The Messiah's own executively-ordered CDC study on gun violence proves that the incidence of lawful defensive gun uses by Americans at the very least equals the incidence of gun crimes committed by criminals, and most likely exceeds it:
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a)." (Emphasis ours)
There you go. Scientific proof that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens for self-protection equals or betters the rate of their being used in crimes. Where, then, is the urgent need to further restrict their availability to those who responsibly use them?
Not that the general media reported this, as they pretty much are only in favor of scientific evidence when it helps advance their agenda, which of course is not how science works. If they had paid attention in high school they would have remembered that fact.
Showing posts with label liberal bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal bias. Show all posts
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
A curious silence
Former New York Times reporter Janny Scott has written a biography of Barack Obama's mother in which Scott definitively proves that Dear Leader lied right through his teeth in the 2008 presidential campaign when he claimed that Ann Dunham had been denied health insurance reimbursement during her ultimately fatal battle with cancer. Rather, Dunham had been fully covered and all treatment expenses were paid save for her deductibles and other uncovered costs. The only apparent disagreement between Dunham and any insurance entity, according to Scott, was with a different company which refused to pay disability coverage for her living expenses because it considered her condition to be pre-existing.
Those updated facts make for quite a bit different of a tale than what was presented by candidate and President Obama as the poster story of a horribly broken health-care system, which is probably why he didn't bother to mention them whilst ramming his Ponzi scheme through Congress.
Strangely enough, Ms. Scott has been declining to talk further with reporters about her work despite repeated requests for interviews. Now, when was the last time anyone remembers a book author refusing free publicity, especially as the usual end result is more books being sold? One naturally wonders if perhaps some of Scott's former colleagues at the Times convinced her to go back on the monolithic pro-Obama reservation before more damage could be done to their false idol.
Those updated facts make for quite a bit different of a tale than what was presented by candidate and President Obama as the poster story of a horribly broken health-care system, which is probably why he didn't bother to mention them whilst ramming his Ponzi scheme through Congress.
Strangely enough, Ms. Scott has been declining to talk further with reporters about her work despite repeated requests for interviews. Now, when was the last time anyone remembers a book author refusing free publicity, especially as the usual end result is more books being sold? One naturally wonders if perhaps some of Scott's former colleagues at the Times convinced her to go back on the monolithic pro-Obama reservation before more damage could be done to their false idol.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Ugly bias from the same old sources
"I think if it's Kansas, if it's Missouri, no big deal, you know that's the dance of the low-sloping foreheads, the middle places... right?"
New York Times columnist David Carr (a Minnesota native, by the way. No pathological self-hatred there, no sirree), talking about state education scores on Bill Maher's HBO television program and actually expecting agreement from the other panelists, who to their credit did no such thing.
Powerline nailed it when they titled their post on this incident "The Mask Slips. Again". Funny what slips out when liberal media figures get a little too comfortable with their surroundings and forget they are on TV and not palling around on Journolist or haunting the local newspaper watering hole with the rest of the monochromatic herd who happens to think just like them.
By way of comparison, any panel member regardless of political leaning would be deservedly run out of town on a rail had she or she callously ridiculed, say, inner-city minority schoolkids in the same manner. Since Carr was slandering the proles in flyover country, though (which includes himself, we remind everyone), the Times apparently has no problem with or response to this arrogant, elitist pronouncement by one of its favored employees.
Typical, but not particularly surprising.
New York Times columnist David Carr (a Minnesota native, by the way. No pathological self-hatred there, no sirree), talking about state education scores on Bill Maher's HBO television program and actually expecting agreement from the other panelists, who to their credit did no such thing.
Powerline nailed it when they titled their post on this incident "The Mask Slips. Again". Funny what slips out when liberal media figures get a little too comfortable with their surroundings and forget they are on TV and not palling around on Journolist or haunting the local newspaper watering hole with the rest of the monochromatic herd who happens to think just like them.
By way of comparison, any panel member regardless of political leaning would be deservedly run out of town on a rail had she or she callously ridiculed, say, inner-city minority schoolkids in the same manner. Since Carr was slandering the proles in flyover country, though (which includes himself, we remind everyone), the Times apparently has no problem with or response to this arrogant, elitist pronouncement by one of its favored employees.
Typical, but not particularly surprising.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
Obamacare's model physician
San Francisco, California (of course) pediatrician Ricky Choi seems to think being a doctor gives him carte blanche to snoop around into every aspect of his patients' lives, or at least those topics that are of interest to a obvious snooty liberal like himself:
"The scope of practice I am talking about we all can own. I have a responsibility to ask about, diagnose, educate, and treat obstacles to health. For those who see children in their practice, discussing topics such as swimming pool safety and smoke detectors are routine at regular check ups.
