What else would you call a guy who plays politics with a 16 year old kid and denies him a prize based not on his talent, but where he lives? And on national television?
Via Saberpoint, who reports on Friday night's Tonight Show w/Jay Leno:
Leno asked various members of the audience to perform their own special tricks, i.e. whistling like a bird, clapping hands very fast, etc. These performers were then judged by three men from the Tonight Show staff. One of the judges was Kevin Eubanks, guitar player for the Tonight Show band.
Each judge could award a meal (i.e. a ticket for a free meal at a local restaurant) if they approved of the performance, or withhold a meal if they did not approve.
One 16 year old kid from Arizona was a soccer player. His trick was to balance a soccer ball on the back of his neck while removing his jersey, without dislodging the soccer ball. Two of the judges awarded the kid a meal based on his performance. Not Kevin Eubanks. He asked the kid, "Did you say you were from Arizona?" The kid replied, "Yes."
Eubanks then told the kid he awarded "no meal" and began speaking to the kid in Spanish...
What a dick. Punishing a kid because you don't agree with the politics of his hometown. You're a big man, Eubanks. A real big man...bet you bragged about that little stunt to all of your friends on the Upper West Side over dinner that night. Way to strike a blow for the liberal cause, by humiliating an innocent teenager on national TV.
But you know who Eubanks reminds me of here? Those judges in the European talent shows who will never award a top prize an Israeli contestant/team in a televised talent show, no matter how superior they might be to the competition, as a way to demonstrate their contempt for Israel, the Jews, or both.
You're in fine company, Kevin Eubanks. You ought to sit down with the European judges mentioned above, I'll bet you'll find you have a lot in common with them. More so than with your fellow Americans...
วันเสาร์, พฤษภาคม 15, 2553
Obama's "mortgage modification" scam: Killing more homeowners than it saves?
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
-Ronald Reagan
To my fellow Americans: Ponder these words carefully before you take dime one from any government-assisted, government-backed program. Because sometimes, it's really not about helping you, it's about you helping the government create the perception that they're helping you. Then, of course, it doesn't matter if you drown from being pushed into the deep end of a government program, after all, once you've made the president look good, even as part of a statistic, your have served your purpose and outlived your usefulness.
Classic example:
Some Homeowners Worse After Getting Rushed Into Gov't Loan Mod Program
Despite fulfilling every obligation under trial government-sponsored loan modification programs, some homeowners can end up far worse off than if they had never joined up at all, Propublica reports. That's because if they're denied a permanent modification, they have to pay the entire amount that was being discounted, often within a very short period of time. This pushes already strapped families past the breaking point.
So what were they doing in the program in the first place? Here's a clue:
...the Treasury Department encouraged banks to start trials quickly, causing banks to make trial offers to people without fully vetting their eligibility, and ultimately letting in many homeowners who were destined to fail.
Aha! The banks, most of which were owned lock, stock, and barrel by the government, were pressured into making these "mortgage modifications" by Treasury. Need to guess why? Maybe a certain president was in a rush to see his policies set into motion, and, with no understanding of how capitalism works, demanded that banks bring people into a program that was destined to fail them.
More:
Trial modifications are supposed to become permanent after three months of successful payments. But even though she held up her end of the deal, she found herself booted from the program, joining a swelling number of homeowners who are finding themselves in a situation that’s worse than if they had never entered the program to begin with.
And it’s just the latest example in a litany of problems that have beset the government’s efforts to save millions of struggling homeowners from losing their homes...
Oh well. As far as liberals are concerned, it is their intentions that mattered, not the results, so if their half-assed plan actually killed more homeowners than it saved, well, the only thing for certain is that it's not their fault. After all, they meant well - what else matters?
Coming up next: Government-managed health care - how many millions of Americans will be killed by the Barack Obama's and the Democratic party's "good intentions"?
-Ronald Reagan
To my fellow Americans: Ponder these words carefully before you take dime one from any government-assisted, government-backed program. Because sometimes, it's really not about helping you, it's about you helping the government create the perception that they're helping you. Then, of course, it doesn't matter if you drown from being pushed into the deep end of a government program, after all, once you've made the president look good, even as part of a statistic, your have served your purpose and outlived your usefulness.
Classic example:
Some Homeowners Worse After Getting Rushed Into Gov't Loan Mod Program
Despite fulfilling every obligation under trial government-sponsored loan modification programs, some homeowners can end up far worse off than if they had never joined up at all, Propublica reports. That's because if they're denied a permanent modification, they have to pay the entire amount that was being discounted, often within a very short period of time. This pushes already strapped families past the breaking point.
So what were they doing in the program in the first place? Here's a clue:
...the Treasury Department encouraged banks to start trials quickly, causing banks to make trial offers to people without fully vetting their eligibility, and ultimately letting in many homeowners who were destined to fail.
Aha! The banks, most of which were owned lock, stock, and barrel by the government, were pressured into making these "mortgage modifications" by Treasury. Need to guess why? Maybe a certain president was in a rush to see his policies set into motion, and, with no understanding of how capitalism works, demanded that banks bring people into a program that was destined to fail them.
More:
Trial modifications are supposed to become permanent after three months of successful payments. But even though she held up her end of the deal, she found herself booted from the program, joining a swelling number of homeowners who are finding themselves in a situation that’s worse than if they had never entered the program to begin with.
And it’s just the latest example in a litany of problems that have beset the government’s efforts to save millions of struggling homeowners from losing their homes...
Oh well. As far as liberals are concerned, it is their intentions that mattered, not the results, so if their half-assed plan actually killed more homeowners than it saved, well, the only thing for certain is that it's not their fault. After all, they meant well - what else matters?
Coming up next: Government-managed health care - how many millions of Americans will be killed by the Barack Obama's and the Democratic party's "good intentions"?
And remind me - what is the road to Hell paved with again?
วันศุกร์, พฤษภาคม 14, 2553
Chris Christie: Don't F*ck With The Big Man!
Trust me, if Chris Christie was at the end of his first term, or in his second, he would be the odds-on favorite to be the next President of the United States. After two years of smoothing, calming, hope-and-change rhetoric that turned out to be a smokescreen for the plundering and raping of the American treasury, this nation yearns, more than anything else, for a straight shooter.
And boy oh boy, does the fat man fit that bill! Watch here as Chris Christie rips a reporter a new *sshole for calling him "confrontational", then clearly lays out who he is and what he's gonna do, with an in-your-face Jersey style that the residents respect and the nation (thanks, Pauli D!) has grown to love:
Jersey represents, folks...
And obviously related:
Elsewhere today, thanks to Christie’s support, the Jersey state senate pushed through a school voucher bill over the objections of the teachers union. Quote: “Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak, D-Union, the committee chairman, then ordered the hearing held on the Annex steps in front of hundreds of cheering private-school students who had been bused in to rally for the measure.”
And boy oh boy, does the fat man fit that bill! Watch here as Chris Christie rips a reporter a new *sshole for calling him "confrontational", then clearly lays out who he is and what he's gonna do, with an in-your-face Jersey style that the residents respect and the nation (thanks, Pauli D!) has grown to love:
Jersey represents, folks...
And obviously related:
Elsewhere today, thanks to Christie’s support, the Jersey state senate pushed through a school voucher bill over the objections of the teachers union. Quote: “Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak, D-Union, the committee chairman, then ordered the hearing held on the Annex steps in front of hundreds of cheering private-school students who had been bused in to rally for the measure.”
วันพฤหัสบดี, พฤษภาคม 13, 2553
From Red Jersey to Red...Massachusetts??
And why not? If the state formally know as Blue Jersey can elect a fat Republican and swarm the voting booths upon his command to defeat bloated school budgets, why can't their regional neighbors see the light as well?
It's not just that this state of brave patriots tried to end the legislative abortion known as health care reform, it has followed up by replacing Scott Brown in the State Senate with yet another Republican. Bill Kristol reports:
Don't know whether you saw the news that Scott Brown's state senate seat was won handily by a Republican in a special election. That is bigger news than it might seem, and has many smart Democrats very worried about November.
You see, Scott's seat was by no means a safe Republican seat (there is no such thing in Massachusetts). It's true he was elected 3 times, but his long-term predecessor was a generically liberal Democrat. In sum, this suburban/exurban district is by no means part of the Bible Belt. And Richard Ross, the Republican, won with 62% of the vote.
But the fact is that there really is a Democratic machine in this state (and only a nominal Republican organization), so a "normal" special election should tilt toward the Democrats. With a weak incumbent Governor (whose best chance for survival is that his two opponents running against him from the right will split the vote), it's possible that 2010 could see a sea change in Massachusetts politics.
The Northeastern corridor walks itself to the edge of the plank with liberal governance holding a scimitar to the nape of their neck, but seeing California jump first, has whirled on its tormentors and has begun to fight back. New Jersey leads the way, with Massachusetts carrying the colors...who will fall in line next?
And in a once-shining, now-defiled city far away, secure in his seat of power and surrounded by self-serving sycophants, The One hears and sees nothing save for reflected tales of his own glory...
Part of me thinks Sideshow Bob had it right:
Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king...
Well, except for the "king" part. Someone tell Obama.
But if America has learned to discard their guilty consciences and vote with their heads, what in the world would attract any voter to the Democratic party?
They're in deeper dogsh*t than they even know....
