and later that month referred to the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire was tough on the Soviets and waited for the right time and the right leader. That leader was Mikhail Gorbachev. While Comrade Gorby thought he was just reforming Soviet Communism, Mr. Reagan was working to end it. To roll it back. Mr. Heilbrunn, seemingly conveniently, forgets the infamous "Tear down this wall" speech Mr. Reagan gave in front of the evil Berlin Wall in 1987. Again, a pragmatist would have never uttered such words.
And here is another convenient aspect of the Reagan era that Mr. Heilbrunn does not bring up. The federal judiciary.
Mr. Reagan appointed 376 judges to the federal bench, the most of any president. And he did try to bring a conservative balance to the supreme court. Yes, he did appoint Sandra Day O'Connor to the supreme court. But he also elevated William Rehnquist as chief justice. And the big fight was over Robert Bork. The Democrats knew that a Justice Bork could have the court become a solid conservative majority. And led by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Dems and the left did all they could to smear Judge Bork and he was denied the appointment to the supreme court. And when Mr. Reagan tried to nominate Douglas Ginsburg from the Washington D. C. Court of Appeals, he never got out of the starting gate. Judge Ginsburg revealed that he used marijuana while in law school. Hmm, maybe Judge Ginsburg should have been nominated by President Clinton. Oh, but he did not inhale the ganja weed. Right. And thus, Mr. Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the court. Lesson here. Never get to third choice. And unfortunately, Mr. Reagan did. And we have been stuck with this justice since.
As an aside, do you know that Alabama Republican senator Jeff Sessions was nominated to a federal district court by Mr. Reagan in 1986? Well, after a similar smear campaign as used to defeat Judge Bork, Mr. Sessions was not even voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Revenge is sweet because now, Sen. Sessions now is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In truly celebrating the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, we have to take all about Mr. Reagan, look at the context of the time and realize that he did accomplish a lot then and for the future. Especially the future of the Republican party. And we must reject leftist attempts to muddle, blur or even lie about that record. We must remind those Americans that did not live during the Reagan presidency that it was a conservative in the White House, not some closet liberal. And we must counter starting with the kind of revisionist pieces by lefties like Jacob Heilbrunn. It is going to be a long year of that.
The latest installment is courtesy of the Left Angeles Times and Jacob Helibrunn.
The column is a lefty attempt to paint a picture of Ronald Reagan not really believing in all that conservative stuff. You know, like cutting the size of government. Returning many responsibilities that used to be the states usurped by the federal government. A strong foreign policy that always put American interests first. Nah, according to Mr. Heilbrunn. Never believe that. It was all a wink and a nod.
Firstly, this column's main point is that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is really just like the Great Man. A real pragmatist. Not an ideologue at all.
Rubbish.
Mr. Heilbrunn, actually correctly, points out that Mr. Reagan did compromise on some issues. What Mr. Heilbrunn fails to point out that the House of Representatives was dominated by Democrats all eight years of the Great Man's tenure in the White House. And while the senate was Republican for six of eight years of the Reagan tenure, it should be pointed out that the RINOs* were a stronger force within the Republican party than it is today.
While Mr. Reagan led a Republican landslide in 1980, a lot of those that won election were out by 1982 in the House and 1986 in the senate. So, of course Mr. Reagan could have not gotten everything that he wanted. And he did compromise and even made mistakes. But that does not go against the fact that Mr. Reagan was a solid conservative Republican.
Take a domestic policy issue, abortion.
The United States was in the early stage of the awful Roe vs Wade decision that made abortion legal in all the United States. And ended state laws on the issue. An overwhelming majority of Americans supported the decision and did not realize the end result. Mr. Reagan knew that his position against abortion was a minority one. Even within his own party. Thus he knew that he could not legislatively reverse Roe vs Wade. He spoke about it. Wrote about it in this piece. And in a way that lefties could never get, he was able to shape a lot of the federal judiciary. The same judiciary that made the mistake in the first place. And the so-called lip service that Mr. Reagan paid to banning unfettered access to abortion is what I believed has changed so many American minds on the subject. Now a majority of Americans support stronger restrictions on abortion. What that means is sometimes, some things can not be legislated. And Mr. Reagan knew that it would not change in his presidency. But he set up the future debate and it was President George W. Bush that signed legislation banning the so-called late-term abortions in the United States. And yes, this is the same Ronald Reagan that did sign the most liberal abortion law to date in the United States in 1967. So, he did change his mind and took a much more traditional position on abortion.
On taxes, yes I believe that Mr. Reagan did make a mistake as governor and as president by agreeing to massive tax hikes. But, what Mr. Helibrunn does not like to admit, as president Mr. Reagan supported the Kemp-Roth tax bill that cut taxes across the board for all Americans. And also was successful in the tax reform act of 1986 that made the highest tax rate only 28%. That was from a high of 70% when Mr. Reagan had taken office in 1981. But, Mr. Helibrunn throws in the lefty canard that because of all the tax reform, the deficit ballooned and that former President Bill Clinton had to clean up the mess. Oh yeah, darn, Mr. Clinton had a Republican congress to help him out. And a huge peace dividend from the demise of the Soviet Union.
But never fear, Mr. Reagan was really a dove on foreign policy according to Mr. Heilbrunn.
Mr. Heilbrunn claims that somehow, Mr. Reagan ended the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet Communism by "making common cause with the enemy" as Mr. Heilbrunn puts it.
Hmm, not really.
While Mr. Heilbrunn points out that Mr. Reagan wanted to cut a deal to eliminate nuclear weapons in Reykjavik, Iceland in 1987, he fails to explain why the deal was not done. Because Mr. Reagan thought that it was not in the best interests of the United States. And had he listened to those on the left, he would not have fought to reduce nuclear weapons but to just stop their growth. On this, Mr. Reagan was right and some of us on the right may have been wrong.
