The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted for much more than just the lying itself. There are two kinds of deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally lying claim of having “misspoken.”) The first involves what seems to be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.I remember disembarking at the Sarajevo airport in the summer of 1992 after an agonizing flight on a U.N. relief plane that had had to “corkscrew” its downward approach in order to avoid Serbian flak and ground fire. As I hunched over to scuttle the distance to the terminal, a mortar shell fell as close to me as I ever want any mortar shell to fall. The vicious noise it made is with me still. And so is the shock I felt at seeing a civilized and multicultural European city bombarded round the clock by an ethno-religious militia under the command of fascistic barbarians. I didn’t like the Clinton candidacy even then, but I have to report that many Bosnians were enthused by Bill Clinton’s pledge, during that ghastly summer, to abandon the hypocritical and sordid neutrality of the George H.W. Bush/James Baker regime and to come to the defense of the victims of ethnic cleansing.
I am recalling these two things for a reason. First, and even though I admit that I did once later misidentify a building in Sarajevo from a set of photographs, I can tell you for an absolute certainty that it would be quite impossible to imagine that one had undergone that experience at the airport if one actually had not. Yet Sen. Clinton, given repeated chances to modify her absurd claim to have operated under fire while in the company of her then-16-year-old daughter and a USO entertainment troupe, kept up a stone-faced and self-loving insistence that, yes, she had exposed herself to sniper fire in the cause of gaining moral credit and, perhaps to be banked for the future, national-security “experience.” This must mean either a) that she lies without conscience or reflection; or b) that she is subject to fantasies of an illusory past; or c) both of the above. Any of the foregoing would constitute a disqualification for the presidency of the United States.
*****
Ya know unless Hillary is able to hire someone to assassinate Obama her chances of winning the presidency is pretty much zero.
Putting aside Rush’s “Operation Chaos” successfully fucking up the Democratic Party, after her sniper fire lie I have often thought about the mental acuity of people who still actually believe that Hillary Clinton should be president.
EVEN AFTER THIS MOTHER OF ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE LIES, how
could someone willingly show up at one of her campaign rallies and keep their integrity in check?
I have yet to find a blogger or columnist who is willing to bang out on a keyboard truthfully and honestly why Hillary, despite being a lying fuck should be president.
Only the fact that she is a woman and her name is Clinton. If she were a man named
Tom Richardson everyone including flaming lib tards would avoid her like the plague.
after reading this article, I’m just dumbfounded.
Why do Negros support hypocrite fraud radical idiots like Jeremiah Wright?
Tuesday, April 1st, 2008
In case you did not catch O’Reilly last night (Monday 3/31) he had a discussion with Marc Lamont Hill. Mr. Hill is an Afro studies dude teaching at Temple.
HERE IS THE VIDEO FIRST…
Just an FYI, below is a portion of an article written by Mr. Hill and it shows just how liberal he is, even accusing Obama of being a centrist. He really means he is too closely aligned with whitey!
First let me say, I don’t agree with a lot of what dude says but I think dude is one of the best black guests on talking head TV in explaining his side of a given argument. He speaks fast, but dude is clear and concise and brings an intellectual analysis to any discussion. There are a lot of other liberal Negros on the tube but I rarely listen to them. Most are embarrassingly inarticulate and almost all end up resorting to the typical Negrodom talking points. Mr. Hill does that too, but he hides it well in his explanations and analysis.
Anywho, during this discussion Mr. Hill is explaining to O’Reilly why Nigga Wright received such a warm reception at this Catholic Church on Sunday. Dude has explained this to O’Reilly on numerous occasions and either O’Reilly is a complete dolt or is willfully ignorant.
Folks this is not complicated. Think back to the O.J. verdict. I still remember the day. I was in my office with a co-worker and at the exact moment when that bailiff chick (who butchered OJ’s name) said “not-guilty” I felt slightly sick. I became even more ill as I watched a room full of Negro students break out in raucous applause - as if they had won the lottery or gotten their
reparations check. This is no lie, for the first time in my life I was actually embarrassed to be a black individual. I was ashamed and appalled that Negros were celebrating the acquittal of that murderous bastard.