Muslims To Plant Victory Flag At Ground Zero
We the people fight for our land, giving our blood and our children for our freedom and liberty; our political class surrenders without a fight and offers us as slaves to our enemies. For those responsible for what is about to happen at Ground Zero, the charge of treason is apt, and the penalties should be carried out in full.
For on the scene of the greatest Islamist terror attack on the free world, city officials in New York are allowing the Muslim Nation to purchase our sacred ground and forever dance on the graves of those they killed to obtain it:
Plans are under way for a Muslim house of worship, topped by a 13-story cultural center with a swimming pool, in a building damaged by the fuselage of a jet flown by extremists into the World Trade Center.
The opening date shall live in infamy: Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary of the day a hole was punched in the city's heart.
Plans to bring what one critic calls a "monster mosque" to the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory building, at a cost expected to top $100 million, moved along for months without a peep. All of a sudden, even members of the community board that stupidly green-lighted the mosque this month are tearing their hair out.
Called Cordoba House, the mosque and center is the brainchild of the American Society for Muslim Advancement. Executive director Daisy Khan insists it's staying put.
"For us, it's a symbol, a platform that will give voice to the silent majority of Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremists. A center will show that Muslims will be part of rebuilding lower Manhattan," said Khan, adding that Cordoba will be open to everyone.
Well, Daisy Khan certainly knows how to talk to liberal New Yorkers in the language they like to hear, that's for sure. A symbol of Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremists? The Left swoons. But with a symbolic opening date of September 11th, 2011, it seems as if little Daisy's opening of a huge mosque is more a celebration of those extremists than a repudiation of them.
Daisy victory dance is a bit premature, as there are other boards that need to approve this project (for the first time, NYC's multiple layers of bureaucracy will come in handy). But what better symbol of the Muslim's continued desire to conquer America than the effort to build a house of worship dedicated to the prophet used as an inspiration to wage a war against her people?
Let's see how the other "boards" involved act on this building permit. Perhaps one should erect a mock gallows outside the appropriate government building, just to remind our appeasing officials what happens to those who commit the treason of handing a nation over to its enemies...
For on the scene of the greatest Islamist terror attack on the free world, city officials in New York are allowing the Muslim Nation to purchase our sacred ground and forever dance on the graves of those they killed to obtain it:
Plans are under way for a Muslim house of worship, topped by a 13-story cultural center with a swimming pool, in a building damaged by the fuselage of a jet flown by extremists into the World Trade Center.
The opening date shall live in infamy: Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary of the day a hole was punched in the city's heart.
Plans to bring what one critic calls a "monster mosque" to the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory building, at a cost expected to top $100 million, moved along for months without a peep. All of a sudden, even members of the community board that stupidly green-lighted the mosque this month are tearing their hair out.
Called Cordoba House, the mosque and center is the brainchild of the American Society for Muslim Advancement. Executive director Daisy Khan insists it's staying put.
"For us, it's a symbol, a platform that will give voice to the silent majority of Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremists. A center will show that Muslims will be part of rebuilding lower Manhattan," said Khan, adding that Cordoba will be open to everyone.
Well, Daisy Khan certainly knows how to talk to liberal New Yorkers in the language they like to hear, that's for sure. A symbol of Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremists? The Left swoons. But with a symbolic opening date of September 11th, 2011, it seems as if little Daisy's opening of a huge mosque is more a celebration of those extremists than a repudiation of them.
Daisy victory dance is a bit premature, as there are other boards that need to approve this project (for the first time, NYC's multiple layers of bureaucracy will come in handy). But what better symbol of the Muslim's continued desire to conquer America than the effort to build a house of worship dedicated to the prophet used as an inspiration to wage a war against her people?
Let's see how the other "boards" involved act on this building permit. Perhaps one should erect a mock gallows outside the appropriate government building, just to remind our appeasing officials what happens to those who commit the treason of handing a nation over to its enemies...
วันพุธ, พฤษภาคม 12, 2553
Elena Kagan's Got Lovers....In The Media
Who cares is Elana Kagen is gay (Well, over at Just One Minute, Ton Maguire posits a good reason to worry about a closeted gay Justice, but...) ? I'm less worried about the sex of the people she's been sleeping with than the type of people she's been sleeping with...
And it appears as if they have all been of one type. Media people!
"I first met Kagan in the mid-'90s when we were both former law clerks for Judge Abner Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit," wrote The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen.
"Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and I shared a dinner table once," wrote Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart.
"Elena danced at our wedding in 1986," wrote The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin. "When my wife, Amy, and I bought our first apartment, Elena’s father was our lawyer."
David Brooks wrote: "Kagan has many friends along the Acela corridor, thanks to her time at Hunter College High School, Princeton, Harvard and in Democratic administrations. So far, I haven’t met anybody who is not an admirer."
CQ's Seth Stern told MSNBC: "I was her student in administrative law class" at Harvard.
And, as Howard Kurtz points out, she was even once a lawyer for the Washington Post.
The Washington Post's Al Kamen notes that TIME magazine contributing editor Bart Gellman used to work alongside Kagan at Princeton University's Daily Princetonian newspaper.
Well, we've already pinned her as a sycophantic careerist, so it would completely be in character for her to assemble a cadre of supporters in the media for the day she would eventually need them. Then again, maybe I'm being a bit harsh - seems like a lot of these connections are just her Ivy League pals. But hey! Like Barack Obama said, she understands the law “as it affects the lives of ordinary people,” he said, adding that her presence will make the court “more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”
Because we all have dozens of Ivy League buddies manipulating public opinion to help us get ahead in the world...right?
Whatever serious questions are asked of Elana Kagan, you can bet none of them come from the mainstream media. Because they have a fellow alum to protect, and after all, it's not as if any of us "State University" graduates would dare be presumptuous enough to question their Ivy Leagues betters...
And it appears as if they have all been of one type. Media people!
"I first met Kagan in the mid-'90s when we were both former law clerks for Judge Abner Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit," wrote The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen.
"Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and I shared a dinner table once," wrote Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart.
"Elena danced at our wedding in 1986," wrote The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin. "When my wife, Amy, and I bought our first apartment, Elena’s father was our lawyer."
David Brooks wrote: "Kagan has many friends along the Acela corridor, thanks to her time at Hunter College High School, Princeton, Harvard and in Democratic administrations. So far, I haven’t met anybody who is not an admirer."
CQ's Seth Stern told MSNBC: "I was her student in administrative law class" at Harvard.
And, as Howard Kurtz points out, she was even once a lawyer for the Washington Post.
The Washington Post's Al Kamen notes that TIME magazine contributing editor Bart Gellman used to work alongside Kagan at Princeton University's Daily Princetonian newspaper.
Well, we've already pinned her as a sycophantic careerist, so it would completely be in character for her to assemble a cadre of supporters in the media for the day she would eventually need them. Then again, maybe I'm being a bit harsh - seems like a lot of these connections are just her Ivy League pals. But hey! Like Barack Obama said, she understands the law “as it affects the lives of ordinary people,” he said, adding that her presence will make the court “more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”
Because we all have dozens of Ivy League buddies manipulating public opinion to help us get ahead in the world...right?
Whatever serious questions are asked of Elana Kagan, you can bet none of them come from the mainstream media. Because they have a fellow alum to protect, and after all, it's not as if any of us "State University" graduates would dare be presumptuous enough to question their Ivy Leagues betters...
Elena Kagan: Speech Is Free If I Say It's Free !
And she'll certainly get her chance to split those hairs, if she is confirmed to the Supreme Court. From her days as U.S. Solicitor General, we get this gem:
....consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
The case concerned a statute that made it criiminally unlawful to depict animal cruelty. The Court rejected Kagan's reasoning, but had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment's protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted.
Ah, but now she'll be part of the Court, and the next time a similar case comes up, we'll know that she rule in favor of giving the government the power to decide what speech is free and what speech is, shall we say, "actionable".
And we already know that Kagan is, if nothing else, a political animal, eager to please her bosses, as well as those who can continue to advance her career goals. So...exactly what tyep of speech would become a danger to "societal" values, Elena? Perhaps...the daily voice of a certain talk-show host who rubs the president the wrong way? The carrying of a certain yellow flag embossed with a rattlesnake? Or does the vocal criticism of a certain egomanical president become, as some in the media have suggestion, "seditious" and thus dangerous?
That will be up to Elena to decide for us, should she be granted her lifetime appointment to the high court. And of course, there is no doubt about who's judgement she will defer to...
....consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
The case concerned a statute that made it criiminally unlawful to depict animal cruelty. The Court rejected Kagan's reasoning, but had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment's protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted.
Ah, but now she'll be part of the Court, and the next time a similar case comes up, we'll know that she rule in favor of giving the government the power to decide what speech is free and what speech is, shall we say, "actionable".
And we already know that Kagan is, if nothing else, a political animal, eager to please her bosses, as well as those who can continue to advance her career goals. So...exactly what tyep of speech would become a danger to "societal" values, Elena? Perhaps...the daily voice of a certain talk-show host who rubs the president the wrong way? The carrying of a certain yellow flag embossed with a rattlesnake? Or does the vocal criticism of a certain egomanical president become, as some in the media have suggestion, "seditious" and thus dangerous?
That will be up to Elena to decide for us, should she be granted her lifetime appointment to the high court. And of course, there is no doubt about who's judgement she will defer to...
