Robert Stacy McCain of The Other McCain was lucky enough to get to attend the Right Online conference in Minneapolis where he was able to view a screening of the soon-to-be-released Sarah Palin documentary The Undefeated.
Afterwards, he scored an interview with the director, Stephen Bannon, who went into some detail about why he made the movie and what he hoped to accomplish, in the following video.
McCain by the way is not a Palin supporter for President. He has made no secret of his support for Herman Cain, ending each post about the Republican candidate and former Godfather's Pizza CEO with, to paraphrase "Isn't it about time you joined the on-line grassroots group Citizens 4 Cain?"
Nevertheless, McCain was duly impressed with the Palin film, saying it "will change the way you think about Palin."
Judging by that alone, it looks like Bannon has accomplished what he set out to do-make a film that will make people think about Palin-her talents, abilities, contributions and qualifications-in a reasoned, thoughtful way. As he said himself in the interview, he did not make the film for Palin devotees. He made it for people who maybe don't really know her that well outside the media hype, be it positive or negative. In other words, it like any good documentary strives for historical accuracy and basic truth.
My only question is if it will find its target audience. Or rather, will its target audience find it? As I said in a comment on the post at The Other McCain-
It won't change the way her more ardent supporters or detractors feel, but it might change the way moderates and independents feel about her, which is what's important. The key though is getting them to see the film. That's the problem right there. People that have mixed feelings about her unfortunately might not care enough to make the effort to see it.
I hope I'm wrong about this. Palin has been the subject of an obscene quantity of negative propaganda from not only rabid progressives and Democrats, but also from corrupt establishment RINO Republicans and, perhaps worse of all, from a disparaging press determined to bury her career in an avalanche of skewed and hateful coverage and manipulated data, even outright lies.
This film is a chance to see a true history of the woman and her career. Anyone who has any preconceived notions about her should make the effort to see it. It's not so much that they owe it to Palin. They owe it to themselves.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Casey Anothony Murder Trial-A New Look
The Casey Anthony trial in Florida has attracted so much media attention its surprising that spectators haven't been barred. Many more incidents like the below free-for-all that transpired after two men tried to jump line (and got their asses kicked by some women waiting in line) and it could result in everybody that isn't directly involved being banned from future proceedings if they don't have a vested or legitimate public interest, such as the media.
Yeah, its been a real circus. Worse, its been like going to Wal-Mart on Black Friday.
Fists fly at court house as people wait for Casey Anthony trial tickets: MyFoxORLANDO.com
In the meantime, the trial itself seems so open and shut its a wonder anybody is interested enough to want to sit it out. After all, its not like there's any big mystery to be solved. While some defend Casey Anthony and insist she is innocent, most people are convinced the woman killed her daughter, end of story. The only real question seems to be, was it intentional or accidental? And how exactly was she killed?
But is it really all that cut-and-dried? The prosecution in the case seems to think so, otherwise they wouldn't be so adamant about seeking the death penalty.
I do have one question though. And that is, if Casey Anthony did murder her daughter Caylee-either intentionally or accidentally-why did she leave the body in her car long enough to leave such a strong, horrible odor, before she finally got around to disposing of the body?
I have an idea that would probably be impossible to prove, but I think the timeline of events might well bear me out. Casey allegedly was so hooked on the party life, the sex and probably drugs that go along with it, that she used chloroform to knock her daughter out long enough for her to go party down.
Now for some reason, Casey decided she couldn't take the risk of leaving her alone in their apartment. Maybe Caylee was adjusting to the chloroform and waking up earlier. It might have required stronger doses to keep her out longer with repeated use, and this could well be what killed her. But remember, there had been a problem between Casey and her mother, probably over the party lifestyle. So for whatever reason, she could not leave the kid with her parents. This is where my theory comes into play.
Not being able to find a baby-sitter, what if Casey Anthony doused the kid in chloroform one night and took her to the party, locking her in the trunk of the car? It was night, she had enough air in the trunk, so as long as she stayed asleep all would be well. And if she woke up early, the duct-tape over her mouth would prevent her from attracting attention by screaming and crying out for help.
Let's move on into the club with Casey, say two or three hours later. Casey is stoned to the gills. Who knows, maybe she's even been drugged. Maybe she has even left the club with one or more men. She is brought back to the club a few hours later, possibly mid-morning, only to see her car is gone. Maybe its been stolen. Or maybe in her drunken state of mind, she has actually loaned the car to somebody, possibly someone she barely knows, having forgotten all about the kid in the trunk. The car is gone. And so is Caylee.
When it occurs to her what she's done, and what has happened, she goes completely nuts. She doesn't even know who has her car. Or maybe she knows them vaguely but doesn't know how to get in touch with them. Days go by, maybe one or two weeks, before the car is abandoned. It is very conceivable that the people who had the car for one or two weeks never knew Caylee was in the trunk. It is also very understandable that by the time Casey Anthony found her car, where it had been towed in after it was abandoned by whoever might have had it, the poor kid Caylee was long dead and in at least the intermediate stages of decomposition.
There could be another explanation, but this makes sense and explains why the body was in the car for so long. Granted, its conceivable Casey herself could have abandoned the car, with the body in the trunk, possibly to lay the groundwork for claiming the car was stolen and Caylee kidnapped. But it sounds to me more like she freaked when she realized her car was gone with Caylee in the trunk and was terrified of calling the police and the truth coming out about her locking the kid in the trunk after knocking her out with chloroform. All so she could just go out and party, and maybe get laid.
The child wouldn't have lasted long. One day in that hot Florida sun-remember, this was the middle of June-bearing down on the trunk of that car and its doubtful she would have lived through the first day. Ironically, she might have been afraid to make a noise in the trunk of the car when it might have done her the most good. Who knows what she might have heard in that car from whoever the people were who were driving it?
Another irony-these people might not even realize what they done. By the time this became news, Cassey Anthony might have been a vague, drunken memory. Who even knows if that was even the name they knew her by.
All Casey could do at that point was make up some crazy story that might get her off the hook. After she disposed of the body, of course.
The only question is, did anybody help her after the fact. Even though it is known now that Caylee's father was not Cassey's father, or Casey's brother, whose to say she didn't threaten one or both of them by threatening to reveal the secret knowledge of past sexual abuse, possibly even telling her own brother that he was the father even though she knew he was not. This might explain why the body ended up so close to the Anthony home. It also explains why in the opening day of the defense case, the jury was informed that there were allegations that Casey's brother had fathered the child. It might have been simply laying the groundwork for strengthening their case that the death was accidental, and that Casey's brother had helped cover it up. The reason? He was afraid DNA testing would reveal he was the father.
There are a lot of things in this case that don't add up. Chief among these is the length of time the body was in the car. If the truth ever does come out it probably won't be enough to keep Casey Anthony out of prison for the rest of her life. But it might keep her off death row.
If I were her I don't know that I'd care that much about that.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The Truth Is Not Racist, It's Just Reality
Leave it to a Democrat to want to raise taxes for programs that benefit criminal gangs, which seems to be the unintended(?) effect of Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn's gang intervention program. It was supposed to go toward hiring convicted criminals as "gang specialists". Instead, the money was used to actually subsidize gang activities. The truth came out in 2009, along with federal indictments.
