Sunday Morning News & Notes

Good morning all. Hopefully the Eagles can win today. Penn State had a nice win on a day with three major upsets.

Here's what is new:

Unfunny comedienne can dish it out, can't take it when it's given back, gives crowd the finger and walks off stage.

The Democratic Party is cratering all over the country. This does not bode well for them going forward.

George Takei has a split personality:

You may have seen the article about Hillary strolling in the woods contemplating her election loss when she happened upon a nice woman also out for a stroll with her kid. They portrayed it as Hillary being down to earth and mingling with the common folk but in fact it was a Democratic operative who works for her. She's so fake she has make shit up even when she doesn't have to.

When you actually make a sign that says "rape Melania" and then proudly hold it up at a rally, you've crossed the threshold of being the opposition into the realm of being un-human and your opinion no longer matters.

Several years ago, Newsweek was sold for the price of $1. I think that was way too much. Anyway, they pre-printed 125,000 special issues with Madam President on the cover in celebration of the anticipated Hillary Clinton win. They are now recalling them. I guess making business decisions like this are one of the reasons they were sold for less than the price of a pint of Bud Light.

Liberals are now eating their own. When you blame Oprah but not the shitty candidate you had you've lost your mind. No one has listened to anything Oprah said in years.

Donald Trump plans on fighting the media from the White House. Not sure how I feel about it since he's going to be really busy.

Saturday Morning News & Notes

Back to writing on this blog thingy. It's been a while. Going from writing every day for ten years to not writing at all was weird but I needed the break. Plus, Facebook is a fire hose where this blog is a minor drip when it comes to eyeballs seeing what I write. Back in the halcyon days of the Bush years and the early Obama years, bloggers were getting massive hits and linking to others. That's slowed a bit but I never wrote here for recognition, I wrote here for myself and a few friends.

Here's what's new in this crazy world where the Cubs won the World Series, Trump won the election and the 76'ers are...well, they are still losing so that one didn't quite fit.

-The bitter losers on the left are back to their assassination fantasies. Like the Bush years, they seem to think that posting about killing Trump passes for intellectually stimulating material. The left is in full freak out mode but are too stupid to actually look and see who is to blame for Trump winning. They don't blame Hillary, they don't blame Obama and they don't blame the establishment that has allowed the world to get to the point it currently is at. Their anger is at a businessman whom they believe to be racist but can point to no examples except what they believe he said about Mexicans. I seem to recall that many over on that side were convinced that racists would try to kill Obama. It never happened but I sure hope the Secret Service is on their toes now with Trump in office.

-Liberals continue to show their collective intolerance. This is going to get much, much worse.

-I fear for our future. The University of Pennsylvania had safe spaces for students upset Trump won that included, well: 

"For the most part, students just hung out and ate snacks and made small talk," Tancredi told The College Fix. "Of course, that was in addition to coloring and playing with the animals."

-One would hope that people would realize just how childish they're acting but I really think that will not be the case.

-This may be the greatest benefit of a Trump win--watching Pelosi grovel for support. Remember when she said that we have to pass the bill in order to see what's in it? Those of us paying attention were appalled that the sitting Speaker of the House was being so opaque about a bill effecting 1/6 of the economy. I think we were called racist and anti-woman for commenting on it, I can't recall but it seems about right since i was called racist every single day back then.

-If Trump makes General Mattis or some other patriot the Secretary of Defense, the US military will be even greater than it is and the treatment of vets will be in line with the agreement we made with the government.

-Oh yeah, Hillary blames her loss on the media. When you stop laughing you can read about it here.

If a Liberal Goes on A Shooting Rampage and the Media Doesn't Cover It, Did It Happen?

A former serviceman and LAPD officer is on the loose after having shot five people. The man in question wrote a manifesto that reads like a liberal wet dream. He is anti-gun, loves Piers Morgan, Barack Obama, MSNBC, CNN and Anderson Cooper (whom he also sent a package to). He adores Hillary and Bill and abhors Wayne LaPierre of the NRA.

The guy (and no, I will not write his name because all serial killers want notoriety) was done wrong by the LAPD and is now taking it out on everyone else. He's a one man killing machine and has written he's "off the grid' and will not be caught.

The media have buried this story because it doesn't fit the narrative of a right-wing gun nut going rogue. They can't blame it on the NRA, Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh so they just refuse to cover the aspects of the story that show he's a lefty nutjob.

Ace has an epic Twitter screed about the double standard and I highly recommend that you read it all. Sooper Mexican has the entire manifesto and a great post on the subject. Full manifesto here.

Michelle Malkin exposes the hypocrisy at her site and Hit and Run covers it from another angle.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Has More Balls Than Max Blumenthal Could Ever Hope To Have

Of course you knew that because the worst thing Max Blumenthal ever had to worry about was whether he would get his favorite table at some elitist restaurant in DC or Manhattan. But of course, that gives Maxie the right to bring down heavy Twitter scorn on a woman who has a price on her head and has to live in a safe house.

Did I mention her co-director on a movie she was instrumental in making was murdered in the street because he supposedly blasphemed against Islam and they threatened her next?