วันอังคาร, พฤษภาคม 11, 2553
Swedish Cartoonist Attacked By Muslim, Crowd Roars
Lars Vilks, a Swedish cartoonist who dared draw a depiction of Muhammad, was attacked at a lecture by a Muslim man who "head butted" him to the ground before police "got involved".
And I use that term lightly, as getting involved seems to mean one cop spreading his arms wide, and another shouting "stop doing that! stop doing that!".
Note the upraised fists (especially of the man at the :33 second mark, who shouts his support for the attack, then picks up his child), and listen to the high-pitched shrieks of "Allah Akbar". Note the glee and support of the physical assault on free speech.
Animals.
And I use that term lightly, as getting involved seems to mean one cop spreading his arms wide, and another shouting "stop doing that! stop doing that!".
Note the upraised fists (especially of the man at the :33 second mark, who shouts his support for the attack, then picks up his child), and listen to the high-pitched shrieks of "Allah Akbar". Note the glee and support of the physical assault on free speech.
Animals.
The cartoon itself, no more than a pencil sketch, can be seen here. It's crude and offensive, I suppose, but they (especially Arabs, and Muslims) draw Jews like this every day of the week, and you don't see the people of Israel marauding through the Mideast, busting up lectures and beating up cartoonists. Nor do you see Christians wilding after the daily assaults on their religion, thought to be fair, they'd have to burn almost every mainstream media outlet in the nation if they wanted to even the score.
Although perhaps they should. What's good for the goose is certainly good for the gander, and after all, if this is now permissible behavior, people of all faiths should be allowed to engage in it.
No? Than perhaps the animals above should be civilized, or left out to rot in the desert hell they have created for themselves...
Elena Kagan and Barack Obama: Out Of Touch Elitists
Ben Smith from Politico:
President Barack Obama introduced Elena Kagan on Monday in the terms that have come to define his approach to the Supreme Court: She understands the law “as it affects the lives of ordinary people,” he said, adding that her presence will make the court “more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”
Obama promised judges with at least a passing knowledge of the “real world,” but Kagan’s experience draws from a world whose signposts are distant from most Americans: Manhattan’s Upper West side, Princeton University, Harvard Law School and the upper reaches of the Democratic legal establishment.
Reflective of which people, exactly? Well-to-do Upper West Side graduates of places like New York's elite Hunter College HS? Princeton honor students? Oxford attendees? Harvard Deans? Or holier-than-thou New Yorkers, always a favorite of the American people?
If Elena Kagan is confirmed...the Supreme Court will contain three female Justices. And it will be a diverse group of women too -- one originally from Brooklyn, one originally from Manhattan, and one originally from the Bronx.
No, this is more of Obama's bullshit, of course. She is reflective of his people, the liberal elitists. Jen Rubin:
So she brings neither an abundance of non-elite experience nor an intellectual record of achievement...she’s not very real world, and she isn’t a renowned scholar, but she sure understands the president’s liberal agenda.
Which is why that I think any conservative optimism that she might be some sort of closet centrist is misguided. This is a woman who grew up in the dictionary definition of a "limousine liberal" neighborhood, and has gone to school with, worked with, and socialized with people who think exactly the way she does.
Without exception, and for her whole entire life. Can you imagine Ms. Kagan hanging out in a blue-collar bar in Pennsylvania, conversing with the hardhats and other varieties of "rough trade" about the way the world ought to be? Can you picture her casually chatting with military families in Texas, or with harried suburban moms in South Jersey? Can you envision her working shifts in Wal-Mart, or at a department store, or putting in the 90 minute commute to a high-stress office job in the city?
Me neither. Because it never happened. She's lived and worked in a small, insulated ivory tower her whole life, and from upon high, she will be appointed by Barack Obama to pass judgement upon us "ordinary people" based on her knowledge of the "real world".
May God have mercy upon the American people...
President Barack Obama introduced Elena Kagan on Monday in the terms that have come to define his approach to the Supreme Court: She understands the law “as it affects the lives of ordinary people,” he said, adding that her presence will make the court “more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”
Obama promised judges with at least a passing knowledge of the “real world,” but Kagan’s experience draws from a world whose signposts are distant from most Americans: Manhattan’s Upper West side, Princeton University, Harvard Law School and the upper reaches of the Democratic legal establishment.
Reflective of which people, exactly? Well-to-do Upper West Side graduates of places like New York's elite Hunter College HS? Princeton honor students? Oxford attendees? Harvard Deans? Or holier-than-thou New Yorkers, always a favorite of the American people?
If Elena Kagan is confirmed...the Supreme Court will contain three female Justices. And it will be a diverse group of women too -- one originally from Brooklyn, one originally from Manhattan, and one originally from the Bronx.
No, this is more of Obama's bullshit, of course. She is reflective of his people, the liberal elitists. Jen Rubin:
So she brings neither an abundance of non-elite experience nor an intellectual record of achievement...she’s not very real world, and she isn’t a renowned scholar, but she sure understands the president’s liberal agenda.
Which is why that I think any conservative optimism that she might be some sort of closet centrist is misguided. This is a woman who grew up in the dictionary definition of a "limousine liberal" neighborhood, and has gone to school with, worked with, and socialized with people who think exactly the way she does.
Without exception, and for her whole entire life. Can you imagine Ms. Kagan hanging out in a blue-collar bar in Pennsylvania, conversing with the hardhats and other varieties of "rough trade" about the way the world ought to be? Can you picture her casually chatting with military families in Texas, or with harried suburban moms in South Jersey? Can you envision her working shifts in Wal-Mart, or at a department store, or putting in the 90 minute commute to a high-stress office job in the city?
Me neither. Because it never happened. She's lived and worked in a small, insulated ivory tower her whole life, and from upon high, she will be appointed by Barack Obama to pass judgement upon us "ordinary people" based on her knowledge of the "real world".
May God have mercy upon the American people...
Justice Elena Kagan - Let The Abortions Begin!
Some are still fooling themselves into thinking that a Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagen would somehow be anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion. Just as they used to try to convince themselves (and others) that Barack Obama would govern "from the center".
Here's the sleight of hand:
As a White House adviser in 1997, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan urged then-President Bill Clinton to support a ban on late-term abortions, a political compromise that put the administration at odds with abortion rights groups.
Same article gets to the truth further down:
...the memo is more of a political calculation than a legal brief, but Kagan and Reed urged Clinton to support the compromise despite noting that the Justice Department believed the proposal was unconstitutional.
"We recommend that you endorse the Daschle amendment in order to sustain your credibility on HR 1122 and prevent Congress from overriding your veto," they wrote.
So Kagan's legal recommendations were based on political calculations. Just the kind of person you want on the highest court in the land, right? But more importantly, what would her legal calculations be at this moment? It's not that hard to figure out:
On April 21, 2010, President Obama used thinly veiled code language to communicate his clear intent to choose a nominee who would be hostile to legislative attempts to protect unborn humans. The President stated that he wanted someone “who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account . . . women’s rights,” and that this was going to be “very important” to him as he viewed our “core Constitution” as protecting the “bodily integrity” of women.
No doubt this was a conversation Kagan had with Obama, and she must have pleased the president (a man who favored, while in the Illinois State Senate, allowing aborted babies born alive to die, alone and in agony), or else he would have offered the position to another candidate, one more in line with his views.
And now that Kagan doesn't have to kiss up to the "centrist" Bill Clinton, she can act on how she really feels:
Ms. Kagan may have betrayed a possible personal animus towards the pro-life movement in a 1980 essay lamenting Republican gains in the 1980 election, in which she referred disparagingly to “victories of these anonymous but Moral Majority-backed [candidates] . . . these avengers of ‘innocent life’ and the B-1 Bomber . . ."
Was Ms. Kagan so dismissive of the belief that unborn children are members of the human family that she felt it necessary to put the term "innocent life" in quote marks, or does she have another explanation? Would she be able to set aside any animus she has towards those who fight to protect innocent human life, when reviewing laws duly enacted for that purpose?
Let the grinding of the abortion mills begin; for you will have a benefactor that supports your gruesome indifference towards human life upon the High Court...
Here's the sleight of hand:
As a White House adviser in 1997, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan urged then-President Bill Clinton to support a ban on late-term abortions, a political compromise that put the administration at odds with abortion rights groups.
Same article gets to the truth further down:
...the memo is more of a political calculation than a legal brief, but Kagan and Reed urged Clinton to support the compromise despite noting that the Justice Department believed the proposal was unconstitutional.
"We recommend that you endorse the Daschle amendment in order to sustain your credibility on HR 1122 and prevent Congress from overriding your veto," they wrote.
So Kagan's legal recommendations were based on political calculations. Just the kind of person you want on the highest court in the land, right? But more importantly, what would her legal calculations be at this moment? It's not that hard to figure out:
On April 21, 2010, President Obama used thinly veiled code language to communicate his clear intent to choose a nominee who would be hostile to legislative attempts to protect unborn humans. The President stated that he wanted someone “who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account . . . women’s rights,” and that this was going to be “very important” to him as he viewed our “core Constitution” as protecting the “bodily integrity” of women.
No doubt this was a conversation Kagan had with Obama, and she must have pleased the president (a man who favored, while in the Illinois State Senate, allowing aborted babies born alive to die, alone and in agony), or else he would have offered the position to another candidate, one more in line with his views.
