You guys have been the biggest cheerleaders for Obama—and the most strident, dishonest Bush-bashers—for years. Years. Now you expect to make us laugh?
Go [bleep] yourself, New Yorker. I wouldn’t wipe my—you get the point.
You guys have been the biggest cheerleaders for Obama—and the most strident, dishonest Bush-bashers—for years. Years. Now you expect to make us laugh?
Go [bleep] yourself, New Yorker. I wouldn’t wipe my—you get the point.
Sarah Palin found a novel way to turn down an interview request from Piers Morgan on Friday, posting a picture on Facebook of a bear she had shot dead and a note saying she was busy.
The former Alaska governor thanked chat show host Morgan for inviting her on his ‘shambolic show’ but added she was ‘kind of busy right now’.
The Facebook message, which had been liked by nearly 3,000 of Palin’s supporters within two hours of it being posted, is part of an online spat between the pair after Morgan poked fun at her intellect.
Earlier in the week the host of Piers Morgan Live tweeted ‘And she’s back’ and linked to a satirical article from the Daily Currant claiming Palin believed Jesus had celebrated Easter.
According to conservative website Breitbart, Morgan was ‘gleefully tweeting out a Currant story attacking Sarah Palin, without noting that the story was untrue’.
Palin linked to the Breitbart article and, in another twist of the knife, added in her Facebook message: ‘And to all our British friends: we ask, what did your friends across the pond ever do to you to deserve your Piers?’
He was run out of Britain, dear Sarah. Private Eye doesn’t call him “Piers Moron” for nothing.
After laying low for much of this year, Palin is gingerly stepping back into the public arena with a national book tour, a trip to the always-important political state of Iowa, and an eye on making yet another series of splashy endorsements in a variety of competitive Republican primaries.
Five years after rocketing from Alaska obscurity to worldwide fame, Palin wants to be a political player in 2014.
Which raises the question: Does she still matter?
“She is the most important endorsement in Republican politics today, by far,” said Sal Russo, a Republican consultant who co-founded the Tea Party Express, a group that has booked Palin to speak at numerous public events dating back to the 2010 midterm cycle. “She can move the needle in a primary more than anyone else can.”
I would dispute the notion that she ever went away. Her Facebook page, from which she has tweaked and taunted President Obama, has 3,868,725 likes. I’m not on Facebook, but you can add me in there too.
Not since the Ginsu knife cut through an aluminum can and still sliced a tomato has America seen a pitch quite like the one President Obama delivered in the Rose Garden on Monday.
“The product is good. The health insurance that’s being provided is good. It’s high quality, and it’s affordable,” the president announced. “People can save money — significant money — by getting insurance that’s being provided through these marketplaces.”
How much would you pay for a health plan like this? Before you answer, listen to this:
“No one who decides to purchase a plan has to pay their first premium until December 15th. And unlike the day after Thanksgiving sales for the latest PlayStation or flat-screen TVs, the insurance plans don’t run out.”
Wait! That’s not all.
“The Affordable Care Act is not just a Web site. It’s much more,” Obama said. “Billions of dollars have been saved by seniors already. That’s part of the law. It’s already in place. It’s happening right now.”
Now how much would you pay?
“Nearly six in 10 uninsured Americans will find that they can get coverage for less than $100 a month,” the president went on. “Through the marketplaces, you can get health insurance for what may be the equivalent of your cellphone bill. Or your cable bill. And that’s a good deal. .?.?. And that product is working. It’s really good.”
If you act now, you’ll also get the matching carving fork, the versatile six-in-one kitchen tool, a set of six steak knives and the spiral slicer — all for $9.95.
“I want the checkout lines to be smooth. So I want people to be able to get this great product,” said the president of the United States, even giving out the toll-free number from the presidential podium. “Call centers are already up and running, and you can get your questions answered by real people, 24 hours a day, in 150 different languages. The phone number for these call centers is 1-800-318-2596. I want to repeat that: 1-800-318-2596.”
