I know, I said that I would not comment anymore on the Don Imus fiasco, but there is something to say about what Mr. Imus said before the infamous comment that got him thrown off the air.
In yesterday's New York Post http://nypost.com, sports columnist Phil Mushnick had some interesting information regarding one of the recruits of now hero Rutgers women's basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer.
Ever heard of Shalicia Hurns? Well, she is a real winner. Miss Hurns had been thrown out of two other colleges and in one instance, she was arrested for drugs and a hit-and-runs accident. So, of course Miss Stringer went after this stellar athlete. Well, Miss Hurns did not even finish the season. She was arrested, again, this time for holding a girlfriend as a hostage. And to boot, the hostage was bound. As if that was not enough, the coach was not apologetic at all.
Miss Stringer told USA Today at the time, "I am not calling it a mistake. I don't apologize for anything."
WOW! Maybe Mr. Imus should have taken this approach when ol' "Reverend" Al went after his job. If the I-team did a little research, maybe this would not have deteriorated into the fiasco that it became.
One lesson about this mess. We should not make heroes out of those that are not all that clean. Miss Stringer should not have been so elevated. But it does not excuse Mr. Imus for the outrageous comments.
I wish that all of this was on the table before everyone had their say and it may have put the overall comments in a different light.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
You Thought I Was Kidding About Imus Being A Friend Of The Left
If you thought that I was exaggerating or outright lying about former radio talk show host Don Imus being a friend of the left, see this article in today's Los Angeles Times http://latimes.com.
Now, where do Democrats have to go to hawk their wares? I suppose any of the other friendly outfits like, oh NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times.
Now, where do Democrats have to go to hawk their wares? I suppose any of the other friendly outfits like, oh NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times.
Tattoo Culture
In the Don Imus flap, one thing that seems to have escaped everyone is the fact that he referenced that some of the Rutgers women's basketball team members had tattoos. Then, as Paul Harvey/Fred Thompson might say, you know the rest of the story.
I think that the real issue should be the fact that young women as well as young men feel that it is cool to have a body full of tattoos and even piercings.
The truth is that tattoos and piercings are disgusting and show that these predominantly young people really do not care about their bodies.
The reason I have such a harsh view about this so-called body art is for one thing, most of it is not art. It is intentionally putting a design on a part of the body to have people look at you. Why then do men have tattoos all up and down their arms and legs? Or young girls who put tattoos on their backs right above the butt crack and wear tops that expose it? Or on their legs and even now a days, their feet? Men seem to put piercings everywhere, but women have special spots. Most predominate these days is the belly button. So, a young girl can have a two-for-0ne, a belly button piercing and that goes with the tattoo right above the butt crack.
Clearly, tattoos and piercings are a sign of immaturity. It shows a lack of self control which is rampant in the modern culture. It is also a sign of young people wanting to draw attention to themselves and then crying when someone does, particularly young girls that are ogled by young boys.
All that is true. But where does this come from?
When I was growing up not to long ago, there were several signs that were, rightfully, negative about tatts and piercings:
* Tattoos were usually on criminals or gangbangers.
* Tattoos were also on members who served in the armed forces, got drunk and many years later wish they never had gotten it or them in the first place.
* Tattoos were usually on people who were in the lower echelons of society.
Now I know that the last one is a harsh assessment, but it is accurate.
Now, if a young person DOES NOT have a tatt or a variety of piercings, they are seen as outcasts.
One of the reasons that young people will offer as to why they got the tatt or piercings in the first place is free and self expression. Well, once a slew of people do the same thing, it is no longer free and self expression but a matter of trying to fit in.
I also admit, I do not look at someone with a tatt or slew of piercings in a positive light. Usually they are tough and angry looking. Not all, but many.
One positive thing that happened recently is the Marines now have guidelines as to how far a tatt can go. There was some criticism, but they are right. The Marines have standards and this is where they apply them and if you don't like it, then you should not have joined in the first place.
That leads to employment. If a company has a certain dress code, what if they say no tatts or piercings can be showing? That is and should be their right. But of course, activists would say that there should be no standards in the first place. Some business, like being a lawyer or doctor require and certain look. Having your lawyer come to see you in a slew of tatts and piercings may make you think twice. And, you should.
Parents, the religious community and others must impress on young people to treat their bodies with respect. They will then treat others with respect and there may not be as much hostility between young and old.
Maybe this can be talked about and that would be a good thing about the side story of the Don Imus controversy.
I think that the real issue should be the fact that young women as well as young men feel that it is cool to have a body full of tattoos and even piercings.
The truth is that tattoos and piercings are disgusting and show that these predominantly young people really do not care about their bodies.
The reason I have such a harsh view about this so-called body art is for one thing, most of it is not art. It is intentionally putting a design on a part of the body to have people look at you. Why then do men have tattoos all up and down their arms and legs? Or young girls who put tattoos on their backs right above the butt crack and wear tops that expose it? Or on their legs and even now a days, their feet? Men seem to put piercings everywhere, but women have special spots. Most predominate these days is the belly button. So, a young girl can have a two-for-0ne, a belly button piercing and that goes with the tattoo right above the butt crack.
Clearly, tattoos and piercings are a sign of immaturity. It shows a lack of self control which is rampant in the modern culture. It is also a sign of young people wanting to draw attention to themselves and then crying when someone does, particularly young girls that are ogled by young boys.
All that is true. But where does this come from?
When I was growing up not to long ago, there were several signs that were, rightfully, negative about tatts and piercings:
* Tattoos were usually on criminals or gangbangers.
* Tattoos were also on members who served in the armed forces, got drunk and many years later wish they never had gotten it or them in the first place.
* Tattoos were usually on people who were in the lower echelons of society.
Now I know that the last one is a harsh assessment, but it is accurate.
Now, if a young person DOES NOT have a tatt or a variety of piercings, they are seen as outcasts.
One of the reasons that young people will offer as to why they got the tatt or piercings in the first place is free and self expression. Well, once a slew of people do the same thing, it is no longer free and self expression but a matter of trying to fit in.
I also admit, I do not look at someone with a tatt or slew of piercings in a positive light. Usually they are tough and angry looking. Not all, but many.
One positive thing that happened recently is the Marines now have guidelines as to how far a tatt can go. There was some criticism, but they are right. The Marines have standards and this is where they apply them and if you don't like it, then you should not have joined in the first place.