Now after that initial emotion, I really began to think about it. In time, I realized that black people were not cheering for O.J.’s acquittal. Rather, it was a symbolic victory for all of black America. His innocence or guilt was totally irrelevant. A black man was able to “beat the white man at their own game.”
Now I know some of you folks have heard this already, but white people today still can’t figure out why black folks react the way they do towards people like Jeremiah Wright or some other guilty or ignorant ass Negro fuck. The people in the O’Reilly/Hill discussion video of Wright were not applauding for Wright. They were applauding the fact that he got hit by white America’s best shot and he still survived.
High profile Negro politicians/criminals do crazy shit all the time and get busted for being the corrupt fucks they were born to be. But surviving the “wrath of whitey” is a very important symbolic accomplishment to the average Negro on the streets. A Negro individual’s misdeeds, corruption, guilt and being able to AGAIN “survive the wrath
of whitey.” That kind of thing s a badge of honor in the black community, particularly amongst the intellectually clueless and retarded Negros.
You see it tis a bit different now since we have You Tube and camera cell phones. Black folks use to be able to rally around each other IN PRIVATE without the prying eyes of whitey scrutinizing every thing that was said from the pulpit.
So now whitey television news executive is able to watch a You Tube clip of someone like that hopelessly retarded Pastor Manning. And the white man says “oh shit we have got to get that guy on TV to show white America just how ignorant some of these Negros are!”
You can’t analyze the typical Negro reaction to that situation in a logical manner. Why not? Because more then just the facts are at play. You also have decades, if not centuries, of being told (or knowing) that a lot of white people are “out to get us.” So any victory over white rule, no matter how small or retarded, is going to get celebrated by a lot of the “downtrodden.” So remember - there are a good number of black folks who are equally as appalled by J Wright’s crap but can’t say shit unless they want to be seen as with whitey instead of with their own people.
My point is Negros who are allowed by whitey to appear on these shows must abide by liberal Negro rule of discussion. Remember now, Mr. Hill. He is an Afro studies dude. If he were to speak candidly and truthfully about how
retarded J. Wright’s comments were he would lose his job and he damm sure would not be the chosen token Negro guest on TV. So what do you think he’s going to say? He’ll say what whitey expects an apologist to say.
Mr. Hill and all Negro talking heads play by the same rules. Say what is expected. Or be quiet. Even conservative leaning Negros who are given camera time, like Larry Elder, must be very careful about what is said – in order to be acceptable on white network television.
This is why blogging is so refreshing. I will never be invited to speak on TV or radio - although I did call into a local radio show a few days ago. I was immediately cut off when I said that “white people who plan to vote for Obama based on some sort of white guilt are being silly and intellectually dishonest and if they think that by voting for Obama will turn around race relations in the nation they are retards…………” CLICK!
The truth is a bitch. People say they want to hear the truth, but they don’t. Not really. They want to hear what they expect to hear – people agreeing with them or fitting into pre-conceived stereo-types.
But anyone who wants to hear a Black conservative’s real thoughts is hereby invited to pay me to appear on camera. I’m not shy. I can’t talk as fast as Mr. Hill. But I bet I could hold my own with him!
**********
For whites, an Obama victory would serve as the final piece of evidence that America has reached full racial equality. Such a belief allows them to sidestep mounds of evidence that shows that, despite Obama’s claims that “we are 90 percent of the way to equality,” black people remain consistently assaulted by the forces by white supremacy. For many black people, Obama’s success would provide symbolic value by showing that the black man (not woman!) can make it to the top. Although black faces in high places may provide psychological comfort, they are often incorporated into a Cosbyesque gospel of personal responsibility (”Obama did it, so can you!”) that allows dangerous public policies to go unchallenged.
Despite its convoluted racial logic, the election of Obama would still be acceptable if his policies were properly aligned with a leftist agenda. Unfortunately, Obama has clung to a rigid centrism that is incompatible with full-scale social change. Despite his claims of being a peace candidate, Obama has repeatedly expressed a commitment to ramping up military and continuing the presidential legacy of using war as an instrument of foreign policy. Although he opposes the war in Iraq, Obama refuses to vote against its funding.
