Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Youtube RSS

Archive for Author : The Instigator

Instigator

Hippie Crusher Since the 1960s. Red Baiter since the 1970s. Arch Reaganite during the 1980s. Your worst nightmare libtard, up till the present day.

thumb

Wide Receiver vs. Fast and Furious

Original Article - Wide Receiver vs. Fast and Furious

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

RUSH: I’ll tell you something else, folks, if I were Hispanic, you know what would really trouble me? To learn that the President of the United States had allowed assault weapons to be walked across the border to drug cartels and used to slaughter hundreds of Mexicans. If I were Hispanic, that would really tick me off.”Holder lied, Mexicans died.”

We had a call at the end of the program yesterday from a woman who kept hearing that Democrats are blaming Bush for Fast and Furious. Speaking of which, you know how the Democrats hate guns, you know how the media hates guns. I mean, they laugh at, they make fun of people who hunt. John Kerry in the ’04 campaign going to some tackle and bait shop in Ohio and saying, “Is this where I get me a huntin’ license?” Come on.

So they hate it. The liberals, including in the media, hate it. And yet here we have a total lack of interest about Fast and Furious. No moral outrage at all. Wouldn’t you think that giving semi-automatic weapons to drug lords who use them to kill hundreds of Mexicans, and at least one American border agent, wouldn’t you think that would tick off people in this country who don’t like guns? Wouldn’t you think that would tick the media off? Wouldn’t you think that’s even more of a crime than sprinkling water up the noses of mass murdering terrorists? If you have a problem with waterboarding, then how could you not have a problem with this?

Well, it’s clear. The media, they’re going to circle the wagons and they’re going to protect this president no matter what. It doesn’t matter how much of their core beliefs they have to compromise, it doesn’t matter. We have a one-party news media too busy remembering Watergate. They can’t get over Watergate. They’re all a bunch of Woodward and Bernsteins in the press corps, and they want to go back and relive Watergate 40 years ago. That’s what this is giving them an opportunity to do. Obama invokes executive privilege and they start doing retrospectives on Nixon and Watergate 40 years ago, too busy to bother looking into the Obama regime cover-up of Fast and Furious.

We had a call late in the program yesterday from a woman who wanted to know what the difference was, because Democrats keep saying that Bush started a program. Jay Carney is saying it, they’re all saying that Bush started this program. Bush did have a program like this. It was called Wide Receiver. And I told you yesterday that I was going to explain to you the differences today in Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious, and they’re significant and they’re profound. Wide Receiver was a small scale law enforcement gun smuggling interdiction effort that involved Phoenix — I mistakenly said Tucson yesterday — involved Phoenix-based ATF agents working in conjunction with Mexican law enforcement. ATF supervisors and justice department prosecutors in Arizona were trying to build a case against a violent group of Mexican drug smugglers. Fast and Furious was an effort to build a case against American gun dealers and the Second Amendment. That’s the stark difference.

Wide Receiver was an attempt to build a case against gun smugglers and the drug cartels, to find out who they were, where they are. The purpose of Fast and Furious was to build a case against the Second Amendment. In a nutshell, Wide Receiver began in 2005. It involved four hundred guns. All of the weapons in Wide Receiver had RFID trackers installed in them, and they were actively tracked. Only the Phoenix ATF and DOJ were involved. The Mexican government was kept fully informed. They were an active participant. In Wide Receiver, the ATF agents tried to track the guns using radio devices and aircraft. They wanted to find out where the guns ended up, into the hands of which cartels and where they were, so that a case could be made. It was an effort to track these people to find them, locate them.

The Bush administration, as part of Wide Receiver, notified the Mexican government when arms and drug smugglers were crossing. When the guns were being walked across the border or when they had been purchased legally, being taken back to Mexico, the Mexican government was notified. At least 1,400 arrests were made as part of Wide Receiver. Now, once ATF found out the smugglers were disabling the tracking devices, the RFID tracking devices that were planted in the guns, they ripped them out and then the guns were lost. So the program was shut down in October of 2007. Once the bad guys discovered the tracking devices, the program was ended, in 2007. Ended.

Now, here’s Fast and Furious by contrast. Fast and Furious began in October of 2009. Obama is in his tenth month. Wide Receiver doesn’t exist. It’d been shut down for two years. Fast and Furious involved over 2,000 guns. Wide Receiver was 1,400 guns. Roughly. No tracking devices were planted in the Fast and Furious guns. The regime didn’t care where they ended up. There were no tracking devices. No effort was made to track them. No helicopters. There was no on-the-ground surveillance of the straw purchasers. None of it. The guns were sold, they were walked across the border, and that was it. Four federal agencies were involved in maybe as many as 10 cities in five states.

In contrast to Wide Receiver, the Mexican government was not notified the program even existed. They did not use tracking devices or aircraft to try to find and track the smugglers. The local ATF field agents were ordered not to follow the straw purchasers. Fast and Furious is as bad as everything you have conjured it to be in your mind. Wide Receiver has nothing in common, other than guns crossing the border. That’s it. Federal agents, furthermore — are you following all this, Snerdley? — federal agents were not allowed to interdict the guns and they even ran interference for the smugglers with local law enforcement on multiple occasions to make sure those guns made it across the border.

No effort was ever made to arrest the straw purchasers, the smugglers, by local law enforcement or anybody else. And none were arrested. The program was closed down only after the deaths of at least 200 Mexican civilians and two federal agents, border agent Brian Terry and ICE agent Jaime Zapata, were linked to the smuggled weapons. Now, it is important to understand that Wide Receiver had been tried and it had clearly failed before Obama’s team decided to undertake Fast and Furious.

Fast and Furious used many more guns. They didn’t track them. They didn’t try to stop or interdict the guns. They knew that they were going to end up in Mexican drug cartel hands, which is what they wanted to happen. To me, it’s almost an inescapable conclusion that they wanted to put American guns, American purchased guns — the guns were not stolen, they were purchased at gun shops, and then the straw purchasers working for the drug cartels were allowed to take them across the border.

As I said earlier, local law enforcement was shoved out of the way if it tried to get in the way and stop this. So it looks to me like they wanted to put American-bought guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels in order to outrage the American public so that you, upon hearing of all this mayhem, would finally understand that our government laws are too lax and need to be tightened down. Particularly on these kinds of guns, assault weapons, because this had failed in Congress.