But let me take it a step further. I would argue that nutritious food, safe medications, air quality, domestic violence, affordable housing, access to health care, sex trafficking, cultural factors, schools, safe neighborhoods, voting, human rights, international trade agreements, and the state budget, to the extent they impact health of my patients and communities, are also in my scope of practice."
No, they're not.
Dr. Choi is all aggrieved over Florida's recently-passed law (now awaiting the governor's signature) that would sanction doctors for asking about guns in the home during routine exams. That law was passed in response to Floridians' apparently having had quite enough of their doctors lecturing them about how dangerous and evil firearms are, even those owned and carried by responsible parents who know and utilize proper gun safety protocols.
We can certainly see the point of this law if in fact those Florida doctors are asking anywhere near as many intrusive and unnecessary questions during those exams as Choi. We can't imagine being a patient of his and having to suffer through what must be excruciating multi-hour checkups:
"How are the cultural factors (?) in your life? Have the recent local elections affected you in any way? Are you sick from pondering the France-Canada trade agreement? Is your mortgage affordable? What ranking did your kid's middle school receive?" Yeesh. Hopefully he doesn't forget the weight and blood pressure checks after all of that.
"At issue is not only whether or not a gun should be in the home, but also the right of physicians, free of legal entanglements, to provide the anticipatory guidance for an environment where their patient can thrive."
Guidance is one thing. Paternalistic pronouncements from a smug, arrogant know-it-all are quite another.
"The scope of practice I am talking about we all can own. I have a responsibility to ask about, diagnose, educate, and treat obstacles to health. For those who see children in their practice, discussing topics such as swimming pool safety and smoke detectors are routine at regular check ups.
But let me take it a step further. I would argue that nutritious food, safe medications, air quality, domestic violence, affordable housing, access to health care, sex trafficking, cultural factors, schools, safe neighborhoods, voting, human rights, international trade agreements, and the state budget, to the extent they impact health of my patients and communities, are also in my scope of practice."
No, they're not.
Dr. Choi is all aggrieved over Florida's recently-passed law (now awaiting the governor's signature) that would sanction doctors for asking about guns in the home during routine exams. That law was passed in response to Floridians' apparently having had quite enough of their doctors lecturing them about how dangerous and evil firearms are, even those owned and carried by responsible parents who know and utilize proper gun safety protocols.
We can certainly see the point of this law if in fact those Florida doctors are asking anywhere near as many intrusive and unnecessary questions during those exams as Choi. We can't imagine being a patient of his and having to suffer through what must be excruciating multi-hour checkups:
"How are the cultural factors (?) in your life? Have the recent local elections affected you in any way? Are you sick from pondering the France-Canada trade agreement? Is your mortgage affordable? What ranking did your kid's middle school receive?" Yeesh. Hopefully he doesn't forget the weight and blood pressure checks after all of that.
"At issue is not only whether or not a gun should be in the home, but also the right of physicians, free of legal entanglements, to provide the anticipatory guidance for an environment where their patient can thrive."
Guidance is one thing. Paternalistic pronouncements from a smug, arrogant know-it-all are quite another.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
The lapdogs in the mainstream press reveal themselves
"At one point Wolf Blitzer and the gang admonished other news services for 'wildly speculating' about the nature of the announcement [Bin Laden's demise], saying that White House officials were pleased they had not said anything."
How nice of CNN to place keeping their masters in the White House happy far above aggressively investigating and reporting arguably the biggest legitimate news story of the decade. We doubt they'd have been so compliant had a Republican administration made the same demand.
We haven't watched that amateurish channel in years and don't miss it one bit.
How nice of CNN to place keeping their masters in the White House happy far above aggressively investigating and reporting arguably the biggest legitimate news story of the decade. We doubt they'd have been so compliant had a Republican administration made the same demand.
We haven't watched that amateurish channel in years and don't miss it one bit.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Someone has to say it
Ross Zimmerman, whose son Gabe was murdered in the recent Tucson tragedy, is now being heartlessly used as a poster boy by the execrable Michael Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" campaign to lobby for "reasonable" gun control measures. Unfortunately for him (and them), though, Zimmerman has no earthly idea about what exactly he's supposed to be advocating for:
"'I'm not educated on the details of the gun laws,' he told HuffPost on Monday, 'but there are some things that are pretty obvious, like background checks.'" (emphasis ours)
We are truly saddened by and sympathetic to that father's unimaginable loss, but once a person attempts to milk a personal tragedy for political reasons he or she becomes fair game for criticism.