That leads to employment. If a company has a certain dress code, what if they say no tatts or piercings can be showing? That is and should be their right. But of course, activists would say that there should be no standards in the first place. Some business, like being a lawyer or doctor require and certain look. Having your lawyer come to see you in a slew of tatts and piercings may make you think twice. And, you should.
Parents, the religious community and others must impress on young people to treat their bodies with respect. They will then treat others with respect and there may not be as much hostility between young and old.
Maybe this can be talked about and that would be a good thing about the side story of the Don Imus controversy.
More On Imus If You Can't Get Enough
If you are not tired of the Don Imus controversy, go over to Townhall http://townhall.com. There is a slew of columns over this controversy.
I have said all I can for now. There is another aspect of this that I will address in a later post. The issue of tattoos and piercings in today's culture. I think that is the most overlooked aspect of this story.
I have said all I can for now. There is another aspect of this that I will address in a later post. The issue of tattoos and piercings in today's culture. I think that is the most overlooked aspect of this story.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The Plight Of Lebanese Christians
An issue that seems to be lost in all the news of the Mideast and the War Against Terror is the seemingly successful driving of Christians out of Lebanon.
In a recent article in the Washington Times National Edition http://americasnewspaper.com, it is estimated that the Christian population of Lebanon is now 22%. as recently as 1970, the Christian population was well over 50%. The significance is what was the only majority Christian Arab nation in the Mideast is on its way to oblivion and that is a blow in fighting the Jihadists.
The drama all started when the Palestine Liberation Organization, which was kicked out of Jordan in 1970 set up shop in Beirut. They brought along many Islamic, so-called Palestinians and began changing the population of Lebanon. This is a direct cause of the Lebanese civil war of 1974-90. The tragedy of that is that the West abandoned its natural ally, the Christian Lebanese and tried, again and again to broker a "peace deal." The eventual result was Syria, which has always thought of Lebanon the way Red China thinks of the Republic of China (Taiwan)-a renegade province, came in with 25,000 troops and brought eventual order to chaos.
In the meantime, radical Shi'ites rallied around the Hezbollah banner and eventually, it became a state within a state. In the meantime, during and after the civil war, thousands of Christians fled Lebanon, which of course began to give Islamic Arabs an advantage. Since Syria has supposedly left Lebanon, some well thought political leaders, including a popular Sunni prime minister and another Christian cabinet member were assassinated. This has led to more and more Christians fleeing, worrying about a new civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ite Islamics.
The world seems to not care about the plight of Christians in Lebanon. As the celebrity class tells us that the slaughter in Darfur in the Sudan is what we should be worrying about, they are very silent about the systematic destabilizing of the only civilized group in Lebanon. Of course these same celebrities were very silent when the same Sudanese were fighting Christians in southern Sudan for almost 30 years. I do not mean to downplay Darfur, but this is just as much something we should worry about because if the Lebanese Christians are put in the same fate as the Coptic Christians in Egypt, there will be no strong Western presence in the Mideast.
The United States needs to stop this bleeding of the Christians from Lebanon. It must begin by recognizing that Hezbollah needs to be destroyed and new leadership must occur that recognizes all religious groups as equal and a strong central government must be installed. After all, it would be the second democracy in the Mideast and possibly a bulwark against Syria and yes Iran.
If Christians are forced from the cradle of the faith, we will have to share some of the blame.
In a recent article in the Washington Times National Edition http://americasnewspaper.com, it is estimated that the Christian population of Lebanon is now 22%. as recently as 1970, the Christian population was well over 50%. The significance is what was the only majority Christian Arab nation in the Mideast is on its way to oblivion and that is a blow in fighting the Jihadists.
The drama all started when the Palestine Liberation Organization, which was kicked out of Jordan in 1970 set up shop in Beirut. They brought along many Islamic, so-called Palestinians and began changing the population of Lebanon. This is a direct cause of the Lebanese civil war of 1974-90. The tragedy of that is that the West abandoned its natural ally, the Christian Lebanese and tried, again and again to broker a "peace deal." The eventual result was Syria, which has always thought of Lebanon the way Red China thinks of the Republic of China (Taiwan)-a renegade province, came in with 25,000 troops and brought eventual order to chaos.
In the meantime, radical Shi'ites rallied around the Hezbollah banner and eventually, it became a state within a state. In the meantime, during and after the civil war, thousands of Christians fled Lebanon, which of course began to give Islamic Arabs an advantage. Since Syria has supposedly left Lebanon, some well thought political leaders, including a popular Sunni prime minister and another Christian cabinet member were assassinated. This has led to more and more Christians fleeing, worrying about a new civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ite Islamics.
The world seems to not care about the plight of Christians in Lebanon. As the celebrity class tells us that the slaughter in Darfur in the Sudan is what we should be worrying about, they are very silent about the systematic destabilizing of the only civilized group in Lebanon. Of course these same celebrities were very silent when the same Sudanese were fighting Christians in southern Sudan for almost 30 years. I do not mean to downplay Darfur, but this is just as much something we should worry about because if the Lebanese Christians are put in the same fate as the Coptic Christians in Egypt, there will be no strong Western presence in the Mideast.
The United States needs to stop this bleeding of the Christians from Lebanon. It must begin by recognizing that Hezbollah needs to be destroyed and new leadership must occur that recognizes all religious groups as equal and a strong central government must be installed. After all, it would be the second democracy in the Mideast and possibly a bulwark against Syria and yes Iran.
If Christians are forced from the cradle of the faith, we will have to share some of the blame.
I'm Glad Imus Got His-Sort Of
Today, the final nail has been shut on the Don Imus broadcast coffin as CBS Radio fired him, effective immediately.
To be honest, I am very surprised this happened. My feelings are mixed. As noted, he is a friend of the left, so in that respect, I am glad one of their own was finally nailed. But, because Mr. Imus has said so much worse and never called on the carpet, this should have been another par for the course.
Does anyone remember when he emceed the White House Broadcasters Dinner towards the end of Bill Clinton's presidency? He made some very inappropriate comments about the president and impeachment and the "sex" scandal. Even though I did find them funny, it was the wrong place at the wrong time. What happened? Nothing. Mr. Imus went on his merry way.
In any given Imus In The Morning show, he would mock anyone, including Bill Clinton, Mike Tyson, General George S. Patton, and an endless list.
But now, suddenly, he went to far. He insulted the Rutgers University women's basketball team.