Today, Newsweek released their latest cover and, as so often happens when people question the only religion liberals like, the leftist intelligentsia got their thongs in a bunch. here's the cover:

Either Newsweek finally figured out that the world actually has people to the right of Bill Clinton living in it or they realized that they were sold for a buck because liberals are cheap bastards and want everything for free (think Sandra Fluke) so they don't pay for magazines...but I digress. 

So Newsweek's cover story for this week was written by one of the foremost authorities on Islam and radical Muslim culture. She lived it and has the scars to prove it. She knows the difficulty we as a nation world face in confronting Islamic terror and the radical Muslim culture and she knows the horror some women face living in the most misogynistic religion on the planet. 

Liberals went apeshit. How dare some woman who experienced the terror write about the world she escaped? She's got an axe to grind they say, she's a right-wing puppet, she appeared on Hannity and is supported by Michelle Malkin so her voice doesn't count they drivel. And especially this week when Islamic terror is front and center even though Obama wants to pretend (for purely political purposes) it's all about a movie, which is funny because they killed the aforementioned Theo van Gogh over a movie written by he and Ali. 

Back to Maxie. When the cover was revealed, the douchebag from Boston was among the first to attack Ali:

Newsweek gives its cover to vile Islamophobic self-promoter Ayaan Hirsi Ali to promote bogus "clash of civilizations"

Why would sweet little Maxie get upset about an article in a second rate magazine? Perhaps because our  hero was once a writer at the same company that now owns Newsweek or maybe it's because Maxie was busted by Jeff Goldberg lying about what was said by a prominent law professor.

Besides, anyone with half a brain knows what vile truly is and mocking a dead guy goes on the top of the list.

Perhaps it's the guilt that Maxie feels since he's evidently a self-hating Jew he must project his feelings upon Ali. Blumenthal hates Israel almost as much as he hates America so perhaps he feels the only place for him is to be in lockstep with others who detest both nations. That's the mainstream liberal position now, anyway.

I'm guessing that Maxie is just upset because he never could summon the testicular fortitude on his bravest day that Ayaan Hirsi Ali shows every day. Maxie never served his country in any fashion with the exception of tearing it down at any given opportunity, which in his liberal world is akin to "patriotism".  If a death threat was stuck into the dead body of a friend of Blumenthal's that said he was next, does anyone really believe the little dick head would ever show his face again? That happened to Ms. Ali and she continued to fight the fight against an enemy that has sworn to liquidate her. She speaks often because she has guts, intelligence and balls the size of Somalia.

If you want to read about the brief pathetic existence of Maxie Blumenthal, go to his very short Wikipedia page. If you want to read about a woman who should be held up as a heroine to women and damn near everyone else, go read about Ayaan Hirsi Ali here.

Update: Videos keep disappearing. This new Blogger sucks. Videos have been removed.

Media Sees Race In Every Corner of RNC

I just have no idea why we try to hide it anymore my fellow wingnuts. I mean, the jig is up (racist!) and it's as clear as black (racist!) and white. We are racists to the extreme. Oh no, we are too damn smart to do it overtly, we do it covertly so no one can figure it out. Or so we thought!

The geniuses at MSNBC seem to be on to us, especially Lawrence O'Donnell. No, we can't outsmart that guy, he's really on to every little attempt we make at a racial jibe. Check out what Sherlock O'Donnell figured out along with his counterpart Mr. Bashir:

MARTIN BASHIR: We have seen an early draft of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s forthcoming oration. Can I quote something from you? “For four years, Barack Obama has been running from the nation’s problems, he hasn’t been working to earn re-election. He has been working to earn a spot on the PGA Tour.” How about that? 

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: Well, we know exactly what he’s trying to do there. He is trying to align to Tiger Woods and surely, the — lifestyle of Tiger Woods with Barack Obama. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. They find every way they possibly can to – 

BASHIR: Lawrence — don’t you think — don’t you think that what he’s really trying to do is to suggest that the president is not paying attention to the central issues that come with the responsibility he has? Is he really – Mitch McConnell really making a connection with Tiger Woods who, of course, has become infamous for chasing various cocktail waitresses around Las Vegas and so on? 

O’DONNELL: Martin, there are many, many, many rhetorical choices you can make at any point in any speech to make whatever point up want to make. If he wanted to make the point that you just suggested and I think he does want to make that point, they had a menu of a minimum of ten different kinds of images that they could have raised. And I promise you, the speech writers went through, rejecting three or four before they land order that one. That’s the one they want for a very deliberate reason. That — there’s – these people reach for every single possible racial double entendre they can find in every one of these speeches. 

BASHIR: You really believe that about Mitch McConnell? 

O’DONNELL: I know these people are insensitive. I know the speechwriters are insensitive. I know the way they work. They do not have the same sensitivity level that other speechwriters do. But when you get to the Tiger Woods reference, there were people in the speech writing room, I know this, without a shadow of a doubt, who said wait a minute, do we really want to go there? Do we really want to go to Tiger Woods and the vote in the room was yes, we do. Mitch McConnell agreed to do it. 

BASHIR: Wow. Things are getting lower and lower by the day.