Even the New York Times took notice-
Federal agents announced criminal indictments for 24 high-ranking gang members, along with a prominent gang intervention specialist who associated with city politicians and routinely raised money from Hollywood’s elite.
The specialist, Alex Sanchez, director of Homies Unidos, a gang outreach organization in Los Angeles for more than a decade, was arrested and charged with a federal racketeering count for his alleged role in the assassination of a man in El Salvador in 2006.
Now Hahn is running for Congress, to replace the retiring Jane Harmon, and is opposed by Republican Craig Huey. In opposition to Hahn's campaign an independent political group has produced the following video.
The Daily Caller calls it the most offensive ad ever, but let's face it-sometimes the truth is offensive. And when a US Congresswoman funnels taxpayer funds to a criminal street gang, the truth is something that's hard to sugarcoat when that truth involves the use of said funds in the furtherance of the same criminal activities they were ostensibly meant to combat.
The Other McCain has the video and a different take on it, while providing an explanation from the video's director which makes use of the Congresswoman's own words, to wit-
Before you charge racism at the ad, consider her one line in the video: “It takes a different kind of person to speak the language.” By that she means, it takes black people to talk to black people. It takes gang members to talk to gang members. They have their own language, we should coddle them. They’re not responsible for their actions if they murder someone, rape someone. They’re a minority.
Spot on. Democrats take a passive aggressive stance towards the minority groups they keep down and under their thumb while yelling racism at everybody that opposes their lunacy. Same story different day. The only thing missing is the Klan robes. The Democrats haven't changed, they've just substituted the rope for a welfare check.
The video was funded by Turn Right USA which is an independent political action group not affiliated with Democrat Janice Hahn's Republican opponent Craig Huey. Here is their mission statement-
Turn Right USA is a Federal Non-connected, Expenditure Only Political Action Committee (SuperPAC) organized to execute Independent Expenditure campaigns by a group of American citizens who are:
unrepresented by the political class of this Country;
nauseated by the laughable stupidity of professional politicians;
outraged by their liberal benefactors like George Soros, and
angered that their opposition is too cowardly to fight back!
Turn Right USA’s mission is to expose and lampoon the typical politico’s microscopic brain through cutting-edge viral videos with guts and humor!
Unfortunately for Hahn's defenders, the fact that the gang receiving her taxpayer-funded largesse is black is not a reflection on the overall African-American community, who in fact are the community that suffers the most from the influence of these kinds of criminal gangs-and the Democratic Party and its members who support and enable them.
Even the New York Times took notice-
Federal agents announced criminal indictments for 24 high-ranking gang members, along with a prominent gang intervention specialist who associated with city politicians and routinely raised money from Hollywood’s elite.
The specialist, Alex Sanchez, director of Homies Unidos, a gang outreach organization in Los Angeles for more than a decade, was arrested and charged with a federal racketeering count for his alleged role in the assassination of a man in El Salvador in 2006.
Now Hahn is running for Congress, to replace the retiring Jane Harmon, and is opposed by Republican Craig Huey. In opposition to Hahn's campaign an independent political group has produced the following video.
The Daily Caller calls it the most offensive ad ever, but let's face it-sometimes the truth is offensive. And when a US Congresswoman funnels taxpayer funds to a criminal street gang, the truth is something that's hard to sugarcoat when that truth involves the use of said funds in the furtherance of the same criminal activities they were ostensibly meant to combat.
The Other McCain has the video and a different take on it, while providing an explanation from the video's director which makes use of the Congresswoman's own words, to wit-
Before you charge racism at the ad, consider her one line in the video: “It takes a different kind of person to speak the language.” By that she means, it takes black people to talk to black people. It takes gang members to talk to gang members. They have their own language, we should coddle them. They’re not responsible for their actions if they murder someone, rape someone. They’re a minority.
Spot on. Democrats take a passive aggressive stance towards the minority groups they keep down and under their thumb while yelling racism at everybody that opposes their lunacy. Same story different day. The only thing missing is the Klan robes. The Democrats haven't changed, they've just substituted the rope for a welfare check.
The video was funded by Turn Right USA which is an independent political action group not affiliated with Democrat Janice Hahn's Republican opponent Craig Huey. Here is their mission statement-
Turn Right USA is a Federal Non-connected, Expenditure Only Political Action Committee (SuperPAC) organized to execute Independent Expenditure campaigns by a group of American citizens who are:
unrepresented by the political class of this Country;
nauseated by the laughable stupidity of professional politicians;
outraged by their liberal benefactors like George Soros, and
angered that their opposition is too cowardly to fight back!
Turn Right USA’s mission is to expose and lampoon the typical politico’s microscopic brain through cutting-edge viral videos with guts and humor!
Unfortunately for Hahn's defenders, the fact that the gang receiving her taxpayer-funded largesse is black is not a reflection on the overall African-American community, who in fact are the community that suffers the most from the influence of these kinds of criminal gangs-and the Democratic Party and its members who support and enable them.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Right And Wrong In Yemen And Libya-The Arab Spring And The Coming Internationalist Downfall
There is good and there is bad, and sometimes, you have your in-between gray areas where you don't really know what to think. You just try to muddle through and hope things work out for the best. That's the situation right now in the Middle East, where let's face it, there's almost never any good news, so why start now?
The so-called Arab Spring is something I have been wary of from the start, just like I am of any alleged "pro-democracy" movements among the Arab/Muslim states. We have already seen the result of President Bush's insistence that the Palestinians be granted free elections. That turned into a fiasco which haunts us, and the Israelis, to this day. True enough, it resulted in the removal from power, in Gaza, of the corrupt Fatah organization, but it was replaced by the insanely and fanatically evil Hamas.
Proponents of the Arab Spring revolts throughout the Middle East, which started in Tunisia and spread first to Egypt, and then throughout the various countries of the Middle East with varying degrees of intensity, insist that it is a mostly secular movement. They might be right to a degree, but scratch the surface and it doesn't take long to smell the rancid, stinking odor of fanatical Islamic fascism, already taking strong root in Egypt, resulting in attacks on the minority Coptic Christians.
But so far, the most violent and dangerous disruptions have come about in Yemen, where the presidential palace was attacked and the President seriously injured. The place is in all but name a failed state, where a significant percentage of the people are either loyal to or terrorized by the local Al-Queda group, Al-Queda in Yemen. This is especially significant in that one of the most influential leaders of this group is a transplanted American who is deemed responsible for the Fort Hood Massacre.
It's also important to note that Obama, while expressing sympathy for the insurgents throughout the Arab world-after all, they only want the right to self-determination and freedom, supposedly-kept a generally hands off approach. He was criticized for this, and for his inconsistencies when it came to the status of our former ally, recently deposed President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. He has also been taken to task for his lack of support for the anti-Assad factions in Syria, just like he was condemned, generally, for his lack of involvement with the anti-Qaddafi forces in Libya.
It was good that Obama was criticized, but it was all for the wrong reasons. In reality, Obama is in this up to his eyeballs. The State Department, various socialist factions within the EU and the UN, in conjunction with disparate leftist organs, including organized labor activist and progressive activist groups such as Code Pink, have engaged in a coordinated effort to inflame tensions in the region.