One thing should be noted. Not all those on the team were Black. But, that is not what is important. What is important is that Mr. Imus should have NEVER said what he said. PERIOD!
But I do not think that he should have been fired. This is pointless because he can now go on satellite radio and call these women much worse than, well you know.
A longer suspension would have been right.
One thing on the women basketball players. I think anyone who says that this scars them for life are in for a rude awakening. Life is sometimes very hard and worse, unfair. If any of these women sign on to the WNBA, they will be treated worse on an ongoing basis by fans and sports writers and broadcasters.
Where Mr. Imus went wrong was bowing to kiss the feet of the "Reverend" Al Sharpton. That I believe was the beginning of the end.
Now, maybe we can really use this as a learning experience and talk seriously about racism, sexism, misogyny and things are pervasive in our society. I guess we should thank Don Imus for that.
To be honest, I am very surprised this happened. My feelings are mixed. As noted, he is a friend of the left, so in that respect, I am glad one of their own was finally nailed. But, because Mr. Imus has said so much worse and never called on the carpet, this should have been another par for the course.
Does anyone remember when he emceed the White House Broadcasters Dinner towards the end of Bill Clinton's presidency? He made some very inappropriate comments about the president and impeachment and the "sex" scandal. Even though I did find them funny, it was the wrong place at the wrong time. What happened? Nothing. Mr. Imus went on his merry way.
In any given Imus In The Morning show, he would mock anyone, including Bill Clinton, Mike Tyson, General George S. Patton, and an endless list.
But now, suddenly, he went to far. He insulted the Rutgers University women's basketball team.
One thing should be noted. Not all those on the team were Black. But, that is not what is important. What is important is that Mr. Imus should have NEVER said what he said. PERIOD!
But I do not think that he should have been fired. This is pointless because he can now go on satellite radio and call these women much worse than, well you know.
A longer suspension would have been right.
One thing on the women basketball players. I think anyone who says that this scars them for life are in for a rude awakening. Life is sometimes very hard and worse, unfair. If any of these women sign on to the WNBA, they will be treated worse on an ongoing basis by fans and sports writers and broadcasters.
Where Mr. Imus went wrong was bowing to kiss the feet of the "Reverend" Al Sharpton. That I believe was the beginning of the end.
Now, maybe we can really use this as a learning experience and talk seriously about racism, sexism, misogyny and things are pervasive in our society. I guess we should thank Don Imus for that.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Romney Calls For 100,000 More Troops
Mitt Romney http://mittromney.com is calling for an increase in the size of the armed forces by 100,000 and increasing overall defense spending. That is good news.
It shows that Mr. Romney is serious about using the military to continue the War Against Terror. Also, there are many other threats that mean our armed forces must be at top strength to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
If this is not a Reagan like call to arms to meet our threats, I do not know what is.
It shows that Mr. Romney is serious about using the military to continue the War Against Terror. Also, there are many other threats that mean our armed forces must be at top strength to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
If this is not a Reagan like call to arms to meet our threats, I do not know what is.
A Friend Of The Left Finally Gets His
Well, now MSNBC is dropping its live simulcast of the beleaguered Don Imus radio show. It was on Monday through Friday 3-6am, Pacific Time. I guess it is just a matter of time before he loses his radio gig with CBS.
Two things that should put this to rest.
First, it is about time that a liberal-leaning sycophant finally got nailed for making moronic comments on air. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage must be laughing at this. They should. They were victims of the PC police. Until now, the PC police radar was only aimed at conservatives. Now a friend of the left got his. It is about time. However, I think this is just a once in a lifetime event. I think that when ABC drops Rosie O'Donnell from The View, then fairness will have prevailed.
Secondly, if Mr. Imus is sacked by CBS radio, all he will do is take the Howard Stern route and go on satellite radio where there are no speech restrictions. He may end up coming out ahead in this mess. I think that he did himself no favors by grovelling at the feet of "Reverend" Al Sharpton for forgiveness.
Maybe those on the left who love political correctness when it is against conservatives will come on our side and go after those like Rosie O'Donnell. But I will not hold my breath.
Two things that should put this to rest.
First, it is about time that a liberal-leaning sycophant finally got nailed for making moronic comments on air. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage must be laughing at this. They should. They were victims of the PC police. Until now, the PC police radar was only aimed at conservatives. Now a friend of the left got his. It is about time. However, I think this is just a once in a lifetime event. I think that when ABC drops Rosie O'Donnell from The View, then fairness will have prevailed.
Secondly, if Mr. Imus is sacked by CBS radio, all he will do is take the Howard Stern route and go on satellite radio where there are no speech restrictions. He may end up coming out ahead in this mess. I think that he did himself no favors by grovelling at the feet of "Reverend" Al Sharpton for forgiveness.
Maybe those on the left who love political correctness when it is against conservatives will come on our side and go after those like Rosie O'Donnell. But I will not hold my breath.
Republican Presidential Straw Poll Results
The voting is closed and here are the results of the first 2007 Republican Presidential Straw Poll:
Mitt Romney 3
John Mc Cain 2
Rudy Giuliani 1
Ron Paul 1
Undecided 1
Thank you to all that participated and next time I hope more of you participate.
Mitt Romney 3
John Mc Cain 2
Rudy Giuliani 1
Ron Paul 1
Undecided 1
Thank you to all that participated and next time I hope more of you participate.
Liberal Journalists Will Never Give Reagan Credit For Ending Cold War
Yesterday on Hugh Hewitt's radio program http://hughhewitt.com, Hugh spoke with Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne, a unrepentant liberal.
In a portion of the interview, when talking about the Cold War, Mr. Dionne gives a lot of credit to President Truman, and rightfully so, for beginning the policy of containment against the then Soviet Union. But, he gives no credit to President Reagan for instituting a then new paradigm of defeating the Soviet Union. It is that policy that led to the end of the Soviet Union and the communist iron curtain over eastern Europe. It is not as Mr. Dionne put it containment and President Nixon's horrible policy of detente that led to the expanse of the Soviet empire.
That is the way liberal America looks at how the Soviet Union fell. No credit to Ronald Reagan whatsoever. In fact, liberals will argue that Mr. Reagan did nothing to end Soviet communism.
Here are the facts.