While Obama supports health care for all Americans, he does not embrace a universal single-payer system that would effectively undermine private corporate interests. At the same time that he bemoans the loss of jobs and expansion of global poverty, Obama fails to denounce free trade agreements and extols the virtues economic globalization. In addition, Obama has been conspicuously silent on topics such as the prison industrial complex, the Zionist occupation of Palestine, and the economic underdevelopment of Africa.
In the face of a black electorate that still craves messianic leadership, Obama has skillfully positioned himself as the Martin Luther King of his generation. Unlike King, however, Obama does not aim to disrupt the fundamental structure of society. Rather than dismantling the triple threat of global racism, poverty, and militarism that King warned against, Obama has promoted a doctrine of compromise that is self-serving rather than strategic, milquetoast rather than pragmatic.
Observations of liar liar pants on fire fraud retard Democratic presidential candidates…
Thursday, March 27th, 2008
Obama’s Pastor Slurs Italians in Latest Magazine
By Penny Starr - CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine.
“(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him,” Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. “The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.”
Wright continued, “From the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. …
GREENSBORO, N.C. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday sought to quell concerns over anti-American remarks by his former pastor, saying people are paying too much attention to a small number of “stupid” comments.
Obama gave a sweeping speech on race last week in which he condemned incendiary remarks by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but the words of the former pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago continue to dog the candidate. Reflecting the campaign’s concern about the fallout, Obama used a question about religion at a town hall forum as an opportunity to address the issue.
“This is somebody that was preaching three sermons at least a week for 30 years and it got boiled down … into a half-minute sound clip and just played it over and over and over again, partly because it spoke to some of the racial divisions we have in this country,” Obama told an audience in this central North Carolina city.
“There are misunderstandings on both sides,” the Illinois senator said. “We cannot solve the problems of America if every time somebody somewhere does something stupid, that everybody gets up in arms and forgets about the war in Iraq and we forget about the economy.”
Obama is becoming Bill Clinton like. I mean in the “it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
Remember:
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
So now we have a “small number of “stupid” comments” I guess it depends on what you would define as “small.”
Mrs. Clinton said that she says “millions of words each day” so “we were under sniper fire” so five small words out of a million, is indeed small. “God damm Americkkka” is just a blip on the radar.
Ya know I get the fact that politicians on both sides have some serious issues with honesty. And neither side has a monopoly on what may be the correct path to dealing with some of America’s issues but anybody paying attention has to be struck by just how incredibly deceitful and conniving Democratic politicians are.
A simple story about a foreign policy trip or whether or not (your church and pastor of CHOICE) is a raving racist America hating lunatic can produce the most bullshit rhetoric is just beyond belief.
One of my commenter’s Allen posted this and it describes Democrats perfectly;
“I can’t quite imagine what a conversation in that family must be like. The best I can figure:”
Neighbor: Your damn dog tore up my garden.
Bill: We have no dog. Hillary: Our dog was inside when the incident occurred. Chelsea: We have a dog?
Neighbor: Of course it’s your dog everyone knows it.
Lanny Davis: I find this focus on the dog to be irrelevant.
Barack Obama knew his pastor Jeremiah Wright was a liability LAST YEAR. (So did the media who refused to look into the story)
If Obama knew about the incendiary remarks by Wright after he decided to run for president why did he disinvite Jeremiah Wright from his candidacy announcement?
Heard At Hillary Ohio Rally: “Obama Lies About Being Muslim”
Wednesday, March 5th, 2008
“The truth is he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim, his mother married a Muslim after divorcing his father. His grandfather was a Muslim. It doesn’t matter. But it does matter when Obama says he was never a Muslim. That matters because he lied… He lies when he says he was never a Muslim. He was a Muslim. He was born a Muslim. He was a Muslim for six years of his life.”
Hillary supporter Todd Elbaum Ohio Rally For Hillary Clinton
“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”
The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.
Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.
“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”
I’m far from being an expert and I can nor will I ever claim to be a person who is completely versed on the scientific analysis concerning global warming, but I do know this: Global Warming is likely the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the world population.