And when some people do point this out, they also err in casting aspersions related to the influence of Islamic radicals. The perpetrators here are not the radicals, but pro-democracy forces who are by no means republican in orientation, but of a progressive, socialist cast. These are the people Obama, the State Department, the EU and the UN, as well as international labor and progressive activists want to use to recast the Middle East, in a socialist, parliamentary democratic image. The problem is they fail to see the danger posed by the Islamic radicals in the event their schemes are initially successful. This is a blind spot of the ideological progressives, one that could induce them to lead the whole region over a cliff.
Why there haven't been demands for a Congressional investigation is beyond me, but on the other hand, conservatives wasted too much time and energy making political hay out of Obama's seeming lack of involvement, when the reality was quite the opposite of the perception he was purposely manifesting.
Obama has learned well the political lessons of the last few years. No matter what he does he will be attacked. And he would obviously be excoriated if he openly sought to throw the Middle East into the kind of turmoil that it is now experiencing. He would be criticized not just by the GOP, but worldwide. Few Democrats even would support him.
This might go a long ways towards explaining the recent involvement of NATO in the Libyan insurgency. The problem is, the US is expected as usual to contribute the lion's share of money and resources, and Obama is pressured daily by NATO elements to provide "boots on the ground".
For once, criticism of Obama is justified, and not misdirected. He has, in jumping on board the NATO bandwagon, defied established US protocol. Such actions should first go through Congress and gain congressional approval. Bush did this when he went to war in Afghanistan and then Iraq. He sought and received bi-partisan support. Obama, when it comes to the Libyan theater, acts like it is beneath him to even answer congressional queries concerning his actions.
Yemen, however, is an altogether different matter. Yemen has been our ally, at least officially, in the War on Terror. Our troops have been stationed there. We have an already vested interest in what happens there. Plus, we are at war, not just ideologically but in point of fact, with Al-Queda in Yemen.
Therefore, when people criticize Obama for his assault on the insurgent forces and Al-Queda in Yemen, they are off the mark and out of bounds. This is especially true of the charge that he is doing this without congressional approval. Of course we have congressional approval. We have had that approval, implicitly, ever since our troops were stationed there, ever since we had an agreement with the Yemeni government.
Sometimes it pays to step back and take a deep, long hard look at everything that's going on. Oftentimes if you just take the time and make the effort to peel back the layers, you might find things are not so simple as they might appear at first glance. And, sometimes they are even more simple.
There are some things that are just not appropriate venues for political grandstanding no matter how much or even how rightly you dislike the target of your attack. Obama should be investigated as to what his real role in the Arab Spring insurgencies. I might be wrong, but if I am right, he should be impeached and tried on that, among some other things.
But his attack on the insurgents in Yemen is not only justified, it is appropriate.
The so-called Arab Spring is something I have been wary of from the start, just like I am of any alleged "pro-democracy" movements among the Arab/Muslim states. We have already seen the result of President Bush's insistence that the Palestinians be granted free elections. That turned into a fiasco which haunts us, and the Israelis, to this day. True enough, it resulted in the removal from power, in Gaza, of the corrupt Fatah organization, but it was replaced by the insanely and fanatically evil Hamas.
Proponents of the Arab Spring revolts throughout the Middle East, which started in Tunisia and spread first to Egypt, and then throughout the various countries of the Middle East with varying degrees of intensity, insist that it is a mostly secular movement. They might be right to a degree, but scratch the surface and it doesn't take long to smell the rancid, stinking odor of fanatical Islamic fascism, already taking strong root in Egypt, resulting in attacks on the minority Coptic Christians.
But so far, the most violent and dangerous disruptions have come about in Yemen, where the presidential palace was attacked and the President seriously injured. The place is in all but name a failed state, where a significant percentage of the people are either loyal to or terrorized by the local Al-Queda group, Al-Queda in Yemen. This is especially significant in that one of the most influential leaders of this group is a transplanted American who is deemed responsible for the Fort Hood Massacre.
It's also important to note that Obama, while expressing sympathy for the insurgents throughout the Arab world-after all, they only want the right to self-determination and freedom, supposedly-kept a generally hands off approach. He was criticized for this, and for his inconsistencies when it came to the status of our former ally, recently deposed President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. He has also been taken to task for his lack of support for the anti-Assad factions in Syria, just like he was condemned, generally, for his lack of involvement with the anti-Qaddafi forces in Libya.
It was good that Obama was criticized, but it was all for the wrong reasons. In reality, Obama is in this up to his eyeballs. The State Department, various socialist factions within the EU and the UN, in conjunction with disparate leftist organs, including organized labor activist and progressive activist groups such as Code Pink, have engaged in a coordinated effort to inflame tensions in the region.
And when some people do point this out, they also err in casting aspersions related to the influence of Islamic radicals. The perpetrators here are not the radicals, but pro-democracy forces who are by no means republican in orientation, but of a progressive, socialist cast. These are the people Obama, the State Department, the EU and the UN, as well as international labor and progressive activists want to use to recast the Middle East, in a socialist, parliamentary democratic image. The problem is they fail to see the danger posed by the Islamic radicals in the event their schemes are initially successful. This is a blind spot of the ideological progressives, one that could induce them to lead the whole region over a cliff.
Why there haven't been demands for a Congressional investigation is beyond me, but on the other hand, conservatives wasted too much time and energy making political hay out of Obama's seeming lack of involvement, when the reality was quite the opposite of the perception he was purposely manifesting.
Obama has learned well the political lessons of the last few years. No matter what he does he will be attacked. And he would obviously be excoriated if he openly sought to throw the Middle East into the kind of turmoil that it is now experiencing. He would be criticized not just by the GOP, but worldwide. Few Democrats even would support him.
This might go a long ways towards explaining the recent involvement of NATO in the Libyan insurgency. The problem is, the US is expected as usual to contribute the lion's share of money and resources, and Obama is pressured daily by NATO elements to provide "boots on the ground".
For once, criticism of Obama is justified, and not misdirected. He has, in jumping on board the NATO bandwagon, defied established US protocol. Such actions should first go through Congress and gain congressional approval. Bush did this when he went to war in Afghanistan and then Iraq. He sought and received bi-partisan support. Obama, when it comes to the Libyan theater, acts like it is beneath him to even answer congressional queries concerning his actions.
Yemen, however, is an altogether different matter. Yemen has been our ally, at least officially, in the War on Terror. Our troops have been stationed there. We have an already vested interest in what happens there. Plus, we are at war, not just ideologically but in point of fact, with Al-Queda in Yemen.
Therefore, when people criticize Obama for his assault on the insurgent forces and Al-Queda in Yemen, they are off the mark and out of bounds. This is especially true of the charge that he is doing this without congressional approval. Of course we have congressional approval. We have had that approval, implicitly, ever since our troops were stationed there, ever since we had an agreement with the Yemeni government.
Sometimes it pays to step back and take a deep, long hard look at everything that's going on. Oftentimes if you just take the time and make the effort to peel back the layers, you might find things are not so simple as they might appear at first glance. And, sometimes they are even more simple.
There are some things that are just not appropriate venues for political grandstanding no matter how much or even how rightly you dislike the target of your attack. Obama should be investigated as to what his real role in the Arab Spring insurgencies. I might be wrong, but if I am right, he should be impeached and tried on that, among some other things.