Under Ronald Reagan, the Soviet Union did not gain access to one inch of land beyond what they already controlled. The invasion of Greneda in the Caribbean to stop communist Cuba from exerting further power as a client state to the Soviet Union. Under Ronald Reagan, there was support of freedom fighters everywhere in the world. Even to the extent of his near impeachment over the so-called Iran-Contra affair. The United States built up our military to counter the Soviet threat. The military build up showed that a free market economy, ours, could bankrupt a state-planned economy, the Soviet Union. And during the build up, the United States economy bloomed.
Do people like Mr. Dionne not see the facts or are they blinded by their ideology so much, they can not give at least some credit to Mr. Reagan for the true beginning of the end of Soviet communism?
Here is a clue. Mr. Dionne told Mr. Hewitt that the only Republican candidate for president he considered, note considered, voting for was Gerald Ford. Mr. Ford was a nice guy, became president at the right time and was the right man for the job at the time.
All this is in context to how the liberals-really socialists today-want to deal with the threat of radical Islamofacists that are not really interested in negotiating the demise of the West, Christianity and democracy.
People like Mr. Dionne, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the like think that we really can negotiate our way to peace with these groups. Mrs. Pelosi has said she would go to Iran ASAP if it would lead to "dialogue", what ever that means.
I think that Mr. Dionne is probably a nice fellow, but wrong about the Cold War and needs to give some credit to Ronald Reagan and the policy of defeating the Soviet Union rather than containment and detente.
In a portion of the interview, when talking about the Cold War, Mr. Dionne gives a lot of credit to President Truman, and rightfully so, for beginning the policy of containment against the then Soviet Union. But, he gives no credit to President Reagan for instituting a then new paradigm of defeating the Soviet Union. It is that policy that led to the end of the Soviet Union and the communist iron curtain over eastern Europe. It is not as Mr. Dionne put it containment and President Nixon's horrible policy of detente that led to the expanse of the Soviet empire.
That is the way liberal America looks at how the Soviet Union fell. No credit to Ronald Reagan whatsoever. In fact, liberals will argue that Mr. Reagan did nothing to end Soviet communism.
Here are the facts.
Under Ronald Reagan, the Soviet Union did not gain access to one inch of land beyond what they already controlled. The invasion of Greneda in the Caribbean to stop communist Cuba from exerting further power as a client state to the Soviet Union. Under Ronald Reagan, there was support of freedom fighters everywhere in the world. Even to the extent of his near impeachment over the so-called Iran-Contra affair. The United States built up our military to counter the Soviet threat. The military build up showed that a free market economy, ours, could bankrupt a state-planned economy, the Soviet Union. And during the build up, the United States economy bloomed.
Do people like Mr. Dionne not see the facts or are they blinded by their ideology so much, they can not give at least some credit to Mr. Reagan for the true beginning of the end of Soviet communism?
Here is a clue. Mr. Dionne told Mr. Hewitt that the only Republican candidate for president he considered, note considered, voting for was Gerald Ford. Mr. Ford was a nice guy, became president at the right time and was the right man for the job at the time.
All this is in context to how the liberals-really socialists today-want to deal with the threat of radical Islamofacists that are not really interested in negotiating the demise of the West, Christianity and democracy.
People like Mr. Dionne, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the like think that we really can negotiate our way to peace with these groups. Mrs. Pelosi has said she would go to Iran ASAP if it would lead to "dialogue", what ever that means.
I think that Mr. Dionne is probably a nice fellow, but wrong about the Cold War and needs to give some credit to Ronald Reagan and the policy of defeating the Soviet Union rather than containment and detente.
If They Would Only Do This Today
Here is a blurb from a 2007 calendar entry for April 9, 2007:
April 7, 1807:
New York City passed a bill that the mayor can be paid no more than $500 a year.
Oh, do I wish that our legislators would do this today!
Instead, they look to being in government as a career and how to line their pockets with cash and other goodies. And worse, they try to tell us that they need the pay and goodies because they can not survive on the salary and benefits accorded to them.
Here is a clue. One should get some experience in the private sector, put some of that money away for the future and then run for office out of doing a public service, not a public fleecing. We would get better government from people that have actual real world experience.
Won't happen in my lifetime!
April 7, 1807:
New York City passed a bill that the mayor can be paid no more than $500 a year.
Oh, do I wish that our legislators would do this today!
Instead, they look to being in government as a career and how to line their pockets with cash and other goodies. And worse, they try to tell us that they need the pay and goodies because they can not survive on the salary and benefits accorded to them.
Here is a clue. One should get some experience in the private sector, put some of that money away for the future and then run for office out of doing a public service, not a public fleecing. We would get better government from people that have actual real world experience.
Won't happen in my lifetime!
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Surprised Imus Got ANY Punishment
I have to admit, I am very surprised that radio talker Don Imus got ANY punishment for his racist remarks regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team.
I will not rehash the remarks but allude to the dead giveaway as to why Mr. Imus was suspended for two weeks. Mr. Imus went to beg forgiveness from the "Reverend" Al Sharpton.
Essentially, the "Reverend" Al did not give him forgiveness. After two hours on the air, "Reverend" Sharpton said that Mr. Imus should still be fired.
Well, the powers that be on CBS Radio and MSNBC had to do something. If they did nothing, the outrage among the race hucksters would grow and even his friends in the DDBMSM would not be able to cover him.
So, they give him a slap on the wrist. There is no indication if the suspension is with or without pay.
Again, I do not think this rises to level above any of the numerous remarks he has made about many groups over the years that Mr. Imus has said on his broadcast. But, the fair thing to do would be to fire him. Because by not firing Mr. Imus, the DDBMSM is covering because he is one of them.
And that is where all this lies. Mr. Imus will get to go to his ranch for children with cancer in New Mexico, beg more forgiveness and will keep his job. Again, I ask, have you seen Rush Limbaugh on Monday Night Football? Or Michael Savage on MSNBC? Because they made bad comments and are on the right.
I will not rehash the remarks but allude to the dead giveaway as to why Mr. Imus was suspended for two weeks. Mr. Imus went to beg forgiveness from the "Reverend" Al Sharpton.
Essentially, the "Reverend" Al did not give him forgiveness. After two hours on the air, "Reverend" Sharpton said that Mr. Imus should still be fired.
Well, the powers that be on CBS Radio and MSNBC had to do something. If they did nothing, the outrage among the race hucksters would grow and even his friends in the DDBMSM would not be able to cover him.
So, they give him a slap on the wrist. There is no indication if the suspension is with or without pay.