You see how that works, one liberal asshole looks with his special racism-spotting glasses and sees the minority leader of the Senate comparing Obama to another black man (or in Tiger's case: Cablinasian) so it was super surely, most-definitely racist! Plus, said Senator is from Kentucky and we all know how racist they are down there, right?

Seriously, can anyone look at the discussion above and actually believe that it aired on a national news channel? Granted, about 3 people watch at any given moment but it is solely owned by NBC now and you'd think that they would have some professional integrity, right? I mean, NBC, the peacock. You'd be wrong however because the lefties over at MSNBC decided to talk over all the minority speakers at the convention. Mia Love, Artur Davis, Ted Cruz, why is MSNBC so racist that will not allow black people on their network?

But it doesn't stop at NBC, there are racist finders everywhere if one just has the special Lawrence O'Donnell dog-whistle hearing aid and race glasses. How about this non-racial racist incident.

Making up racist incident out of whole cloth is fun to report on but reporting on actual racist incidents is really not as good.

Damn this is going to be a really long election and one can only hope that people start focusing on the facts and can pick through this garbage the media keeps throwing out there to keep the coverage about anything but Obama's record.

More here.

Gay Day at Chick-Fil-A Goes About How'd You'd Expect

After a record day in support of Chick-Fil-A--a great American company being vilified by the left for the views on gay marriage held by management--the other side turned out and the result is hilarity. When you juxtapose the pictures of sane, rational people making an effort to protect the rights of Americans to freedom of speech with those of the other side, it's striking.

Every time lefties try to mass their power by congregating, those of us not on the left just stare in amusement because America is a center-right nation and in our general mindset, they are not only worthy of our scorn but ridicule. Think about the Occupy movement: drugs, rapes, murders and dudes shitting in the street. Yeah, that really makes me want to join up and "fight the man".

Below we have a member of that particular demographic showing up that at "fascist" fast food establishment in support of his ideological brethren. The guy probably thinks he's making a statement or something (and where does one buy a shirt like that?) but instead it just makes the dude wearing it look like a fucking moron:

More from Zombie.

It's funny, America has moved to the left of center on many social issues (gay unions being the most visible) for the most part but even the staunchest independent is not real keen on seeing two guys slobber all over each other in front of a restaurant just for the pure shock factor. And for the record, most of us don't want to see a guy and a girl doing it either.

But the guy pictured above is not just making a statement, he's going right for the jugular by attacking what many people consider to be their personal savior. I'd love to see the guy substitute "Jesus" with "Allah" and see how acceptable it would be. But of course he won't because he's a pussy and knows Christians will not attack him for blasphemy while Muslims will separate him from his brainless head.

Overall, I'd say Gay Day at Chick-Fil-A was a failure.

Update: More from Twitchy.

Meet the New World Douchebag Champion

As anyone who watches the Olympics knows, world and Olympic records are constantly falling. So it is with douchebaggery. As someone who's written about douchebags on a regular basis for ten years (Paul Begala, Al Sharpton, John Edwards, etc.) I consider myself an expert on just what qualifies one to be a raging douchebag. This guy was the former title holder.

We now have a new gold medalist who's pomposity, smug attitude and all-around dickheadedness gave him record scores. Check this out:


My friends, this is elevating douchebag to record levels and even the Venezuelan and French judges agreed by giving him a perfect score. First he talks to the camera and bestows his wishes on a group of young people who are probably just going to smoke a couple of bowls and get a Chick Fil A sandwich because they are good munchies food from what I've heard.

Then our heroine pulls up and berates a girl who's doing nothing more than trying to make a living. The dude goes on and on in his smug shit-eating style acting like he's some kind of fucking lefty super hero while the girl remains calm, cool and collected making the guy look even lamer.

The topper is that he destroys any credibility he had (about 0.00001%) by finishing with the line about being hetero and not having any gay in him. Just a hunch but I think he's probably had gay in him before...but I digress. But he says it like being gay is wrong or something after going off on a great American corporation for supposedly being anti-gay. Way to make your point you fucking homophobe.

 Of course, this asshole doesn't even have the balls to say his name and posts the video anonymously then takes it down because he's an all-around pussy.

I'm more than willing to take the bet that this jack-off gets identified pretty quickly because you know this guy has no friends and has probably alienated every one he knows, including his family, and one of those people will spill the beans. I can't wait until he gets belittled by tons of scorn, humiliation and abuse and we can all savor the schadenfreude together.

Exit question: The over-under on how many times this dude has been laid in the last year (without paying for it) is 1. I take the under.

Via The Trawler who links to the comments destroying this idiot.

Update: Our douchebag of the year has been identified as Adam Smith, a CFO/Treasurer of an upstanding company called Vante. He is now the former CFO/Treasurer as the company bounced his ass because of this stupid stunt. It appears that this guy was hated by his employer as much as he was by the rest of us. No company would oust a company officer that fast if they thought he was worth remotely keeping around. Here's their website but I'm linking to a page other than their homepage since that's evidently getting slammed. If i ever find myself in need of their products (and I pray i don't) I will gladly fork over my money.

Democrat Senate Candidate Caught With Coed and Gun

But he's a "soldier" and a "pastor". 