My God I have read so many liberal blogs, and these idiot TV pundits who try to explain all of this global warming bullshit as if somehow they have been granted exclusive 411 (information) handed down by Jesus Christ himself.
Anybody who can’t see the great money making scam in perpetuating this global warming terrorist scare is simply a fool.
If I would have been smart enough to go into any science field, studying climatology or whatever field you need to go into to scam university or research grant monies, I would be screaming about global warming too.
Then you add that idiot socialist Hillary wanting to steal money from the oil companies and add it to Gubment pockets and you global warming folks can’t see what is happening?
No seriously, are you people playing stupid or is that Ferengi bartender slipping a Mickey in your morning coffee on a daily basis?
The NAFTA - Obama story gets more interesting.I called CTV to verify the story, especially given the Obama campaign’s cries that it’s “inaccurate.” After asking Greg McIsaac of CTV if they were sticking by their story, he quickly called me back with verification. The facts of our story are accurate.
Then why are the traditional media and Obama blogs pushing Obama’s side of the story that the CTV story is “innacurate?” That an embassy spokesperson alone proves the reporting is wrong? Back channels exist, which means skepticism should apply, especially with CTV standing by the facts of their story:
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value. … ..
AUSTIN, Texas - In his radio and TV ads that are blanketing Texas, Barack Obama claims a chief executive can make more money “in 10 minutes” than an ordinary worker makes in a year. Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, enact a national health plan, offer a $4,000-a-year tuition reimbursement in exchange for national service, and have the government intervene to prevent home foreclosures.
But he doesn’t want anyone
to call him a liberal.
For despite Obama’s vow to build a working majority for change - to win a clear mandate for his progressive agenda, rather than engage in Clinton-like “triangulation” - he’s not yet willing to own the l-word.
Obama seems to have calculated that such labels can be distracting - that some voters have negative associations with the term liberal that obscures their support for such Democratic priorities as affordable healthcare and higher education for all.
He may be right. But his reluctance to own the term in a forthright way is somewhat surprising because Obama has said he wants to be a transformative figure like Ronald Reagan, whose crusade against liberals and big government has dominated American political discourse for almost 30 years.
As it is, members of our armed forces who put their lives on the line to defend America are also defending people like too many in Berkeley for whom the very word America, and the American flag, bring only sneers.Unfortunately, Berkeley is not unique. A professor at Harvard who put an American flag on his car after 9-11 provoked looks of astonishment from his colleagues. They wondered what was wrong with him.All across the country, there are professors who push for keeping military recruiters off campus and for banning ROTC. Apparently if they don’t like the military, then other people — such as students — should not be allowed to make up their own minds whether they want to join or not.
Liberals in general, and academics in particular, like to boast of their open-mindedness and acceptance of non-conformity. But they mean not conforming to the norms of society at large.
They have little or no tolerance to those who do not conform to the norms of academic political correctness. Nowhere else in America is free speech so restricted as on academic campuses with speech codes.
In Berkeley, as elsewhere, the left has learned to cloak their anti-military intolerance with the magic words, “We support the troops.” The liberal media use the same line when they undermine the military.
In this, as in other things, the flagship of the media is the New York Times. Unsubstantiated charges against American troops in Iraq are front page news but incredible acts of heroism in battle are seldom reported there, if at all.
Although things go wrong in every war, things that went wrong in Iraq — whether large or small — have been front page news in the New York Times. But when the military surge was followed by things going right, the Iraq war was suddenly no longer front page news.
Back during the Vietnam war, the media criticized the American military for their emphasis on enemy casualties or “body count.” Today the media have been fixated on American body count.
What has been accomplished by the troops who lost their lives in battle has been of no interest to those who claim to be “supporting the troops.”
***
“She was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamantly against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson.
Novak writes “…how then could she be a ‘Goldwater Girl’ in the next year’s presidential election?” He continues, “…she described herself in her memoirs as ‘an active Young Republican’ and ‘a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.’ Novak adds, “As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King.
Hillary headed the Young Republicans at Wellesley College. The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me (Novak) by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton’s temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy.” Novak adds, “What Hillary Clinton said at Selma is significant because it betrays her campaign’s panicky reaction to the unexpected rise of Sen. Obama as a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination.