Perhaps Mr. Zimmerman should get some knowledge on the subject before he begins agitating for yet more useless laws that would not have stopped his son's murderer that day. Otherwise he becomes just another Rep. Carolyn "The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up" McCarthy (D-NY), a person similarly (and regrettably, of course) affected by gun violence who somehow feels that sad fact gives her a free license to not bother to "educate" herself about items and products about which she knows nothing except that they somehow "look" evil to her, which then becomes her sole reason for trying to deny ownership of them to law-abiding individuals:
As everyone with a smidgen of factual knowledge about the incident knows, the cowardly shooter Loughner before his horrific act was an individual who had neither a criminal record nor a mental-health diagnosis that would have disqualified him from any sort of background check, including the very one he passed when purchasing his firearm. How would subjecting law-abiding individuals to yet another unnecessary government intrusion (a double-background check?) into their lives have prevented the massacre? One simply cannot prevent every bad thing in the world from happening. That's the price of living in a free society.
"[Zimmerman] said he hoped the rally would help address the need to create programs in Tucson that help gun sellers identify mentally unstable individuals."
He (and by extension the shills who are cynically using him) apparently believes that gun-store owners now have to be licensed as interventional psychiatrists before being allowed to open their doors. Isn't the federal government, by the way, the very entity that, through its cumbersome HIPAA law, made such health records so very hard for anyone to access without a direct doctor-patient relationship or a signed waiver from the patient? Unintended consequences, indeed.
"'It was a diverse group of people who got shot ... so families are grieving in diverse ways,' [Zimmerman] said."
We're extremely sorry, but we simply fail to see what such meaningless PC pap has to do with the debate at hand.
"'I'm not educated on the details of the gun laws,' he told HuffPost on Monday, 'but there are some things that are pretty obvious, like background checks.'" (emphasis ours)
We are truly saddened by and sympathetic to that father's unimaginable loss, but once a person attempts to milk a personal tragedy for political reasons he or she becomes fair game for criticism.
Perhaps Mr. Zimmerman should get some knowledge on the subject before he begins agitating for yet more useless laws that would not have stopped his son's murderer that day. Otherwise he becomes just another Rep. Carolyn "The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up" McCarthy (D-NY), a person similarly (and regrettably, of course) affected by gun violence who somehow feels that sad fact gives her a free license to not bother to "educate" herself about items and products about which she knows nothing except that they somehow "look" evil to her, which then becomes her sole reason for trying to deny ownership of them to law-abiding individuals:
As everyone with a smidgen of factual knowledge about the incident knows, the cowardly shooter Loughner before his horrific act was an individual who had neither a criminal record nor a mental-health diagnosis that would have disqualified him from any sort of background check, including the very one he passed when purchasing his firearm. How would subjecting law-abiding individuals to yet another unnecessary government intrusion (a double-background check?) into their lives have prevented the massacre? One simply cannot prevent every bad thing in the world from happening. That's the price of living in a free society.
"[Zimmerman] said he hoped the rally would help address the need to create programs in Tucson that help gun sellers identify mentally unstable individuals."
He (and by extension the shills who are cynically using him) apparently believes that gun-store owners now have to be licensed as interventional psychiatrists before being allowed to open their doors. Isn't the federal government, by the way, the very entity that, through its cumbersome HIPAA law, made such health records so very hard for anyone to access without a direct doctor-patient relationship or a signed waiver from the patient? Unintended consequences, indeed.
"'It was a diverse group of people who got shot ... so families are grieving in diverse ways,' [Zimmerman] said."
We're extremely sorry, but we simply fail to see what such meaningless PC pap has to do with the debate at hand.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Catchup Monday
Clearing the desktop of a few wayward stories:
1. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-NY, a fervent House champion of Dear Leader's "one size fits all" health care Ponzi scheme (including the very contentious public option), is now arguing that New York City is "more equal" than everyone else and thus deserving of a waiver from having to struggle under that onerous burden of a program:
"Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York, said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense."
But nobody else in the country should be allowed to, of course, except for the various entities who wanted this execrable legislation in the first place:
"'The administration needs to make this argument more forcefully,' he said. 'A lot of people who got waivers were … people who are our friends.'"
No need, sir, we peasants have already received that message loud and clear.
2. Police in Birmingham, England have mistakenly raided the same wrong house an unbelievable 41 times over the past year and a half, making an innocent couple's lives a living hell:
"Matthew Jillard and Claire Hayes told last week how they have suffered 18 months of their home being mixed up with another 100 yards away."
This is a clear indicator of how beaten into submission the average English subject really is, because had the same circumstances happened to us our lawsuit against the idiots down at the local cop shop would have been filed after the second incident, much less allowing the apparent buffoons to rack up double-digit dangerous (not to mention illegal) invasions of our home.
Aren't some of these officers who participate in these multiple mistaken raids smart enough to think "Hey, we've been here, oh, thirty or so times before and it's always a mistake. Maybe we should double-check with HQ before stepping square on our dongs once again."
The couple, who have lived at the address for over 10 years, has now announced that they are moving to avoid further harassment. We don't see why they are the ones who have to leave:
"Last night West Midlands police said: 'Despite measures put in place to prevent such an occurrence, it appears human error has led to officers attending the incorrect address. We will be contacting them to apologise and discuss the matter further.'"