Mr. Reagan, who opined in March of 1983 that "Communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written", and later that month referred to the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire was tough on the Soviets and waited for the right time and the right leader. That leader was Mikhail Gorbachev. While Comrade Gorby thought he was just reforming Soviet Communism, Mr. Reagan was working to end it. To roll it back. Mr. Heilbrunn, seemingly conveniently, forgets the infamous "Tear down this wall" speech Mr. Reagan gave in front of the evil Berlin Wall in 1987. Again, a pragmatist would have never uttered such words.
And here is another convenient aspect of the Reagan era that Mr. Heilbrunn does not bring up. The federal judiciary.
Mr. Reagan appointed 376 judges to the federal bench, the most of any president. And he did try to bring a conservative balance to the supreme court. Yes, he did appoint Sandra Day O'Connor to the supreme court. But he also elevated William Rehnquist as chief justice. And the big fight was over Robert Bork. The Democrats knew that a Justice Bork could have the court become a solid conservative majority. And led by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Dems and the left did all they could to smear Judge Bork and he was denied the appointment to the supreme court. And when Mr. Reagan tried to nominate Douglas Ginsburg from the Washington D. C. Court of Appeals, he never got out of the starting gate. Judge Ginsburg revealed that he used marijuana while in law school. Hmm, maybe Judge Ginsburg should have been nominated by President Clinton. Oh, but he did not inhale the ganja weed. Right. And thus, Mr. Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the court. Lesson here. Never get to third choice. And unfortunately, Mr. Reagan did. And we have been stuck with this justice since.
As an aside, do you know that Alabama Republican senator Jeff Sessions was nominated to a federal district court by Mr. Reagan in 1986? Well, after a similar smear campaign as used to defeat Judge Bork, Mr. Sessions was not even voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Revenge is sweet because now, Sen. Sessions now is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In truly celebrating the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, we have to take all about Mr. Reagan, look at the context of the time and realize that he did accomplish a lot then and for the future. Especially the future of the Republican party. And we must reject leftist attempts to muddle, blur or even lie about that record. We must remind those Americans that did not live during the Reagan presidency that it was a conservative in the White House, not some closet liberal. And we must counter starting with the kind of revisionist pieces by lefties like Jacob Heilbrunn. It is going to be a long year of that.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Gee, You Know, That Hate Speech Has Been Around Quite A Long Time
I stumbled on this excellent post from Steven Hayward today.
It reminded me of what life was like in the 1980s. You know, in the United States where everyone just loved then President Ronald Reagan.
Even Chris "Burp" Matthews seems to believe that all was so peachy during those halcyon days.
NOT! NOT! NOT!
As Mr. Hayward points out, it was Burp Matthews former boss, then Speaker of the House Thomas "Tip" O'Neill that had this nugget of love for the President:
"The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He's cold. He's mean. He's got ice water for blood."
Get that, folks? The eeevvviiiiilll in the White House was. . .RONALD REAGAN!
Yeah, that was real choice from Mr. O'Neill.
Read Mr. Hayward's post in it's entirety. It really scratches the surface. Because I could write a post just to the love our friends on the left showed to Mr. Reagan, it would take away from the larger point.
All this rubbish about how politics is worse today than ever is just that.
Rubbish.
The difference today is that there is a push back from a conservative media.
There are people willing to stand up to the "Tip" O'Neill types on the other side. There are those of us that actually believe in what we say and are wiling to speak up.
So people actually fight back when the left says horrible things about Sarah Palin. George W. Bush. Any conservative. And yes, even Sen. John "F--- You" McCain.
Because there was only one Ronald Reagan, he was able to brush it off and come back with a good one-liner. And, as Mr. Hayward noted:
"Just ask Gorbachev; first he smiled at Reagan, and before you knew it, his country went poof."
That is a classic!
But let us not kid ourselves.
I will go back further to the 1964 presidential campaign in which President Lyndon Johnson aired the infamous "Daisy" television ad. That ad implied a vote for Republican Barry M. Goldwater for president was a vote for nuclear war. Yes, even back then our lefty friends use children when all else fails. And while the ad aired only one time, the traction was all that was needed. Again, there was no Fox News Channel. No internet. No serious media scrutiny over the scurrilousness of that ad.
The fact of the matter is that when one dissects what the left is up to, it is clear.
It is up to curtailing free speech, pure and simple.
Like making up Arizona not celebrating MLK day, they start making things up about how crosshairs on internet ads can send someone over the edge. That "targeting" a political opponent is just asking for someone to kill a politician that they do not like.
Not that there is any evidence of such things.
But just keep saying the Big Lie enough the left hopes and people will start to believe it.
But they don't.
Most Americans are not political junkies. Those of us that are know that this is how the game is played. It is, dare I write this, non-lethal warfare. And both sides try to get people on their side.
Some are generals, captains, colonels, sergeants, and troops. And the vast majority kind of take a passing interest.
But to say that the level of discourse is so terrible, the worst in the history of the United States is so over the top. And not true.
The reality is, all this stuff has been around a long, long time. And it will be around a long, long time!
HT: Hot Air @ www.hotair.com
It reminded me of what life was like in the 1980s. You know, in the United States where everyone just loved then President Ronald Reagan.
Even Chris "Burp" Matthews seems to believe that all was so peachy during those halcyon days.
NOT! NOT! NOT!
As Mr. Hayward points out, it was Burp Matthews former boss, then Speaker of the House Thomas "Tip" O'Neill that had this nugget of love for the President:
"The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He's cold. He's mean. He's got ice water for blood."
Get that, folks? The eeevvviiiiilll in the White House was. . .RONALD REAGAN!
Yeah, that was real choice from Mr. O'Neill.
Read Mr. Hayward's post in it's entirety. It really scratches the surface. Because I could write a post just to the love our friends on the left showed to Mr. Reagan, it would take away from the larger point.
All this rubbish about how politics is worse today than ever is just that.
Rubbish.
The difference today is that there is a push back from a conservative media.
There are people willing to stand up to the "Tip" O'Neill types on the other side. There are those of us that actually believe in what we say and are wiling to speak up.
So people actually fight back when the left says horrible things about Sarah Palin. George W. Bush. Any conservative. And yes, even Sen. John "F--- You" McCain.