So this idiot from SC who's running for US Senate decides it's a good idea to knock one or ten back at a local pub where he met a nice, wholesome young lady whom he took to another bar and out of the goodness of his religious heart decided to drive home. 


Instead of making it home or making it with the coed he got pulled over for doing 44 in a 30 and declined the nice offer of a breathalyzer. He also forgot to mention one little thing:

After Vick refused to take a sobriety test or a field test, he was taken to a local detention center, where officers found that the state congressman was carrying a Kel-Tec .380-caliber pistol in his front pocket. He had not told officers about the weapon, and his concealed weapons permit had expired in 2007, the police report said.

I can just hear the good "pastor": "oh heavens me, how did that get there? And that young lady, I was just ministering to her because she has strayed from the true word of God". 


Whatever Vick, you're a scumbag politician who got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and too much Jim Beam in your gut. Say goodbye to your chances. For the record; you'd have been a drastic improvement when standing in that caucus next to likes of Robert Menendez, Harry Reid and Chucky Shumer. 


Read the rest of the story to see just what a phony this ass-clown really is. 

Anti-Bullying Advocate Bullies Christians

Meet liberal douchebag Dan Savage. Old Dan is a big name supposedly in anti-bullying efforts. He's a gay guy who has been involved with the Obama administration and Hollywood elites trying to stop bullying at school.

 For some reason, a national journalism conference attended by high school students thought it would be a good idea to have this guy address the conference and booked him.

 Well, Dan decided to act like the dick head he is and began ripping into the Christians and the Bible. Approximately 100 students walked out while he was speaking. Here's the speech and you can see how many people turned their backs and walked:

 Good for the students.

 It gets worse, this asshole decided it would be a good idea to use words like "bullshit" when speaking to high school kids. He also made comments about his boyfriend in a speedo and felt good bullying kids with taunts like "pansy ass".

 Listen, I'm a gay marriage agnostic. If Chuck and Jim want to get married, who the hell am I to say no as long as the rules are the same as they are for hetero's (alimony, child support, etc).

 But why do liberal gay people have to be so repugnant when discussing religion? So what if one thinks Christianity is a cult, is a high school conference the place to do it?

 It's interesting that Savage and other pussies like him choose to attack Christianity for thing written centuries ago but don't have the balls to attack Islam where gays are openly stoned today.

 Last thought: I'm guessing all the conference attendees who cheered when he ripped the Bible are the same ones who will one day work for the New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times.

The Liberal Idea of "Great"

Author Ira Shapiro--a former senate aid--has a book out praising senators who supposedly worked together back in the 70's. I'll leave the book to its own merits but did find this interesting in the review in todays Inqy:

According to Shapiro, once upon a time - specifically, the 1960s and 1970s - the Senate was dominated not by villains but rather by profoundly inspired, principled, and open-minded public servants. Among its members were Howard Baker, Robert Byrd, Jacob Javits, Ted Kennedy, and Ed Muskie - plus a present survivor of that era, Richard Lugar. The Last Great Senate challenges historian Lewis Gould's 2005 assertion that the post-World War II body had injuriously impeded "the nation's vitality and evolution."

Emphasis mine.

So Kennedy and Byrd were "principled, and open-minded public servants", huh?

Hmmm, I seem to recall that Kennedy was really open-minded when he allowed a young woman to die when he crashed his car into water in Chappaquiddick, Massachussetts; a scandalous act that what white-washed for decades. He was really open minded when he and his liberal buddy Chris Dodd assaulted a waitress.

And what of the "principled" Robert Byrd? Yea, Byrd was highly "principled' when he served as a Kleagle for the Ku Klux Klan in West Virginia (also white-washed). He was very "openminded" when he said this on TV:



I say to Mr. Shapiro--a man who pines for the old days back when we had racists and murderers in the Senate--that no sir, I have no desire to return to the days we had these vermin representing us. Yes, they may have agreed on some legislation but it I'll pass. If one wants to see real cross-aisle compromise, one only needs to look at the Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts where Republicans overwhelmingly voted to pass the landmark laws while southern Senate Democrats fought it tooth and nail (including Al Gore's father and Clinton mentor Sen. Fulbright).

But Remember, It's the GOP Who Are Out of Touch With Average Americans

God bless Joe Biden. If anything were to happen to Old Joe, Obama may get smart and get a VP who actually has a clue what the hell he's saying. In the meantime, we still have Biden to say idiotic things whenever he opens his mouth:

Vice President Joe Biden addressed 87 wealthy Democrats last night attending a fundraiser at the home of Sen. John Kerry in Georgetown. As they dined on grass-fed New York strip steaks and white truffle mashed potatos underneath a outdoor tent, Biden criticized Republicans for being out of touch.

“These guys don’t have a sense of the average folks out there,” Biden said according to the pool report, “They don’t know what it means to be middle class.”

87 guests paid a minimum of $10,000-per-couple to attend the dinner.

Yeah Joe, you are really in touch, buddy. Nearly a cool, half million collected at a fundraiser at $5,000-per-person is the kind of event that Joe Sixpack would be attending right before he went to work on the night shift. These people actually have said this shit for so long they now believe it.