But his attack on the insurgents in Yemen is not only justified, it is appropriate.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Celebration For Mentally Challenged Special Olympics Athletes Disrupted By Leftist Zombie Infestation
Ann Althouse, who lives in Wisconsin and has provided extensive coverage of the protests in Madison Wisconsin, has a video of a recent appearance by Governor Scott Walker. The governor was speaking in commemoration of the accomplishments of Special Olympics athletes. The minute he walked to the podium to speak, however, he was rudely interrupted by a group of pro-union protesters dressed as zombies.
I wonder if any of them considered how it would look to protest an event held in honor of mentally challenged athletes by appearing as a group of brain dead monsters.
In other words, as themselves.
Althouse is as usual mystified by the lack of tact and diplomacy on the part of these protesters. She regularly points out how they hurt their own cause in the eyes of the general public with their antics.
What she doesn't seem to get is, they don't care about the general public to begin with, in part because they think most people are basically on their side, but mainly they feel the courts will back them up, as in fact was most recently the case when a liberal activist judge declared that the recent law passed by the Republican legislature, and signed into law by Walker, could not be implemented due to the lack of input by the Democratic legislators-who had actually left the state in order to forestall a quorum for a vote they knew they would lose.
So they have held the state hostage and will continue to do so. No one or no group is safe from their disruption. Not even mentally challenged athletes who perform in the Special Olympics. These ersatz zombies purposely walked in between Walker and the attendees in order to block their view of Walker. It was supposed to be the athletes special day, a day to be honored for their contributions. Instead, their day was hijacked by a bunch of union thugs and leftists.
To tell you the truth though, it wouldn't be much of a surprise if these union jackass thugs and leftists actually do have a hunger for BRAAAAA-INS!! They do seem to be sorely lacking in that regard.
But the worse thing about the whole ordeal?
At the end of the day, they were still very much alive.
I wonder if any of them considered how it would look to protest an event held in honor of mentally challenged athletes by appearing as a group of brain dead monsters.
In other words, as themselves.
Althouse is as usual mystified by the lack of tact and diplomacy on the part of these protesters. She regularly points out how they hurt their own cause in the eyes of the general public with their antics.
What she doesn't seem to get is, they don't care about the general public to begin with, in part because they think most people are basically on their side, but mainly they feel the courts will back them up, as in fact was most recently the case when a liberal activist judge declared that the recent law passed by the Republican legislature, and signed into law by Walker, could not be implemented due to the lack of input by the Democratic legislators-who had actually left the state in order to forestall a quorum for a vote they knew they would lose.
So they have held the state hostage and will continue to do so. No one or no group is safe from their disruption. Not even mentally challenged athletes who perform in the Special Olympics. These ersatz zombies purposely walked in between Walker and the attendees in order to block their view of Walker. It was supposed to be the athletes special day, a day to be honored for their contributions. Instead, their day was hijacked by a bunch of union thugs and leftists.
To tell you the truth though, it wouldn't be much of a surprise if these union jackass thugs and leftists actually do have a hunger for BRAAAAA-INS!! They do seem to be sorely lacking in that regard.
But the worse thing about the whole ordeal?
At the end of the day, they were still very much alive.
Stand By Your Weiner Night
I would like to announce that I am now promoting a special night for all supporters of New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner to show solidarity for the beleaguered Congressman. To all of you who insist on defending him, I have one thing to say to you-talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words ever could.
With this is mind, Stand By Your Weiner Night is really a simple concept. On Saturday Night, Midnight, June 11-12 2011, all Twitter followers of Representative Anthony Weiner should tweet a dic-pic or, if a woman, a pussy-pic. It doesn't necessarily have to be a bare naked shot, it can just as easily be one taken of your self in your underwear, with an emphasis on the crotch, though preferably the outline of your sexual organs in a state of arousal would be appropriate for the occasion. If a man your the outline of your dick should be prominent. If a woman, the crotch of your panties should be suitably moist.
You should do this on Twitter at the stated time, using the hashtags #WeinerYes and #CollateralDamage.
I invite all of you to help me get the word out to all followers of @RepWeiner. Tweet the message early and often so we will get a big crowd standing in solidarity with the Weiner.
Let's not let our Weiner down.
With this is mind, Stand By Your Weiner Night is really a simple concept. On Saturday Night, Midnight, June 11-12 2011, all Twitter followers of Representative Anthony Weiner should tweet a dic-pic or, if a woman, a pussy-pic. It doesn't necessarily have to be a bare naked shot, it can just as easily be one taken of your self in your underwear, with an emphasis on the crotch, though preferably the outline of your sexual organs in a state of arousal would be appropriate for the occasion. If a man your the outline of your dick should be prominent. If a woman, the crotch of your panties should be suitably moist.
You should do this on Twitter at the stated time, using the hashtags #WeinerYes and #CollateralDamage.
I invite all of you to help me get the word out to all followers of @RepWeiner. Tweet the message early and often so we will get a big crowd standing in solidarity with the Weiner.
Let's not let our Weiner down.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
GOP Strategist Ed Rollins Attacks Sarah Palin-On Behalf Of Michelle Bachmann
Michelle Bachmann might have made a fatal mistake in hiring long-time GOP strategist Ed Rollins as a campaign adviser for her fledgling presidential campaign. For his first day on the job, Rollins attacked potential Bachmann opponent Sarah Palin, calling her unqualified, and not a serious candidate. As you might imagine, this has Palin supporters in an uproar, and rightly so.
I wondered where I had heard of Rollins before, and then it occurred to me. I had a lot to say about him here, where he came across as more of an Obama supporter who was actually worried about Obama looking bad. Of course, come to find out, originally Rollins was a Democrat, so it makes sense that he would fit in with the establishment, RINO wing of the GOP.
But his salvo at Palin was beyond the pale, and potentially an embarrassment for Bachmann in yet another way-no longer ago than this last January Rollins said the exact same things about Bachmann.
Professor Jacobson, he of Legal Insurrection, seems to think that hiring Rollins was a rookie mistake on Michelle's part, though it definitely calls into question her decision making abilities. Many have wondered openly whether Michelle might actually be a stalking horse, for some other candidate, in an attempt to drain Tea Party votes from Palin in the event Sarah decides to run.
It makes sense to me. Bachmann tried to get an appointment to a committee chair following the 2010 mid-term elections but was turned down. Maybe this is a way of proving, to somebody like for example Speaker of the House John Boehner, or maybe even House Whip Eric Cantor, that she is capable of being a team player. Believe me, there is nothing the Party leadership would like better than to derail any hopes of a Palin campaign. But would Bachmann go that far? Doesn't she believe in the same things as Palin, more or less? Aren't they both Tea Party favorites?
I don't know, and I'm not making any accusations, just asking questions. But the hiring of Rollins should have set off alarm bells before he ever opened his mouth. The man has a checkered history at best. Legal Insurrection commenter Trochilus contributed some links to an old story that tells a sorry tale indeed.
Rollins was at the center of a big controversy in New Jersey during the election of Republican Christine Todd Whitman as Governor. He alleged that Whitman's funds went to suppress the black vote. He later admitted he made the whole thing up. It later turned out there was indeed an attempt to suppress the vote, but the Democrats were the guilty party. By the time the truth had come out, some months after the initial allegation, Whitman's administration had been seriously hampered by the charges and the resultant official investigation and bad publicity.