And now that Kagan doesn't have to kiss up to the "centrist" Bill Clinton, she can act on how she really feels:
Ms. Kagan may have betrayed a possible personal animus towards the pro-life movement in a 1980 essay lamenting Republican gains in the 1980 election, in which she referred disparagingly to “victories of these anonymous but Moral Majority-backed [candidates] . . . these avengers of ‘innocent life’ and the B-1 Bomber . . ."
Was Ms. Kagan so dismissive of the belief that unborn children are members of the human family that she felt it necessary to put the term "innocent life" in quote marks, or does she have another explanation? Would she be able to set aside any animus she has towards those who fight to protect innocent human life, when reviewing laws duly enacted for that purpose?
Let the grinding of the abortion mills begin; for you will have a benefactor that supports your gruesome indifference towards human life upon the High Court...
วันจันทร์, พฤษภาคม 10, 2553
Wither The American Jews?
Much has been made of this recent poll, showing that maybe, after getting smashed in the mouth a few dozen times, some American Jews may have second thoughts about voting for the anti-Semitic bully again:
US Jews polled were asked whether they would: (a) vote to re-elect Obama, or (b) consider voting for someone else. 42% said they would vote for Obama and 46%, a plurality, preferred the second answer. 12% said they did not know or refused to answer...
Can Obama overcome this issue with a "charm offensive"? It won't be for lack of trying, Hillary Clinton and other administration flacks are pumping hands at all the right fundraisers and conventions, saying all the right things ("For President [Barack] Obama, for me, and for this entire administration, our commitment to Israel's security and Israel's future is rock solid") while continuing to out-and-out threaten Israel if she refuses to comply with Barack Hussein's demands....from Commentary, here is State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley issuing an unconcealed threat:
“As both parties know, if either takes significant actions during the proximity talks that we judge would seriously undermine trust, we will respond to hold them accountable and ensure that negotiations continue,” Crowley said.
Being that one party is excused for throwing bombs and the other is lambasted for building homes, can you guess which side will be "held accountable"?
The question is not whether the American Jewish community's loyalty to Israel is stronger than their loyalty to the Democrats, the question is whether their desire to live is greater than their loyalty to the Democrats. Because only someone who is insanely stupid, or suicidal, can claim that a man who consistently bashes their teeth in, then holds them down for others to gang-rape, is their friend. One who refuses to let go of that illusion is, again, either stupid or suicidal.
So which are the Jews? A little of both, I believe. Convinced that their faith commits them to the causes of the Democratic party binds them, despite the abuse they receive at their hands. And, like most liberals, my Jewish brethren are quite book-smart and well-read, but that doesn't necessarily translate into knowing what is the right thing to do to insure survival. Drop a highly-educated Jew (or any East Coast liberal) into the woods with Sarah Palin, and come back a week later, and what would you have? A well-fed Sarah with a new fur coat, and a dead liberal.
Remember, there were still plenty of Jews left in Germany for the SS to round-up, despite years of assurances from Adolf & Crew that they were dead meat. So smart they were, that when told to their faces they were to be slaughtered, they knew better than to believe it.
Vote against Barack? I'll believe it when I see it. They still cannot come to grips with the fact they have been abandoned, and cling to the Democrats like a child to a loveless parent. More likely is that they'll sit it out, which is a backdoor win for the Republicans. Sometimes, better to sit quietly on your hands than to act in ignorance and make quite the fool of yourselves, as 78% of my people did in November of 2008...
Related, from the Closet Conservative:
You cannot be a friend of the Jews and a friend of Israel and make a moral equivalence between Israel having nuclear weapons and Iran gunning for them...
US Jews polled were asked whether they would: (a) vote to re-elect Obama, or (b) consider voting for someone else. 42% said they would vote for Obama and 46%, a plurality, preferred the second answer. 12% said they did not know or refused to answer...
Can Obama overcome this issue with a "charm offensive"? It won't be for lack of trying, Hillary Clinton and other administration flacks are pumping hands at all the right fundraisers and conventions, saying all the right things ("For President [Barack] Obama, for me, and for this entire administration, our commitment to Israel's security and Israel's future is rock solid") while continuing to out-and-out threaten Israel if she refuses to comply with Barack Hussein's demands....from Commentary, here is State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley issuing an unconcealed threat:
“As both parties know, if either takes significant actions during the proximity talks that we judge would seriously undermine trust, we will respond to hold them accountable and ensure that negotiations continue,” Crowley said.
Being that one party is excused for throwing bombs and the other is lambasted for building homes, can you guess which side will be "held accountable"?
The question is not whether the American Jewish community's loyalty to Israel is stronger than their loyalty to the Democrats, the question is whether their desire to live is greater than their loyalty to the Democrats. Because only someone who is insanely stupid, or suicidal, can claim that a man who consistently bashes their teeth in, then holds them down for others to gang-rape, is their friend. One who refuses to let go of that illusion is, again, either stupid or suicidal.
So which are the Jews? A little of both, I believe. Convinced that their faith commits them to the causes of the Democratic party binds them, despite the abuse they receive at their hands. And, like most liberals, my Jewish brethren are quite book-smart and well-read, but that doesn't necessarily translate into knowing what is the right thing to do to insure survival. Drop a highly-educated Jew (or any East Coast liberal) into the woods with Sarah Palin, and come back a week later, and what would you have? A well-fed Sarah with a new fur coat, and a dead liberal.
Remember, there were still plenty of Jews left in Germany for the SS to round-up, despite years of assurances from Adolf & Crew that they were dead meat. So smart they were, that when told to their faces they were to be slaughtered, they knew better than to believe it.
Vote against Barack? I'll believe it when I see it. They still cannot come to grips with the fact they have been abandoned, and cling to the Democrats like a child to a loveless parent. More likely is that they'll sit it out, which is a backdoor win for the Republicans. Sometimes, better to sit quietly on your hands than to act in ignorance and make quite the fool of yourselves, as 78% of my people did in November of 2008...
Related, from the Closet Conservative:
You cannot be a friend of the Jews and a friend of Israel and make a moral equivalence between Israel having nuclear weapons and Iran gunning for them...
8 Problems with Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan
A gay woman on the Supreme Court - well, that'll help Obama with two pissed-off constituencies, but what does it mean for America jurisprudence for the next half-century?
I'm lifting some of this from The Corner, that'll be the stuff in italics. The rest of the commentary is mine:
1- Kagan may well have less experience relevant to the work of being a justice than any justice in the last five decades or more. In addition to zero judicial experience, she has only a few years of real-world legal experience. Further, notwithstanding all her years in academia, she has only a scant record of legal scholarship. Kagan flunks her own “threshold” test of the minimal qualifications needed for a Supreme Court nominee.
Well, Obama failed the threshold test of the minimal qualifications needed for a presidential nominee, and got the job anyway. So how's that worked out for America?
2-Kagan is the consummate Obama insider, and her meteoric rise over the last 15 years—from obscure academic and Clinton White House staffer to Harvard law school dean to Supreme Court nominee—would seem to reflect...an “intermarriage of financial and executive branch elites [that] could only have happened in the Clinton years” and that has fostered the dominant financial-political oligarchy in America. In this regard, Kagan’s paid role as a Goldman Sachs adviser is the perfect marker of her status in the oligarchy—and of her unfathomable remoteness from ordinary Americans.
In other words, our lives will be controlled by yet another ivory-tower political elitist. Just what the doctor ordered for the Tea Party nation. Perhaps, though, that is exactly what Obama had in mind...
3- Kagan’s record thus manages to replicate the primary supposed defect of the judicial monastery—isolation from the real-world lives of ordinary Americans—without conferring the broader benefits of judicial experience.
That's a feature, not a bug, to the Democrats and the Obama administration.
4 - Kagan’s exclusion of military recruiters from the Harvard law school campus promises to draw considerable attention precisely because...it amounted to “a statement of national estrangement,” of Kagan’s “alienating [her]self from the country.” In her fervent opposition to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and the Solomon Amendment, Kagan elevated her own ideological commitment on gay rights above what Congress, acting on the advice of military leaders, had determined best served the interests of national security. At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses, Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists.
Which again, puts her directly in alignment with the Obama/Clinton/Pelosi mindset. And in opposition to about 75% of Americans. But when has this administration acted with regard to anyone save their 25%?
5 - Kagan has argued that the Senate should carefully explore a nominee's views on judicial philosophy generally and on hotly contested constitutional issues in particular. Her argument has special force for someone who has been so guarded about her own views.
Seems to me that Kagen has essentially claimed that the selection of a nominee like herself pretty much demands Congressional interrogation and high scrutiny before such a pick is confirmed. Let's see how our ivory-tower intellectual reacts to being subject to the practice to which she preached. Based on her own writings, less than full disclosure should result in a non-confirmation, or at least a filibuster attempt. A philosophical shift under fire would be quite revealing, and would expose her as a woman who cannot live under the very legal system she preaches. Should this occur, watch for the cries of... "homophobia!"
6 - Kagan’s records from her White House years in the Clinton administration promise to offer important insights into her legal thinking. It makes no sense to schedule her confirmation hearing until it’s clear when those records will be made available.
Since the Obama administration is supposed to be "the most transparent ever", this shouldn't be a problem, right? Hmmm....
7 - Kagan shows signs of moderation on issues of presidential power and national security. But there’s no basis for hopes that she might secretly harbor conservative legal views on other matters
Remember how many conservatives switched to Obama because they believed his lofty rhetoric and felt he'd have to "govern from the center"? Remember that, when the media and the RHINOs are telling you this pick is a "reverse Souter".