Because there was only one Ronald Reagan, he was able to brush it off and come back with a good one-liner. And, as Mr. Hayward noted:
"Just ask Gorbachev; first he smiled at Reagan, and before you knew it, his country went poof."
That is a classic!
But let us not kid ourselves.
I will go back further to the 1964 presidential campaign in which President Lyndon Johnson aired the infamous "Daisy" television ad. That ad implied a vote for Republican Barry M. Goldwater for president was a vote for nuclear war. Yes, even back then our lefty friends use children when all else fails. And while the ad aired only one time, the traction was all that was needed. Again, there was no Fox News Channel. No internet. No serious media scrutiny over the scurrilousness of that ad.
The fact of the matter is that when one dissects what the left is up to, it is clear.
It is up to curtailing free speech, pure and simple.
Like making up Arizona not celebrating MLK day, they start making things up about how crosshairs on internet ads can send someone over the edge. That "targeting" a political opponent is just asking for someone to kill a politician that they do not like.
Not that there is any evidence of such things.
But just keep saying the Big Lie enough the left hopes and people will start to believe it.
But they don't.
Most Americans are not political junkies. Those of us that are know that this is how the game is played. It is, dare I write this, non-lethal warfare. And both sides try to get people on their side.
Some are generals, captains, colonels, sergeants, and troops. And the vast majority kind of take a passing interest.
But to say that the level of discourse is so terrible, the worst in the history of the United States is so over the top. And not true.
The reality is, all this stuff has been around a long, long time. And it will be around a long, long time!
HT: Hot Air @ www.hotair.com
More Ignorant Arizona Bashing From MSNBC
Another day, another phony analogy to use to bash the good people of Arizona.
--Sigh :-(!
The latest comes from the cable network that claims to "Lean Forward", MSNBC.
This morning on the Morning Schmuck show, guest nit wit Donny Douchebag decided to flat out lie about Arizona not celebrating Martin Luther King day.
Er, one problem with that out and out lie.
Arizona does celebrate MLK day and has done so since 1992.
As Ed Morrisey over at Hot Air points out, Arizona got on board sooner than New Hampshire, Utah and South Carolina.
Now the governor in the early 1980s, Evan Meacham, was opposed to the holiday for clearly provocative reasons. It did not help that Mr. Meacham was a member of the John Birch Society and actively believed in the consperitorial view of history that JBS has over the the years.
But then President Reagan also opposed the holiday before eventually signing legislation in 1983. Mr. Reagan believed that it was too costly to institute another federal holiday. Not because of the crazed thinking of Mr. Meacham that the Rev. King was a Communist.
But hey, Mr. Douchbag and his guest, Al Sharpton, a man that should be in jail, kept going with the lie and suggested that Arizona had seceded from the United States. Here is what passes as intellectual dialogue over at MSNBC:
DONNY DEUTSCH: Reverend, I just want to, it's Donny. Hey buddy, I want to ask you a question. We're in the year 2011. We’re coming off the horrific, horrific event in Tucson. Yet as we celebrate Dr. King's day, there's still this very strange state, Arizona, that does not recognize it. I mean, maybe is there a time for a shift here? Should they secede from the nation? I, with all that’s going on, it's just almost bizarre at this point.
SHARPTON: Well, I think on today they have seceded. I mean, this is a federal holiday. This is something that the country can celebrate the progress we've made.
Really, are you two just that stupid? Did you just engage in that insipid dialogue for any reason other than bash Arizona?
Look, I know that the Massacre In Tucson is like a big orgasm to the left. They are milking it for all that it is worth.
At the end of the day, it is a classic Blue state/Red state battle being drawn.
Something like Tucson would never, ever happen in, oh say Manhattan. West Los Angeles. Georgetown. San Francisco. Berkley. You get the idea. In the so-called enlightened areas of the United States, the parts with the strict gun control laws, what happened in Tucson just would never, ever happen.
And those yokels, they hate the Rev. King. They don't want to celebrate the birthday as a holiday. Too bad that the people of Arizona voted to celebrate the holiday in 1990. But hey, in the lefty libertard mind, facts can not or should not get in the way of a narrative. And the narrative is that Arizonans are stupid, knuckle-dragging, gun-totting fanatics. And we will just keep mocking them until they come around to enlightened thinking.
I used to be amazed at the depths that the left would take to make a point, but the Massacre In Tucson shows that amazement is no longer a luxury. It is ADS-Arizona Derangement Syndrome. And it must be defeated.
And we must call people like Donny Douchebag and Al Sharpton to account for it. Same with Tom Brokow who said that he would not go to a bar in Arizona because he would fear for his safety.
At the end of the day, all this does is make regular Americans less inclined to believe that the right and left can ever work together on anything. And it also shows the depths the lefty libertard left will take to make fellow Americans look bad.
--Sigh :-(!
The latest comes from the cable network that claims to "Lean Forward", MSNBC.
This morning on the Morning Schmuck show, guest nit wit Donny Douchebag decided to flat out lie about Arizona not celebrating Martin Luther King day.
Er, one problem with that out and out lie.
Arizona does celebrate MLK day and has done so since 1992.
As Ed Morrisey over at Hot Air points out, Arizona got on board sooner than New Hampshire, Utah and South Carolina.
Now the governor in the early 1980s, Evan Meacham, was opposed to the holiday for clearly provocative reasons. It did not help that Mr. Meacham was a member of the John Birch Society and actively believed in the consperitorial view of history that JBS has over the the years.
But then President Reagan also opposed the holiday before eventually signing legislation in 1983. Mr. Reagan believed that it was too costly to institute another federal holiday. Not because of the crazed thinking of Mr. Meacham that the Rev. King was a Communist.