Good, right? But Yours Truly doesn’t believe it will matter one whit. Because if somehow ObamaCare looked like it was going down, The Washington Post and the NY Times and NPR would rush in with oxygen and life vests. There would be one-time special taxes to float it a while longer. If you don’t like it, you’re racist. Dana Milbank wrote a funny, but only because it is perfectly safe to do so.
This guy gets a column and we get a measly blog? No justice, no peace:
Question: If Ted Cruz and John Boehner were both on a sinking ship, who would be saved?
Ha-ha. Funny. Here’s another one. If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were in a burning building, who would you rescue first?
Answer: Who wants a beer? I’m buying.
Waste. Of. Space.
Over at Politico, Roger Simon has written a fairly trollish bit of “analysis,” which leads off with what he calls a joke about how America would be better off if John Boehner and Ted Cruz drowned. It goes on with the usual clichéd drek about the shutdown being racist and so on. No doubt many liberals think it’s right on target. But that’s not what interests me. Simon’s column reminds me of a point I’ve been making for years. Most mainstream journalists roll their eyes at the idea the MSM is biased. It’s a tired argument, I know. But it’s simply remarkable that when supposedly objective reporters move on to the opinion column racket they reveal themselves as utterly conventional liberal Democrats. When any longtime New York Times reporter rewarded with a column at the Times or elsewhere — Nick Kristoff, Bill Keller, Maureen Dowd, Anthony Lewis, EJ Dionne et al. — rips off the mask it turns out that they were exactly as liberal as conservatives suspected.
Indeed, when the Times needs to find a conservative columnist (Bill Safire, David Brooks, Ross Douthat) it always has to hire outside its own shop.
Jay Carney got his job working for Joe Biden, and later, Barack Obama because his employers knew from the get-go that the Time reporter was ideologically simpatico with the administration. The same goes for Linda Douglas, not to mention Richard Stengel, Shailagh Murray, and many others.
Sure, there have been a handful of straight reporters who’ve gone Republican, but their numbers are so tiny their examples serves as the exceptions that prove the rule.
Did you hear about the vicious beating Leon Panetta recently suffered in DC?
Do yourself a favor and stop reading if you have a sensitive nature:
“You have to engage in the process,” Panetta said, criticizing Obama at a Monday breakfast sponsored by The Wall Street Journal, according to an account by liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus. “This is a town where it’s not enough to feel you have the right answers. You’ve got to roll up your sleeves and you’ve got to really engage in the process … that’s what governing is all about.”
This propelled some political reporters in the room to justify Obama’s lack of leadership, reports Marcus.
“Jackie Calmes of The New York Times noted that the Panetta-envisioned budget deal was illusory because Republicans refuse to consider new tax revenue. Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times observed that the White House would argue that its previous efforts at schmoozing and deal-making had fizzled.”
You question Obama, you gonna pay. But Panetta gave as good as he got:
“If the president, for whatever reason, feels he can’t do it because the Republicans don’t want to confront him, then he ought to be willing to delegate that responsibility to someone who can do it,” Panetta reportedly concluded.
It’s not the job of these reporters—not opinion columnists, reporters!—to plead the president’s case. But that’s exactly what they think their job is.
A California conservative group is launching a bare-knuckle campaign to expose the so-called liberal media and its advertisers — vowing to knock down the highest-profile players and “unmask leftists in the media.”
“The media must be destroyed where they stand,” Truth Revolt, a new project by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, said Sunday before launching a website. “That is our mission.”
To be sure, its first target was MSNBC talk-show host Al Sharpton and major advertiser Ritz Crackers — an opening flurry followed by at least 15 Sharpton-related stories over roughly the past week.
Ritz Cracker: is that some kind of ethnic slur?