8 - From the New York Post, we get these revealing lines:
Kagen...grew up as a "cool smart girl" on the Upper West Side.
it would mark the first time in history the US Supreme Court has not had a Protestant member.
...a pivotal event in her life was getting into elite Hunter College HS.
Her formative years were spent in Manhattan, where she grew up as the middle child in a well-to-do Upper West Side family.
Kagan went on to earn honors at Princeton -- where she was a student leader, along with classmate Eliot Spitzer -- and won a scholarship that sent her to Oxford for a master's degree..
We couldn't find a credible nominee that didn't go to an Ivy League, or other elitist school? (and yes, that should be a badge of shame, being that the Ivy League has been running the nation, and our economy, for the past decade or more). We couldn't find one who wasn't born with a silver spoon in their mouth? We couldn't find one credible candidate anywhere in flyover country - From Pennsylvania to Utah - that, though liberal, might bring a different perspective of life, their nation, and the world to the High Court?
Nope. Another ivory-tower Ivy-league know-it-all, prepared to exclude themselves from the very laws they will force unto us.
Time to man the battlements, folks....
I'm lifting some of this from The Corner, that'll be the stuff in italics. The rest of the commentary is mine:
1- Kagan may well have less experience relevant to the work of being a justice than any justice in the last five decades or more. In addition to zero judicial experience, she has only a few years of real-world legal experience. Further, notwithstanding all her years in academia, she has only a scant record of legal scholarship. Kagan flunks her own “threshold” test of the minimal qualifications needed for a Supreme Court nominee.
Well, Obama failed the threshold test of the minimal qualifications needed for a presidential nominee, and got the job anyway. So how's that worked out for America?
2-Kagan is the consummate Obama insider, and her meteoric rise over the last 15 years—from obscure academic and Clinton White House staffer to Harvard law school dean to Supreme Court nominee—would seem to reflect...an “intermarriage of financial and executive branch elites [that] could only have happened in the Clinton years” and that has fostered the dominant financial-political oligarchy in America. In this regard, Kagan’s paid role as a Goldman Sachs adviser is the perfect marker of her status in the oligarchy—and of her unfathomable remoteness from ordinary Americans.
In other words, our lives will be controlled by yet another ivory-tower political elitist. Just what the doctor ordered for the Tea Party nation. Perhaps, though, that is exactly what Obama had in mind...
3- Kagan’s record thus manages to replicate the primary supposed defect of the judicial monastery—isolation from the real-world lives of ordinary Americans—without conferring the broader benefits of judicial experience.
That's a feature, not a bug, to the Democrats and the Obama administration.
4 - Kagan’s exclusion of military recruiters from the Harvard law school campus promises to draw considerable attention precisely because...it amounted to “a statement of national estrangement,” of Kagan’s “alienating [her]self from the country.” In her fervent opposition to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and the Solomon Amendment, Kagan elevated her own ideological commitment on gay rights above what Congress, acting on the advice of military leaders, had determined best served the interests of national security. At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses, Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists.
Which again, puts her directly in alignment with the Obama/Clinton/Pelosi mindset. And in opposition to about 75% of Americans. But when has this administration acted with regard to anyone save their 25%?
5 - Kagan has argued that the Senate should carefully explore a nominee's views on judicial philosophy generally and on hotly contested constitutional issues in particular. Her argument has special force for someone who has been so guarded about her own views.
Seems to me that Kagen has essentially claimed that the selection of a nominee like herself pretty much demands Congressional interrogation and high scrutiny before such a pick is confirmed. Let's see how our ivory-tower intellectual reacts to being subject to the practice to which she preached. Based on her own writings, less than full disclosure should result in a non-confirmation, or at least a filibuster attempt. A philosophical shift under fire would be quite revealing, and would expose her as a woman who cannot live under the very legal system she preaches. Should this occur, watch for the cries of... "homophobia!"
6 - Kagan’s records from her White House years in the Clinton administration promise to offer important insights into her legal thinking. It makes no sense to schedule her confirmation hearing until it’s clear when those records will be made available.
Since the Obama administration is supposed to be "the most transparent ever", this shouldn't be a problem, right? Hmmm....
7 - Kagan shows signs of moderation on issues of presidential power and national security. But there’s no basis for hopes that she might secretly harbor conservative legal views on other matters
Remember how many conservatives switched to Obama because they believed his lofty rhetoric and felt he'd have to "govern from the center"? Remember that, when the media and the RHINOs are telling you this pick is a "reverse Souter".
8 - From the New York Post, we get these revealing lines:
Kagen...grew up as a "cool smart girl" on the Upper West Side.
it would mark the first time in history the US Supreme Court has not had a Protestant member.
...a pivotal event in her life was getting into elite Hunter College HS.
Her formative years were spent in Manhattan, where she grew up as the middle child in a well-to-do Upper West Side family.
Kagan went on to earn honors at Princeton -- where she was a student leader, along with classmate Eliot Spitzer -- and won a scholarship that sent her to Oxford for a master's degree..
We couldn't find a credible nominee that didn't go to an Ivy League, or other elitist school? (and yes, that should be a badge of shame, being that the Ivy League has been running the nation, and our economy, for the past decade or more). We couldn't find one who wasn't born with a silver spoon in their mouth? We couldn't find one credible candidate anywhere in flyover country - From Pennsylvania to Utah - that, though liberal, might bring a different perspective of life, their nation, and the world to the High Court?
Nope. Another ivory-tower Ivy-league know-it-all, prepared to exclude themselves from the very laws they will force unto us.
Time to man the battlements, folks....
วันอาทิตย์, พฤษภาคม 09, 2553
Despite The Spill, America Says, "Drill, Baby, Drill!"
Who knew the powers of Sarah Palin could transcend the space-time continuum, and that years after that fact, we would no longer be chanting "Yes, we can!", but instead heeding the advice of the prophetess of the Far North?
From a Daily Kos poll, no less:
Do you favor or oppose increasing offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. coastal areas?
Favor 60
Oppose 32
Not Sure 8
Does the recent Deep Horizon oil spill make you more or less likely to favor increasing offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. coastal areas, or does it have no real effect on your point of view?
More likely 32
Less likely 13
No Effect 55
Guess the American people see that oil spill as a "one-off", or a "lone wolf" rig. Maybe we're smart enough to know that one setback should not cancel out an entire policy, which would make us smarter than Barack Obama and his entire administration, who have already subtly announced that the Obama plan to expand the amount of people allowed to consider thinking about possibly drilling for oil some day far in the future , far off the coastline is now dead.
Check this out:
Expanded drilling was popular across the board. Even among Democrats, a slight plurality continues to favor increasing offshore drilling (49-45).
Is common sense become a bipartisan feature of the electorate? If so, the Democrats are in even deeper sh*t than they realize...
From a Daily Kos poll, no less:
Do you favor or oppose increasing offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. coastal areas?
Favor 60
Oppose 32
Not Sure 8
Does the recent Deep Horizon oil spill make you more or less likely to favor increasing offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. coastal areas, or does it have no real effect on your point of view?
More likely 32
Less likely 13
No Effect 55
Guess the American people see that oil spill as a "one-off", or a "lone wolf" rig. Maybe we're smart enough to know that one setback should not cancel out an entire policy, which would make us smarter than Barack Obama and his entire administration, who have already subtly announced that the Obama plan to expand the amount of people allowed to consider thinking about possibly drilling for oil some day far in the future , far off the coastline is now dead.
Check this out:
Expanded drilling was popular across the board. Even among Democrats, a slight plurality continues to favor increasing offshore drilling (49-45).
Is common sense become a bipartisan feature of the electorate? If so, the Democrats are in even deeper sh*t than they realize...
วันเสาร์, พฤษภาคม 08, 2553
Who Is...Riot Dog?
Has Karl Marx returned, in canine form? For while rioting may be a Greek way of life, it seems as if there is one cadre who is tougher than most, who never misses a fight, and who refuses to back down from the riot batons.
And he's a...dog. Riot Dog, they call him:
A mystery mutt has turned up at every major demonstration in Athens for the past two years and earned iconic status.
In recent photos he is seen showing solidarity with hooded rock-throwers and barking at cops in riot gear.
"What brings him to the riots? Does he believe in the overthrow of private ownership?" an admirer asked on Facebook.
Well I'll tell you, I have plenty of issue with the anarchist ass-clowns who populate the Greek Isles these days, but I gotta give props to that pup for fighting for what he believes in....whatever that may be. And he's no johnny-come-lately to the hardcore riot scene, he's been fighting the good fight against the "dogs" of capitalism for years. Some additional pictures of this mad-dog's street cred:
And he's a...dog. Riot Dog, they call him:
A mystery mutt has turned up at every major demonstration in Athens for the past two years and earned iconic status.In recent photos he is seen showing solidarity with hooded rock-throwers and barking at cops in riot gear.
"What brings him to the riots? Does he believe in the overthrow of private ownership?" an admirer asked on Facebook.
Well I'll tell you, I have plenty of issue with the anarchist ass-clowns who populate the Greek Isles these days, but I gotta give props to that pup for fighting for what he believes in....whatever that may be. And he's no johnny-come-lately to the hardcore riot scene, he's been fighting the good fight against the "dogs" of capitalism for years. Some additional pictures of this mad-dog's street cred:
In the fog of tear gas and smoldering Molotov Cocktails, Riot Dog stands tall. He's so freakin' tough, he refuses to wear a gas mask!