Again, I do not think this rises to level above any of the numerous remarks he has made about many groups over the years that Mr. Imus has said on his broadcast. But, the fair thing to do would be to fire him. Because by not firing Mr. Imus, the DDBMSM is covering because he is one of them.
And that is where all this lies. Mr. Imus will get to go to his ranch for children with cancer in New Mexico, beg more forgiveness and will keep his job. Again, I ask, have you seen Rush Limbaugh on Monday Night Football? Or Michael Savage on MSNBC? Because they made bad comments and are on the right.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Wrong About Imus-Somewhat
I guess I am wrong about the reaction to the tasteless Don Imus joke about the Rutgers women's basketball team.
I will not rehash it all, see my earlier post on the subject.
But, it is the usual race hucksters like the "Reverend" Al Sharpton-who should be in jail for lying about Tawana Brawley-and the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson are commenting on it. And today, Mr. Imus is going on Mr. Sharpton's radio show to beg forgiveness for being racially insensitive.
I for one kind of like Don Imus. Yea, he is pretty much a liberal. After all, to regurgitate an Imus phrase, he was Sen. John Kerry's (D-Ma) "butt boy" during the 2004 election. Sen. Kerry could have opened up a campaign office in the Imus studio. But, he says outrageous things. What he did and said during the aforementioned broadcast was what he and his crew do any given morning. To be honest, I have heard much worse on any given morning when we used to get the broadcast in the Los Angeles market.
I am not totally sold on the criticism of Mr. Imus. Until the rest of the mainstream media jumps on the Imus should be fired bandwagon, then it is the usual suspects. And thus, somehow this will be swept under the rug. Why after all, Mr. Imus is going to beg for Mr. Sharpton's forgivness. He should tell Mr. Sharpton that he belongs in jail for perjury for knowingly ruining the lives of numerous New York City police officers regarding the "rape" of Tawany Brawley. Something we now know never happened. But that will not happen. Mr. Imus will go on, beg forgiveness and the media will pat him on the head like a dog and he will go on.
Too bad that would not be the case for any given conservative talk show host who may have done the same thing.
I will not rehash it all, see my earlier post on the subject.
But, it is the usual race hucksters like the "Reverend" Al Sharpton-who should be in jail for lying about Tawana Brawley-and the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson are commenting on it. And today, Mr. Imus is going on Mr. Sharpton's radio show to beg forgiveness for being racially insensitive.
I for one kind of like Don Imus. Yea, he is pretty much a liberal. After all, to regurgitate an Imus phrase, he was Sen. John Kerry's (D-Ma) "butt boy" during the 2004 election. Sen. Kerry could have opened up a campaign office in the Imus studio. But, he says outrageous things. What he did and said during the aforementioned broadcast was what he and his crew do any given morning. To be honest, I have heard much worse on any given morning when we used to get the broadcast in the Los Angeles market.
I am not totally sold on the criticism of Mr. Imus. Until the rest of the mainstream media jumps on the Imus should be fired bandwagon, then it is the usual suspects. And thus, somehow this will be swept under the rug. Why after all, Mr. Imus is going to beg for Mr. Sharpton's forgivness. He should tell Mr. Sharpton that he belongs in jail for perjury for knowingly ruining the lives of numerous New York City police officers regarding the "rape" of Tawany Brawley. Something we now know never happened. But that will not happen. Mr. Imus will go on, beg forgiveness and the media will pat him on the head like a dog and he will go on.
Too bad that would not be the case for any given conservative talk show host who may have done the same thing.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Nappy Headed Hoes And Double Standards
I am fascinated that radio talk show host Don Imus said something outrageous, nothing unusual there, that he apologized for and our friends in the DDBMSM (that is for the Dinosaur, Drive-by, mainstream media) want to let it go.
But I will not.
Substitute Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, or any of the other conservative radio talkers for Mr. Imus and you would get "righteous" indignation and calls to remove them from the air and among the wild eyed radicals prosecute under hate speech laws.
So, what did Mr. Imus say?
He referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "Nappy headed hoes" while being eked on by his producer. Before that he said that they looked rough because they had tattoos and were being compared to the NBA Toronto Raptors who have eight black players.
Wow! Where do we start?
To be fair, a radical black group of journalists did call for Mr. Imus to be fired.
But, again, if it were any of the aforementioned conservatives, this would be front page news and the lead story on the nightly news programs.
But, the DDBMSM covers for each other. Oh, its Imus they will say. He says a lot worse on a daily basis.
Maybe true, but that is not an excuse for double standard.
Do you see Rush on Monday Night Football anymore? Of course not because he made a serious analysis of Philadelphia Eagle quarterback Donovan McNab being black and he eventually got shoved aside. Serious analysis gets you thrown off the air. Outright racial slurs get an "I'm sorry" and a pat on the back by the DDBMSM.
We do live in a society full of double standards and many apply to conservatives, but in reality they are on all sides and in all aspects of life. That is why when there are those double standards, they need to be exposed. This is a case of one needing to be exposed.
To be honest, if it is done in humor, I have no problem with it. Most humor is done in fact at someone's expense. But, if it is a pattern of racially based slams, it is not funny and there should be some kind of punishment that takes place.
Don Imus is kind of out there anyway, but he does not get a pass on this one. You can't call black, female basketball players as "Nappy headed hoes" and a lot of guffaws and no accountability. It sure would happen to a conservative host. Ask Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh.
But I will not.
Substitute Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, or any of the other conservative radio talkers for Mr. Imus and you would get "righteous" indignation and calls to remove them from the air and among the wild eyed radicals prosecute under hate speech laws.
So, what did Mr. Imus say?
He referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "Nappy headed hoes" while being eked on by his producer. Before that he said that they looked rough because they had tattoos and were being compared to the NBA Toronto Raptors who have eight black players.
Wow! Where do we start?
To be fair, a radical black group of journalists did call for Mr. Imus to be fired.
But, again, if it were any of the aforementioned conservatives, this would be front page news and the lead story on the nightly news programs.
But, the DDBMSM covers for each other. Oh, its Imus they will say. He says a lot worse on a daily basis.
Maybe true, but that is not an excuse for double standard.
Do you see Rush on Monday Night Football anymore? Of course not because he made a serious analysis of Philadelphia Eagle quarterback Donovan McNab being black and he eventually got shoved aside. Serious analysis gets you thrown off the air. Outright racial slurs get an "I'm sorry" and a pat on the back by the DDBMSM.