The assault weapons ban had failed, and that’s not good enough for Obama and Holder and the rest of the Democrats who don’t want you having guns. This was a way to change your mind. They created crimes. They facilitated the creation of crimes. There were two hundred Mexican deaths at the hands of drug cartels. You could not escape what was going to happen here. In fact, it was just the opposite. You had to know, if you were the regime, what was going to happen — and you had to want it to happen.

Again, that is quite different from the goal of Wide Receiver. Remember the objective of the Bush plan, Wide Receiver, was the authorities wanted to build a case against the local drug cartels in order to put them out of business. It was a risky move, anyway. You allow guns to cross the border so you can track them. You find out where they go, find out where the cartel’s headquarters are and what-all is happening. It was a risky thing to do. They shut it down. When the tracking devices and the guns were found, they shut the program down.

There were no tracking devices of Obama’s guns.

There was no effort to find out where they went.

And Holder has lied so much about it. (summarized) “Oh, I didn’t know about the program. When I came into office it was already underway. Nobody told me about it in months.” It was dead! It died in 2007. There were two dormant years between Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. Wide Receiver was a sting operation. There doesn’t seem to be any plan for any kind of a sting in Fast and Furious, at least not against the gun smugglers.

As I say, the simplest way to understand this is the Bush administration was trying to build a case (along with the Mexican government) against a violent group of Mexican drug smugglers. Fast and Furious was an effort to build a case against the Second Amendment and American gun dealers. Because after all, if Fast and Furious worked the way the regime wanted it to, guess who is in the crosshairs? The people selling these guns (in Arizona and elsewhere) that ended up in the hands of the drug cartel.

Don’t think that wasn’t part of the plan, either. So now, whatever documentation there is on this is under protection of executive privilege. It’s got to be pretty bad. Whatever is in there, Obama has to be very worried about it — and that’s why he’s hiding it. So the question here must always be: “What’s Obama hiding?” And Dick Morris said a couple days ago that it must be pretty bad to bring this up now. Because Fast and Furious, before Wednesday of this week, everybody laughed at it. Other than us.

But the mainstream media and the Democrats laughed at it. They thought it was nothing more than a branch office of the birthers, a bunch of conspiracy kooks. But now? “My gosh! This is so big that the president has invoked executive privilege. What’s in there?” In 2007, when the Bush administration closed down Wide Receiver, they said: Never again. My guess is that somebody in the Obama regime discovered this program, thought it was cool, and thought it might serve a different purpose.

And it’s heinous.

It’s heinous what they did.

 

END TRANSCRIPT

thumb

If the Obamacare Ruling Goes Our Way, It’s Worth Celebrating

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - If the Obamacare Ruling Goes Our Way, It’s Worth Celebrating

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

RUSH: This is Paul in Glenn Rock, Pennsylvania. How are you, sir? Welcome.CALLER: I’m wonderful, Rush. The more important thing is, how are you?

RUSH: I’m cool. Everything is hunky-dory. If I told you anything other than that it would cause a national panic.

CALLER: (laughing) God bless Rush Limbaugh, now and always.

RUSH: Thank you very much.

CALLER: This is a very quick — Snerdley, I thought he was going to laugh right off his chair. I’m a first-time caller, but maybe a memorable caller. What does he mean — I’m talking about John Boehner and the other pundits — don’t spike the football with the health care thing?

RUSH: Are you really asking, or are you asking rhetorically?

CALLER: Rhetorically.

RUSH: He’s basically saying, “Let’s not gloat.”

CALLER: Huh?

RUSH: We’re not going to spike the football means we’re not going to taunt.

CALLER: We’re not going to taunt.

RUSH: We’re not going to gloat. We’re not going to have the ref throw a yellow flag on us after we score the touchdown.

CALLER: What was Queen Nancy doing when they ran this thing through on Christmas Eve and then just a little bit later marched up Capitol Hill with the ding dong gavel that they use in the carnival to ring a bell?

RUSH: I understand, but you see, if we do that the independents will get mad at us and vote for more communism. Well, that’s what the consultants tell our guys.

CALLER: Well, they’re wrong.

RUSH: So you want a little gloating, you want some celebrating?

CALLER: I’ve been celebrating my whole life, because I’m a winner. I’m 69 years old.

RUSH: It’s a character thing. I understand what Boehner’s saying. In fact, after the 2002 midterms, you might get mad at me for this, the 2002 midterms, I was on NBC’s election night coverage with Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert, and it was a Republican sweep. And both those guys were stunned. The first House race’s midterm elections in a president’s first term usually go against him. The conventional wisdom was that Bush was going to lose because of 9/11. The conventional wisdom was that history would be true to form and Republicans would lose a lot of seats in the House, and it was just the opposite.

We were coming off the Wellstone Memorial and all night long I’m watching the returns come in and it’s going the opposite of what they thought. It turned out to be huge and I was telling these guys why it happened. I loved Russert. Brokaw I like. He’s okay. But clearly they were shocked. They get stuck in their narratives. And when the night was over and it was my last spot, they said: “So what next, Rush?” I said it’s important for the Republicans not to gloat about this from the standpoint, “Let’s not act surprised we won. That’s what should have happened. Let’s not act surprised we scored a touchdown. Let’s not act like something that doesn’t happen very much. Let’s act like winners, like it’s something that we expect and move on.”

I didn’t want a repeat of 1994, where we won big and stopped teaching because we assumed everybody thought that we had become the majority. So what Boehner is saying, whether you agree with him or not, what he’s trying to express here is that we’re better than Pelosi, we have a little class. The country’s in dire straits and it’s not about us. It’s about saving the country from the direction we’re headed under Obama, and this is one step, but there’s a lot to go. But if you want to go out there and spike the football, you go right ahead. I’m going to spike the football. I’m going to have my little fun with it if that happens.

CALLER: And I could never be mad at you Rush. You are running the Institute of Conservatism. You’re the professor of conservatism. I look forward every day to listening to you and gaining your knowledge that you share with everyone.

RUSH: That’s what my wife, Kathryn, says to me about once a year.

CALLER: I guarantee you. I guarantee you. I’m just looking so forward to the coming weeks and the coming campaign. Could I ask you one other quick question?