How about canning some of the idiot administrators who keep authorizing the continual abuse of these innocent people? We imagine that sort of needed action would bring these sorts of inexcusable "errors" to an abrupt halt.
1. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-NY, a fervent House champion of Dear Leader's "one size fits all" health care Ponzi scheme (including the very contentious public option), is now arguing that New York City is "more equal" than everyone else and thus deserving of a waiver from having to struggle under that onerous burden of a program:
"Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York, said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense."
But nobody else in the country should be allowed to, of course, except for the various entities who wanted this execrable legislation in the first place:
"'The administration needs to make this argument more forcefully,' he said. 'A lot of people who got waivers were … people who are our friends.'"
No need, sir, we peasants have already received that message loud and clear.
2. Police in Birmingham, England have mistakenly raided the same wrong house an unbelievable 41 times over the past year and a half, making an innocent couple's lives a living hell:
"Matthew Jillard and Claire Hayes told last week how they have suffered 18 months of their home being mixed up with another 100 yards away."
This is a clear indicator of how beaten into submission the average English subject really is, because had the same circumstances happened to us our lawsuit against the idiots down at the local cop shop would have been filed after the second incident, much less allowing the apparent buffoons to rack up double-digit dangerous (not to mention illegal) invasions of our home.
Aren't some of these officers who participate in these multiple mistaken raids smart enough to think "Hey, we've been here, oh, thirty or so times before and it's always a mistake. Maybe we should double-check with HQ before stepping square on our dongs once again."
The couple, who have lived at the address for over 10 years, has now announced that they are moving to avoid further harassment. We don't see why they are the ones who have to leave:
"Last night West Midlands police said: 'Despite measures put in place to prevent such an occurrence, it appears human error has led to officers attending the incorrect address. We will be contacting them to apologise and discuss the matter further.'"
How about canning some of the idiot administrators who keep authorizing the continual abuse of these innocent people? We imagine that sort of needed action would bring these sorts of inexcusable "errors" to an abrupt halt.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
This blooper isn't getting as much attention, oddly enough
Remember back in 2005 when President George W. Bush, on a visit to China, attempted to exit a room only to find the doors locked?
The worldwide mainstream liberal press had a field day mocking Bush for his supposed stupidity, even though the then-president had no way of knowing those doors were secured.
Well, Dear Leader had the exact same thing happen to him yesterday, only this time it was the president's own Oval Office he was trying to enter.
We await the upcoming torrent of jokes at his expense.
The worldwide mainstream liberal press had a field day mocking Bush for his supposed stupidity, even though the then-president had no way of knowing those doors were secured.
Well, Dear Leader had the exact same thing happen to him yesterday, only this time it was the president's own Oval Office he was trying to enter.
We await the upcoming torrent of jokes at his expense.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Someone get him his blanky
U.S. Attorney General Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder got his panties in a bunch yesterday while being grilled by Congress as to just why his Justice Department saw fit to dismiss slam-dunk cases against the New Black Panthers who were found to have engaged in blatant voter intimidation on Election Day 2008 at a polling place in Philadelphia:
"The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment [Texas Rep. John] Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.
'Think about that,' Holder said. 'When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people,' said Holder, who is black." (emphasis ours)
Mr. Holder, to be perfectly frank, is an idiot. Here's just some of the considerable civil-rights bonafides of Mr. Bull, the eyewitness (he was a poll watcher at that very precinct on the day in question) to the Panther incident and the man whose opinion our oh-so-competent A.G. so cavalierly pooh-poohs:
"Bartle Bull was born in 1940 and graduated Harvard College in 1963, attended Oxford 1963-1964, and graduated Harvard Law School in 1967. He was admitted to practice in New York in 1967. In the 1960s Bull worked for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law seeking to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Mississippi protecting both black voters and black political candidates from voter intimidation."
Mr. Bull put his life on the line as much as anyone else during that period to ensure the right of blacks to vote. And the folks he spent years fighting for weren't even "his people", as Mr. Holder so elegantly puts it, as Bull happens to be white. Yes, Mr. Holder, other racial groups besides blacks fought (and sometimes died) to advance the cause of civil rights in this country. Maybe you should have paid more attention in history class.
In short, if Bartle Bull (a lifelong liberal Democrat, by the way) says he saw voter intimidation you can take it to the bank. Yet all Holder can do is "take personal offense" when he's asked legitimate questions about why his department refused to connect with the hanging curveball of a default judgment against these petty thugs.
Well, no one cares about your precious self-esteem, Eric. Do your job by enforcing the law fairly and without racial bias and you won't have to worry about sniveling in front of Congress about how your feelings are so hurt.
"Rep. Chaka Fattah, a Democrat from Philadelphia, said the Black Panthers 'should not have been there.' But he said the GOP was making too much out of a fleeting incident involving a couple of people."