But hey, Mr. Douchbag and his guest, Al Sharpton, a man that should be in jail, kept going with the lie and suggested that Arizona had seceded from the United States. Here is what passes as intellectual dialogue over at MSNBC:
DONNY DEUTSCH: Reverend, I just want to, it's Donny. Hey buddy, I want to ask you a question. We're in the year 2011. We’re coming off the horrific, horrific event in Tucson. Yet as we celebrate Dr. King's day, there's still this very strange state, Arizona, that does not recognize it. I mean, maybe is there a time for a shift here? Should they secede from the nation? I, with all that’s going on, it's just almost bizarre at this point.
SHARPTON: Well, I think on today they have seceded. I mean, this is a federal holiday. This is something that the country can celebrate the progress we've made.
Really, are you two just that stupid? Did you just engage in that insipid dialogue for any reason other than bash Arizona?
Look, I know that the Massacre In Tucson is like a big orgasm to the left. They are milking it for all that it is worth.
At the end of the day, it is a classic Blue state/Red state battle being drawn.
Something like Tucson would never, ever happen in, oh say Manhattan. West Los Angeles. Georgetown. San Francisco. Berkley. You get the idea. In the so-called enlightened areas of the United States, the parts with the strict gun control laws, what happened in Tucson just would never, ever happen.
And those yokels, they hate the Rev. King. They don't want to celebrate the birthday as a holiday. Too bad that the people of Arizona voted to celebrate the holiday in 1990. But hey, in the lefty libertard mind, facts can not or should not get in the way of a narrative. And the narrative is that Arizonans are stupid, knuckle-dragging, gun-totting fanatics. And we will just keep mocking them until they come around to enlightened thinking.
I used to be amazed at the depths that the left would take to make a point, but the Massacre In Tucson shows that amazement is no longer a luxury. It is ADS-Arizona Derangement Syndrome. And it must be defeated.
And we must call people like Donny Douchebag and Al Sharpton to account for it. Same with Tom Brokow who said that he would not go to a bar in Arizona because he would fear for his safety.
At the end of the day, all this does is make regular Americans less inclined to believe that the right and left can ever work together on anything. And it also shows the depths the lefty libertard left will take to make fellow Americans look bad.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
In Defense Of Michael Steele
How is that the Republican National Committee, after one of the most successful election cycles in modern history, vote to get rid of Chair Michael Steele?
How is one "rewarded" with adding 63 new members of congress? Seven new senators? Nine new governors? Take overs in countless state legislatures?
It is by getting thrown out after such a success.
Let me be clear, Mr. Steele made a lot of mistakes. Money is a big issue. And sometimes getting into trouble by being the leading Republican spokesman on many issues.
But to throw someone out without giving some direction seems rather short sided.
When Mr. Steele was elected RNC chair shortly after the election of the Dear Leader, President Obama, I think the committee was sending the message that he would be the leading spokesman against the president's policies and promoting Republican and conservative alternatives.
And that did happen.
But one of the things an RNC chair does is raise money. And yes, he did do that. But a lot of people feel that because the RNC has a debt of $20,000,000, he did a lousy job.
Let me go back to the aspect of Mr. Steele being the leader of the opposition.
Yes there was now Speaker of the House, John Boehner and the senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell. And they were the legislative face of the GOP. But they were seen as part of the problem. And that is very true at the time. The party needed someone fresh and yes, brash. In came Michael Steele.
And he was brash, outside of the Beltway and fresh to many of us.
And he did relish in the role of being the face of a rebuilding and new GOP. A GOP no longer obliged to support a sitting Republican president in George W. Bush. One that could return to the Ronald Reagan model.
Sometimes, things that he said did seem to get him in trouble. Sometimes, he seemed to agree with a liberal host when he was pinned down on some issue.
That was troubling.
But overall, Mr. Steele I believed proved to be effective at being a leading spokesman for the opposition.
But on the fundraising front, he did not do well because too many conservatives just do not trust the Republican party. They did not want to fork money to the RNC. Nor the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. Nor the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
And really, unless one Mr. Reagan came back from the Great Beyond to lead the RNC, no one could have twisted arms any better or worse than Mr. Steele.
The party did not act fast enough to make Mr. Steele accountable for making an all-out effort to raise the needed funds to get to candidates at all levels. And that there are a lot of state GOPs that need help. Again, not all Mr. Steele's fault.
But does anyone that plunged the knife in Mr. Steele's back this past Friday realize the disarray the national party was in after the Dear Leader, President Obama's election? And many of those that wanted to become the RNC chair were insider types that many of the same people loathed?
What can not happen now that Reince Pribus is the new RNC chair is to see what kind of job Mr. Steele could have done in raising money to keep the House. And to gain GOP control of the senate. I honestly believe that Mr. Steele would have been able to go into a more traditional role of national party chair. He can leave the face of the party to Messrs. Boehner and McConnell. And many of the newly elected congressmen and senators. And he could have set to raise the kind of money that will be needed to have a serious campaign against the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrat party.
I am not certain that the election of Mr. Pribus to RNC chair is a good one. But I will support him in his efforts. Just as I did Mr. Steele.
But the weird thing is only in the Republican party is winning not enough for some people.
How is one "rewarded" with adding 63 new members of congress? Seven new senators? Nine new governors? Take overs in countless state legislatures?
It is by getting thrown out after such a success.
Let me be clear, Mr. Steele made a lot of mistakes. Money is a big issue. And sometimes getting into trouble by being the leading Republican spokesman on many issues.
But to throw someone out without giving some direction seems rather short sided.
When Mr. Steele was elected RNC chair shortly after the election of the Dear Leader, President Obama, I think the committee was sending the message that he would be the leading spokesman against the president's policies and promoting Republican and conservative alternatives.
And that did happen.
But one of the things an RNC chair does is raise money. And yes, he did do that. But a lot of people feel that because the RNC has a debt of $20,000,000, he did a lousy job.
Let me go back to the aspect of Mr. Steele being the leader of the opposition.
Yes there was now Speaker of the House, John Boehner and the senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell. And they were the legislative face of the GOP. But they were seen as part of the problem. And that is very true at the time. The party needed someone fresh and yes, brash. In came Michael Steele.
And he was brash, outside of the Beltway and fresh to many of us.