RUSH: Sure, fire away. It’s Open Line Friday. That’s what it’s for.

CALLER: I’m speaking personally. In the ’10 election I worked about three months for the Republican Party in the ’10 election and I found out just being on the phones what a big difference that it can make. I found out, just using my head a little bit in my own family, there’s two people in my family that have never voted. Can you believe that? Two people. And they know how I feel. I guarantee you, they’re voting because I’m taking them.

RUSH: This is great. You found out, A, it feels good. And, B, you mattered, you were a factor. But B, it does matter. It’s fundamentally important to do so. I’m glad you did that. Spread the word. By the way, I want to get an indication from you, if you’re going to spike the football, what is that? What are you going to do? If we get a ruling that you like, how are you going to celebrate?

CALLER: How am I going to celebrate? I’m going to celebrate by telling all my friends, all my acquaintances, just sharing it.

RUSH: Yeah, but what are you going to do?

CALLER: I might go pop a cork.

RUSH: Well, okay. Pop popcorn and swig some Big Gulps eat some trans fat.

CALLER: (laughing) I came up with a good one for Mayor Bloomberg anyway. They probably would have come out with a piggyback where you get one, you get one free on a piggyback, that wouldn’t have –

RUSH: Yeah, the 15-ounce cups and sell them twice.

CALLER: Yeah. If everyone’s listening, look in their family, and if they can get one person, just one in their family to get out there that hasn’t gotten out there before. I’m going to drive two of them to the polls.

RUSH: Well, that is superb. One of our great sponsors here, FreedomWorks, that’s what they do. They put people like you together with other people who want to bring about that result. That’s cool. This spiking the football, I knew when Boehner said that, that there were going to be some people not happy about it, because it is a huge deal if we beat this. It’s monumental. It’s going to rank right up there with one of the most important things that ever happened to save the country. And it is worth feeling really, really good about. I understand — look it, folks, it’s inside the Beltway, the liberals run that show. They run everything inside the Beltway. And I guarantee you, they’re being advised by consultants, “Don’t gloat. Don’t spike the football. It will tick off the independents. Obama’s personally liked. People aren’t going to look at this as a personal defeat for Obama.” I can hear it all now.

By the way, I have it on good authority… I had a powerful influential member of the media, I had a super secret phone call this morning from the highest levels of the Republican establishment. I’ll just tell you what I was told. That nobody knows how the court’s going to rule. The person I talked to thinks it’s highly unlikely that Obama knows. I said: “You really think Kagan or Sotomayor or somebody hasn’t called him?”

“No, the Court’s done a pretty good job of maintaining security like this.”

Okay. Fine. Then I was told that if the mandate is thrown out, if the mandate is found unconstitutional, that the Republicans are going to move immediately to ban the rest of it. Not replace it. They are going to move to ban the rest of it. If only the mandate goes down, they’re going to immediately move to ban the rest of it. Now, you have to keep in mind they don’t have the votes right now to get rid of anything. They’re just the majority in the House. They can’t control what the Senate does. They don’t have enough votes to override Obama. But I think I was told the truth.

I think if the mandate goes down, I think House Republicans will make a huge show next week of going after the rest of the bill. If the whole thing is upheld, I think they’re going to make a massive move to repeal the whole thing, because I was told they know. They’re very confident in the polling data that only 30 percent of the American people want this. I’m just telling you what I was told. Time will tell, but it’s well understood at the highest levels inside the Beltway, that I can’t be spun. So I’m pretty confident that what I was told is truthful and heartfelt. Now, beyond making a big show out of repealing the whole thing, if there is an action to follow, we’ll all have to wait and see. Time will tell. And it won’t be very long.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, I tell you: If you want to spike the football next week if the ruling on health care goes our way, you go right ahead. If there is anything worth celebrating out there, it’s liberty. If there’s anything worth celebrating it’s our freedom — and we don’t get to celebrate that enough. We don’t take the time to celebrate that enough. So if you want to spike the football, you go right ahead. Because if this ruling comes down, do you think the other side is going to sit there and whimper away?

They are going to be out there.

They’ve already got the plan.

They’re going to try to scare everybody to death with what’s ahead. “You’re not going to get health care! You’re not going to be able to afford it. You’re going to die. Grandma’s going to die. Grandpa’s gonna die.” You wait. They’re going to be loading this thing up with scare tactics like you haven’t seen. It’s going to become their number one campaign issue. I’ll tell you what it’s going to be. It’s going to be a variation of, “Five people just said that you can’t have health care while they keep theirs. Five people just said that.”

In fact, it’s going to be “five guys.”

“Four white guys and a misdirected black guy” is what they’ll say. “Four white guys and an Uncle Tom just told you that you can’t have health care. President Obama gave you health care. He’s the first president in 100 years to do it, and five guys on the Supreme Court have just taken it away from you.” It’s going to be bloody. You’ll be able to keep everything if this goes down the tubes. But you don’t keep your doctor; you don’t keep your plan if it is fully implemented.

“Five rich Republicans took your health care away from you and they have theirs. They didn’t lose theirs because they’re on a government plan that was just like what Obama tried to give you.” You wait. There’s a part of me that’s always believed that since the thing is so unpopular anyway, Obama wouldn’t mind it going down. And then he can just say, “You know what? To the hell with the incremental stuff. I’m just going to go single-payer from the get-go.” I’m just going to go straight for the whole ball of wax.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We go to Cincinnati. This is John. I’m glad you waited, sir. Great to have you with us.

CALLER: Hey, Rush, good to talk to you. I’ve got a projection and I want to see what you think about it.

RUSH: All right.

CALLER: If the Supreme Court strikes down this individual mandate, which I feel they should and they will, I think you’re going to see Obama and Holder pretty much say, “The heck with state rights.” They’re going to go after Massachusetts over its individual mandate just to distract and deflect and make another constitutional problem, and put the spotlight on Romney.

RUSH: Well, I think you have a point there. They haven’t done that yet. Obamacare, as the legitimate child of Romneycare, is something they have yet to spring. They’re going to do that. We know they are. (interruption) Snerdley is in there laughing himself silly but it’s the truth. They haven’t sprung that yet. But we know the Romneycare authors, advisors, were out publicly last year saying that they were called to the White House to put together Obamacare in the spitting image of Romneycare.