We wonder if Mr. Fattah would be holding that same milquetoast opinion if those "couple of people" had been white and wearing hoods and sheets instead of being black and wearing paramilitary gear while brandishing nightsticks.
No, we imagine he wouldn't.
"The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment [Texas Rep. John] Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.
'Think about that,' Holder said. 'When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people,' said Holder, who is black." (emphasis ours)
Mr. Holder, to be perfectly frank, is an idiot. Here's just some of the considerable civil-rights bonafides of Mr. Bull, the eyewitness (he was a poll watcher at that very precinct on the day in question) to the Panther incident and the man whose opinion our oh-so-competent A.G. so cavalierly pooh-poohs:
"Bartle Bull was born in 1940 and graduated Harvard College in 1963, attended Oxford 1963-1964, and graduated Harvard Law School in 1967. He was admitted to practice in New York in 1967. In the 1960s Bull worked for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law seeking to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Mississippi protecting both black voters and black political candidates from voter intimidation."
Mr. Bull put his life on the line as much as anyone else during that period to ensure the right of blacks to vote. And the folks he spent years fighting for weren't even "his people", as Mr. Holder so elegantly puts it, as Bull happens to be white. Yes, Mr. Holder, other racial groups besides blacks fought (and sometimes died) to advance the cause of civil rights in this country. Maybe you should have paid more attention in history class.
In short, if Bartle Bull (a lifelong liberal Democrat, by the way) says he saw voter intimidation you can take it to the bank. Yet all Holder can do is "take personal offense" when he's asked legitimate questions about why his department refused to connect with the hanging curveball of a default judgment against these petty thugs.
Well, no one cares about your precious self-esteem, Eric. Do your job by enforcing the law fairly and without racial bias and you won't have to worry about sniveling in front of Congress about how your feelings are so hurt.
"Rep. Chaka Fattah, a Democrat from Philadelphia, said the Black Panthers 'should not have been there.' But he said the GOP was making too much out of a fleeting incident involving a couple of people."
We wonder if Mr. Fattah would be holding that same milquetoast opinion if those "couple of people" had been white and wearing hoods and sheets instead of being black and wearing paramilitary gear while brandishing nightsticks.
No, we imagine he wouldn't.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Oops, she did it again
De-closeted rabid liberal ex-White House correspondent Helen Thomas, who has been sticking her wizened foot in her mouth with laughable regularity lately, provides another clear example of just who the biased people in society really are these days:
"And [President Obama] is not a liberal. I had hoped he was. I suppose I thought he was, because he was black, I thought he would automatically be -" (emphasis ours)
Gee, Helen, we thought that superior lefties like yourself were convinced (quite correctly, of course) that you weren't supposed to judge people by the color of their skin?
Except when such minorities inconveniently aren't socialist enough for you and the rest of your ilk, it seems.
Why does this woman still merit airtime?
(Vid via Weasel Zippers)
"And [President Obama] is not a liberal. I had hoped he was. I suppose I thought he was, because he was black, I thought he would automatically be -" (emphasis ours)
Gee, Helen, we thought that superior lefties like yourself were convinced (quite correctly, of course) that you weren't supposed to judge people by the color of their skin?
Except when such minorities inconveniently aren't socialist enough for you and the rest of your ilk, it seems.
Why does this woman still merit airtime?
(Vid via Weasel Zippers)
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Where are the howls of outrage from the usual suspects?
But remember, it's conservatives who are consistently labeled by the mainstream media (as well as various and sundry advocacy groups) as insensitive and hateful cretins when they make statements that are perceived by these self-appointed censors as being even remotely un-PC.
We'll see if those organizations demonstrate the same mercilessness towards the buffoonish Mr. Gage, now that he's been caught on tape using a term considered by the lefties to be a slur against the mentally challenged to describe in a derogatory fashion those who simply desire financial restraint from their government.
(Boortz link)
Saturday, February 12, 2011
We don't care what you think
Someone named Oprah Winfrey has taken some time out from lecturing middle-aged soccer moms about the latest book they need to read or what healthy foods they should be eating (heh) to chastise the rest of us to "show [President Obama] some level of respect" because "I feel that everybody has a learning curve".
She apparently thinks the Presidency should be one of those "earn while you learn" kind of apprentice positions that are advertised in the local weekly paper.
We always knew the freshman junior senator from Illinois didn't have the most basic knowledge and experience to occupy the Oval Office, and now we know that at least one of his most fervent supporters didn't think so as well. This makes us wonder why she backed him in the first place, besides the obvious facts that they both are from Chicago and that their skin tones are quite similar.
It will be very interesting to observe if Ms. Winfrey will feel the same way about allowing people to grow into the highest office in America should someone such as, say, Sarah Palin run and win in 2012. Yeah, right.