We do live in a society full of double standards and many apply to conservatives, but in reality they are on all sides and in all aspects of life. That is why when there are those double standards, they need to be exposed. This is a case of one needing to be exposed.
To be honest, if it is done in humor, I have no problem with it. Most humor is done in fact at someone's expense. But, if it is a pattern of racially based slams, it is not funny and there should be some kind of punishment that takes place.
Don Imus is kind of out there anyway, but he does not get a pass on this one. You can't call black, female basketball players as "Nappy headed hoes" and a lot of guffaws and no accountability. It sure would happen to a conservative host. Ask Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh.
Friday, April 06, 2007
And Being A Prisoner of War Is NOT An International Incident?
I am grateful that the 15 British sailors and marines who were taken prisoners by the Iranian navy were released. But, why were they captured in the first place?
Well, the sailors basically said today in a press conference that they had no choice. Their main ship, the HMS Cornwall took off and hung them out to dry.
But what really makes me perplexed is the comment of British Royal Marine, Capt. Chris Air. He said the following,
We were completely surrounded, and in addition to loss of life, and attempt to fight back would have caused a major international incident and an escalation of tension within the region.
So, Capt. Air, does giving in and being taken as, essentially, a prisoner of war NOT constitute an international incident?
Of course it does. I think that the problem was that the British navy and the rest of the British armed forces are under bizarre rules of engagement that allowed this to happen in the first place.
Why did the Cornwell not go up against these Iranian naval pirates? They would have in a different time and place.
There is why these sailors and marines were taken in the first place.
Also, for a marine to make that astonishing statement is really bizarre. I mean, marines are the fiercest fighters in any nation's armed forces. In this case, they folded.
I don't actually blame them. I mean, when you are not even backed up by the big boys, so to speak, why should they risk their lives and fight back? And if the rules of engagement are to fold under these circumstances, will this not happen again?
That is the real question. I don't have a definitive answer.
But, I know this. We can not fight a serious war with the Islamofacists and their allies-and do not believe that Iran does not side with the Jihadists against the West-then we will see this happen again and yes, it is humiliating and yes it is a green light to the enemy.
Let us be clear, whether they chose to fight or not, being taken a prisoner by a hostile regime does constitute an international incident.
Well, the sailors basically said today in a press conference that they had no choice. Their main ship, the HMS Cornwall took off and hung them out to dry.
But what really makes me perplexed is the comment of British Royal Marine, Capt. Chris Air. He said the following,
We were completely surrounded, and in addition to loss of life, and attempt to fight back would have caused a major international incident and an escalation of tension within the region.
So, Capt. Air, does giving in and being taken as, essentially, a prisoner of war NOT constitute an international incident?
Of course it does. I think that the problem was that the British navy and the rest of the British armed forces are under bizarre rules of engagement that allowed this to happen in the first place.
Why did the Cornwell not go up against these Iranian naval pirates? They would have in a different time and place.
There is why these sailors and marines were taken in the first place.
Also, for a marine to make that astonishing statement is really bizarre. I mean, marines are the fiercest fighters in any nation's armed forces. In this case, they folded.
I don't actually blame them. I mean, when you are not even backed up by the big boys, so to speak, why should they risk their lives and fight back? And if the rules of engagement are to fold under these circumstances, will this not happen again?
That is the real question. I don't have a definitive answer.
But, I know this. We can not fight a serious war with the Islamofacists and their allies-and do not believe that Iran does not side with the Jihadists against the West-then we will see this happen again and yes, it is humiliating and yes it is a green light to the enemy.
Let us be clear, whether they chose to fight or not, being taken a prisoner by a hostile regime does constitute an international incident.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Why Do We Not Hear Of The Democrat Congress Abysmal Ratings?
In a post last Thursday on the Democrat congress overall polling numbers not being much better than when the Republicans where in charge last year at this time, I noted we do not hear much about that.
It seems like last year at this time, there was not a day that went by and a new poll cropped up at how awful things were in the United States under the Republican control of both the executive and legislative branches of government. We were led to believe that life was so awful, the public could not wait to throw the Republicans out and give the Dems 50 plus seats in the House of Representatives, maybe even 10 in the Senate.
Of course, that did not happen and with not so great polling numbers, the Republicans did not do that badly, only losing 30 house seats and six senate seats.
But, where is the cry about the rising gas prices? How about the economy going down the toilet? The wild fluctuations of the stock market? The highest home foreclosure rates in years?
As I suspect, the media will not talk about any of these issues the Democrats brought up in last year's mid term election. That would hurt the Dems, and that can not happen now. The United States is simply counting down the seconds to rid us of the Bush era and coronate any Dem to the presidency.
As I write, don't hold your breath to get the truth about what the public thinks of the Democrats in control of congress. Oh yes, the latest poll from AP/Ipsos has a 40-57 percent positive/negative congressional rating.
It seems like last year at this time, there was not a day that went by and a new poll cropped up at how awful things were in the United States under the Republican control of both the executive and legislative branches of government. We were led to believe that life was so awful, the public could not wait to throw the Republicans out and give the Dems 50 plus seats in the House of Representatives, maybe even 10 in the Senate.
Of course, that did not happen and with not so great polling numbers, the Republicans did not do that badly, only losing 30 house seats and six senate seats.
But, where is the cry about the rising gas prices? How about the economy going down the toilet? The wild fluctuations of the stock market? The highest home foreclosure rates in years?
As I suspect, the media will not talk about any of these issues the Democrats brought up in last year's mid term election. That would hurt the Dems, and that can not happen now. The United States is simply counting down the seconds to rid us of the Bush era and coronate any Dem to the presidency.
As I write, don't hold your breath to get the truth about what the public thinks of the Democrats in control of congress. Oh yes, the latest poll from AP/Ipsos has a 40-57 percent positive/negative congressional rating.
I May Be Right About McCain
Before you read on, please see my post on the "candidacy" of Sen. John McCain for president. (See post under 02/27/07)
I predicted that Sen. McCain may not run for president.
Fast forward to today and look at National Review http://corner.nationalreview.com under "I'm not putting money on this."
Craig Crawford of the Hotline is now running that as speculation. But the fact is, Sen. McCain is just not doing all that well with money or polling data.
I still say that Sen. McCain will not run for president. I also do not think he will endorse a candidate.