We all knew this during the primary. This is something the regime will use. They haven’t used it yet. When you hear John here say, “If Holder and Obama don’t get their way they’ll launch a national mandate,” and you pooh-pooh it, look: Folks, you cannot pooh-pooh that stuff. Barack Obama, a week ago today, basically said, “(Raspberry) to the US Constitution.” He knowingly, back in 2007 and 2008, admitted to a bunch of Hispanics that he just couldn’t legally grant amnesty to illegal aliens. It was against the law, he said, and he couldn’t do it.

Well he did.

He just did it.

Political re-election, and the desire for political re-election outweighed whatever is legal or not. This bunch has behaved outside the Constitution a number of times. That’s just the most recent example. So it’s not a stretch of the imagination to think that they would, in a fit of pique and anger, say, “Oh, yeah? Oh yeah? Try this!” And just do it, on the theory: Who’s going to stop them? There isn’t an election until November. Who is going to stop them? Pelosi and the Democrats and the House goes along with whatever they do.

Pelosi is already out there encouraging… In fact, this is another thing. We had the story the other day that the debt limit may have to be raised in October. Right before the election. Another debt limit fight would not benefit Obama. Raise spending? That’s why he’s in trouble, one of the many reasons he’s in trouble. So Pelosi is urging him, under the Fourth Amendment, to say, “The hell with Congress!” and just raise it. She claims there’s a clause in the 14th Amendment that permits him to do it.

Remember this came up in one of the previous debt limit battles. Pelosi has said (paraphrased), “I’m perfectly happy with Obama granting amnesty to these 800,000 and more young Hispanics who are here through no fault of their own.” So If Holder and Obama want to spit on the Constitution next week? It’s much easier to believe that something that has happened will happen again than it is to believe that something that hasn’t happened will happen. And they’ve already done it. So it’s a legitimate fear, it’s a legitimate concern, when you understand Obama’s avowed purpose.

Obama’s purpose is to strip this country’s super-power status away from it. There are still a lot of people who can’t get their arms around that. They just can’t. You tell them, you give them the evidence, you throw all his words at them, and they still don’t want to believe it. They don’t want to believe we’ve elected somebody with that view of the country. It’s still a hard sell. But nevertheless, it’s a legitimate concern to have about what these people will do. This is the signature legislation. This is the reason Obama will have a presidential library. He’s the first president ever to have “affordable healthcare for all Americans.”

I know, but that’s what he’s angling for.

 

END TRANSCRIPT

thumb

What We’re Up Against: The Obamacare Phone

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - What We’re Up Against: The Obamacare Phone

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

RUSH: Peter in Rochester. New York. Great to have you on the program, how are you, sir?

CALLER: Rush, I wanted to give your millions and millions of listeners a heads up as to what we’re up against. I’m a doctor in Upstate New York here, and I was seeing a patient in a room and the patient said to me: “Can you hand me my Obama phone?” So I said, “What?”

RUSH: I think I know where you’re going here. I think I’ve heard this, go ahead.

CALLER: Well, I had not heard of that. And so I asked, “What’s that?” And he said, “This is a free cell phone for poor people and we get minutes and everything.” So that was all the conversation I had with him. But it occurred to me that if these Obama phones are going out all over the country –

RUSH: They are.

CALLER: — then would it be hard to believe that there’s going to be text messages and phone calls and all kinds of things?

RUSH: No. In fact, let me give you a shocking statistic. I read this just this week. Obama has 27 million Facebook friends, followers. Romney has 1.8 million. The Twitter numbers are not as large. But the supremacy by the Obama campaign on those social sites is overwhelming. And with these Obama phones, of course they can send texts out. Absolutely they can. They probably do. But the same thing happens if you follow Obama on Twitter or Facebook. It’s not to say that everybody following Obama is a lap dog, eager beaver, can’t get enough of Obama, but that’s how many people have signed up and there’s always varying degrees of interest. Everybody following me on Facebook is rabid, for example, but they’re not that way for Obama. We first heard about these Obama phones, I was shocked, just like you are when you discovered it, last year sometime, and I had no idea. And you’re right, these people get minutes. It’s all paid for. The phone is paid for. The usage is paid for. By us.

CALLER: Around election time I’m wondering what kind of messages are going to be going out, “Meet at such and such a place. Come here get a carton of cigarettes and we’ll take you to the polls,” blah, blah, blah.

RUSH: I think your imagination is the only boundary limit.

CALLER: (laughing) Oh, God.

RUSH: I do. However they could use this. And that’s a good catch. Did you talk to this guy about it at all? Did you just let it drop?

CALLER: No, I let it drop.

RUSH: He asked you to hand him his Obama phone?

CALLER: Yeah, I was talking to him, and in the context of his medical care he was going to need to make a phone call to family. So he asked me to hand him the Obama phone.

RUSH: Let me just tell you. Here are the details of this. There’s a website ObamaPhone.net. I’m going to read to you: “The Obama Phone Program. What exactly is the free Obama phone? The free Obama phone is a program that is meant to help the financially unstable who cannot afford access to a cell phone. Communication should not be limited to people in relation to what they are able to afford.” They actually call it the Obama phone. And here are some frequently asked questions from the Obama phone website.

How do I Get an Obama Phone?
What is the Obama Phone?
Who Qualifies for an Obama Phone?
Who Pays for the Obama Phone?
Is the Obama Phone Real?

Now, in the “who pays for the Obama phone,” in the Obama phone questions: “Lifeline is a government sponsored program, but who is paying for it. Some people claim that the government is using taxpayer’s money to run this program, however, the claim is false. Universal Service Fund (USF) which is administers by Federal Communication Commission along the Universal Service Administration Company (USAC), pays for the Lifeline phone assistance program.”

So you and I are paying for Obama phones via the charges that are tacked on to our phone bill for the Universal Service Fund. The Al Gore tax, do you remember that tax? It’s still on your phone bill. To wire farms for land line phones. We are still paying that tax. And then there’s Internet taxes, Internet access for the poor and number of other things. The outfit that administers that is the Universal Service Fund.

If you can decipher your phone bill you pay every month a tax that goes into the Universal Service Fund and that’s what’s buying Obama phones and providing service for the people who use them. And, of course, it’s known who has them. It’s known what their numbers are. And they can be mass texted, individually, I would assume. But, look, before you panic, folks, this is not new. This has been out there for years, and Obama is in dire straits. When you hear about this, and you think, “How do we fight this? Oh my gosh.”