So I don't know, Rollins might just be a stupid man who hasn't caught on to the fact that the political strategies of the seventies and eighties, and even the nineties, no longer works in the modern internet age where people have far greater access to fact-checking resources and where past history and records are an open book, accessible in fact at the click of a mouse.
Or maybe his presence is more nefarious. Maybe he is actually trying to sew discord among the conservative factions of the GOP with the goal of derailing not only Palin, but ultimately Bachmann as well. In the meantime, if Palin stays out of the race, Bachmann can drain more votes from the rising star that is Herman Cain, and maybe also knock out Pawlenty in Iowa. Seen in that context, hiring someone like Rollins makes sense if Bachmann is culpable in such an attempt.
Otherwise hiring Rollins was really a stupid mistake on Bachmann's part, one she needs to rectify immediately. I never thought it was a good idea for her to run a national campaign this early in her congressional career. I am sure she would be a good president-though I sincerely doubt she would be a great one-but there's the matter of getting there. I just don't think she's ready for the rigors of an electoral campaign for national office, especially for the highest office in the land. It stands to reason it would be tempting for her to jump at the chance to have somebody with the reputation of an Ed Rollins.
Unfortunately, she seems to have focused solely on his selling points and elected to ignore the more inflammatory aspects of this man's history. In doing so, she might have done a lot of damage to her credibility with the very base of support she's trying to cement.
I wondered where I had heard of Rollins before, and then it occurred to me. I had a lot to say about him here, where he came across as more of an Obama supporter who was actually worried about Obama looking bad. Of course, come to find out, originally Rollins was a Democrat, so it makes sense that he would fit in with the establishment, RINO wing of the GOP.
But his salvo at Palin was beyond the pale, and potentially an embarrassment for Bachmann in yet another way-no longer ago than this last January Rollins said the exact same things about Bachmann.
Professor Jacobson, he of Legal Insurrection, seems to think that hiring Rollins was a rookie mistake on Michelle's part, though it definitely calls into question her decision making abilities. Many have wondered openly whether Michelle might actually be a stalking horse, for some other candidate, in an attempt to drain Tea Party votes from Palin in the event Sarah decides to run.
It makes sense to me. Bachmann tried to get an appointment to a committee chair following the 2010 mid-term elections but was turned down. Maybe this is a way of proving, to somebody like for example Speaker of the House John Boehner, or maybe even House Whip Eric Cantor, that she is capable of being a team player. Believe me, there is nothing the Party leadership would like better than to derail any hopes of a Palin campaign. But would Bachmann go that far? Doesn't she believe in the same things as Palin, more or less? Aren't they both Tea Party favorites?
I don't know, and I'm not making any accusations, just asking questions. But the hiring of Rollins should have set off alarm bells before he ever opened his mouth. The man has a checkered history at best. Legal Insurrection commenter Trochilus contributed some links to an old story that tells a sorry tale indeed.
Rollins was at the center of a big controversy in New Jersey during the election of Republican Christine Todd Whitman as Governor. He alleged that Whitman's funds went to suppress the black vote. He later admitted he made the whole thing up. It later turned out there was indeed an attempt to suppress the vote, but the Democrats were the guilty party. By the time the truth had come out, some months after the initial allegation, Whitman's administration had been seriously hampered by the charges and the resultant official investigation and bad publicity.
So I don't know, Rollins might just be a stupid man who hasn't caught on to the fact that the political strategies of the seventies and eighties, and even the nineties, no longer works in the modern internet age where people have far greater access to fact-checking resources and where past history and records are an open book, accessible in fact at the click of a mouse.
Or maybe his presence is more nefarious. Maybe he is actually trying to sew discord among the conservative factions of the GOP with the goal of derailing not only Palin, but ultimately Bachmann as well. In the meantime, if Palin stays out of the race, Bachmann can drain more votes from the rising star that is Herman Cain, and maybe also knock out Pawlenty in Iowa. Seen in that context, hiring someone like Rollins makes sense if Bachmann is culpable in such an attempt.
Otherwise hiring Rollins was really a stupid mistake on Bachmann's part, one she needs to rectify immediately. I never thought it was a good idea for her to run a national campaign this early in her congressional career. I am sure she would be a good president-though I sincerely doubt she would be a great one-but there's the matter of getting there. I just don't think she's ready for the rigors of an electoral campaign for national office, especially for the highest office in the land. It stands to reason it would be tempting for her to jump at the chance to have somebody with the reputation of an Ed Rollins.
Unfortunately, she seems to have focused solely on his selling points and elected to ignore the more inflammatory aspects of this man's history. In doing so, she might have done a lot of damage to her credibility with the very base of support she's trying to cement.
Romney Must Be The Republican Nominee-Because Gallup Says So
HIP HIP HOORAY for The Romneylan. He comes in as the number one pick to win the Republican nomination for US President in 1968, ahead of Richard Nixon. Romney is favored by 45% of the general public, ahead of Nixon who garners 41% according to a poll conducted by the Gallup organization on March 1st, 1967.
Well by golly I guess that just settles that, huh?
Well by golly I guess that just settles that, huh?
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
The Triumph Of Civic Virtue
The below neoclassical statue by Frederick MacMonnies has been standing outside Borough Hall in Queens New York since 1942. Guess who recently started an initiative to have it taken down and sold on Ebay, saying it was sexist and out of touch with the current time and culture?
You might not be shocked to learn it was none other than New York Democrat Congressman Anthony "Dic-Pic" Wiener.
The semi-nude, muscular male figure is a symbolic representation of "Civic Virtue". The two women, lying prone at his feet, are supposed to represent the twin sirens of Vice and Corruption. This strong, masculine male figure has conquered these two shameless hussies. So of course, it was offensive to feminists, and therefore by proxy, to the Weiner. Look at the artwork in totality, and you be the judge.
I can understand how some would be put off by this. After all, in our modern age Civic Virtue would be represented by a multiracial person with a limp wrist and a vaguely non-sexual appearance, while the twin sirens would probably be distinctly white males in rich attire, carrying guns and Bibles.
That is to say, that might be the officially sanctioned artistic view, but in reality, Civic Virtue is on life support, hanging by a thread. He's been showing remarkable improvements over the last few years, but he has a ways to go and his improvement thus far is tentative.
As for Vice and Corruption, they were last seen skulking and slithering around the corridors and alleyways of Washington, still going strong-down for sure, but by no means out.
After all, for every man or woman who strives to live up to the ideals of Civic Virtue, there will always be an Anthony Weiner drawing on the hypocrisy and the promise of Vice and Corruption while hiding in plain sight.
H/T The Other McCain
You might not be shocked to learn it was none other than New York Democrat Congressman Anthony "Dic-Pic" Wiener.
The semi-nude, muscular male figure is a symbolic representation of "Civic Virtue". The two women, lying prone at his feet, are supposed to represent the twin sirens of Vice and Corruption. This strong, masculine male figure has conquered these two shameless hussies. So of course, it was offensive to feminists, and therefore by proxy, to the Weiner. Look at the artwork in totality, and you be the judge.
I can understand how some would be put off by this. After all, in our modern age Civic Virtue would be represented by a multiracial person with a limp wrist and a vaguely non-sexual appearance, while the twin sirens would probably be distinctly white males in rich attire, carrying guns and Bibles.