I wonder where all the Senator's support will go? I think it will go to Mitt Romney. I don't think Sen. McCain wants to see his supporter back a loser in Rudy Guiliani or a second-tier candidate. We shall see.
I predicted that Sen. McCain may not run for president.
Fast forward to today and look at National Review http://corner.nationalreview.com under "I'm not putting money on this."
Craig Crawford of the Hotline is now running that as speculation. But the fact is, Sen. McCain is just not doing all that well with money or polling data.
I still say that Sen. McCain will not run for president. I also do not think he will endorse a candidate.
I wonder where all the Senator's support will go? I think it will go to Mitt Romney. I don't think Sen. McCain wants to see his supporter back a loser in Rudy Guiliani or a second-tier candidate. We shall see.
Why I Can Not Support Rudy-Now
I must confess before I go on. If by some miracle, Rudy Giuliani is nominated by the Republican party for president, I will vote for him over any Democrat. Period. But, I do not or can not support him for the GOP nomination.
I am, at best, a nominal supporter of Mitt Romney. I see him as the best of the top tier in the race. Yea, I know it seems like he is suddenly supporting every social conservative cause known to man when as he ran for the senate in 1994 and governor in 2002 in Massachusetts, he ran as a social moderate at best. Has anyone thought that maybe, because he was running in his adopted home state that he would be an absolute loser running as a social conservative? Anyway, back to the point.
I think that Rudy was a great mayor of New York City. For New York City, he was about as conservative as one could be and run a respectable and even twice winning campaign. But he ran three times as a Republican (he lost in 1989 to David Dinkins) for mayor. So, when he won in 1993, what does he do? He endorses, very enthusiastically the reelection of...Mario Cuomo as governor. Yes, that Mario Cuomo, who was Democrat enemy number one in those days. Now, having seen what kind of governor Republican George Pataki was, Mr. Giuliani should not have endorsed anyone in the race in 1994. Yes, I know that Mr. Romney, who was a registered independent at the time and NOT an elected official, gave money to Democrat Paul Tsongas, a fellow Bay Stater but a Democrat, when he was running for president in 1992. But, again, Mr. Romney was not an elected Republican.
Rudy also supports gun control that goes beyond "assault weapons." He supports handgun control. After all, in states that have conceal carry laws, violent crime is lower. Most of those have handguns. He has not spoken much on that issue, but it will be something he will have to come to terms with as the campaign gets into full gear.
Rudy is "pro choice" on abortion. But it is not just that he is "pro choice" but said, as recently as yesterday, that he supports public-read taxpayer-funded abortions. Today, he said he wants to leave it up to the states and he will appoint strict constructionists to the federal courts. If Roe vs. Wade was overturned tomorrow, that is exactly what would happen. It would return the abortion issue to the states and they would get to decide abortion laws. The inconsistency on this issue makes it very hard to get the overwhelming pro life GOP primary voter to get a straight answer on this issue. It is like he is following one William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and trying a little triangulation on abortion. It won't work.
Rudy has not said he will CUT government, but make it run more efficiently. That is when a Republican says that they can run the welfare state more efficiently. When then congressman Newt Gingrich spoke of Sen. Bob Dole as the tax collector for the welfare state, all you have to do is put Mr. Guiliani's name for Mr. Dole.
Where there is agreement and why, if Mr. Guiliani is the GOP presidential nominee, is how he would fight the War Against Terror. He would fight it in the same manner as President Bush. He will go after the terrorists there in the Middle East and where ever they are trying to run there camps and the like.
Here is the thing. I don't think that because, even on the primary issue of the day, Republicans should turn their backs on all Ronald Reagan achieved in transforming the Republican party from moderate welfare staters and internationalist to a conservative, small government, nationalist party. Ronald Reagan was as and more conservative as President Bush (43) and won two national elections in landslides. Mr. Reagan showed by standing by principles, it can be done. The Republican party can not throw all that away in thinking with a moderate GOPer they can keep the White House. History proves that wrong.
That is why I tacitly support Mr. Romney. He actually cut government in blue as blue can get Massachusetts and when the State Supreme Court legislated same-sex marriage, he did all he could to get it on the ballot for the voters to decide. He has come around on abortion, as did Mr. Reagan. After all, Mr. Reagan was the most eloquent defender of life in the secular world. Mr. Reagan was ahead of his time.
But, compared to any Democrat, I would vote for Mr. Guiliani. I will do all I can to see that I won't have to make that choice.
I am, at best, a nominal supporter of Mitt Romney. I see him as the best of the top tier in the race. Yea, I know it seems like he is suddenly supporting every social conservative cause known to man when as he ran for the senate in 1994 and governor in 2002 in Massachusetts, he ran as a social moderate at best. Has anyone thought that maybe, because he was running in his adopted home state that he would be an absolute loser running as a social conservative? Anyway, back to the point.
I think that Rudy was a great mayor of New York City. For New York City, he was about as conservative as one could be and run a respectable and even twice winning campaign. But he ran three times as a Republican (he lost in 1989 to David Dinkins) for mayor. So, when he won in 1993, what does he do? He endorses, very enthusiastically the reelection of...Mario Cuomo as governor. Yes, that Mario Cuomo, who was Democrat enemy number one in those days. Now, having seen what kind of governor Republican George Pataki was, Mr. Giuliani should not have endorsed anyone in the race in 1994. Yes, I know that Mr. Romney, who was a registered independent at the time and NOT an elected official, gave money to Democrat Paul Tsongas, a fellow Bay Stater but a Democrat, when he was running for president in 1992. But, again, Mr. Romney was not an elected Republican.
Rudy also supports gun control that goes beyond "assault weapons." He supports handgun control. After all, in states that have conceal carry laws, violent crime is lower. Most of those have handguns. He has not spoken much on that issue, but it will be something he will have to come to terms with as the campaign gets into full gear.
Rudy is "pro choice" on abortion. But it is not just that he is "pro choice" but said, as recently as yesterday, that he supports public-read taxpayer-funded abortions. Today, he said he wants to leave it up to the states and he will appoint strict constructionists to the federal courts. If Roe vs. Wade was overturned tomorrow, that is exactly what would happen. It would return the abortion issue to the states and they would get to decide abortion laws. The inconsistency on this issue makes it very hard to get the overwhelming pro life GOP primary voter to get a straight answer on this issue. It is like he is following one William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and trying a little triangulation on abortion. It won't work.