And he did relish in the role of being the face of a rebuilding and new GOP. A GOP no longer obliged to support a sitting Republican president in George W. Bush. One that could return to the Ronald Reagan model.
Sometimes, things that he said did seem to get him in trouble. Sometimes, he seemed to agree with a liberal host when he was pinned down on some issue.
That was troubling.
But overall, Mr. Steele I believed proved to be effective at being a leading spokesman for the opposition.
But on the fundraising front, he did not do well because too many conservatives just do not trust the Republican party. They did not want to fork money to the RNC. Nor the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. Nor the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
And really, unless one Mr. Reagan came back from the Great Beyond to lead the RNC, no one could have twisted arms any better or worse than Mr. Steele.
The party did not act fast enough to make Mr. Steele accountable for making an all-out effort to raise the needed funds to get to candidates at all levels. And that there are a lot of state GOPs that need help. Again, not all Mr. Steele's fault.
But does anyone that plunged the knife in Mr. Steele's back this past Friday realize the disarray the national party was in after the Dear Leader, President Obama's election? And many of those that wanted to become the RNC chair were insider types that many of the same people loathed?
What can not happen now that Reince Pribus is the new RNC chair is to see what kind of job Mr. Steele could have done in raising money to keep the House. And to gain GOP control of the senate. I honestly believe that Mr. Steele would have been able to go into a more traditional role of national party chair. He can leave the face of the party to Messrs. Boehner and McConnell. And many of the newly elected congressmen and senators. And he could have set to raise the kind of money that will be needed to have a serious campaign against the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrat party.
I am not certain that the election of Mr. Pribus to RNC chair is a good one. But I will support him in his efforts. Just as I did Mr. Steele.
But the weird thing is only in the Republican party is winning not enough for some people.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Sarah Palin And Blood Libel-She Is Spot On
Today, Sarah Palin released a video sharing her thoughts on the Massacre In Tucson this past Saturday.
It is somewhat a defense of the fact for the past five days. Lefty libertards have wet their pants trying desperately to somehow link the political speech of Mrs. Palin, Tea Party folks or anyone that is a conservative to the horrific acts of one Jared Loughner.
And to her credit, Mrs. Palin kept it focused on the events of the day in regards to the Massacre In Tucson.
But, she dared to use a term that, until today according to our lefty libertard overlords, had not been used in such a way.
Here is the relevant part:
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.
So, what did Mrs. Palin say that got these vermin upset?
Blood libel.
Why is that so terrible?
Well, it is because blood libel is in regards to an ancient canard about Jewish people killing Christians and using their blood to make the matzo used for the unleavened bread during the Passover celebration. A more detailed explanation may be found here.
The point is that it is usually, and note usually a term used when discussing anti-semitism. Essentially, in modern times, it is in reaction to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a wretched anti-Semitic book published in Tsarist Russia during the 19th century.
So, you get the picture.
And all over the lefty libertard blogosphere, and in the Obamawhore media, all are questioning, no haranguing Mrs. Palin for using what they claim is an exclusive term.
Oh, my bad.
NOT!
Note this little collection of the term being bandied about pretty freely. And none of the references provided by Jim Geraghty seem to be in reference to the anti-Semitic references. And this term was used by people on both sides of the political spectrum. And if you go to the link, do read the comment thread. Very interesting.
But, was Mrs. Palin wrong in using the term?
I do not think in the least she was wrong.
How was it that New York Times blogger and columnist Paul Krugman could make wild accusations within two hours of the shootings and somehow tied conservatives to the events in Tucson? You have to read the whole thing, in which Mr. Krugman does update. But, he all but accuses Mrs. Palin of having some responsibility in regards to the acts of Mr. Loughner.
Oh hey, how about Mr. Daily Kos and his tweet on Twitter in reference to the shootings?
Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin.
Nice one, Markos.
And here in this story on Politico is a compilation of liberal outrage directed at Mrs. Palin.
Yes, these people are claiming that Mrs. Palin has blood on her hands because of the actions of a clearly deranged individual.
Hence, Mrs. Palin used the term blood libel as what these lefty libertards have resorted to.
It is not an exclusive term to one group of people. It is right that Mrs. Palin spoke the truth because a lot of people have tried desperately to inject a political agenda in what is emerging to be a real tragedy that has nothing to do with politics. And if one thinks that I am just blowing smoke, here is what we are learning about Mr. Loughner.
Sadly, Mr. Loughner is a beyond very troubled young man. And yet he is a poster child to some lefty libertards seeking to discredit their political opponents.
Hey, you don't have to like Sarah Palin's point of view. Fine. But to indict her in some lone wolf deranged act is wrong. To indict a whole political movement is wrong. And when you go to that level, yes lefty libertards, you are making a scurrilous, blood libel against those people.
It is somewhat a defense of the fact for the past five days. Lefty libertards have wet their pants trying desperately to somehow link the political speech of Mrs. Palin, Tea Party folks or anyone that is a conservative to the horrific acts of one Jared Loughner.
And to her credit, Mrs. Palin kept it focused on the events of the day in regards to the Massacre In Tucson.
But, she dared to use a term that, until today according to our lefty libertard overlords, had not been used in such a way.
Here is the relevant part:
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.
So, what did Mrs. Palin say that got these vermin upset?
Blood libel.
Why is that so terrible?
Well, it is because blood libel is in regards to an ancient canard about Jewish people killing Christians and using their blood to make the matzo used for the unleavened bread during the Passover celebration. A more detailed explanation may be found here.
The point is that it is usually, and note usually a term used when discussing anti-semitism. Essentially, in modern times, it is in reaction to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a wretched anti-Semitic book published in Tsarist Russia during the 19th century.
So, you get the picture.
And all over the lefty libertard blogosphere, and in the Obamawhore media, all are questioning, no haranguing Mrs. Palin for using what they claim is an exclusive term.
Oh, my bad.
NOT!
Note this little collection of the term being bandied about pretty freely. And none of the references provided by Jim Geraghty seem to be in reference to the anti-Semitic references. And this term was used by people on both sides of the political spectrum. And if you go to the link, do read the comment thread. Very interesting.