With the utmost respect to Mr. Horowitz, Al Sharpton is pretty low-hanging fruit. (Is that another slur?) His partisan politics are hardly disguised; indeed they are a selling point. Anyway, after you’ve outed the un-closeted politics of George Stephanopoulos (Clinton), Chris Matthews (Carter, Tip O’Neill), Mike Barnicle (Robert Kennedy), Claire Shipman (Mrs. Jay Carney), etc., etc., what do you do for an encore? It’s like declaring the emperor has no clothes at a nudist camp for royalty. Duh.
Why not? Hillary sleeps with pretty much everything else from what I hear.
If this guy had proceeded, he would have woken up with a horse’s head in his bed.
In late 2012, CNN Films approached me about directing a documentary. We discussed a number of potential subjects, and eventually settled on Hillary Rodham Clinton. The film would be ambitious, controversial, and highly visible. But I felt that it was important, that I was qualified to do it, and that I could be fair. CNN gave me complete control (“final cut”) over the theatrical version, and a generous budget.
And then the fun began. The day after the contract was signed, I received a message from Nick Merrill, Hillary Clinton’s press secretary. He already knew about the film, and clearly had a source within CNN. He interrogated me; at first I answered, but eventually I stopped. When I requested an off-the-record, private conversation with Mrs. Clinton, Merrill replied that she was busy writing her book, and not speaking to the media.
Next came Phillipe Reines, Hillary Clinton’s media fixer, who contacted various people at CNN, interrogated them, and expressed concern about alleged conflicts of interest generated because my film was a for-profit endeavor (as nearly all documentaries and news organizations are). When I contacted him, he declined to speak with me. He then repeated his allegations to Politico, which published them.
Next came David Brock, who published an open letter on his highly partisan Democratic website Media Matters, in which he endorsed the Republican National Committee’s position, repeating Reines’ conflict of interest allegations and suggesting that my documentary would revive old, discredited Clinton scandal stories.
When Brock published his letter about my film, I got in touch with several prominent Democrats who knew Hillary Clinton. I told them that this campaign against the film and against CNN was counterproductive. They conveyed this message to Mrs. Clinton personally, along with my request to speak with her. The answer that came back was, basically, over my dead body.
Which could easily be arranged.
Neither political party wanted the film made. After painful reflection, I decided that I couldn’t make a film of which I would be proud. And so I’m cancelling. (Not because of any pressure from CNN — quite the contrary.) It’s a victory for the Clintons, and for the money machines that both political parties have now become. But I don’t think that it’s a victory for the media, or for the American people.
The Republicans were (rightly) suspicious of a hagiography timed for the 2016 presidential election. They might have been wrong. Democrats just don’t want Hillary’s story to be told. Given the little we already know, they’re certainly not wrong.
Too many people have too much to say about the impending shutdown showdown, so I’ll just cite this:
Mr. Obama is as much to blame for the partisan pileup as Mr. Cruz. This is a President who is eager to negotiate with dubiously elected Iranian mullahs but can’t abide compromise with duly elected leaders of Congress. He refuses to negotiate at all over an increase in the federal debt limit, claiming this has never happened. Like so much that Mr. Obama says, he knows this is false. His own staff suggested the spending sequester during the 2011 debt debate, and Democratic Congresses have used the debt limit to extract concessions from Republican Presidents.
Mr. Obama also refuses to bend on any part of ObamaCare—except when he unilaterally announces bending in his own political interest. He decided on his own, and contrary to the plain text of the law, to delay for a year the business mandate to provide insurance for employees. He also unilaterally delayed verifying the income of Americans seeking subsidies. He did this to pile more people into the ObamaCare exchanges, lest they fail, and to limit the harm to job creation before 2014.
Yet now he’d rather see the government shut down than accept the ObamaCare compromises that House Republicans have put in their latest government funding bill. He refuses to delay the law for a year though his own actions reveal it is not ready for prime time. And he won’t even accept repeal of the medical-device tax that 79 Senators, including 33 Democrats, are on record as supporting. The tax is already hurting innovation and sending jobs overseas.
Mr. Obama’s refusal to negotiate suggests that he wants a shutdown—either over the budget or debt limit.