Rudy has not said he will CUT government, but make it run more efficiently. That is when a Republican says that they can run the welfare state more efficiently. When then congressman Newt Gingrich spoke of Sen. Bob Dole as the tax collector for the welfare state, all you have to do is put Mr. Guiliani's name for Mr. Dole.
Where there is agreement and why, if Mr. Guiliani is the GOP presidential nominee, is how he would fight the War Against Terror. He would fight it in the same manner as President Bush. He will go after the terrorists there in the Middle East and where ever they are trying to run there camps and the like.
Here is the thing. I don't think that because, even on the primary issue of the day, Republicans should turn their backs on all Ronald Reagan achieved in transforming the Republican party from moderate welfare staters and internationalist to a conservative, small government, nationalist party. Ronald Reagan was as and more conservative as President Bush (43) and won two national elections in landslides. Mr. Reagan showed by standing by principles, it can be done. The Republican party can not throw all that away in thinking with a moderate GOPer they can keep the White House. History proves that wrong.
That is why I tacitly support Mr. Romney. He actually cut government in blue as blue can get Massachusetts and when the State Supreme Court legislated same-sex marriage, he did all he could to get it on the ballot for the voters to decide. He has come around on abortion, as did Mr. Reagan. After all, Mr. Reagan was the most eloquent defender of life in the secular world. Mr. Reagan was ahead of his time.
But, compared to any Democrat, I would vote for Mr. Guiliani. I will do all I can to see that I won't have to make that choice.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Rosie O'Donnell, Queen Of The Whackjobs
You know Rosie O'Donnell, don't you?
She once was a funny comedienne. She once had her own daytime talk show on television and she was know as the "Queen of Nice"
Now, Miss O'Donnell is a co-host of ABC television's The View along with Joy Behar, Elisabeth Hasselback, wife of Seattle SeaHawk quarterback Matt Hasselback and occasionally Barbara Walters, the one who started this show aimed at stay at home mom types.
Miss O'Donnell has gone from the Queen of Nice to the Queen of the Whack jobs because, among the choicest of so many choice comments she has made in recent months, she actually believes that at least part of the 9/11 attacks may have not been committed by 19 Islamic radicals flying planes into buildings and killing nearly 3,000 people in New York City and Washington DC.
She has now joined about 30 percent of the American public that, if they do not believe in part but all of what happened on 9/11/01 was not a terrorist attack against the United States, but some kind of government/business conspiracy to begin the War Against Terror.
There are too many theories to go into, but it is what Miss O'Donnell refers to that is so, well appalling.
She claims that World Trade Center building seven, which eventually caught fire and burned to the ground could not have happened that way. She claims, with a straight face, that it is the first time in history that fire burned steel, thus causing the building to collapse. While she has no evidence as to any other reason, at least she does not pontificate publicly, here is a news flash. Steel becomes steel because of...FIRE! That is how the steel is MELTED down and formed.
There is a lot more, but what is troubling is that her claim goes unchecked. Yes, Mrs. Hasselback is a conservative Republican, but she is no match against lefty's Miss O'Donnell and Joy Behar.
And that, in America passes as fair and balanced on networks like ABC. Two liberal loudmouths with no facts against a sweet, nice conservative.
But, it is really sad that Miss O'Donnell has bought into the conspiracy theory of history.
I like a good conspiracy as the next guy, and it usually has a plausable possibility, but that is what makes the theory unrealistic. If there was this conspiracy, someone would come forward. Remember, this could be a government plot and if there is one group of people that can't keep a secret, it is the government.
Miss O'Donnell can be a socialist-lib all she wants, but it is when she joins the fever swamps of the left that she loses credibility. It all goes back to a serious fact about socialist-libs. They do not like facts. They like feeling. Thus, all her latest rants and raves are how she feels not driven by facts. She does not think things through. If she did, she would not be using The View to spread such vile. It sullies those who died on 9/11 through no fault of their own.
My advice to Rosie. Please come back to reality. Stop with going to the fever swamps. I think you are better than that.
She once was a funny comedienne. She once had her own daytime talk show on television and she was know as the "Queen of Nice"
Now, Miss O'Donnell is a co-host of ABC television's The View along with Joy Behar, Elisabeth Hasselback, wife of Seattle SeaHawk quarterback Matt Hasselback and occasionally Barbara Walters, the one who started this show aimed at stay at home mom types.
Miss O'Donnell has gone from the Queen of Nice to the Queen of the Whack jobs because, among the choicest of so many choice comments she has made in recent months, she actually believes that at least part of the 9/11 attacks may have not been committed by 19 Islamic radicals flying planes into buildings and killing nearly 3,000 people in New York City and Washington DC.
She has now joined about 30 percent of the American public that, if they do not believe in part but all of what happened on 9/11/01 was not a terrorist attack against the United States, but some kind of government/business conspiracy to begin the War Against Terror.
There are too many theories to go into, but it is what Miss O'Donnell refers to that is so, well appalling.
She claims that World Trade Center building seven, which eventually caught fire and burned to the ground could not have happened that way. She claims, with a straight face, that it is the first time in history that fire burned steel, thus causing the building to collapse. While she has no evidence as to any other reason, at least she does not pontificate publicly, here is a news flash. Steel becomes steel because of...FIRE! That is how the steel is MELTED down and formed.
There is a lot more, but what is troubling is that her claim goes unchecked. Yes, Mrs. Hasselback is a conservative Republican, but she is no match against lefty's Miss O'Donnell and Joy Behar.
And that, in America passes as fair and balanced on networks like ABC. Two liberal loudmouths with no facts against a sweet, nice conservative.
But, it is really sad that Miss O'Donnell has bought into the conspiracy theory of history.
I like a good conspiracy as the next guy, and it usually has a plausable possibility, but that is what makes the theory unrealistic. If there was this conspiracy, someone would come forward. Remember, this could be a government plot and if there is one group of people that can't keep a secret, it is the government.
Miss O'Donnell can be a socialist-lib all she wants, but it is when she joins the fever swamps of the left that she loses credibility. It all goes back to a serious fact about socialist-libs. They do not like facts. They like feeling. Thus, all her latest rants and raves are how she feels not driven by facts. She does not think things through. If she did, she would not be using The View to spread such vile. It sullies those who died on 9/11 through no fault of their own.
My advice to Rosie. Please come back to reality. Stop with going to the fever swamps. I think you are better than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)