But, was Mrs. Palin wrong in using the term?
I do not think in the least she was wrong.
How was it that New York Times blogger and columnist Paul Krugman could make wild accusations within two hours of the shootings and somehow tied conservatives to the events in Tucson? You have to read the whole thing, in which Mr. Krugman does update. But, he all but accuses Mrs. Palin of having some responsibility in regards to the acts of Mr. Loughner.
Oh hey, how about Mr. Daily Kos and his tweet on Twitter in reference to the shootings?
Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin.
Nice one, Markos.
And here in this story on Politico is a compilation of liberal outrage directed at Mrs. Palin.
Yes, these people are claiming that Mrs. Palin has blood on her hands because of the actions of a clearly deranged individual.
Hence, Mrs. Palin used the term blood libel as what these lefty libertards have resorted to.
It is not an exclusive term to one group of people. It is right that Mrs. Palin spoke the truth because a lot of people have tried desperately to inject a political agenda in what is emerging to be a real tragedy that has nothing to do with politics. And if one thinks that I am just blowing smoke, here is what we are learning about Mr. Loughner.
Sadly, Mr. Loughner is a beyond very troubled young man. And yet he is a poster child to some lefty libertards seeking to discredit their political opponents.
Hey, you don't have to like Sarah Palin's point of view. Fine. But to indict her in some lone wolf deranged act is wrong. To indict a whole political movement is wrong. And when you go to that level, yes lefty libertards, you are making a scurrilous, blood libel against those people.
Monday, January 10, 2011
The Faces Of Evil And The Faces Of Heroes
Take a good look at the above photo. It is the face of evil. It is the mugshot of the most reviled man in the United States today. It is the mugshot of Jared Loughner, the suspect in the Massacre in Tucson this past Saturday.
This "man" smirked for this mugshot and when he was arraigned in federal district court in Phoenix. Oh, why Phoenix when the crime was committed in Tucson? Because Mr. Loughner killed a federal judge, John Roll. And all the other judges had to recuse themselves. So, on to Phoenix.
This is now up against mounting evidence that this "man" was not playing with a full deck. In this article from the Daily Mail, it appears that Mr. Loughner had a creepy shrine to a human skull in his backyard. And that he was obsessed with the Mayan Prophecy that 2012 is all she wrote for mankind. Yeah, this guy is real right-wing material. Yeah, he's a real Tea Partier. And maybe even president of the Tucson chapter of the Sarah Palin Fan Club.
Which leads to the next face of evil.
The above photo is that of the Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dips---. There, I wrote it!
It is what this "sheriff" is, a certified dips---.
While he should be providing information about the investigation into the events of the Massacre In Tucson, "Sheriff" Dips--- is still pushing his own theory, based on not one shred of evidence or fact. That what drove Mr. Loughner over the edge is, wait for it. . .RUSH LIMBAUGH! SARAH PALIN! GLEN BECK! The Tea Party movement!
"Sheriff" Dips--- is hell bent on making sure to let anyone and everyone know that he is not one them there racists or bigots that is running his state. No sir, he is the enlightened one. The sheriff with so much knowledge that he keeps running his seemingly senile gums that this horrific event is not the fault of Mr. Loughner. It is because he may have listened to Rush, who he really zeroes in on in the latest diatribe from the chief law enforcement officer of Pima County. 
Again, there is not one bit of evidence to anyone's knowledge that Mr. Loughner has any discernible political point of view. And "Sheriff" Dips--- spouts the same left-wing talking points that anyone from MSNBC can do. And without drooling all over themselves.
Again, there is not one bit of evidence to anyone's knowledge that Mr. Loughner has any discernible political point of view. And "Sheriff" Dips--- spouts the same left-wing talking points that anyone from MSNBC can do. And without drooling all over themselves. Radio talker Mark Levin on today's show made the point that the more "sheriff" Dips--- keeps talking the way that he is, it will create a possible insanity defense for this "man", Loughner. And I worry that he maybe spot on.
While one can go on about evil and banality, there are those that need to be focused on that were true heroes this past Saturday.
Above is Dorwan Stoddard. Mr. Stoddard made the ultimate sacrifice this past Saturday. Mr. Stroddard and his wife, Mavanell, also known as Mavy, were going to tell their congressman, Gabrielle Giffords, that they thought she was doing a good job as their representative to congress. As all hell broke loose, suspect Jared Loughner, began his carnage, Mr. Stoddard pulled Mavy to the ground to protect her. And in the end, Mr. Stoddard was shot in the head and died.Both the Stoddards were deeply Christian people. Both were active volunteers at Mountain Avenue Church of Christ.
It reminds me of the story in the Holy Bible when Jesus himself speaks of no greater love than that of sacrificing oneself for another. In that, Dorwan Stoddard showed no greater love than giving himself to his beloved Mavy.
I only hope that I, God forbid, were in such a situation that I would be the same as Dorwan Stoddard.
And that is how I want to close this post.
There is evil, the act committed and the act of trying to place blame where none exists.
But it is the act of love that one showed for another that ended up being the ultimate sacrifice.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Shooting Rampage In Arizona, Bad Reporting And A Even Worse Sheriff
Yesterday was a horrific day for the people of Tucson, Arizona as a deranged gunman opened fire at a congressman's political event and killed six people. Included among the dead was a nine-year old girl, born on 09/11/01 and killed for no reason but being at the wrong place at the wrong time. And the most prominent among the injured was congressman Gabrielle Giffords, fighting for her life at this time.
There are no words that describe the evil of this event. What went through the mind of the suspect, Jared Loughner, is in a sense not all that important. The fact is that this one messed-up dude snapped and took his anger out on a whole lot of people. All innocent of anything this guy had in his "mind".
There are some real heroes that stopped Mr. Loughner before he could continue on his rampage. And we all owe thanks to these heroes. One being
But, there are aspects of this story that are troubling to say the least.
One, as usual, is media coverage. No, not from a bias standpoint. But a rush to be first rather than to be right.