Sorry, oh Guru to the Perimenopausal. Respect is earned by exhibiting good character and a high level of competence over a significant period of time, and it cannot simply be granted by ordering people to do so the same way you direct your audience to buy a certain product or service.
Now go back to mindlessly gushing about "Your Favorite Things" and the latest shopping trip with your BFF.
She apparently thinks the Presidency should be one of those "earn while you learn" kind of apprentice positions that are advertised in the local weekly paper.
We always knew the freshman junior senator from Illinois didn't have the most basic knowledge and experience to occupy the Oval Office, and now we know that at least one of his most fervent supporters didn't think so as well. This makes us wonder why she backed him in the first place, besides the obvious facts that they both are from Chicago and that their skin tones are quite similar.
It will be very interesting to observe if Ms. Winfrey will feel the same way about allowing people to grow into the highest office in America should someone such as, say, Sarah Palin run and win in 2012. Yeah, right.
Sorry, oh Guru to the Perimenopausal. Respect is earned by exhibiting good character and a high level of competence over a significant period of time, and it cannot simply be granted by ordering people to do so the same way you direct your audience to buy a certain product or service.
Now go back to mindlessly gushing about "Your Favorite Things" and the latest shopping trip with your BFF.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Selective transparency
The Obama Justice Department, under the stellar leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder, has apparently been playing political games with the Freedom of Information Act, at least according to conservative media outlet Pajamas Media, which recently asked a federal court to put a halt to the blatant favoritism.
The lawsuit alleges that "Justice" has been routinely fulfilling information requests to liberal media organizations in as little as one day while at the same time delaying for months or even outright ignoring similar requests from conservative outlets. PM provides many convincing examples of such bias in the above article.
Chalk up another victory for Dear Leader's "most transparent administration in history".
The lawsuit alleges that "Justice" has been routinely fulfilling information requests to liberal media organizations in as little as one day while at the same time delaying for months or even outright ignoring similar requests from conservative outlets. PM provides many convincing examples of such bias in the above article.
Chalk up another victory for Dear Leader's "most transparent administration in history".
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Your convenient usefulness is at an end, media idiots
The White House Correspondents Association has lodged a formal protest about being shut out of the very events they're supposed to be covering for the public:
"In a letter to Press Sec. Robert Gibbs, the WHCA Board complained about their lack of access to the President throughout the crisis in Egypt and outlined their request to open today’s treaty signing to the White House pool."
The President has once again blatantly ignored his vow of "transparency", this time to the enablers who couldn't find a single thing about him to criticize him during his ascension to the Oval Office. Oh, how the worm has turned.
Well, this is what naturally happens when the mainstream media finally finds their guts and quits being overt cheerleaders for such a narcissistic demagogue of a politician - the access and photo-ops dry up. Did they really expect something different to happen?
"In a letter to Press Sec. Robert Gibbs, the WHCA Board complained about their lack of access to the President throughout the crisis in Egypt and outlined their request to open today’s treaty signing to the White House pool."
The President has once again blatantly ignored his vow of "transparency", this time to the enablers who couldn't find a single thing about him to criticize him during his ascension to the Oval Office. Oh, how the worm has turned.
Well, this is what naturally happens when the mainstream media finally finds their guts and quits being overt cheerleaders for such a narcissistic demagogue of a politician - the access and photo-ops dry up. Did they really expect something different to happen?
Friday, January 28, 2011
That's all you can come up with?
"Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran is blaming his party's losses last November in large part on voters who 'don't want to be governed by an African-American.'"
Moron Moran is rapidly approaching Bidenesque-levels of foot-in-mouth disease.
That statement is completely false, both here as well as everywhere else in the country save for a few blockheads leftover from the Dark Ages. We would be ecstatic if the White House were occupied by Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain or any other of a large group of freedom-promoting, fiscally-conservative individuals who, by the way, coincidentally happen to be black. Our problem with the current president is solely his collectivist ideology, not his skin color. Moran might as well accuse us of not being approving of Obama because his ears are too big. That argument's just as silly.
"'In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash,' Moran said." (Emphasis ours)
Well, Moran got the bold part of the quote correct in any event. We indeed don't want Dear Leader to "spend money on everyone", mostly because it isn't his cash that he's handing out like candy in the guise of "investments" to his core supporters such as labor unions in return for votes.
Shame on the Congressman for attempting to label peoples' genuine political differences with the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration as mere race-baiting. It does demonstrate, though, that liberals such as him have no intellectual arguments left and are thus forced to engage in such despicable behavior in a desperate attempt to salvage what's left of the tattered "Hope and Change" agenda.
That statement is completely false, both here as well as everywhere else in the country save for a few blockheads leftover from the Dark Ages. We would be ecstatic if the White House were occupied by Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain or any other of a large group of freedom-promoting, fiscally-conservative individuals who, by the way, coincidentally happen to be black. Our problem with the current president is solely his collectivist ideology, not his skin color. Moran might as well accuse us of not being approving of Obama because his ears are too big. That argument's just as silly.