Also from Moonbattery, I have been reading about this all week and the more I pay attention the more it just pisses me the fuck off. This is exactly the reason why having a spineless tard Republican like McCain, someone who has no problem reaching across the aisle and working with the very bastards who have no problem with the conduct of these people and the city of Berkeley just makes me sick.
If McKein wants my vote he certainly would speak out against this bullshit, but I won’t hold my breath.
*********
Senator Jim DeMint couldn’t find a single Democrat who would back his bill to withhold earmarks from this cesspool until it shows some respect for the soldiers defending the country that provides those earmarks.
The problems with a politically oriented company gaining a stranglehold over the Internet go beyond Memorial Day not getting a special Google logo. Google owns YouTube, which recently demonstrated its bias by censoring a video critical of the abortion mill Planned Parenthood.The American Life League but together a video that used clips from Planned Parenthood’s own degenerate ads to make the point that the abortionists promote casual sex on the taxpayers’ dollar. These conspicuously tasteless ads (”Mile High” and “Angel“) remain on YouTube, while the ALL video has been pulled for being of “inappropriate nature.” “Inappropriate” evidently means “politically incorrect.”
Apparently Planned Parenthood’s attack dogs demanded the video be pulled, and YouTube was happy to comply.
This particular piece is interesting to me because recently I was removed from You Tube for the (5th) time. There was actually a dude who was so pissed at some of the titles (titles fucking with idiot liberals) of my videos dude would literally monitor all of my videos and sent in complaints to YT.
There is no doubt the mutherfuckers at You Tube, have a clear bias when it comes to right leaning content, I’m like screw them exposing this type is bullshit bias only stirs up the troops.
It was front-page news on the January 14th issue of the San Francisco Chronicle that blacks by the tens of thousands have left the San Francisco Bay area since the 1990 census.Since my book Applied Economics analyzed this situation a few years ago, it was nice to see that the information has finally reached the San Francisco Chronicle, though they have yet to explain the politics and the economics behind the exodus.
Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not peculiar to the San Francisco Bay Area and blacks are not the only group being forced out of upscale liberal communities in California. It is much the same story in Monterey and Los Angeles, for example.
Skyrocketing housing prices are forcing out families with children, as well as blacks and other people with low or even moderate incomes.
But these runaway housing prices in California did not just happen for no reason.
Prior to 1970, California housing prices were very similar to housing prices in the rest of the country. In more recent times, it has not been uncommon for California homes to cost three times what homes cost nationwide.
What happened in the 1970s was that severe government restrictions on building became common in coastal California. With supply restricted and demand not restricted, it was inevitable that prices would soar beyond many people’s ability to pay.
The main impetus behind severe restrictions on building is environmentalist zealots who demand that vast amounts of land be set aside as “open space” on which nothing can be built.
It is not uncommon for substantial proportions of all the land in an entire county — sometimes more than half — to be set aside as “open space.”
Environmentalists often talk as if they are trying to save the last few patches of greenery from being paved over, when in fact 90 percent of the land in the United States is undeveloped and forests alone cover more area than all the cities and towns in the country combined.
Behind much of the lofty and pretty talk are some ugly and selfish realities.
People who already own their homes in an upscale community pay no price for making it hard for others to move into their community. On the contrary, the value of the homes they already own shoots up when they restrict the supply of new homes.
In other words, they can keep out the less affluent people — or, as they put it, “preserve the character of the community” — while benefiting themselves economically in the name of green idealism.
“Open space” laws are just one of the weapons in their arsenal. Other legal impediments to building include so-called “smart growth” policies, historical preservation laws, and zoning boards and coastal commissions with arbitrary powers to limit or forbid building.
The financially ruinous powers of delay that these and other laws and institutions can impose on anyone wanting to build anything can be illustrated by a current legal case involving a developer who has for 15 years been prevented from building in the coastal California town of Half Moon Bay.
A judge recently awarded him $36 million in damages but that decision has been appealed. Anyone familiar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals knows that anything can happen there — including more years of delay.