Riot Dog, unlike many of his human counterparts, knows when it's time to get behind some cover...
With nothing to fear from "the pound" (Riot Dog knows where the hot bitches are at!), our hero faces the Euro-cops head-on. Look at them cower before the Dog of the People! 
Riot Dog won't even give the police the satisfaction of running from them, as he slowly trots back towards the front lines, while enjoying a cool, cleansing shower from their capitalistic hoses...
"I wish my dog would stand up for what she believes in," a pet-loving blogger wrote....
So many speak of the fight for freedom, so few dare to risk it all. If Riot Dog was American he'd be a Marine; Semper Fidelis, always faithful to the cause (whatever the hell it is in Greece these days), and of course, First to Fight.
Can you respect the soldier without respecting the cause? If you can, I'm a fan..of Riot Dog.
His Facebook pic and profile:
DAMN, HAVE Y'ALL EVER SEEN A DOG SO DEDICATED TO THE CAUSE? BEEN SEEN IN RIOTS SINCE 2008. SHIT, THIS DOG IS LEGIT...
"Good Morning America" Jumps Into Bed With The Obama Administration...Literally
Now how do you think this will affect news of the economy on ABC's Good Morning America?
Obama budget big's fiancee named weekend GMA co-host
The planets are aligned just right for Bianna Golodryga lately. The ABC News correspondent, one of the best at covering the economy, got engaged in December to Barak Obama's budget director, Peter Orszag, who hid a 5-carat, cushion-cut diamond ring under her menu over lunch at Sarabeth's on Central Park South. Now she's been promoted to co-anchor of the weekend edition of "Good Morning America," joining Bill Weir.
Can you imagine if the FOX News "terrorism expert" was married to the chief of Homeland Security? Oooh, the howling that would emanate from the left! But I suppose it's OK for Bianna to roll out of bed with Peter Orzag, slip on her 5-carat diamond ring, and then go on national TV to "report" on the economy.
If there was any sense of transparency in the media, there would be a disclaimer before any Bianna Golodryga reports involving financial matters.
Yes, I know, that's a joke. But it seems that again ABC is trying to curry favor with the Obama administration by putting their personal partisan favorites (be it Bianna or the hideously anti-Semitic Christiane Amanpour ) in a position to report positively on the Democratic agenda...
Obama budget big's fiancee named weekend GMA co-hostThe planets are aligned just right for Bianna Golodryga lately. The ABC News correspondent, one of the best at covering the economy, got engaged in December to Barak Obama's budget director, Peter Orszag, who hid a 5-carat, cushion-cut diamond ring under her menu over lunch at Sarabeth's on Central Park South. Now she's been promoted to co-anchor of the weekend edition of "Good Morning America," joining Bill Weir.
Can you imagine if the FOX News "terrorism expert" was married to the chief of Homeland Security? Oooh, the howling that would emanate from the left! But I suppose it's OK for Bianna to roll out of bed with Peter Orzag, slip on her 5-carat diamond ring, and then go on national TV to "report" on the economy.
If there was any sense of transparency in the media, there would be a disclaimer before any Bianna Golodryga reports involving financial matters.
Yes, I know, that's a joke. But it seems that again ABC is trying to curry favor with the Obama administration by putting their personal partisan favorites (be it Bianna or the hideously anti-Semitic Christiane Amanpour ) in a position to report positively on the Democratic agenda...
วันศุกร์, พฤษภาคม 07, 2553
Obama Skips Jersey To Look For Oil From Up High
Well, fellow New Jerseyans, expect Obama to be cancelling a lot of trips to New Jersey in the upcoming months; after all, it's well known he avoids red states like the plague...
But this is an interesting, out-of-the-ordinary story from the LA Times; it goes through how Barack Obama cancelled his May 5th trip to New Jersey in order to tout the recovering economy (maybe he got a sneak peak at today's 9.9% unemployment rate?) in order to detour to Louisiana to prevent a personal image issue:
Instead of being an opportunity to advance Obama's economy argument, suddenly that already-announced midweek New Jersey trip loomed as potential proof to critics that the boss wasn't paying adequate attention to this real environmental crisis in a region notoriously quick to loudly blame others for its disasters and local lack of preparation.
New Jersey was canceled, though locals didn't learn until Saturday afternoon and the White House announcement was delayed until Sunday.
A Louisiana trip was laid on for Sunday....
The president was also seen taking off for a disaster scene tour in a chopper. But winds were such and the threat of fog possible that the president only saw the ordinary Louisiana coast.
After all that travel, logistics and talk, he never spotted one drop of oil.
The good news for him is twofold: He was seen caring about the incident.
And he wasn't seen looking uselessly out a plane window as Bush was. [and for more on the picture to your left, see here: Obama's amazing ability to feign interest in stuff ]
And he wasn't seen looking uselessly out a plane window as Bush was. [and for more on the picture to your left, see here: Obama's amazing ability to feign interest in stuff ]
Aides were quick to describe how useful the tour was for Obama to see something for himself. He did get out the main message-quote about BP being responsible for every dime, even though there's a $75 million limit on a causative party's costs.
Local officials were quoted as appreciative of his presence which, truth be told, did absolutely nothing to stop the oil, advance the recovery or mitigate any damage beyond that potentially to the president's image if he hadn't gone.
So Obama cancelled New Jersey, where he was to try to protect himself from economic criticism, to fly over Louisiana, in order to protect himself from environmental criticism.
As the above story points out, with Barack Obama, it's never about reality - unemployment continues to climb, the market continues to plummet, oil continues to gush, the slick gets longer and wider - it's only about other people's perception...of him.
Hint to the president: All the photo-op flyovers in the world won't save you or your party when unemployed folks get caked in oil when they try to forget their worries at the beach.
And thanks, Baracky, for skipping out on Jersey. We get enough amateur bullsh*t spewed at us from Trenton that we don't need to pay a hundred cops double-OT just to get a sprayful from you as well...
"Every Obama critic is a Wall Street stooge"
...when they're not racists, that is. From the Wall Street Journal:
Last Saturday at the University of Michigan, President Obama noted the importance of maintaining "a basic level of civility in our public debate." He added, "You can question somebody's views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism."
You certainly can, but it seems Mr. Obama cannot.
Less than a week after promoting the need to treat others ‘with courtesy and respect,’ the unhappy warrior was at it again yesterday with a misleading attack on the motives of an opponent. Responding to an amendment offered by Senator Richard Shelby to limit the scope of the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Mr. Obama said, ‘I will not allow amendments like this one written by Wall Street’s lobbyists to pass for reform.’
Out of all the "benefits" that an Obama presidency failed to deliver to us - racial harmony, bipartisanship, a "new tone in Washington", no tax hikes, "smart diplomacy", new-found world respect - perhaps the biggest deception was this: Barack Obama was a man of extraordinarily high intelligence.
For he has shown nothing that would demonstrate any of the usual trademarks of the smarter- than-average man; in fact, his most visible characteristics - stubbornness, intellectual inflexibility, unwillingness to change course in the face of facts, condensation towards those who do not share his beliefs, nastiness, blatant falsehoods, and a chip on the shoulder - are usually seen as the trademarks of a man of lesser intellect.
And thus we see the reason for his non-stop personal attacks on his critics. Barack Obama is simply unable to make intelligent, fact-based arguments that back his cause. He clearly lacks the intellectual heft to make cognizant arguments in defense of his policies and against those of his political adversaries. To my knowledge, he has never made an a "case" for a particular policy position that stood up to any reasonable interpretation of the facts involved.
So, unable to outsmart his rivals, Barack Obama turns schoolyard bully, and resorts to taunts, smears, and lies in front of adoring crowds of similar idiots; their raucous cheers act in the stead of facts to convince him of the utter righteousness of his position.
So expect nothing to change. This intellectual lightweight will continue in attack mode for the duration of his presidency; it is the only way he can put points on the board. The American people have already long grown tired of his act and will fire his enablers in Congress this November, but we are stuck with this left-wing mush-brain until 2012. May God have mercy on the United States of America.
Incidentally, is it any surprise at all that his grades at Harvard are shrouded in secrecy? Imagine the shame of the Ivy League that they graduated (yet another) D student; imagine the glee of the world's despots when they realize they are treating with a man-child...
Last Saturday at the University of Michigan, President Obama noted the importance of maintaining "a basic level of civility in our public debate." He added, "You can question somebody's views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism."
You certainly can, but it seems Mr. Obama cannot.
Less than a week after promoting the need to treat others ‘with courtesy and respect,’ the unhappy warrior was at it again yesterday with a misleading attack on the motives of an opponent. Responding to an amendment offered by Senator Richard Shelby to limit the scope of the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Mr. Obama said, ‘I will not allow amendments like this one written by Wall Street’s lobbyists to pass for reform.’
Out of all the "benefits" that an Obama presidency failed to deliver to us - racial harmony, bipartisanship, a "new tone in Washington", no tax hikes, "smart diplomacy", new-found world respect - perhaps the biggest deception was this: Barack Obama was a man of extraordinarily high intelligence.