That is to say, that might be the officially sanctioned artistic view, but in reality, Civic Virtue is on life support, hanging by a thread. He's been showing remarkable improvements over the last few years, but he has a ways to go and his improvement thus far is tentative.
As for Vice and Corruption, they were last seen skulking and slithering around the corridors and alleyways of Washington, still going strong-down for sure, but by no means out.
After all, for every man or woman who strives to live up to the ideals of Civic Virtue, there will always be an Anthony Weiner drawing on the hypocrisy and the promise of Vice and Corruption while hiding in plain sight.
H/T The Other McCain
Monday, June 06, 2011
How Many Weiner Pics Did The Weiner Prick Send If The Weiner Prick Did Send Weiner Pics
Surprise, surprise, surprise! It is starting to look more and more likely that New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner has sent quite a few intimate photos of himself, and not just to Gennette Nicole Cordova. It seems that he might have sent them out to other young ladies and, as fate would have itsome of them are coming forward.
We already know he's in tight on Twitter with a porn star named Ginger Lee. But that's just the beginning. He has also been a follower of a high school girl from Delaware who goes by @maggiehenning. It also bears mentioning however that in addition to being followed by @RepWeiner, Maggie Henning is also followed by none other than New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer. Odd, to say the least. But is it proof of anything shady?
No it is not, and in fairness I should relate that I have seen it explained by another of Weiner's mutual followers that if you want Weiner to follow you on Twitter, you just need to send him a tweet with the hashtag #WeinerYes.
By the same token, where there's smoke there very often is, in cases like this, a conflagration, and I find it very, very doubtful that the Weiner Dic-Pic with which we are so familiar is his first and only foray into the shady world of internet cyber-sex and porn, if you want to dignify Weiner's little Weiner pic with such an appellation. But let's face it-you wouldn't really call it "soft-porn". Then again, you wouldn't exactly call it "hard-porn" either-
But the question remains, how many of these things, or other similar kinds of things, has Weiner sent out there, and who did he send them to? And what can be, and should be, done about it, particularly if it turns out he has sent inappropriate communications to underage girls? Or for that matter, to anyone?
What is the true extent-and depth-of his connection to porn star Ginger Lee, who it turns out is suffering from the disease Lupus, which she talks about quite openly on her web-site.
Was this the reason for her initial interest in the Congressman? I ask this because it goes to Weiner's potential MO. If Ginger Lee reached out to Weiner for aid and assistance, urging him for example to support and champion research into a cure for Lupus, did this turn into a cyber friendship, and if so, from where then did it lead? Is this an example of a man elected to national office using his power and authority to manipulate and take advantage of a woman who might be vulnerable?
And if he would do that to a porn star-who, say what you will, would know how to attract attention and publicity-is it really that much of a stretch to think he might do it to somebody he might think is just one of those little people who don't really matter, who no one would believe?
Previously-
The Dic-Pic Seen Round The World
Jon Stewart Mad At The Weiner
We already know he's in tight on Twitter with a porn star named Ginger Lee. But that's just the beginning. He has also been a follower of a high school girl from Delaware who goes by @maggiehenning. It also bears mentioning however that in addition to being followed by @RepWeiner, Maggie Henning is also followed by none other than New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer. Odd, to say the least. But is it proof of anything shady?
No it is not, and in fairness I should relate that I have seen it explained by another of Weiner's mutual followers that if you want Weiner to follow you on Twitter, you just need to send him a tweet with the hashtag #WeinerYes.
By the same token, where there's smoke there very often is, in cases like this, a conflagration, and I find it very, very doubtful that the Weiner Dic-Pic with which we are so familiar is his first and only foray into the shady world of internet cyber-sex and porn, if you want to dignify Weiner's little Weiner pic with such an appellation. But let's face it-you wouldn't really call it "soft-porn". Then again, you wouldn't exactly call it "hard-porn" either-
But the question remains, how many of these things, or other similar kinds of things, has Weiner sent out there, and who did he send them to? And what can be, and should be, done about it, particularly if it turns out he has sent inappropriate communications to underage girls? Or for that matter, to anyone?
What is the true extent-and depth-of his connection to porn star Ginger Lee, who it turns out is suffering from the disease Lupus, which she talks about quite openly on her web-site.
Was this the reason for her initial interest in the Congressman? I ask this because it goes to Weiner's potential MO. If Ginger Lee reached out to Weiner for aid and assistance, urging him for example to support and champion research into a cure for Lupus, did this turn into a cyber friendship, and if so, from where then did it lead? Is this an example of a man elected to national office using his power and authority to manipulate and take advantage of a woman who might be vulnerable?
And if he would do that to a porn star-who, say what you will, would know how to attract attention and publicity-is it really that much of a stretch to think he might do it to somebody he might think is just one of those little people who don't really matter, who no one would believe?
Previously-
The Dic-Pic Seen Round The World
Jon Stewart Mad At The Weiner
Jon Stewart Mad At The Weiner
By now you would have to have been spending the last ten days on some deserted island or some similarly secluded spot to not know the story about New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner and The Dic-Pic Seen Round The World.
Comedy Central's Jon Stewart certainly knows about it, and evidently he doesn't think its a laughing matter. How mad is he? He is so mad he has told him flat out "if you did this you gotta go".
No big deal there. People might interpret this as some kind of indication of Stewart's sense of morality and ethics, but I wouldn't go that far. Of course Jon Stewart is mad at the Weiner. Why wouldn't he be? The question is why is he really mad at him.
I say Stewart's just mad because Wiener makes all liberal dicks look like the little pricks they all really are.
Comedy Central's Jon Stewart certainly knows about it, and evidently he doesn't think its a laughing matter. How mad is he? He is so mad he has told him flat out "if you did this you gotta go".
No big deal there. People might interpret this as some kind of indication of Stewart's sense of morality and ethics, but I wouldn't go that far. Of course Jon Stewart is mad at the Weiner. Why wouldn't he be? The question is why is he really mad at him.
I say Stewart's just mad because Wiener makes all liberal dicks look like the little pricks they all really are.
Sunday, June 05, 2011
Obama Loses Key Ally In War On Terror
Now that Al-Queda is rampaging through Yemen, I guess we'll get to see now just what are the real implications of the "Arab Spring".
The country's president, Saleh, was wounded seriously in an attack on the presidential palace and had to be flown out of the country for medical treatment. Although he did not officially abdicate his position, leaving the country in the hands of Vice President Hadi, many observers doubt that the president will ever return.
Now we have a situation where Yemen is swiftly spiraling out of control and on the verge of becoming a failed state and terrorist haven. In the meantime, across the Red Sea, we have Somalia, also a failed state and a terrorist haven, and which is infested with pirates which regularly threaten international shipping.
Time to bring out the nukes.
Oh wait, that's right, Obama's president.
Time to wring our hands.
The country's president, Saleh, was wounded seriously in an attack on the presidential palace and had to be flown out of the country for medical treatment. Although he did not officially abdicate his position, leaving the country in the hands of Vice President Hadi, many observers doubt that the president will ever return.