This is easily the most tin-eared administration in history. Bombings in Iraq; Obama goes golfing. Korans accidentally get burned and American military officers get murdered and Obama apologizes inflaming the situation more.

I mean, imagine if Bush had done any of these things.

More Hypocrisy in the Global Warming Propaganda Community

In yet another blow to global warming hysteria peddlers, one of their leaders has destroyed his reputation by presenting false documents as real.

Peter Gleik recently sent documents supposedly from conservative advocacy group the Heartland Institute to several papers that allegedly showed their agenda in fighting the climate change supporters and also released names of donors and other information. At least some of those documents turned out to be true while those that were not were fraudulently acquired, meaning stolen.

The ones that may have been true don't concern me that much, they lay out what we know about the Heartland Institute and its mission. Having documents released by unauthorized personnel is as old as secrets are and we never would have heard the phrase "hide the decline" if that wasn't the case.

The ones that were falsified concern me greatly, however. Putting out false information to attack an individual or organization is not only illegal but says a great deal about the integrity of those who illegally construct them. If falsifying documents is you way to win an argument then your argument wasn't very strong anyway. This is just such an example of that.

Better still, Gleik had the support of some pretty strong allies including the NY Times, Guardian (UK), leading climate change blogs and many other including Bill Gates. Liberal purveyors of information to be sure and now looking like suckered amateurs.

Here's Gleiks weaselly confession and I'm sure we'll see the "fake but accurate" meme resurrected once again but for anyone paying attention, this is a black eye for climate change propagandist's who have berated those of us who don't take studies showing rising temperature at face value just because they say to. The hypocrisy in the movement knows no bounds.

I have one last question for this guy: If you believe every single word of the Heartland documents, why do you not also believe every single e-mail written by the CRU at East Anglia? Those were a million times more devastating to the science of the issue. What about statements recently released by the CRU that greatly contradict what CRU themselves said?

More here.

Update: Much more here.

Update #2: This puts it better than I ever have:

The main issue I am raising is not that the scientists who are at the front line of this research are blind or bellicose – not that they are unscrupulous or fraudulent. Most of the scientists working in the field are not trying to push an ideological position but are genuinely trying to get at the truth. If they can be accused of any moral failing, it is simply the tendencey to go with the flow when it comes to writing grant proposals and alluding to the possibility of global warming as a justification for supporting their research. Nothing horrible about that.

That does not say that there are not a few at the top and at the edges who are true believers – who think that behaving as deceivers is ethically the right thing to do given the gravity of the threat (that they perceive) and the ignorance of the masses to that threat (as they perceive).

Al Gore and his army of climate change zealots are the ones at the top and will do anything to stop even one counter argument. To allow any alternative theories would begin to erode the belief in the false god they've constructed and staked their reputations on. But ideology is not their main driving force, AGW has been their golden goose and they've made billions on the biggest scam of the last century. Redistribution is only a happy side effect to them.

Old White Guy Says Black Hero Selling Out Race

This is probably the lowest form of racism because he claims to be on the side of the majority of the minority group:



In Moran's world Col. West--like all black people--only got where he was by rules enacted by the government and to then want smaller government or have your own views on issues counter to those of the big government party is tantamount to being a sellout to your race. It never occurs to the very simple Moran that Col. West attained his success because he worked harder than others, studied to become smarter and developed his ideas after his life experiences. No, to Moran, the only good black person is one who sees everything through the prism of race.

Moran is a blatant racist here but will never be called on it because in the eyes of liberals and the media (redundant, I know) people on the left can never be racist.

For the record; I still have to point this out because the media will never do it. It was the GOP who pushed through the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts and it was vehemently opposed by the Dixiecrats including Al Gore, Sr. and Bill Clinton mentor J. William Fulbright.

Hat tip: Hot Air.

Update: Ace nails it as usual.

For Inquirer, Being Asian or Black and Gay is Not Good Enough

With the exception of the NY Times, the Philly Inquirer is probably the most liberal slanted newspaper in the country. You can see other instances of their biased editorial board and wild inaccuracies here.

Remember, this is the paper that ran a 21-day endorsement of John Kerry right before he was beaten by George W. Bush.

Today we have the Inqy running this ridiculously liberal piece:

It's good to see Gov. Christie consider diversity in making his nominations to the New Jersey Supreme Court. But that hardly makes up for the way he treated John E. Wallace, an esteemed jurist and the court's only black justice, who deserved another term.

Christie made a historic and bold move with two nominations this week - Bruce Harris, an openly gay African American, and Phillip Kwon, who would become a Korean American on the court if confirmed (and if he wasn't confirmed he be a what?--but I digress--ed).

So Christie picks a Korean-American and a gay, black man to be justices and the Inquirer still scolds him? Of course, but had, say, John Corzine selected them, they'd be the greatest thing in creation. Instead, they slam Christie because he refused to reaffirm a black judge whom he deemed ill-qualified.

Now check out this nice bit of pretzel logic:

Neither nominee has prior experience as a judge, but neither did most of the current justices on the state's highest court, which has become a tradition for New Jersey.