As the president once said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” It’s the Chicago way. Ted Cruz might have the Tea Party behind him, but Obama has the weight of the entire Democrat-Media Complex. Poor Ted.
Yes, he’s a dolt, yes, the economy is weak, our foreign policy is in shambles, the health care law will cost thousands their jobs and maybe America will end up with fewer Americans with health insurance, and he’s arrogant to boot. But to quote one of my kids, who got real persistent and particular one day: “Yes, Mommy, I understand there’s a sperm and an egg, but how, exactly how, do they get together???” In the spirit of that question, what, exactly what, makes this guy worse than so many others?
And I woke up this morning with the particulars:
Obama has a Nixonian respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. (I realize that this is unfair to Richard Nixon).
Obama has a Carteresque way with both foreign policy and the domestic economy, with quite a bit of Carter’s condescending arrogance thrown in.
Obama has a Kennedy era teeny-bop press, in love with his handsome features, lovely wife and daughters, his sexy golf moves, and his inspiring speeches. The Beatles didn’t have it this good.
As a result:
America has a lawless, arrogant, incompetent leader who has lowered our international standing, tortured our economy, and cheapened our culture. And we don’t have a media to help us to understand this.
If there’s anyone without an opinion on whether to bomb Syria, I haven’t met him.
But that didn’t stop NPR from citing one particularly sinister corner of opinion: Jews.
One of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill is AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which commands bi-partisan respect on Middle East issues. But on the matter of possible military strikes on Syria, AIPAC is having a rare tough go of it.
NPR no longer transcribes their stories, it seems, so you have to listen to the bilge to believe it (though it’s not to be believed). At one point, the reporter, David Welna, refers to AIPAC lobbyists “swarming” over Capital Hill; at another he allows antisemitic lowlife John Mearsheimer to comment. AIPAC is portrayed as a sinister power behind the scenes in a manner reminiscent of Nazi propaganda. Even the snide allusion to Sheldon Adelson’s support was unexplained. I couldn’t believe it as I heard it.
It’s true AIPAC came out in support of President Obama’s myriad positions, but here’s one reason you didn’t hear on NPR:
For weeks the political heavyweight, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, sat on the sidelines. AIPAC refrained from taking a position on whether or not the United States should undertake a military strike against Syria. Its silence continued, even following confirmation of Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians. Then, suddenly, without warning, AIPAC announced it would come out swinging with both fists. And now we know why.
It was not a big surprise to watchers of major pro-Israel organizations that AIPAC remained silent on the question of whether the U.S. should use its force against a Middle Eastern dictator who – at the moment – was not directly threatening Israel.
At least one good reason why many pro-Israel organizations were reluctant to wade into this thicket is the inevitability that the story will then become that oh-so-popular refrain: the Jews are forcing American boys to die for them. Call that the Big Blame Theory. We’ll get back to it in a moment.
But after weeks of silence and nearly silent no-committals from the AIPAC behemoth, the word came several days ago that AIPAC had entered the hard-core lobbying front on behalf of President Obama’s “limited, tailored” strikes on Syria.
So what happened?
What happened is politics. No, not the Jews pushing the U.S. to fight Israel’s battles. This one was Team Obama calling in its own chits, and asking, nah, insisting that AIPAC wind-up its many operatives and get them to start pushing hard on their congressional contacts to throw in their yes vote for the Obama strikes.
Israel itself, in the person of Prime Minster Netanyahu, has been remarkably reticent to comment on Obama’s bellicosity. So, for AIPAC to take up the battle cry implies pressure from America, not Israel (who understands all too well the nature of the so-called rebels).
I strongly encourage you to listen to the NPR account. You’ll need a bucket to catch the vomit, but you need to hear it. If AIPAC was worried about Jews getting the blame for a US strike on Israel, government-sponsored radio lived down to their expectations. I still can’t believe it and I heard it live.