These are the people that voted for him anyway in large measure.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, this cell phone problem. Government-provided cell phones is not a new program. I don’t know how long it’s been around, but it’s not a new program. Calling them “Obama phones” is new. That’s what’s new about this. And, of course, that’s being done purposely to make the people think that these free phones are coming from Obama’s stash, that they’re personal gifts from Obama. And, in fact, the Obama phone site looks like Obama’s campaign site. It has the logo and all that stuff.

 

END TRANSCRIPT

thumb

Help Repeal “Gay Marriage” In New York State! It Is A Moral Duty!

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

In March, David Storobin pulled off a historic upset: he won a seat in the New York Senate as a pro-marriage Republican in Brooklyn, one of the bluest districts in the entire country. He beat out the strongly pro-gay marriage Lew Fidler and replaced the disgraced Senator Carl Kruger, who sold out his constituents, flip-flopping and voting for gay marriage last year.

Just 10 days into his term, the new Senator Storobin is already making good on campaign promises to stand up for marriage in Albany, introducing the “New York State Defense of Marriage Act” to define marriage as between a husband and wife.

He needs—and deserves—our support!

Please take 2 minutes right now to contact your State Senator to let him or her
know that you expect them to support Senator Storobin’s bill.

Following his stunning, come-from-behind victory, Albany’s newest Republican continues to shock the establishment, showing that the same-sex marriage debate is not over in New York.

NOM has vowed to spend $2 million in New York elections to oppose those politicians who support gay marriage, and to win for the voters their right to vote on the definition of marriage.

You and I must support this fledgling marriage champion in Albany!

But Senator Storobin is just the beginning! Together, we can elect new pro-marriage allies to the House and Senate this November, and send a pro-marriage majority to Albany willing to fight for the future of marriage in New York.

Won’t you please support NOM PAC NY today by making a secure online donation
of $25, $50, $100 or even $1,000 if you have the means?

Donate nowIt’s time for the elite and the media to start paying attention to what has happened since same-sex marriage was imposed in New York:

In New York’s 9th Congressional District, a pro-marriage Republican congressman was elected to a House seat that was held by Democrats for decades (since 1923 to be exact!);
Pro-marriage David Storobin has been elected in a heavily Democratic seat replacing a gay marriage backer;

Republican James Alesi was forced to retire from the Senate after his vote for same-sex marriage made it too difficult to get even compete in his own primary;

Mark Grisanti faces both a primary and general election challenge and is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to salvage his reputation after voting for gay marriage;
Senator Roy McDonald is in deep political trouble and has lost critical support over his vote in favor of gay marriage.

By the time all is said and done, those politicians responsible for passing same-sex marriage will be gone and NOM will still be there working with pro-marriage legislators to restore marriage in New York.

Please support David Storobin and his efforts to defend marriage today!

And please consider helping NOM PAC NY win even more victories for marriage with your generous gift today!

Thank you for all you have done to make these victories possible. These next 5 months are critical as we take the next steps together!

 

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown
Treasurer
NOM PAC NY

thumb

Queer Agitator: “”The GOP’s House Faggots Grab Their Ankles On This One.”

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - Queer Agitator: “”The GOP’s House Faggots Grab Their Ankles On This One.”

June is Gay Pride Month, which immediately begs two questions: 1. Says who? 2. How is it that we have become a nation of such compliant sheep that we accept this rubbish?

The Viacom corporation, on the other hand, thinks it’s the perfect opportunity for its MTV and gay Logo channels to announce they’re creating a second “It Gets Better,” anti-bullying special starring their favorite gay bully, Dan Savage. On the cusp of this news, Savage denounced the gay group GOProud for endorsing Mitt Romney for president: “The GOP’s house faggots grab their ankles on this one.”

This F-bomb has destroyed careers in Hollywood — see Isaiah Washington, the former star of “Grey’s Anatomy.” But Savage just signed with Creative Artists Agency to line up his business offers. One wonders if the reporters who cover television will ever dare to ask the Viacom brass how they square Savage’s routine bullying bursts — whether into a microphone or into a keyboard — with the transparently false anti-bullying persona they’re promoting to make themselves look community-minded.

Hypocrisy doesn’t get more blatant than this. It’s coming not just from Viacom, but also from all those diversity-loving, tolerance-dreaming press critics who ultimately really don’t mean a word of it.

Savage is “more mainstream than ever before,” oozed a recent profile in the Chicago Tribune. In their article, we discover it is now “more mainstream” for Savage to proclaim that the nation’s most devout religious leaders are cheerleaders for teen suicides. “Every dead gay kid is a moral, rhetorical victory for them. They stand on a pile of dead gay kids.”

The Tribune didn’t find this inaccurate or offensive. Referring to Savage’s fear that “It Gets Better” makes him look like a “milquetoast,” the Tribune declared, “If Dan Savage is milquetoast, then he is a particularly piquant version.”

At a student journalism conference in early May, Savage caused a student walkout as he trashed the Bible as a “radical pro-slavery document.” If it was wrong on slavery, “on the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced…What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? 100 percent,” Savage said. He mocked the students who walked out in protest “It’s funny, as someone who is the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-assed some people react when you push back,” Savage said.

In a new interview with the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Savage repeated that “religious people need to learn to ignore what the Bible says about gay people, or seems to say, the same way they ignore what the Bible says about shellfish and slavery. We’re not asking religious people to do anything they haven’t already done, which is to let go of the parts of the Bible that discriminate. They’ve done it before with slavery and they can do it again with homosexuality.”

Savage isn’t hiding his agenda: Hey, hey, ho, ho, the Holy Bible has got to go. Hollywood has made this view “more mainstream than ever,” and he knows it. This secular sex columnist doesn’t have any need to express civility toward his opponents. There is only the flamethrower and the grenades for this commando.

This line was also in his “more mainstream than ever” basket, equating marriage to rape: ” We should start calling male-on-female rape ‘traditional’ rape. Because if all ‘traditional’ means is that it’s between a man and woman, that’s setting the bar pretty low.”

This man not only hates Christians, he despises Christianity itself.