Now we have a situation where Yemen is swiftly spiraling out of control and on the verge of becoming a failed state and terrorist haven. In the meantime, across the Red Sea, we have Somalia, also a failed state and a terrorist haven, and which is infested with pirates which regularly threaten international shipping.
Time to bring out the nukes.
Oh wait, that's right, Obama's president.
Time to wring our hands.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
How Could Anyone Possibly Think Progressives Are Antisemitic?
Progressives in San Francisco only want what is best for young infant boys, and to that end have initiated a ballot measure which would ban the ancient Jewish practice of circumcision. In order to build support for the measure, someone has produced a comic book starring the blond, blue-eyed, unabashedly Aryan looking super-hero known as "Foreskin Man".
As for the villain of the comic book, take a look and see if he might seem somewhat familiar.
This is blood libel of a most profoundly incredible nature. Amazingly, I have no doubt that many of the people involved in this political initiative, as well as the comic book, are probably secular Jews, in this case of a particularly self-loathing variety. I just can't conceive of any group having the temerity to produce something like this for mass consumption-in pursuit of political aims, at that-without their input.
For what its worth, the foreskin has outlasted its usefulness from the days before mankind started wearing clothing, when it probably served a protective function. The only reason evolution has not eradicated it is probably because it still serves a protective function of some kind in the womb.
Otherwise, not only is it useless, it is actually detrimental. Like wall to wall carpet, which at least serves some useful purpose, it serves now only as a repository and incubator of germs, bacteria, and viruses. It is not unheard of for a foreskin to contribute to penile cancer, necessitating the removal of more than merely the foreskin. It can also increase the contraction and frequency of other diseases.
If anything, there should be a law requiring circumcision, not banning it. Of course, the main reason given for banning the procedure is the lack of input of the child, who has no say in the removal of something which, because it contains nerve-endings like any other part of the body, can contribute to the enhancement of sexual pleasure. Like everything else the left pushes, they use such bullshit scare tactics while insisting the procedure should be put off until the child has a say.
Yeah, let's imagine a potential father-son talk-
Dad-Son, your mother and I would like to have the foreskin of your penis cut off.
Son-Huh? Why?
Dad-Well, its what God wants. Plus there's good health reasons to have it done.
Son-Will it hurt?
Dad-Well, yes, for a few days it will be awful sore. But it won't last more than a few days.
Remember this is an eight or nine year old boy we're talking about here. And in the case he does give his consent, you can bet your bottom dollar the very same leftists who are saying now to "wait until the child has a say" is going to be raising the roof about parents "coercing" their sons to do something they don't really want to do.
There probably aren't many Muslims living in San Francisco. If there were this ballot initiative would have never seen the light of day. And if a sizable number of them moved there today, the cowardly leftist pukes would be falling all over themselves to have this insane initiative taken off the ballot on the grounds of religious insensitivity.
H/T AceofSpadesHQ
As for the villain of the comic book, take a look and see if he might seem somewhat familiar.
This is blood libel of a most profoundly incredible nature. Amazingly, I have no doubt that many of the people involved in this political initiative, as well as the comic book, are probably secular Jews, in this case of a particularly self-loathing variety. I just can't conceive of any group having the temerity to produce something like this for mass consumption-in pursuit of political aims, at that-without their input.
For what its worth, the foreskin has outlasted its usefulness from the days before mankind started wearing clothing, when it probably served a protective function. The only reason evolution has not eradicated it is probably because it still serves a protective function of some kind in the womb.
Otherwise, not only is it useless, it is actually detrimental. Like wall to wall carpet, which at least serves some useful purpose, it serves now only as a repository and incubator of germs, bacteria, and viruses. It is not unheard of for a foreskin to contribute to penile cancer, necessitating the removal of more than merely the foreskin. It can also increase the contraction and frequency of other diseases.
If anything, there should be a law requiring circumcision, not banning it. Of course, the main reason given for banning the procedure is the lack of input of the child, who has no say in the removal of something which, because it contains nerve-endings like any other part of the body, can contribute to the enhancement of sexual pleasure. Like everything else the left pushes, they use such bullshit scare tactics while insisting the procedure should be put off until the child has a say.
Yeah, let's imagine a potential father-son talk-
Dad-Son, your mother and I would like to have the foreskin of your penis cut off.
Son-Huh? Why?
Dad-Well, its what God wants. Plus there's good health reasons to have it done.
Son-Will it hurt?
Dad-Well, yes, for a few days it will be awful sore. But it won't last more than a few days.
Remember this is an eight or nine year old boy we're talking about here. And in the case he does give his consent, you can bet your bottom dollar the very same leftists who are saying now to "wait until the child has a say" is going to be raising the roof about parents "coercing" their sons to do something they don't really want to do.
There probably aren't many Muslims living in San Francisco. If there were this ballot initiative would have never seen the light of day. And if a sizable number of them moved there today, the cowardly leftist pukes would be falling all over themselves to have this insane initiative taken off the ballot on the grounds of religious insensitivity.
H/T AceofSpadesHQ
Christine O'Donnell Cleared Of Ethics Charges
She was accused of violating election laws that restrict coordination between candidates and outside political organizations, the group in this particular case being the Tea Party Express. She was cleared by the Federal Elections Commission, which decided that the suit brought against O'Donnell was frivolous.
But the damage has already been done. O'Donnell was targeted from the beginning of her campaign for the US Senate from Delaware by those who went out of her way to make sure she would not, could not be elected. Since that time they have gone out of their way to make sure there is not a repeat performance.
Shame on those Democrats, you say? Well actually, in this case, the true culprits were not the Democrats but the Delaware State GOP. They were the ones who opposed her in the 2010 GOP primary, which she went on to win against Mike Castle. They were the ones who refused to support her in the general election against the ultimately victorious Democrat candidate. And, finally, they are the ones who brought this suit.
Like I keep saying, the Republican Party establishment is the worst enemy of Republican voters, and the best friend the Democratic Party could ever hope to have. They don't care so much about beating Democrats as they care about holding on to their piece of the pie, their own specially carved out territories. And candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley, and Jim DeMint, to name just a few, are the true natural enemies of the Republican Party establishment.
If Barak Obama goes on to win his bid for re-election in 2012-not at all impossible-you will have them to thank for it.
Facebook Trashing Conservative Groups
That's what many conservative Facebook group administrators are afraid is going to happen once Facebook implements its new upgrade, which will archive all old groups but eliminate the lists of members. This would cause the administrators to start rebuilding their groups from scratch, even in those cases where some groups might have tens of thousands of members. In order to prevent this from happening, Facebook groups will have to ask for a new, special software key which will enable users to upgrade their page.
It may sound akin to a wild-eyed conspiracy theory, but it has been pointed out that of all political donations that went to political campaigns from Facebook employees, 98% went to Democrats. And it is well-known that Mark Zuckerberg himself is a supporter of Barak Obama, with whom he recently appeared at a forum discussing the economy. Zuckerburg was noted here for his support of the President's economic policies, including Obama's express desire to raise taxes on "the rich".
When you add all of these factors together, Facebook Groups administrators have a right to be concerned that their groups might be purposely targeted for-well, let's just call it what it is-elimination.
This is especially true when you consider that some liberal groups have seemed to experience no undue difficulties with the upgrade-
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence got the upgrade for its 1,000-member group. “We changed over very smoothly,” said David Churchill, the network-manager at the D.C.-based gun-control group. “We just basically clicked the upgrade button, checked it over, and we have a tremendous increase in participation,” he said.