...Under pressure from Democrats to consider diversity in making his nominations, Christie is now demanding swift confirmation hearings.

But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Nicholas Scutari says he won't move too hastily, which is good. Too little is known about Harris and Kwon. The governor has a right to choose nominees who adhere to his judicial philosophy, but rigorous hearings are needed to determine their character and temperament.

Okay, so it's historically been the way to select people based on abilities and not by whether or not they served on the bench but in this case, it's prudent to wait and torture them with "rigorous hearings"? Why is the Inquirer so damn racist? Why do they hate Asians and black gays so much?

I Googled "Inquirer and Elena Kagan" and did not see any objections from the editorial board about her judicial philosophy, character or temperament. She never served as a judge and now sits on the highest court in the land. She was essentially a Democratic shill having worked for Clinton and Dukakis but I guess in the eyes of the Inqy, it's who nominates you and your political slant that makes all the difference.

This is classic Inquirer bias; two men who represent three minority groups are selected by a Republican governor and the hacks on the board still can't applaud.

Unfortunately for Harris and Kwon, they will always be unacceptable to the Inqy op/ed page because, like Clarence Thomas, Conservatives just don't carry the proper minority street cred for the elitists ensconced on North Broad Street.

Alan Colmes Gives A Preview of Media in 2012

Alan Colmes has always been your typical beta male liberal. He was second fiddle behind Hannity on their show before Fox management realized that Colmes was just dragging the show down. He has a radio show, which can't be found anywhere on the dial and is still on Fox due to some feeling they owe him something or some other garbage reason. The dude is a great example of what happens when a guy gets picked on in school, has no chance at getting laid until he's 21 and has enough money to pay a hooker or get lucky with the ugly chick who's drunk at 2 AM grows older.

That said, the guy is a great bell weather for what we will see as liberal media lines of attack. He's linked in to whatever passes for the Journolist circle jerk club now where lib media folks decide what and what they will not discuss when it come to a particular topic.

However, it seems like Colmes jumped the shark today and went after Rick Santorum from an angle I expected but just not this soon:



Anyone who knows the story knows that Santorum did what he felt was right in a tough situation. His 2-hour old child died and he was devastated. He discussed what he should do with neonatal medical staff and decided to bring the dead child home so that his other children could have some time to bond and remember their sibling. Think about the state you would be in had your child died regardless of how long into the pregnancy.

In the view of most sane folks, you give someone a pass for their actions in that situation and you sure as hell don't use it as political ammo...unless you're a liberal scumbag like Holmes. I expected to see numerous stories about Santorum in the next week and I expected the issue of his dead child to be included but down in the story like the MSM always does when they want to get a particular touchy issue about Republicans out but not look blatant.

But not Holmes. He went right after it within the first minute of discussing Santorum. Rich Lowry rightly embarrassed him and Holmes did apologize but only because he was worried about losing his sweet gig on the number one news channel, not because he felt any remorse. I guess playing second fiddle to Keith Olbermann on a Al Gore's channel that's watched by no one was a horrifying thought.

More here and here.


No wonder Chris Christie bailed on this race. He knew the media would be even more nasty defending Obama since they sure as hell don't have any successful results to point to.

Pinch Sulzberger: The Ultimate One Percenter

To be clear, us on the right enjoy the schadenfreude of the NY Times staffers suffering.

Today we have the latest example of the Times treating their employees exactly like liberals accuse people like Mitt Romney of treating his employees.

Let's start with this little tidbit:

The letter calls attention to several grievances. Last week, Times brass notified foreign citizens employed in the paper's overseas bureaus that their pensions would be frozen. In the letter, Times staffers dismayed by this decision point out to Sulzberger that some of these foreign employees, working alongside Times reporters in war zones, have "risked their lives so that we can do our jobs."

The open letter may have been prompted by this and other recent decisions, but it brought to the surface long-simmering tensions. In the past several years, staffers have faced temporary pay cuts, layoffs, and buyouts. They have worked since March without a new contract. Regarding ongoing negotiations, the letter notes that Sulzberger's "negotiators have demanded a freeze of our pension plan and an end to our independent health insurance." O'Meara said staffers did not receive a raise this year.

Hmmm, Sudden freezing of pensions, no raises, not negotiating with unions...sounds suspiciously like something the Times would write a scathing piece on if it were a corporation doing the same thing. Shall we continue?

The letter also mentions that a member of "senior management" is now leaving with "a very generous severance and retirement package, including full pension benefits." Indeed, outgoing CEO Janet Robinson -- the unnamed executive-- will reportedly take home a $15 million exit package, according to Reuters. Times staffers with stock options have seen the share price drop from over $35 at the beginning of Robinson's tenure in 2003 to less than $8 at opening on Tuesday

Wow, a woman helped run the company into the ground and still landed softly thanks to her "golden parachute" at the expense of the--dare I say it--99%? $15-million is definitely in 1% territory I'm guessing.

Yet, nothing will come of this because liberals are, well, liberals. This from the beginning of the article:

New York Times staffers unhappy with management are letting publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. know it. In recent days, more than 270 current and former Times employees have signed an open letter expressing their "profound dismay" with recent company decisions.