MTV just wrapped up its season of “Savage U,” the show where Savage travels to college campuses doling out profane sex “education.” For twelve episodes on twelve college campuses, MTV posed Savage as the compassionate wise man as he says the most outrageous things. In the season finale at Texas Tech, Savage preached that contraceptives must be used to prevent “the world’s oldest and most disruptive sexually transmitted infection: pregnancy.” He confessed his MTV sidekick Lauren Hutchinson doesn’t like that lingo because “she’s so sentimental that way about babies.”

Savage is so unsentimental that he’s insulted his own adopted son D. J. as thuggish. In an adoring NPR interview last year with Terry Gross, he cracked, “If he didn’t have us for parents — he’s a little thuggy snowboarder-skateboarder dude — and I like to think that he’s blessed to have us as parents because you can see in him the capacity to be a bully.” Thanks, “Dad.”

Earth to Viacom: You are ridiculous when you announce anti-bullying specials hosted by pathetic bullies like Dan Savage. It makes about as much sense as a special promoting vegetarianism hosted by Ronald McDonald.

thumb

E-Mails Expose MSNBC Host’s Involvement in #StopRush Boycott

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - E-Mails Expose MSNBC Host’s Involvement in #StopRush Boycott

Krystal Ball will co-host MSNBC’s new show ‘The Cycle’ starting Monday.

MSNBC host Krystal Ball was in close communication with leaders of an online boycott aimed at advertisers on Rush Limbaugh’s popular radio show, e-mails between the boycott leaders indicate.

Attempting to discover the identity of an infiltrator in their group, the #StopRush leader @Shoq (aka “Shoq Value,” who is believed to be an activist named Matt Edelstein) indicated that Ball had warned another member about the suspected “right wing disrupter.” The other member had “already inquired with Krystal last week, and Krystal said ‘we don’t like or trust this guy,’” Shoq wrote in an e-mail published Thursday by Brooks Bayne at The Trenches.

Bayne said the e-mail was obtained from a Google group, “Social Action Steering,” which was apparently deleted after The Trenches published the correspondence between the #StopRush leaders. The group was attempting to discover the true identity and political leanings of a Texas man, known as “Randy Hahn,” who had joined their anti-Limbaugh effort and caused dissension among the boycotters.

Ball, a Democrat who ran for Congress in Virginia two years ago, is a paid MSNBC contributor who was recently announced as one of four co-hosts of a new daily program, The Cycle, on the left-leaning cable news network. It is unclear whether MSNBC executives were aware of the extent of Ball’s involvement in #StopRush, which used the social network in a campaign to drive Limbaugh off the airwaves by threatening boycotts against advertisers on his conservative talk show, the nation’s most popular syndicated radio program.

Professor William Jacobson’s Legal Insurrection blog has described how the #StopRush effort was evidently coordinated with the tax-exempt non-profit Media Matters for America, apparently using so-called “sockpuppet” accounts in a fake-grassroots ”astroturf” campaign.

UPDATE: In attempting to discover the identity of “Randy Hahn,” the #StopRush boycott leader Shoq sought the services of Democrat consultant Neal Rauhauser, the e-mails obtained by The Trenches show. Rauhauser provided the group with extensive documentation about a Houston man named Jason, whose surname was redacted in the version posted by Bayne. Rauhauser then mused about exposing the man to harassment by sending his personal information to online groups.

“I have been sorely tempted to point him out to various actors — a guy like this, he could really produce some high quality entertainment for 4chan, Something Awful, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc.,” Rauhauser wrote in his e-mail reply to Shoq.

Rauhauser, who was banned from the progressive blog Daily Kos last year, became notorious in 2010 when he was accused of organizing “a group of E-Thugs meant to harass, threaten, provoke, disparage, intimidate, verbally assault, berate & employ hate-speech against those not in agreement with his brand of politics,” as conservative blogger Patrick Read said at the time.

The so-called “TwitterGate” scandal was largely ignored by major news organizations, but Rauhauser has in the past month gained increasing notoriety as an associate of convicted felon Brett Kimberlin.

UPDATE II: After blogging obsessively about Anthony Weiner’s cybersex scandal last year, Rauhauser became involved with Kimberlin’s 501(c) non-profit Velvet Revolution and, last October, described how he was approached by a member of the “Anonymous” computer hacking conspiracy and solicited their assistance in targeting his and Kimberlin’s enemies.

Rauhauser was one of three people — along with Kimberlin and former Raw Story editor Ron Brynaert — whom blogger Patrick “Patterico” Frey named last month as suspected of complicity in a July 2011 “SWATting” incident at his Los Angeles home. Sen. Saxby Chambliss and 85 Republican members of Congress have called on Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the reported harassment of conservative commentators.

UPDATE III: Thursday’s revelation of e-mails between #StopRush leaders was the second consecutive scoop by The Trenches on the anti-Limbaugh group’s infiltration by “Randy Hahn.” Bayne previously posted recorded excerpts of a conference call in which the leader Shoq berated the suspected interloper by boasting of his connections to Organizing for America (OFA), President Obama’s re-election campaign: “Randy, I can pick up the phone and call the director of OFA, can you? I can pick up the phone and call the … battleground state director of OFA. Can you?”

If Shoq’s claims are accurate, the latest reports may suggest multiple connections between the Limbaugh boycott, MSNBC, the Obama campaign, Democrat operatives like Rauhauser, and tax-exempt groups like Media Matters and Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution.

thumb

Hey Unions? Welcome to Politics. Watch That Bloody Nose

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - Hey Unions? Welcome to Politics. Watch That Bloody Nose

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a hat tip to common sense, decided yesterday that nonunion members can opt out of union fees that are targeted towards political purposes.
“Labor unions must give nonmember workers ‘fresh notice’ of unplanned increases in fees or assessments — money that might be used for political purposes — the Supreme Court ruled Thursday,” according to CNN.

For labor unions around the country, it serves as a painful reminder that when they decided to go all-in for Obama in 2008, they alienated the rest of us non-government, non-union members- the 99 Percent- who have to go out and earn our keep every day. And that alienation is being felt in political defeats by unions around the country.

“The 7-2 decision is a victory for Dianne Knox,” says CNN, “a California state employee, who sought to opt out of a $12 million assessment imposed by the Service Employees International Union Local 1000. She did not belong to SEIU, unlike most of her fellow government workers.”