All this summer, NPR is looking back to civil rights activism of 1963; marking the 50th anniversary of a number of events that changed our society. From the assassination of civil rights leader Medgar Evers in Mississippi to the March on Washington; NPR is remembering the past and examining how our society has changed. The non-violent struggle for civil rights has inspired many other movements, among them, the current campaign advocating for the Dream Act and immigration reform.
I met Edna Monroy — a young, undocumented activist from Mexico — at her neighborhood park in South Los Angeles. It’s a historically black part of L.A. that has seen a huge demographic shift over the past several years. It’s now mostly Latino. And, Monroy is one of the newer arrivals.
Monroy’s brother took a plane into LAX, her mom crossed through the desert, her baby sister was taken across the border by another family, and she crossed through Tijuana, alone. All four were trying to reunite with her father who had a maintenance job at a LA hotel.
The story doesn’t make it clear, but it would seem that all of them were illegal—sorry, undocumented. An entire family of law breakers.
But at least she got an American education:
Monroy was twelve when she made her first attempt to cross the border — and she got caught. “And it was my very first time seeing people handcuffed from head to toe,” says Monroy. “Literally, in chains.” She says the experience freaked her out. But it wasn’t until she went to high school in South LA that she realized how that moment shaped her political views.
“70 percent of my teachers were black and I am very much thankful for that, because they broke it down for us,” says Monroy, clapping her hands for emphasis. She credits one of her high school teachers, Ms. Lee, for her African-American history education from slavery to Civil Rights. “She made us watch many documentaries. And ‘Roots’, that got me. That got me! And it’s when I kind of made that connection, right? Those undocumented adults that were chained and the slaves from ‘Roots.’”
Monroy clarifies that she’s aware that the enslavement of Africans and the detention of immigrants are not the same, but
Oh please. Do we have to?
“Something that we are definitely acknowledging from the civil rights movement is that we are humans, we are people,” Monroy says about her work as an undocumented activist. “If they want to take away our dignity, our humanity, we have to fight for it.”
Crawling through the desert, sneaking through Tijuana—that’s dignified!
At this point the NPR story ended abruptly as the reporter’s drool short-circuited the recording equipment.
I’ve used that title before. I’m only surprised that it was once before:
A Remarkable Coincidence
By Charles C. W. Cooke
August 21, 2013 1:27 PM
Today, per OFA, is national-push-back-against-the-NRA day. So if, by remarkable coincidence, you see any tenuous and politically illiterate pieces popping up anywhere, do let me know.
Would he happen to mean this?
The National Rifle Association has rallied gun owners — and raised tens of millions of dollars — campaigning against the threat of a national database of firearms or their owners.
But in fact, the sort of vast, secret database the NRA often warns of already exists, despite having been assembled largely without the knowledge or consent of gun owners. It is housed in the Virginia offices of the NRA itself. The country’s largest privately held database of current, former, and prospective gun owners is one of the powerful lobby’s secret weapons, expanding its influence well beyond its estimated 3 million members and bolstering its political supremacy.
That database has been built through years of acquiring gun permit registration lists from state and county offices, gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun-safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructors and by buying lists of attendees of gun shows, subscribers to gun magazines, and more, BuzzFeed has learned.
The result: a Big Data powerhouse that deploys the same high-tech tactics all year round that the vaunted Obama campaign used to win two presidential elections.
What, exactly, is he alleging? How is an unused database of names a “secret weapon”? And if it’s the same technique Obama used, how is it inappropriate?
Oh yeah, and tell me how any organization—even magazines and opera houses—behaves any differently. A government shouldn’t, but a lobbying group is more than free to.
The NRA won’t say how many names and what other personal information is in its database, but former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman estimates they keep tabs on “tens of millions of people.”
“There’s nothing that prevents them from mailing those people,” said Feldman….
If I can get the freakin’ Sierra Club or my local public radio station to stop mailing me, I’d be up for banning the NRA too. But last I checked the US mail was kosher for political mailings.
See why I frequently make reference to the Democrat-Media Comples?