Bill O'Meara, president of the New York Newspaper Guild, said some staffers had considered even "more dramatic" actions.

What dramatic actions could they undertake? You know none of the staffers will sleep in a park or protest on Pinch's lawn so what options were available? They could have not made a pot of coffee after taking the last cup or not laughed at a classic Pinch joke. Or they could have followed the UN and Obama's lead and wrote another Strongly Worded Letter showing their utter disgust.

No, they almost staged a protest and stormed Pinch's office and, and, and...do nothing. Instead they almost opted to (gasp) walk out:

"There were people who wanted to storm Arthur Sulzberger's office," O'Meara told The Huffington Post. "There were people who wanted to stage a walkout."

For now, Times staffers opted for the letter, which was composed in the newsroom and posted online by the guild at saveourtimes.com. Since last week, hundreds of current staffers -- from metro reporters to foreign correspondents, arts critics to web producers -- and several Times alumni have continued adding their names.

Yeah, nothing says I'm mad as hell and not going to take it like posting a letter on an obscure website and having people add their names.

Thank God our freedom doesn't depend on these pussies.

Some "Oops" are Bad and Some are Ignored

In what is the latest example of a liberal picking and ignoring his facts to support his conclusion, I bring you "progressive" blogger Michael Wood.

Mr. Wood hates drilling in the Marcellus Shale natural gas sites in Pennsylvania; an industry that has created numerous jobs and helped the US become more energy independent. The former governor of that great state just across the Delaware River from me decided--smartly--that he would allow it and would tax it. He saw the potential for creating jobs and increasing revenue. As with all tax estimates, the numbers were off somewhat:

Back in May, the Department estimated that taxable Marcellus Shale royalties generated $102.7 million in PIT collections in 2010. Now the Department says that figure is a tad lower — $46.2 million, a decrease of $56.5 million or over 55% from what was reported six months ago. To quote Britney Spears, “Oops!”

Yes, that's million, with an "m". And yes, this imbecile included a decade old quote from a bad album to punctuate his point...dude, really?

Mr. Wood goes on to excoriate the entire industry and rail about the amount of taxes received from that sector, which is supposed to indict Governor Corbett and the industry as a whole. The essay was so good that it made to the front page of hard left circle jerk FDL from it's original post on some obscure lefty blog dedicated to PA state issues.

So I entered the search terms "General Motors" in the original site where Mr. Wood usually drivels to see if he or any of his brethren over there ever wrote anything about the abortion known as the auto bailout. To my complete surprise, there was one obscure mention about GM and it was about a plant closing in Edison.

So I got to thinking; how could Mr. Wood be upset about a report that showed a 55% shortfall in estimated taxes for a thriving PA industry but not get equally as irked about a union bailout using billions of dollars in taxpayer money--money already collected, not estimated--that will result in the American people being short-changed $23.6 billion. Yes, with a "b". How can this be? I mean, we have the gas drillers bringing tens of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs into a part of the state that desperately needs it, which provided millions in new revenue versus a bailout that was basically a campaign plan using our money and shoring up dying, crony unions.

And that describes the liberal mindset in a nutshell. Poorly estimated tax revenue that equals roughly ten minutes of federal government spending versus losses of billions on a bailout that helped no one but the United Auto Workers leadership, which one is worse?

As we see in Mr. Wood's post, there's no comparison. And the irony that the state's estimates were--as he suggested--a mistake while Obama's plan functioned by design is lost on him completely.

The Difference Between "Allies" and "allies"

What is the difference between these two:

A coalition of nations team together to oust an Arab dictator whom had been in power for decades and had orchestrated an institutionalized terror campaign against his political enemies using modern weapons. The UN passed numerous resolutions over the course of more than ten years that were not heeded by the dictator and military action was initiated to get him to comply. Military strikes were ordered with the aim to destroy his infrastructure and ability to commit atrocities against civilians.

Or:

A coalition of nations team together to oust an Arab dictator whom had been in power for decades and had orchestrated an institutionalized terror campaign against his political enemies using modern weapons. The UN passed one resolution that was not heeded by the dictator and military action was initiated to get him to comply. Military strikes were ordered with the aim to destroy his infrastructure and ability to commit atrocities against civilians.

Answer? Nothing really except the former was a description of the Iraq War in 2003 and was labeled a "rush to war" by the media. It was also described continuously as a "unilateral" action which included 46-49 countries depending on the who counted.

The latter was a description of events that occurred just this week and is being described as a multinational operation that included less than 25% of those in the Iraq forces. These are described in the MSM as attacks by "allies". Here's the Philly Inquirer front page:
Also, note that there's a propaganda effect from the MSM reporting and they actually are touting the speed in which we got this action together.

Just so you understand exactly where the liberal media stand, taking your case to the UN to oust a tyrant over the course of months and laying out each individual piece of evidence and showing numerous instances of flouting previous resolutions while building a coalition of nearly 50 nations is considered a "rush to war". Cobbling together four or five nations and rushing a resolution through the Security Council then bombing within 24-hours of its passage is a thoughtful process that met all the requirements for world opinion to be considered.