This could be a way to simply eliminate groups that don't meet Facebook standards by targeting specific instances of what the company decides is "intolerance", or "hate speech".
You know, like for example making such racist statements as "I oppose Barak Obama because of his liberal, progressive policies."
It may sound akin to a wild-eyed conspiracy theory, but it has been pointed out that of all political donations that went to political campaigns from Facebook employees, 98% went to Democrats. And it is well-known that Mark Zuckerberg himself is a supporter of Barak Obama, with whom he recently appeared at a forum discussing the economy. Zuckerburg was noted here for his support of the President's economic policies, including Obama's express desire to raise taxes on "the rich".
When you add all of these factors together, Facebook Groups administrators have a right to be concerned that their groups might be purposely targeted for-well, let's just call it what it is-elimination.
This is especially true when you consider that some liberal groups have seemed to experience no undue difficulties with the upgrade-
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence got the upgrade for its 1,000-member group. “We changed over very smoothly,” said David Churchill, the network-manager at the D.C.-based gun-control group. “We just basically clicked the upgrade button, checked it over, and we have a tremendous increase in participation,” he said.
This could be a way to simply eliminate groups that don't meet Facebook standards by targeting specific instances of what the company decides is "intolerance", or "hate speech".
You know, like for example making such racist statements as "I oppose Barak Obama because of his liberal, progressive policies."
Joe Biden Not Worth Killing According To Bin Laden
For once me and the late Al-Queda chief are in total agreement. Some people are saying this was because in Bin Laden's opinion at the time he wrote this in his diary, the office of the Vice President was just not important enough to worry about. Therefore, his advice to Al-Queda operatives was that they should leave Joe Biden alone and concentrate on killing Obama, or other high ranking officials such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Maybe, but I for one have an idea he didn't have such a cavalier opinion about killing Dick Cheney. Let's face it, our Vice President is a clown, and everybody knows it.
The only thing I can't figure out is why he would want to kill Obama, who is over time going to do more to destroy the US than Bin Laden could ever hope to accomplish in his wildest dreams.
H/T LibertasLogos
Fair Warning To The GOP-I Will Not Vote For The Romneylan
To the Republican Party-
Many of you among the party elite are promoting Mitt Romney for President. I see it all the time, people like Charles Krauthammer on Fox News being just the first and most obvious example I can think of off the top of my head.
Why are you doing this? Not only will this clown lose, he will drag the down ticket Republican races down with him.
First he defends his foray into socialized medicine, which as Governor of Massachusetts he implemented via RomneyCare, on the grounds of federalism, swearing he would never support that on a national level. But he just didn't defend government controlled medical care at the state level, he went that extra mile and defended the mandate policy wherein everyone is forced to purchase health insurance. That, or face fines and possibly even a jail sentence. Well, I'm sorry but there's not enough free riders in the universe to justify that on constitutional grounds.
But even that is almost negligible in comparison to his recent statement in support of a government policy to control what he insists is man's contribution to global warming.
This guy just wants to lower taxes. Fine, but what good is that if he is going to maintain the current regulatory regimes that are the real villains choking the life out of the American economy? In fact, in this case he might even make things worse than they already are.
But let's face it, the Republican Party establishment wants somebody that isn't going to rock the boat too much. They want a conservative, but they want a big government conservative, who will lower everybody's taxes but at the same time maintain the status quo that allows the big corporations to maintain their hold on the economy. After all, its regulations, more even than taxes, that kills competition in the market. They are crony capitalists who only pay lip service to the concept of free markets when it helps them advance their cause.
And I for one am not going for it.
But give the Romneylan credit for one thing-if he runs like a RINO in the GOP primaries, you know he's not going to turn around and govern any differently if he were to win.
Many of you among the party elite are promoting Mitt Romney for President. I see it all the time, people like Charles Krauthammer on Fox News being just the first and most obvious example I can think of off the top of my head.
Why are you doing this? Not only will this clown lose, he will drag the down ticket Republican races down with him.
First he defends his foray into socialized medicine, which as Governor of Massachusetts he implemented via RomneyCare, on the grounds of federalism, swearing he would never support that on a national level. But he just didn't defend government controlled medical care at the state level, he went that extra mile and defended the mandate policy wherein everyone is forced to purchase health insurance. That, or face fines and possibly even a jail sentence. Well, I'm sorry but there's not enough free riders in the universe to justify that on constitutional grounds.
But even that is almost negligible in comparison to his recent statement in support of a government policy to control what he insists is man's contribution to global warming.
This guy just wants to lower taxes. Fine, but what good is that if he is going to maintain the current regulatory regimes that are the real villains choking the life out of the American economy? In fact, in this case he might even make things worse than they already are.
But let's face it, the Republican Party establishment wants somebody that isn't going to rock the boat too much. They want a conservative, but they want a big government conservative, who will lower everybody's taxes but at the same time maintain the status quo that allows the big corporations to maintain their hold on the economy. After all, its regulations, more even than taxes, that kills competition in the market. They are crony capitalists who only pay lip service to the concept of free markets when it helps them advance their cause.
And I for one am not going for it.
But give the Romneylan credit for one thing-if he runs like a RINO in the GOP primaries, you know he's not going to turn around and govern any differently if he were to win.
Friday, June 03, 2011
RIP Kevorkian
A lot of people didn't like Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and I can certainly understand that. He isn't exactly the first person who would be on my party list. The very mention of his name, after all, invokes the aura of death, almost as though he were the Grim Reaper incarnate.
But a lot of objections to him were political as well as religious. He felt he had a mission in life, to ease the transition to death in the case of those who simply no longer wanted to live. Although he concentrated his practice on those who were suffering through debilitating illnesses, he himself felt neither the federal government nor states should intervene whenever anyone wanted to end their lives, whether or not they suffered from an illness from which they stood no realistic chance of finding a cure or any kind of substantial relief from the agony it caused. To him, the state just did not have the right to make that call. In the case of states that allowed euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, he generally complained their laws were too restrictive.
When he was finally prosecuted successfully by the state of Michigan, he had performed in close to one hundred assisted suicides by his own admission.
The state was right to prosecute him. The law is the law. Nor do I necessarily think euthanasia is a good practice or that it should be sanctioned by the state or codified into law. I don't, in fact, because it could be, and doubtless would be abused.
Still, I'm in awe of the man, and always was. He never backed down, right or wrong, even when it would have been to his advantage. He protested against what he considered an unjust law by breaking it. It was his own private foray into civil disobedience.
No matter what one might think of the man and his actions, he did help people die in peace and relative comfort. He saved them years of agony. Many people who live on for years in states of severe illness and incapacitation have nothing but misery to look forward to and their families have years of exorbitant medical expenses that can drain their finances and ruin the futures of their children and grandchildren.
He helped many people avoid these sufferings. He helped them to rest in peace. May he do likewise.
Zombie Jesus
He rose from the dead. He wants you to eat his flesh and drink his blood. And all he wants in return is for you to turn your life over to him completely. He wants your heart. He wants you mind. He wants your soul. He wants your-
BRAAAAAAIIIINSSSS
BRAAAAAAIIIINSSSS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)