For he has shown nothing that would demonstrate any of the usual trademarks of the smarter- than-average man; in fact, his most visible characteristics - stubbornness, intellectual inflexibility, unwillingness to change course in the face of facts, condensation towards those who do not share his beliefs, nastiness, blatant falsehoods, and a chip on the shoulder - are usually seen as the trademarks of a man of lesser intellect.
And thus we see the reason for his non-stop personal attacks on his critics. Barack Obama is simply unable to make intelligent, fact-based arguments that back his cause. He clearly lacks the intellectual heft to make cognizant arguments in defense of his policies and against those of his political adversaries. To my knowledge, he has never made an a "case" for a particular policy position that stood up to any reasonable interpretation of the facts involved.
So, unable to outsmart his rivals, Barack Obama turns schoolyard bully, and resorts to taunts, smears, and lies in front of adoring crowds of similar idiots; their raucous cheers act in the stead of facts to convince him of the utter righteousness of his position.
So expect nothing to change. This intellectual lightweight will continue in attack mode for the duration of his presidency; it is the only way he can put points on the board. The American people have already long grown tired of his act and will fire his enablers in Congress this November, but we are stuck with this left-wing mush-brain until 2012. May God have mercy on the United States of America.
Incidentally, is it any surprise at all that his grades at Harvard are shrouded in secrecy? Imagine the shame of the Ivy League that they graduated (yet another) D student; imagine the glee of the world's despots when they realize they are treating with a man-child...
วันพฤหัสบดี, พฤษภาคม 06, 2553
Amnesty For Illegals? Well, Isn't VAT a Coincidence?
From The Hill:
Democrats want immigration reform on the table as the White House fiscal commission examines ways to reduce deficits, saying there is a “credible connection” between the issue and the country’s fiscal situation. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Andy Stern and Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), both Democrats on the bipartisan fiscal commission, said reforms giving the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States a chance to stay in the U.S. legally could boost the economy and thereby help pay down the debt.
In a letter sent Monday to the commission’s co-chairmen, Stern listed “comprehensive immigration reform” as one of six issues he wants the commission to address, along with entitlements, retirement security, the budget process, defense spending and the tax code.
“Our current set of circumstances has 12 million people working in this country and not maximizing their contributions to the economy,” Stern told The Hill.
No wonder Obama wanted this union hack on his "deficit commission". No doubt this entire agenda - amnesty for 12 million illegals, slashing defense spending, raising taxes ("the tax code") was discussed and approved by Obama prior to Stern being named to the panel. And no doubt, these items are all high on Obama's list of things that need Change, but even the One Who Walks on Water knows that politically, he can't all this done himself. But if it is done under the smokescreen of "reluctantly taking the advice of a bi-partisan fiscal commission"....
And imagine, if instead of throwing out 12 million folks who entered this country illegally, we allow them all to stay, and tax the living sh*t out of them? Wouldn't VAT help the deficit!
Via Protein Wisdom:
Getting rid of the underground economy by enforcing federal illegal immigration law? Not on the table.
A “credible connection” between illegal immigration, the underground economy, and entitlements to law breakers that overtax resources and drive up costs? Not found.
To which I will add "Getting rid of an ill-conceived health care "reform" bill that all studies now show will actually cost way more than it will ever save? Not on the table...."
Problem for Obama, of course, is that the scam is just about up, nobody will take him seriously if he urges Congress to implement the final pieces of a hard-core leftist agenda under the guise of "bi-partisanship", not based on the hateful, divisive way he has governed (if you wish to call it that), and the out of control spending programs he has enacted which also, of course, are "not on the table" of the fiscal commission.
Too late on this one, Baracky. If only you had compromised somewhere down the road, you may have had a chance to pull this scam off. That's what happens when you get greedy too early on in the game...
Democrats want immigration reform on the table as the White House fiscal commission examines ways to reduce deficits, saying there is a “credible connection” between the issue and the country’s fiscal situation. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Andy Stern and Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), both Democrats on the bipartisan fiscal commission, said reforms giving the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States a chance to stay in the U.S. legally could boost the economy and thereby help pay down the debt.
In a letter sent Monday to the commission’s co-chairmen, Stern listed “comprehensive immigration reform” as one of six issues he wants the commission to address, along with entitlements, retirement security, the budget process, defense spending and the tax code.
“Our current set of circumstances has 12 million people working in this country and not maximizing their contributions to the economy,” Stern told The Hill.
No wonder Obama wanted this union hack on his "deficit commission". No doubt this entire agenda - amnesty for 12 million illegals, slashing defense spending, raising taxes ("the tax code") was discussed and approved by Obama prior to Stern being named to the panel. And no doubt, these items are all high on Obama's list of things that need Change, but even the One Who Walks on Water knows that politically, he can't all this done himself. But if it is done under the smokescreen of "reluctantly taking the advice of a bi-partisan fiscal commission"....
And imagine, if instead of throwing out 12 million folks who entered this country illegally, we allow them all to stay, and tax the living sh*t out of them? Wouldn't VAT help the deficit!
Via Protein Wisdom:
Getting rid of the underground economy by enforcing federal illegal immigration law? Not on the table.
A “credible connection” between illegal immigration, the underground economy, and entitlements to law breakers that overtax resources and drive up costs? Not found.
To which I will add "Getting rid of an ill-conceived health care "reform" bill that all studies now show will actually cost way more than it will ever save? Not on the table...."
Problem for Obama, of course, is that the scam is just about up, nobody will take him seriously if he urges Congress to implement the final pieces of a hard-core leftist agenda under the guise of "bi-partisanship", not based on the hateful, divisive way he has governed (if you wish to call it that), and the out of control spending programs he has enacted which also, of course, are "not on the table" of the fiscal commission.
Too late on this one, Baracky. If only you had compromised somewhere down the road, you may have had a chance to pull this scam off. That's what happens when you get greedy too early on in the game...
Lame Duck Congress Gone Wild?
Picture the scenario: The Democrats get their collective clocks cleaned in November, losing control of the House and seeing their Senate control down to perhaps one seat, if even that. With the knowledge that their "progressive" agenda is dead, for perhaps a generation, what do they do? Bow to the will of the American people and go out gracefully?
Mickey Kaus, blogger and renegade primary challenger to Senate Boxer, expounds on a different tactic the lame-ducks Dems might take:
Fred Barnes raises the possibility of a "mad duck" Congress, in which Democrats lose their majorities and their soon-to-be-ex Congressmen reconvene in December to pass all the most controversial parts of the Democratic agenda, including an immigration bill and a VAT, before they lose power. ... It seems implausible and paranoid, but how, exactly, could it be stopped?
The new laws would be hard to repeal while Obama is in office--if they could ever be repealed. (Once you legalize illegal immigrants, can you re-illegalize them again? I doubt it. The change seems irreversible.) ... The only sure solution to Mad Duckism that I can see is for the Republicans to not win too big, leaving at least a substantial number of Dems with something left to lose.
**Alert reader J. suggests "an all-out filibuster" would stop a mad-duck legislating binge. Not if the legislation can be put in the form of "reconciliation" bills--and I would think a VAT would qualify because of its obvious budgetary impact. ...
From the aforementioned Barnes article:
Should Democrats suffer a landslide defeat, their large majorities would still be in place for the lame-duck session. What would Democrats who'd been defeated for re-election have to lose by voting for a VAT? Not much.
If the Democrats voted for health-care reform, knowing it sealed their fate, do you think they really care who they take down with them as their careers go down in flames? Specifically, would they really be concerned about bringing the entire totality of the American people down with them, being that these very same people - rednecks, clingers, dumb-asses, and racists, all - cost them their cushy, powerful job?
Is it really unthinkable that they would glorify in a Hitler-esque bunker death, ordering the nation to be destroyed rather than be captured by the dreaded conservatives? Not based on their recent behavior...
Let's use the word "generation" again. Should they embark upon a "burn the village" lame-duck strategy, that's about how long it would take for the Democrats to regain the trust of the American people (or realistically, how long it would take them to forget their misdeeds while in power). Leave with dignity, perhaps it might take a mere few election cycles.
But how much grace and dignity have Obama, Pelosi, and Reid show since they were handed the reins of power? That's what worries me, and that's what makes the lame-duck mad-duck hypothesis so eerily plausible...
Mickey Kaus, blogger and renegade primary challenger to Senate Boxer, expounds on a different tactic the lame-ducks Dems might take:
Fred Barnes raises the possibility of a "mad duck" Congress, in which Democrats lose their majorities and their soon-to-be-ex Congressmen reconvene in December to pass all the most controversial parts of the Democratic agenda, including an immigration bill and a VAT, before they lose power. ... It seems implausible and paranoid, but how, exactly, could it be stopped?
The new laws would be hard to repeal while Obama is in office--if they could ever be repealed. (Once you legalize illegal immigrants, can you re-illegalize them again? I doubt it. The change seems irreversible.) ... The only sure solution to Mad Duckism that I can see is for the Republicans to not win too big, leaving at least a substantial number of Dems with something left to lose.
**Alert reader J. suggests "an all-out filibuster" would stop a mad-duck legislating binge. Not if the legislation can be put in the form of "reconciliation" bills--and I would think a VAT would qualify because of its obvious budgetary impact. ...
From the aforementioned Barnes article:
Should Democrats suffer a landslide defeat, their large majorities would still be in place for the lame-duck session. What would Democrats who'd been defeated for re-election have to lose by voting for a VAT? Not much.