Allow me to quote the vaunted NY Times in October of 2002--four months before the coalition invaded Iraq:

Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ''is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes -- detailed in a recent publication, ''National Security Strategy of the United States'' -- against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.

We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.

Or this at the beginning of hostilities:

The United States cannot defeat Al Qaeda without the help of dozens of other nations. The same principle applies to Iraq. President Bush may be able to win a military victory against Saddam Hussein without broad international support, but he won't be able to rebuild Iraq, much less change the political and economic dynamics of the Islamic world, without a great deal of foreign assistance.

Note that this was with a coalition of nearly 50 nations. BTW, Where is the plan from Senator Kerry to "win the peace" before starting military actions?

One imagines there will not be a 61% discount granted to anti-war groups to protest Obama's flagrant disregard of the world community as there was when President bush was in office.

It's all farce. I support our troops and wish them all God speed but the media has once again failed the standard they supposedly live up to.

I leave you with the NY Times blatant propaganda in support of the Obama administration. In Iraq, the US led the invasion to oust that particular brutal dictator and the word "allies" never appeared. Obama voted "present" on this issue and joined only because to do so would have made America seem even more irrelevant in the eyes of the world and we have this headline:

U.S. and Allies Strike Libya

Dems Lies on Softening the Rhetoric Exposed Again

Anyone who's read this blog more than once knows that I don't use or abide hate speech be it racial, misogynistic, bigoted any other such garbage but I sure as hell speak my mind. That said, I have to say that there's one distinct group I really do hate and anything said about them goes. That group is hypocrites.

Take a second to listen to this nice little screed by Rep. Steve Cohen (D) who I'm guessing is a Jew:

“They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels," Cohen said. "You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing."

“The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it--believed it and you have the Holocaust. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care. Politifact said the biggest lie of 2010 was a government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover,"

Isn't this the new era where we all get along and make nice since a left wing psycho shot a sitting congresswoman a week and a half ago? Evidently, Rep. Cohen didn't get Pelosi's e-mail. Or maybe he did but it's just so incredibly ingrained in their heads to equate us to Nazi's that he couldn't o any longer without getting his fix.

Ed Morrisey notes that the scumbag congressslug should know better since he was compared to the Klan by his (Democrat) opponent. Ed also points out that this guy is no stranger to over the top rhetoric.

Now that the biggest elected douche bag in the world has been shown the door, perhaps Rep. Cohen is trying to ascend to the title.

9-Year Old Girls Are Not Collateral Damage

My first reaction to the attempted murder of a Congresswoman and the successful murder of a federal judge was outrage and horror at what one man could do. The left and the media (but I'm redundant) took it as an opportunity to blame the right and Tea Party types because as Rahm Emanuel once said: "never let a good crisis go to waste". They immediately tied this to conservatives without a shred of proof and before the smoke had even cleared.

It never occurred to them that a 9-year old girl was brutally murdered. She was a daughter, grand-daughter and friend to people who loved her and her life was snuffed out by a madman. I hope all you festering crotch sores who pounced on this story to score weak political points can live with that but then, you're godless (except maybe Gaia) so I'm sure it's not even a vacant itch on your conscience.

But you see, to these douchebags, Christina Taylor-Green was just collateral damage in the greater war. Unfortunate yes, but people do die in the struggle to change America into a socialist utopia don't you know? The left is a wounded animal from the ass-kicking handed them by the American voter and a wounded animal is the worst, most desperate kind. This is war to them and one in which they fully intend to win regardless of cost. They wanted a moment where Barack Obama could shine and regain that mojo he once had and if it took a dead girl to get that, well so be it.

In their insane endeavor to blame the right, they showed even more of their true, vile selves. This is the left those of us who've paid attention know is out there. These are not the fringe loons but the establishment. Paul Krugman, Kos and many other popular liberal writers. They look at every situation and think not of the horrific event but what they can gain from the horrific event.

Their lack of shame is telling as is their ability to quickly forget what appeared on their own sites. Just delete what was written and move on. Note also how the meme in the leftosphere went quickly from Loughner being a "teabagger" to gun control without even taking a breath to look at what they've wrought. But hey, the truth has been collateral damage in the left wing fever swamps for nearly a decade so why should using a little girl's murder for gain cause any great soul searching?

It must have been much easier since beautiful Christina's mother went on Fox News yesterday and not CNN or MSNBC, it made it that much easier to lump her in with the other non-humans who don't worship at the alter of Alinsky.

My prayers to the family of Little Christina (especially her grandfather who holds a special place in the hearts of Phillies fans), Rep. Giffords, the family of Judge Toll and the others who were wounded or died. I feel sad that the media chose to carry water for the left instead of doing their duty and report on those who were lost in a senseless act of violence by a homicidal maniac.

Amusingly, Matt Drudge posted that Loughners old friends labeled him "liberal" and kept that up all day. More people read Drudge then watch NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC and CBS combined. That will do more to discredit the media then anything because you fucking assholes on the left started this game but you don't have the juice to finish it. Enjoy owning the newest title of worlds biggest scumbags.

See Glenn Reynold's piece today in the WSJ, which is well worth a read. Also, Michelle Malkin with the Progressive Climate of Hate Primer.