The following is from my e-mail box from Fox News Channel:
BREAKING NEWS: Rep. Giffords shot in Arizona.
BREAKING NEWS: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords fatally shot in Arizona.
BREAKING NEWS: Shooting rampage leaves 5 dead in Arizona.
BREAKING NEWS: Doctor "optimistic" Rep. Giffords will recover.
There was everything that Rep. Giffords had died to being wounded and or not wounded. What was missing was fact. The facts were not ascertained in a way that should have been reported. But, the media reported it anyway. Because at some point, any given network or outlet could have advertised how they were first with the facts. Even if it turned out to be wrong.
What the media needs to do in these cases is not report everything that they hear or conjecture. The media needs to remember in a situation such as this, real people are involved and their families are also involved. Imagine Rep. Giffords husband hearing that his wife is dead and then a "never mind" from the media. Or the family of nine-year old Christina-Taylor green. And everyone else taken from us in this crime.
The media, I believe, did itself no favors, once again, in reporting a live event.
But the prize of buffoonery has to go to the Pima County sheriff, Clarence Dupnik.
Last evening, Sheriff Dupnik held a press conference to, supposedly, provide information about the events of the situation. Instead, Sheriff Dupnik was totally unprepared. He kept saying that five people were dead when by that time it was well known six had died. He did not want to release the name of the suspect when it was public knowledge for hours. He was rambling, unable to answer simple questions. And he admitted that he was a 74 year-old man and that he did not hear as well as he used to.
But what left me cold was taking a situation in which information should have been the key for him to pontificate about why maybe Mr. Loughner did what he did.
Sheriff Dupnik found time to say this in his news conference:
"I think the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business and what (we) see on TV and how our youngsters are being raised, that this has not become the nice United States of America that most of us grew up in. And I think it's time that we do the soul-searching,"
And the good sheriff doubled-down on this thought by saying that his whole state, Arizona, was a mecca for bigotry.
Let's be upfront.
Sheriff Dupnik is a Democrat. And a pretty liberal one at that. He is one of the few law enforcement people in his state to oppose the controversial Arizona illegal immigration law, SB 1070, which was to enforce federal laws regarding illegal immigration. The good sheriff is a supporter of so-called comprehensive immigration "reform". And he said that he would not enforce the law. I guess he believes he knows best, right?
And to the heart of Sheriff Dupnik's complaint about the political atmosphere in this nation, it is nothing compared to, oh I do not know, about 1861-65. Yeah, the nation was at war with itself. It is called the Civil War or the War Between The States. No matter what one calls it, I think things were much worse then than now.
What Sheriff Dupnik was trying to suggest, I believe, is that people that are mentally unbalanced hear things a certain way and then react to it. And to some level, there may be a grain of truth in that. But to indict talk radio and television without knowing all the facts make what he said in his news conference last night a political hack statement, not an informational meeting with the media.
And, for the record, it is sort of hard to pin a direct political ideology on this guy, Loughner. He had a wide-range of favorite books from Hitler's Mein Kampf to the Communist Manifesto. And Loughner was big into believing about some nefarious plot for mind control. In reality, Mr. Loughner may have been influenced by this rouge former radio talk show host, Jeff Rense. Take a look at his website, and it is a lot of strange stuff there. And note all the talk of "mind control".
What happened yesterday was a horrible event. It is clearly the act of a deranged man that had a lot of problems. But a media so hopped up to be first and not right continues to act irresponsibly. And a sheriff that should be informing and not pontificating should be voted out in the next election. And better informed the next time he holds a news conference.
And, most important, we need to pray for all those affected by this event. And most important for the family of Jared Loughner. The price that they bear is one none of us would ever want for ourselves.
There are no words that describe the evil of this event. What went through the mind of the suspect, Jared Loughner, is in a sense not all that important. The fact is that this one messed-up dude snapped and took his anger out on a whole lot of people. All innocent of anything this guy had in his "mind".
There are some real heroes that stopped Mr. Loughner before he could continue on his rampage. And we all owe thanks to these heroes. One being
But, there are aspects of this story that are troubling to say the least.
One, as usual, is media coverage. No, not from a bias standpoint. But a rush to be first rather than to be right.
The following is from my e-mail box from Fox News Channel:
BREAKING NEWS: Rep. Giffords shot in Arizona.
BREAKING NEWS: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords fatally shot in Arizona.
BREAKING NEWS: Shooting rampage leaves 5 dead in Arizona.
BREAKING NEWS: Doctor "optimistic" Rep. Giffords will recover.
There was everything that Rep. Giffords had died to being wounded and or not wounded. What was missing was fact. The facts were not ascertained in a way that should have been reported. But, the media reported it anyway. Because at some point, any given network or outlet could have advertised how they were first with the facts. Even if it turned out to be wrong.
What the media needs to do in these cases is not report everything that they hear or conjecture. The media needs to remember in a situation such as this, real people are involved and their families are also involved. Imagine Rep. Giffords husband hearing that his wife is dead and then a "never mind" from the media. Or the family of nine-year old Christina-Taylor green. And everyone else taken from us in this crime.
The media, I believe, did itself no favors, once again, in reporting a live event.
But the prize of buffoonery has to go to the Pima County sheriff, Clarence Dupnik.
Last evening, Sheriff Dupnik held a press conference to, supposedly, provide information about the events of the situation. Instead, Sheriff Dupnik was totally unprepared. He kept saying that five people were dead when by that time it was well known six had died. He did not want to release the name of the suspect when it was public knowledge for hours. He was rambling, unable to answer simple questions. And he admitted that he was a 74 year-old man and that he did not hear as well as he used to.
But what left me cold was taking a situation in which information should have been the key for him to pontificate about why maybe Mr. Loughner did what he did.
Sheriff Dupnik found time to say this in his news conference:
"I think the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business and what (we) see on TV and how our youngsters are being raised, that this has not become the nice United States of America that most of us grew up in. And I think it's time that we do the soul-searching,"
And the good sheriff doubled-down on this thought by saying that his whole state, Arizona, was a mecca for bigotry.