If the Democrats voted for health-care reform, knowing it sealed their fate, do you think they really care who they take down with them as their careers go down in flames? Specifically, would they really be concerned about bringing the entire totality of the American people down with them, being that these very same people - rednecks, clingers, dumb-asses, and racists, all - cost them their cushy, powerful job?
Is it really unthinkable that they would glorify in a Hitler-esque bunker death, ordering the nation to be destroyed rather than be captured by the dreaded conservatives? Not based on their recent behavior...
Let's use the word "generation" again. Should they embark upon a "burn the village" lame-duck strategy, that's about how long it would take for the Democrats to regain the trust of the American people (or realistically, how long it would take them to forget their misdeeds while in power). Leave with dignity, perhaps it might take a mere few election cycles.
But how much grace and dignity have Obama, Pelosi, and Reid show since they were handed the reins of power? That's what worries me, and that's what makes the lame-duck mad-duck hypothesis so eerily plausible...
วันพุธ, พฤษภาคม 05, 2553
Ezra Klein Plumbs The Depths of Stupidity
I never bother much with the nonsense of Ezra Klein, a lefty blogger who works for the Washington Post or thereabouts. I've seen him give other conservatives fits, but to me he's nothing more than a kid who has a way with fancy prose, but much less skill in the realm of logical, coherent thought.
Sounds like a certain president I know....
Anyway, I note a post by Ezra today in the WaPo only because it so typifies the liberal way of thinking in a way so few other pieces really can. I'll reprint it here, in full:
Annie Lowrey catches something unexpected: The arrested subject of last weekend’s Times Square bomb plot is a homeowner in the midst of foreclosure. Here's MSNBC:
[Faisal Shahzad] defaulted on a $200,000 mortgage on his Connecticut home and the Shelton property is now in foreclosure, according to court records. The foreclosure records show Faisal Shahzad took out the mortgage in 2004, and that he co-owned the home with a woman named Huma Mian. Chase Home Finance LLC sued Shahzad, 30, in September to force the foreclosure. The case is pending in Milford Superior Court.
This guy is like string theory for the media: He brings together the seemingly incompatible stories that drove the past decade. That said, you of course don't want to speculate on why someone "really" did something. The hearts of men are opaque, and motives are complex. But it's a reminder that foreclosures generate an enormous amount of misery and anxiety and depression that can tip people into all sorts of dangerous behaviors that don't make headlines but do ruin lives. And for all that we've done to save the financial sector, we've not done nearly enough to help struggling homeowners.
The hearts of men are opaque??? Let's see, son - he's a Muslim who hated Bush and the Iraq war, who trained in Pakistan and tried to kill hundreds of innocent civilians as revenge for Predator drone strikes in Pakistan. What the f*ck is opaque about that, kid?
The problem for Klein is threefold: Repeated attacks by Muslims on American civilians undermines their theory that if we only made nice to them, the Islamists would love us. Secondly, since Shahzad has pointedly referred to the Predator drone strikes, the Kleins fear that liberal's ultimate anti-war argument can now be used against them: Fighting terrorists creates more terrorists. In this case, it is specifically Obama's war strategy that almost killed hundreds of New Yorkers last week.
Finally, Klein, like most of the Left, had already decided that the bomber had to be a teabagging, right-wing nut. After all, didn't Obama and Clinton and the New York Times all declare that the Tea Party's unthinkable desire to oppose Obama was virtually sedition and was fated to lead to violence? This was the proof that the better thinkers were once again correct!
Actually, it was proof that our elite was once again incorrect about the world around us. But when Ezra Klein and the Left decide the reality they live in just won't conform to their preconceived notions, rather than re-examine their thought processes, they seek to change reality.
The Ft. Hood shooter wasn't a crazy jihadi, he suffered from PTSD despite never serving in combat. 9/11 had to be an inside job, or perpetuated by the Israelis. And the almost-bombing of Times Square had nothing to do with the Muslim suspect's confession that it was all about the Predators, it had to be something else. Like...home foreclosures! Yeah, that's the ticket!
But it seems as if Klein's readers are a bit smarter than he is. A sample of the commentary:
Oh please. I'm sure if i'm plotting a bombing and intending to flee the country, paying my bills would be the top of my to do list.
besides, wasn't he in pakistan for a few months? Guess he forgot to sign up for his bank's auto-bill pay feature.
Was the guy a Muslim? Because, unless I've missed something, that tends to be the common factor in recent terrorist plots. Not home foreclosures.
The, I'm in foreclosure so I'll go blow something up theory? Where are all the terrorists (homegrown or otherwise) before this? This is your weakest argument ever.
I'm thinking Nevada or Michigan would have been hit harder than Times Square because there are many more foreclosures there. but hmmm. no.
I wonder, Ezra, do you think the radicals of oh, a certain community, hate you any less for co-cooking up this unsolicited defense on their behalf? I bet ya do, don't ya? Nope-you appear as stupid to them as you do everyone else that read this comedy piece.
Stay tuned for Ezra's next piece on why bees sting people!
...But for him [Ezra] to suggest that American taxpayers should be covering the mortgages of terrorists to keep them happy is shameful.
Are you certain this article was not meant for theonion.com?
OK Ezra, I've wasted just enough virtual ink on your inanity. Shame on the WaPost for giving a child a place to spew such silliness.
Actually, I have heard more coherent arguments from an eight-year old on why they should have another cookie before bedtime.....
Sounds like a certain president I know....
Anyway, I note a post by Ezra today in the WaPo only because it so typifies the liberal way of thinking in a way so few other pieces really can. I'll reprint it here, in full:
Annie Lowrey catches something unexpected: The arrested subject of last weekend’s Times Square bomb plot is a homeowner in the midst of foreclosure. Here's MSNBC:
[Faisal Shahzad] defaulted on a $200,000 mortgage on his Connecticut home and the Shelton property is now in foreclosure, according to court records. The foreclosure records show Faisal Shahzad took out the mortgage in 2004, and that he co-owned the home with a woman named Huma Mian. Chase Home Finance LLC sued Shahzad, 30, in September to force the foreclosure. The case is pending in Milford Superior Court.
This guy is like string theory for the media: He brings together the seemingly incompatible stories that drove the past decade. That said, you of course don't want to speculate on why someone "really" did something. The hearts of men are opaque, and motives are complex. But it's a reminder that foreclosures generate an enormous amount of misery and anxiety and depression that can tip people into all sorts of dangerous behaviors that don't make headlines but do ruin lives. And for all that we've done to save the financial sector, we've not done nearly enough to help struggling homeowners.
The hearts of men are opaque??? Let's see, son - he's a Muslim who hated Bush and the Iraq war, who trained in Pakistan and tried to kill hundreds of innocent civilians as revenge for Predator drone strikes in Pakistan. What the f*ck is opaque about that, kid?
The problem for Klein is threefold: Repeated attacks by Muslims on American civilians undermines their theory that if we only made nice to them, the Islamists would love us. Secondly, since Shahzad has pointedly referred to the Predator drone strikes, the Kleins fear that liberal's ultimate anti-war argument can now be used against them: Fighting terrorists creates more terrorists. In this case, it is specifically Obama's war strategy that almost killed hundreds of New Yorkers last week.
Finally, Klein, like most of the Left, had already decided that the bomber had to be a teabagging, right-wing nut. After all, didn't Obama and Clinton and the New York Times all declare that the Tea Party's unthinkable desire to oppose Obama was virtually sedition and was fated to lead to violence? This was the proof that the better thinkers were once again correct!
Actually, it was proof that our elite was once again incorrect about the world around us. But when Ezra Klein and the Left decide the reality they live in just won't conform to their preconceived notions, rather than re-examine their thought processes, they seek to change reality.
The Ft. Hood shooter wasn't a crazy jihadi, he suffered from PTSD despite never serving in combat. 9/11 had to be an inside job, or perpetuated by the Israelis. And the almost-bombing of Times Square had nothing to do with the Muslim suspect's confession that it was all about the Predators, it had to be something else. Like...home foreclosures! Yeah, that's the ticket!
But it seems as if Klein's readers are a bit smarter than he is. A sample of the commentary:
Oh please. I'm sure if i'm plotting a bombing and intending to flee the country, paying my bills would be the top of my to do list.
besides, wasn't he in pakistan for a few months? Guess he forgot to sign up for his bank's auto-bill pay feature.
Was the guy a Muslim? Because, unless I've missed something, that tends to be the common factor in recent terrorist plots. Not home foreclosures.
The, I'm in foreclosure so I'll go blow something up theory? Where are all the terrorists (homegrown or otherwise) before this? This is your weakest argument ever.
I'm thinking Nevada or Michigan would have been hit harder than Times Square because there are many more foreclosures there. but hmmm. no.
I wonder, Ezra, do you think the radicals of oh, a certain community, hate you any less for co-cooking up this unsolicited defense on their behalf? I bet ya do, don't ya? Nope-you appear as stupid to them as you do everyone else that read this comedy piece.
Stay tuned for Ezra's next piece on why bees sting people!
...But for him [Ezra] to suggest that American taxpayers should be covering the mortgages of terrorists to keep them happy is shameful.
Are you certain this article was not meant for theonion.com?
OK Ezra, I've wasted just enough virtual ink on your inanity. Shame on the WaPost for giving a child a place to spew such silliness.
Actually, I have heard more coherent arguments from an eight-year old on why they should have another cookie before bedtime.....
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)