"'In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash,' Moran said." (Emphasis ours)
Well, Moran got the bold part of the quote correct in any event. We indeed don't want Dear Leader to "spend money on everyone", mostly because it isn't his cash that he's handing out like candy in the guise of "investments" to his core supporters such as labor unions in return for votes.
Shame on the Congressman for attempting to label peoples' genuine political differences with the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration as mere race-baiting. It does demonstrate, though, that liberals such as him have no intellectual arguments left and are thus forced to engage in such despicable behavior in a desperate attempt to salvage what's left of the tattered "Hope and Change" agenda.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines
"FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger"
The Associated Press miraculously grows a pair and adds up the proposed "investments" (the new code word for endless and fruitless stimulus spending) versus spending cuts in Dear Leader's State of the Union address.
Wonder of all wonders, the AP's analysis concludes that "The ledger did not appear to be adding up" and "Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything".
It's all still a con game by this master showman, but he's quickly running out of shells under which to hide the pea. We're especially interested in seeing if he attempts to reverse his staggering record of broken promises to Americans and keep (for once) the newest in his exhaustive list, the one to veto any legislation which contains earmarks. It's a pretty bold vow, so don't anyone hold their breaths.
This new-found desire by the major media to properly vet Obama's flowery, but ultimately empty, prose. is mildly encouraging. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues or if it's just a one-time sop to "balance" by the overwhelmingly liberal press.
One thing seems to be for darn sure - the bloom is definitely off Obama's rose, and the president is now just another crafty politician whose words are fair game for criticism by mere mortals.
The Associated Press miraculously grows a pair and adds up the proposed "investments" (the new code word for endless and fruitless stimulus spending) versus spending cuts in Dear Leader's State of the Union address.
Wonder of all wonders, the AP's analysis concludes that "The ledger did not appear to be adding up" and "Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything".
It's all still a con game by this master showman, but he's quickly running out of shells under which to hide the pea. We're especially interested in seeing if he attempts to reverse his staggering record of broken promises to Americans and keep (for once) the newest in his exhaustive list, the one to veto any legislation which contains earmarks. It's a pretty bold vow, so don't anyone hold their breaths.
This new-found desire by the major media to properly vet Obama's flowery, but ultimately empty, prose. is mildly encouraging. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues or if it's just a one-time sop to "balance" by the overwhelmingly liberal press.
One thing seems to be for darn sure - the bloom is definitely off Obama's rose, and the president is now just another crafty politician whose words are fair game for criticism by mere mortals.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Amusing
The leftist publisher of Harper's magazine spends years extolling the virtues of unions in general (and the United Auto Workers in particular), then gets all bent out of shape when his staff signs up to join that very same UAW:
"[John "Rick"] MacArthur contested the entire staff's right to unionize, arguing that editors and assistant editors who make up about half of the editorial team were management and thus did not qualify. Staffers couldn’t help but chuckle at the irony: The staunch defender of unions, who in a 2009 Harper's piece called the UAW 'the country’s best and traditionally most honest mass labor organization,' was now on the other side of the table as the 'worst kind of factory owner,' as one staffer put it to me."
Poetic justice indeed.
"MacArthur recently told me in an e-mail: 'I was taken by surprise and I thought it was rude that they didn't schedule a meeting to discuss it.'"
We hate to have to break this obvious news to Mr. MacArthur, but disgruntled workers don't usually "schedule meetings" with management to announce to them their upcoming plans to certify union representation.
This incident sounds uncannily like what apparently happened some years ago when the writing staff working on liberal activist (and similar champion of unions) Michael Moore's The Awful Truth television show similarly tried to obtain union representation:
"When two of the show’s young writers, who had been given the title Associate Producer, took steps to join the Writers Guild (the powerful union for movie and TV writers), Moore took them aside. 'I’m getting a lot of heat from the union to call you guys writers and pay you under the union rules,' Eric Zicklin recounted Moore’s words for MacFarquhar. 'I don’t have the budget for that,' Moore threatened them, 'But if they keep coming down on me that’ll mean I’ll only be able to afford one of you and the other one’s gotta go.'"
How quickly these hard-line socialist media barons' warm and fuzzy feelings regarding unions change once it's their own money that's threatening to be siphoned out of their deep pockets in order to finance those lucrative union benefits, pension plans and other perks.
"[John "Rick"] MacArthur contested the entire staff's right to unionize, arguing that editors and assistant editors who make up about half of the editorial team were management and thus did not qualify. Staffers couldn’t help but chuckle at the irony: The staunch defender of unions, who in a 2009 Harper's piece called the UAW 'the country’s best and traditionally most honest mass labor organization,' was now on the other side of the table as the 'worst kind of factory owner,' as one staffer put it to me."