Let's be upfront.
Sheriff Dupnik is a Democrat. And a pretty liberal one at that. He is one of the few law enforcement people in his state to oppose the controversial Arizona illegal immigration law, SB 1070, which was to enforce federal laws regarding illegal immigration. The good sheriff is a supporter of so-called comprehensive immigration "reform". And he said that he would not enforce the law. I guess he believes he knows best, right?
And to the heart of Sheriff Dupnik's complaint about the political atmosphere in this nation, it is nothing compared to, oh I do not know, about 1861-65. Yeah, the nation was at war with itself. It is called the Civil War or the War Between The States. No matter what one calls it, I think things were much worse then than now.
What Sheriff Dupnik was trying to suggest, I believe, is that people that are mentally unbalanced hear things a certain way and then react to it. And to some level, there may be a grain of truth in that. But to indict talk radio and television without knowing all the facts make what he said in his news conference last night a political hack statement, not an informational meeting with the media.
And, for the record, it is sort of hard to pin a direct political ideology on this guy, Loughner. He had a wide-range of favorite books from Hitler's Mein Kampf to the Communist Manifesto. And Loughner was big into believing about some nefarious plot for mind control. In reality, Mr. Loughner may have been influenced by this rouge former radio talk show host, Jeff Rense. Take a look at his website, and it is a lot of strange stuff there. And note all the talk of "mind control".
What happened yesterday was a horrible event. It is clearly the act of a deranged man that had a lot of problems. But a media so hopped up to be first and not right continues to act irresponsibly. And a sheriff that should be informing and not pontificating should be voted out in the next election. And better informed the next time he holds a news conference.
And, most important, we need to pray for all those affected by this event. And most important for the family of Jared Loughner. The price that they bear is one none of us would ever want for ourselves.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
The House Gets Down To Business Under New Management Tomorrow
Tomorrow at this time, the Republican party will be in control of the House of Representatives and it is going to be a time to reflect on what that really means.
For one, the agenda will be totally different than that of the departing congress, led by Nancy Pelosi. It will not be an agenda of expanding the federal government. Ideally, led by Speaker presumptive John Boehner (R-Ohio), it will be trying to roll back the excesses of the Democrats, led by the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself.
Next Wednesday, it will vote up or down on repealing the most intrusive piece of legislation ever passed by congress, Obamacare.
But on Thursday will be a real treat.
The binding document of this Great Land, the constitution will be real aloud in the well of the House.
Imagine that, the lawmakers having a reading of the very document that they swear to follow and uphold.
Why that should make Ezra Klein happy. Maybe if the constitution is read aloud, he will understand such a document.
In case you do not know why I reference Mr. Klein, it appears that he is not all that sure about a document that is over a 100 years old. Actually, over 200 years old, but hey, who's counting? Especially if all that old talk is so confusing!
The point of reading the constitution aloud is to affirm that this congress will do all to follow and uphold the very document that they are working under.
It is the most amazing document of any age.
It is clear and concise as to the role of the federal government. The state governments. The role of the three co-equal branches of government. And, there is a mechanism to make changes to the very constitution that was approved in 1787. In fact, the 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights came in 1791. For it was known that the original document left some things unsaid and undone.
However, the constitution guidelines make it difficult to add amendments willy nilly. And that is intentional.
An amendment has to pass the House and Senate by two-thirds vote, sent to the state legislatures were it must pass each House by a two-thirds majority and three-fifths of the total states must approve.
It is a grueling process but it is cognizant of the fact that changes are needed from time to time.
Which is what makes the original document absolutely timeless.
What is really important is that Speaker Boehner and the Republican leadership get it right this time. They are not being sent to just make cosmetic changes to the Democrats reckless legislation. They are being sent to stop any further recklessness on the part of the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his congressional cohorts. They are being sent with an agenda to cut the size and scope of the federal government.
I think that they get it this time. And that is why tomorrow at this time, the new House management team will be in high gear to do what they promised to the American people.
For one, the agenda will be totally different than that of the departing congress, led by Nancy Pelosi. It will not be an agenda of expanding the federal government. Ideally, led by Speaker presumptive John Boehner (R-Ohio), it will be trying to roll back the excesses of the Democrats, led by the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself.
Next Wednesday, it will vote up or down on repealing the most intrusive piece of legislation ever passed by congress, Obamacare.
But on Thursday will be a real treat.
The binding document of this Great Land, the constitution will be real aloud in the well of the House.
Imagine that, the lawmakers having a reading of the very document that they swear to follow and uphold.
Why that should make Ezra Klein happy. Maybe if the constitution is read aloud, he will understand such a document.
In case you do not know why I reference Mr. Klein, it appears that he is not all that sure about a document that is over a 100 years old. Actually, over 200 years old, but hey, who's counting? Especially if all that old talk is so confusing!
The point of reading the constitution aloud is to affirm that this congress will do all to follow and uphold the very document that they are working under.
It is the most amazing document of any age.
It is clear and concise as to the role of the federal government. The state governments. The role of the three co-equal branches of government. And, there is a mechanism to make changes to the very constitution that was approved in 1787. In fact, the 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights came in 1791. For it was known that the original document left some things unsaid and undone.
However, the constitution guidelines make it difficult to add amendments willy nilly. And that is intentional.
An amendment has to pass the House and Senate by two-thirds vote, sent to the state legislatures were it must pass each House by a two-thirds majority and three-fifths of the total states must approve.
It is a grueling process but it is cognizant of the fact that changes are needed from time to time.
Which is what makes the original document absolutely timeless.
What is really important is that Speaker Boehner and the Republican leadership get it right this time. They are not being sent to just make cosmetic changes to the Democrats reckless legislation. They are being sent to stop any further recklessness on the part of the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his congressional cohorts. They are being sent with an agenda to cut the size and scope of the federal government.
I think that they get it this time. And that is why tomorrow at this time, the new House management team will be in high gear to do what they promised to the American people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)