Someone once said that the ability to tax is the ability to destroy. So is the ability to delay.
When a business sets standards or policies with adverse effects that fall disproportionately on minorities, courts call that a “disparate impact” and equate it with discrimination.
But the same liberals who applaud that approach when it comes to businesses would be appalled if the same standard were applied to their own environmentalist restrictions that force vast numbers of blacks out of their own upscale liberal communities.
Nor do black “leaders” who are quick to cry “discrimination” and “racism” in other contexts. Apparently it all depends on whose ox is gored.
“With a history of meddling in our primaries, why don’t we try and return the favor. Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. How so?For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.But on the GOP side, this primary will be fiercely contested. John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hamsphire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina.
Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he’s out. If he wins, he stays in.
And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.”
Also via Hot Air - As one of the young evangelicals interviewed for the Times piece today so tactfully put it:
“He reaches outside the normal Republican box.”
It makes me wonder, why Republicans would be supporting an individual who clearly is going after the vote of NON-REPUBLICANS, and actively killing off conservative ideals.
These same idiot Republicans would never consider voting for Bill Clinton, but Suckabee is perfectly fine. Oh I forgot “He is a man of God.” Fucken priceless.
A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.
New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people – less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate – have died since the invasion in 2003.
“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.
The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.
His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.
Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.
Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research.”
Journalist Says Internet Must be Regulated for Fraud
Tuesday, December 18th, 2007
More from Rush, amazing
There is a journalist by the name of David Hazinski. This guy’s a journalism professor, a former journalist, journalism professor at some out-of-the-way college.Here it is: He’s an associate professor of telecommunications and head of broadcast news at the University of Georgia’s Grady College of Journalism, University of Georgia journalism professor. He says: “Unfettered ‘Citizen Journalism’ Too Risky” YouTube, blogs, unregulated, it’s too risky. They gotta get rid of this stuff.
He thinks that regulation is the only way to have proper news. He thinks in this piece — it’s the Atlanta Urinal-Constipation on the 13th of December — he says that citizen journalism, like blogs or YouTube, isn’t really journalism, it opens the industry to “fraud and abuse,” as though there is no fraud and abuse!
NBC didn’t blow up the trucks for Dateline NBC. ABC didn’t dress people up like Muslims and send them into a pack of Christians and hope for the best. No, no, no! There’s no fraud and abuse in the Drive-Bys. CBS didn’t have Dan Rather on. Those fraudulent documents? Of course not, Mr. What’s Your Name — Hazinski.
No fraud and abuse in the Drive-Bys. Why do you think the New Media is rising? Because your precious journalism industry is crashing. Nobody trusts it! Well, more and more people don’t trust it. So, a typical lib: Rather than letting the public decide what they want to read or watch, the better idea is to regulate! Monitor and regulate this new industry, the Internet and blogs. Does “regulate” sound like a “mandate” to you? Regulate health care, mandate health care.
This professor wants what he considers to be the legitimate journalism outlets to find a way to regulate citizen journalism. This would include political blogs, which is basically what my website is, RushLimbaugh.com, except I’m not a journalist, but he wants to regulate it.
By the way, CNN is now using blogs. All the Drive-Bys are trying to incorporate YouTube and all these blogs. They’re having bloggers on as analysts. The genie is out of the bottle, Mr. Hazinski.
The Politico’s Mike Allen and Ben Smith report today that a questionnaire filled out by then-candidate for state Senate Barack Obama (or his campaign manager) back in 1996 notes some solidly liberal tendencies:
When Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was seeking state office a dozen years ago, he took unabashedly liberal positions: flatly opposed to capital punishment, in support of a federal single-payer health plan, against any restrictions on abortion, and in support of state laws to ban the manufacture, sale and even possession of handguns.
The questionnaire, which was provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama’s presidential campaign, raises questions of whether Obama can be painted as too liberal and whether he is insufficiently consistent.
A week after Politico provided the questionnaire to the Obama campaign for comment, an aide called Monday night to say that Obama had said he did not fill out the form, and provided a contact for his campaign manager at the time, who said she filled it out. It includes first-person comments such as: “I have not previously been a candidate.”