Poetic justice indeed.
"MacArthur recently told me in an e-mail: 'I was taken by surprise and I thought it was rude that they didn't schedule a meeting to discuss it.'"
We hate to have to break this obvious news to Mr. MacArthur, but disgruntled workers don't usually "schedule meetings" with management to announce to them their upcoming plans to certify union representation.
This incident sounds uncannily like what apparently happened some years ago when the writing staff working on liberal activist (and similar champion of unions) Michael Moore's The Awful Truth television show similarly tried to obtain union representation:
"When two of the show’s young writers, who had been given the title Associate Producer, took steps to join the Writers Guild (the powerful union for movie and TV writers), Moore took them aside. 'I’m getting a lot of heat from the union to call you guys writers and pay you under the union rules,' Eric Zicklin recounted Moore’s words for MacFarquhar. 'I don’t have the budget for that,' Moore threatened them, 'But if they keep coming down on me that’ll mean I’ll only be able to afford one of you and the other one’s gotta go.'"
How quickly these hard-line socialist media barons' warm and fuzzy feelings regarding unions change once it's their own money that's threatening to be siphoned out of their deep pockets in order to finance those lucrative union benefits, pension plans and other perks.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
They doth protest too much
Markos Krugman has started up a blog devoted to collecting and displaying the voluminous evidence that it's the left side of the political aisle which is in fact guilty of creating the "climate of hate" they've been screeching about for over a week now.
We can see right now we're going to be regular visitors to the site.
(thanks to Billy Beck for the heads-up)
We can see right now we're going to be regular visitors to the site.
(thanks to Billy Beck for the heads-up)
Friday, January 14, 2011
It's far too complex an issue for him to wrap his talking head around
Former news "icon" Tom Brokaw displays his elite liberal bias while cluelessly expounding upon a topic about which he apparently knows absolutely nothing:
"Gun control is too simple a phrase to define all the complications and nuances of it, frankly. In Arizona they have a wide open system. I would be nervous about going into a bar or restaurant in Arizona on a Saturday night where people can carry concealed without permits"
Mr. Brokaw presumably wouldn't bat an eye about going into the bar at a fancy ski resort in tony Vermont, which has the exact same "wide open system" and always has.
We imagine he would also quite look forward to a relaxing evening in a restaurant after a day of his beloved fly-fishing in, say, Alaska, which has the exact same "wide open system".
It certainly can be quite the arduous ordeal to take all of ten minutes to grasp the "complications and nuances" of this particular subject, so we certainly understand why this supposedly competent professional newsman doesn't even bother to try.
"Gun control is too simple a phrase to define all the complications and nuances of it, frankly. In Arizona they have a wide open system. I would be nervous about going into a bar or restaurant in Arizona on a Saturday night where people can carry concealed without permits"
Mr. Brokaw presumably wouldn't bat an eye about going into the bar at a fancy ski resort in tony Vermont, which has the exact same "wide open system" and always has.
We imagine he would also quite look forward to a relaxing evening in a restaurant after a day of his beloved fly-fishing in, say, Alaska, which has the exact same "wide open system".
It certainly can be quite the arduous ordeal to take all of ten minutes to grasp the "complications and nuances" of this particular subject, so we certainly understand why this supposedly competent professional newsman doesn't even bother to try.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
A very keen observation
Can't get much clearer than that.
During the Clinton ban of 1994-2004, magazines holding over 10 rounds became quite expensive. A jump from $15 to $120 wasn't unusual. Imagine a ban so sweeping that every gun, magazine and cartridge costs 20 times more than before. Who would be able to afford that?
The law-abiding people will not, as they also have to pay for food, shelter and other normal expenses. The criminals can, with difficulty, as they can treat arming up as a business expense -- and won't need quite as much weaponry to dominate the disarmed public. The deranged, murderous psychopaths will be able to afford the arms and ammo easily -- precisely because they are deranged. A person who expects to murder dozens and to die in the process or be imprisoned thereafter or -- more than likely has not even given a thought to the outcome at all -- doesn't worry about the credit card bill that will come due after the massacre. The mass murder episode is literally the last thing they plan to do in life and cost is no object.
A psycho murderer can devote all his resources -- and all his credit -- to the task of arming up. The price of ammunition is not a concern for such people. If the guns aren't merely expensive but also illegal -- again, in for a penny, in for a pound. A person who intends to murder is hardly worried about liability for statutory transgressions. His law-abiding victims on the other hand are very concerned about breaking the law and so remain unarmed and vulnerable...more vulnerable than if they could arm themselves for self-protection."
Oleg's one of the best visual artists we've ever seen , and his work is the living embodiment of "a picture is worth a thousand words". Visit his website to view all manner of awesome photos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