The SEIU was imposing fees on nonunion members in order to build a war chest to defeat several ballot measures in California.

“There is no justification for the SEIU’s failure…,” wrote Justice Alito for the majority. “[The law] rests on the principle that nonmembers should not be required to fund a union’s political and ideological projects unless they choose to do so after having ‘a fair opportunity’ to assess the impact of paying for nonchargeable union activities.”

In addition, Alito found that the SEIU’s collection practices violated the First Amendment saying that nonunion members have a right to opt out of political activity. By contrast “no constitutional right of the union is violated because it has no constitutional right to receive any payment [editor’s emphasis] from those employees.”

I’m wondering if the unions are starting to regret their investment in Obama.

Unions dumped $450 million into the Obama effort in 2008, according to the New York Times, hoping that they’d buy political clout with Obama that they don’t actually own on Main Street. But besides the auto bailout, and a few years of government stimulus spending, the strategy has been pretty much a disaster.

“This is not about payback,” the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s director of government affairs told the New York Times. “We’re looking to work with the new administration on a shared set of priorities that focus on lifting workers and improving the economy.”

I think he meant “lifting workers’ wallets.”

Because on the other counts, I think you can call their strategy a failure: No payback for unions and no improving economy.

And just another fine job for liberals, who don’t seems to be able to accomplish even those things that they say they desire.

Instead, the mass of the country has turned on unions, union members, bloated union benefits and even- gasp!- public teachers- who used to be as iconic in America as baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and, um… Chevrolet?

The laundry list of failures for the union agenda is really staggering. They spent the most money ever. The elected the greatest president EVER and finest political mind since Roy “this is not a salad bar” Rogers opened his burger joint in cooperation with the Marriott Corporation under the supervision of the Reverse Vampires, in conjunction with the Rand Corporation.

And what have they bought? The union has faced the longest string of defeats since the losing streak that started at the First Battle of Bull Run.

Well, they wanted to be politics. Congrats, Mr. Union. You are now in politics.

Card check? The union equivalent of forced busing and segregation? Voters completely checked the box denying approval for card check.

Then there was Madison, WI and the recall rebuke when Scott Walker took on teachers unions. What do you call it when voters vote a governor back in by recall with a wider margin than he originally received in the general election? A permission slip to give the unions detention.

How about that union fiasco with the National Labor Relations Board trying to stop Boeing Corporation from opening a $1 billion plant in South Carolina because it wasn’t a union shop? Another union disaster where they had to lower their colors.

Boeing’s CEO, Jim McNerney, is calling the regulatory climate for business the worst in U.S. history.

From MarketWatch:

Asked by a reporter if regulations are any worse now than in decades past, McNerney gave an emphatic yes. “It’s different today. The attitude is different,” he said. “Unless you live it it’s hard to see it.”

McNerney said the Roundtable “hears about it all day long” from member companies. The group represents large U.S. firms that employ more than 14 million people and generate sales in excess of $6 trillion a year.

Many of those regulatory hurdles are put there just to coddle unions.

But not for long Mr. Union man. Not. For. Long.

Welcome to politics. Watch that bloody nose.

thumb

The ‘DREAM’ Order Isn’t Legal (Neither Are The Recipients!)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - The ‘DREAM’ Order Isn’t Legal (Neither Are The Recipients!)

A week ago, President Obama stunned the nation when he announced that he would be implementing the chief provisions of the “DREAM Act” through executive fiat: He has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to refuse to deport illegal aliens under the age of 30 who claim to have entered the country before the age of 16 and who’ve graduated from high school or are in school. Some 1.4 million illegal aliens are likely to qualify for this amnesty.

Most criticism has centered on the fact that the president is enacting a policy that he himself had said could only be achieved by changes in the law. But a bigger problem with Obama’s move has been overlooked: He’s actually ordering federal immigration agents to break the law.

<br /> The White House claims that it’s telling Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” in not removing illegal aliens. But there is no such discretion.

In 1996, Congress inserted several interlocking provisions into the law that require deportation when Executive Branch officials become aware of illegal aliens.

Congress enacted these provisions explicitly to force the executive branch to place into removal proceedings virtually every illegal alien encountered by federal immigration agents. The exceptions allowed by the 1996 act are very narrow, to be applied only in extraordinary circumstances (such as aliens seeking political asylum).

In other words, the “prosecutorial discretion” that Obama claims he is ordering ICE agents to exercise no longer exists, because Congress eliminated it in 1996.

Congress acted out of frustration that the Clinton administration was using its discretion to let several thousand illegal aliens walk free. Today, Obama is claiming to use the same now nonexistent discretion to let 1.4 million illegals walk free.

Here’s the technical explanation:

* 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) provides that “an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted . . . shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.”

* This triggers 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which mandates that if the immigration officer determines that the alien is unlawfully present, the alien must be placed in deportation proceedings: “In the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title.”

* The proceedings described in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a are the deportation (or “removal”) proceedings of the US immigration courts.

Of course, the president long ago showed that he isn’t serious about enforcing our immigration laws. On taking office, he virtually ended work-site enforcement. That and other actions prompted ICE agents to take an unprecedented vote of “no confidence” in the Obama appointee running the agency. Then, in 2010 and 2011, Obama had his Justice Department sue states (like Arizona) that were trying to help the federal government enforce the law.

Now he’s taken it a step further, ordering ICE agents to violate the law.

I wish I could conclude by saying that at least things can’t get any worse. But there are still seven months until January 2013.

Kris W. Kobach is the secretary of state of Kansas. He is also the co-author of the Arizona and Alabama illegal-immigration laws.

thumb

Checking the APA’s Findings on Homosexual Parenting

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - Checking the APA’s Findings on Homosexual Parenting

Since 2005, when the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting, political correctness has demanded that all agree with the spurious assessment that children of homosexual parents do fine. The APA declared, “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.” In a fit of concurrence, elite opinion-makers, academics, and those in the mainstream media voiced their wisdom by declaring that any household structure works well as long as there are loving relationships within the family unit.

In the absence of research to the contrary and a barrage of positive media images of homosexuals in family settings, public attitudes were manipulated into widespread acceptance of same-sex parenting. The few lone dissenting voices were harassed and discredited.