The campaign said his views have been consistent, and points out that his positions have always been more nuanced than can be conveyed in yes-or-no answers.
In Meetings, Spy Panels’ Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say
By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Sunday, December 9, 2007; A01 - Washington Post
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange…
With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).
Do the Democrats run Comedy Central or are all the comedians on the payroll?
Monday, December 3rd, 2007
Below is a clip from another stupid Comedy Central special; shown are a few brief clips of Lewis Black doing his all too typical rant about George Bush.
Hey Mr. Black I hope you read this because I want to tell you something you fake ass bastard. Guess what, I voted for George Bush twice you asshole not because I am particularly fond of his overall intelligence and political savvy, but voting for the other Democrat assholes was NOT an option.
Al Gore who has now made global warming his personal ticket to financial riches was a man without an idea and simply rode on the coattails of the Clinton machine being the personal bitch of Hillary.
John Kerry was a total fraud, this anti-American Communist dictator, ass kissing punk ass rode on the coattails of his rich wife.
It was clear that the Democrats had two incredible chances to wrestle the presidency away from the Republicans and clearly they were two inept to do so.
So now I have to hear on every fucken comedy special these tired ass rants about how awful George Bush and Republicans are.
Frankly it’s tiresome and clearly the writers strike has affected you people to because every damm comedy routine I hear today is Democratic Party talking point masquerading as comedic brilliance.
Ah and you Mr. D.L. Hughley, I hope the Negro comics are as highly paid to promote the virtues of Democrats. Let me see, a racist Democrat calling a “loyal constituent” Buckwheat is apparently not funny enough for you people. Because it was a Democrat!
Or the comedy of a bunch of Negros and their fake outrage behind the Jena 6 supporting a bunch of Negro thugs, one who is not in jail, oh no, that tis not funny.
And the now revealed story about another fake noose story. Naw that shit ain’t funny but, that George Bush, now that’s funny!
I wonder just what the fuck are you people gong to do when G Dub leaves office?
Crawl in a fucken hole or move your tired asses of Canada? Oh I know you people are not going anywhere, even through all of the comedy ranting and pretend G Dub hating you know how well you have it here.
Now your Democrat options are the tired wife of a former presidential liar, an empty suite Negro who STILL has not uttered any true core values in any campaign speech or debates. Finally, a true liberal hypocrite, with the nation’s largest home while he goes around ranting about the “unfairness” of the “two America’s”. I would leave out his $400 haircuts but I figured if you want real comedy material I needed to mention that.
Seriously, again, I wonder just how much the Democrats pay these assholes to include anti-Republican tirades in their routines.
I hope that there are more people like myself that will start to point out this bullshit and start calling these idiot comedians out.
What Black rants about in this clip is now new, but I included a couple of clips from the “This Week” on ABC yesterday and this loony chick from The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel . Ask yourself what the hell is the difference between Louis Black’s bullshit and her bullshit?
Apparently, there is no difference between Sunday morning talk shows and Comedy Central these days.
THE United States is at war in the Middle East and Central Asia, the economy is writhing like a snake with a broken back, oil prices are relentlessly climbing toward $100 a barrel and an increasing number of Americans just can’t afford to be sick with anything that won’t be treated with aspirin and bed rest.
So, when CNN brought the Republican presidential candidates together this week for what is loosely termed a “debate,” what did the country get but a discussion of immigration, Biblical inerrancy and the propriety of flying the Confederate flag?
In fact, this most recent debacle masquerading as a presidential debate raises serious questions about whether CNN is ethically or professionally suitable to play the political role the Democratic and Republican parties recently have conceded it.
Selecting a president is, more than ever, a life and death business, and a news organization that consciously injects itself into the process, as CNN did by hosting Wednesday’s debate, incurs a special responsibility to conduct itself in a dispassionate and, most of all, disinterested fashion.
When one considers CNN’s performance, however, the adjectives that leap to mind are corrupt and incompetent.
Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian misadventure should disqualify her from the presidency, but the airport landing is the least of it.of the George H.W. Bush/James Baker regime and to come to the defense of the victims of ethnic cleansing.