But the prestigious Social Science Research journal recently published highly credited research that counters the prevailing public and scientific attitudes. Loren Marks, of Louisiana State University, authored “Same-Sex Parenting and Children’s Outcomes: A Closer Examination of the American Psychological Association’s Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting,” which uses objective scientific methods to examine the APA assertion about the outcomes of homosexual parenting. Marks’ research calls into question the validity of the research methods and analysis of the 59 published studies cited by the APA.

Marks concluded that the APA assertions about homosexual parenting were not empirically warranted — i.e., the data presented doesn’t validate their hypothesis. He found that the sampling that these researchers used was not representative: the samples are too small, they do not include data of the comparison groups, and the diversity of homosexual parenting studies was dismissed. In addition, only a limited scope of children’s outcomes was studied. Furthermore, the research lacked the statistical power expected by APA standards.

Research samples are not representative.

  • Samples are too small. Marks argues that “more than three-fourths (77%) of the studies cited by the APA brief are based on small, non-representative, convenient samples of fewer than 100 participants. Many of the non-representative samples contain far fewer than 100 participants.”
  • Samples did not include heterosexual comparison groups. Marks finds that “many same-sex parenting researchers did not use marriage-based, intact families as heterosexual representatives, but instead used single mothers.” That is to say, outcomes for married, intact mom-dad families were not the basis for comparison in the research studies to the same-sex parents; instead, same-sex and single-mother households were compared.
  • Study samples did not consider the diversity of homosexual parents. A great amount of research has paid close attention to the diversity of heterosexual-parent families in terms of their various family structures (married intact families, cohabiting, divorced, step- and single-parent families), economic and educational levels, race, and so forth. However, the homosexual-parents studies are “biased toward well-educated, privileged, white women with high incomes.” Marks noted that these factors have plagued other same-sex parenting studies as well.

Children’s outcomes were not fully researched.

  • The focus of most studies was on parental outcomes, not children’s. The APA claimed, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” (Apparently, few eyebrows were raised at the categorical denial of “any” negative findings whatsoever.) Appallingly, the research supporting this argument did not research children’s outcomes. Marks argues that some studies “focused on fathers’ reports of fathers’ values and behaviors, not on children’s outcomes — illustrating a recurring tendency in the same-sex parenting literature to focus on the parent rather than the child.”
  • The long-term outcomes of children of lesbian and “gay” parents were not fully researched. Studies have shown that in the case of cohabiting families and “two-biological-parent married families,” the differences in children’s outcomes increase in significance as the children grow older. This indicates the importance of the examination of long-term outcomes. Marks supposes that “the likelihood of significant differences arising between children from same-sex and married families may also increase across time — not just into adolescence, but into early and middle adulthood.”

The research lacked the statistical power expected by APA standards.

  • In his most pivotal criticism of the same-sex parenting studies, Marks’ showed that, rather than large random samples that are representative, the data underlying the APA official brief consisted of small, select convenience samples repeated by different researchers of same-sex families. According to Marks, “[t]he 2005 APA Brief seems to draw inferences of sameness based on the observation that gay and lesbian parents and heterosexual parents appear not to be statistically different from one another based on small, non-representative samples — thereby becoming vulnerable to a classic Type II error … the logic behind replication is undermined.” He used Lerner and Nagai (2001)’s book-length examination of same-sex parenting studies as the supportive argument. In their work, Lerner and Nagai indicate that 17 of the 22 same-sex parenting comparison studies they reviewed had been designed in such a way that the odds of failing to find a significant difference (between homo- and heterosexual groups) was 85% or higher.

In conclusion, Loren Marks’ “Same-Sex Parenting and Children’s Outcomes: A Closer Examination of the American Psychological Association’s Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting” serves as a careful scientific examination of the flaws of the APA’s untenable assertion that “[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” Any finding as extreme as this one cannot help but violate the common sense of ordinary folks. It simply bears out what many have come to see as the perfidy of the educated elites’ attempts to foist off on the public views that conform to their biased beliefs — however unreasonable — rather than views that conform to the facts. Marks’ study proves yet again the old adage: “If something seems too good to be true, it generally is.”

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D. is author of Children at Risk (2010) and Marriage Matters (2012). She heads the think-tank for Concerned Women for America.

thumb

Another Sign Dems Are Writing Off Obama

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - Another Sign Dems Are Writing Off Obama

The grown-ups in the Democratic Party are looking beyond what they anticipate will be Barack Obama’s single term, and positioning themselves to survive the aftermath. How else to explain the words of “Obama surrogate” Ed Rendell, former governor of Pennsylvania and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Hillary Clinton acolyte? Bill McMorris of the Washington Free Beacon reports:

A top Obama surrogate said the president will not have to worry about a swooning media or crowds overcome by fainting spells in 2012.

“The media and the population saw him as this transformative figure [in 2008]; he was the first serious black candidate, a new, young, promising figure,” said former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. “People have sobered to that; the newness has faded and people now see him as another practical politician.”

Rendell is known for being blunt, a theme he touches on in his new book, A Nation of Wusses, and a trait that has gotten him in hot water on the campaign trail.

Rendell was a passionate supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2008, and is reputed to remain close to both of the Clintons. As I wrote 11 days ago:

Panic is setting in among the people who ran the Democratic Party prior to the miraculous arrival on the scene of Barack Hussein Obama and the perfect storm of events that propelled him into the White House.

These people, starting with Bill Clinton, the master Democratic politician of our era, can read the tea leaves

The Democratic scorpions are sharing a bottle. Couldn’t happen to a nicer party.

thumb

Illegal Alien Jailed for Raping 6-Month-Old Relative

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - Illegal Alien Jailed for Raping 6-Month-Old Relative

CAMP COUNTY, TX (KLTV) – A man is behind bars accused of sexually assaulting a six-month-old child.

Camp County Sheriff’s Office’s chief investigator says Ignacio Saldana-Rivera sexually assaulted a six-month-old family member. Officials wouldn’t say how the infant is related to Saldana.

On June 8, Saldana was arrested for assault family violence and interfering with an emergency phone call. Authorities say this stemmed from the infant’s mother calling 911 to report the assault and Saldana allegedly assaulted the woman to keep her from reporting him.

After an investigation, the Camp County Sheriff’s Office deemed the woman’s claims to be true and charged Saldana with aggravated sexual assault of a child.

The Camp County Sheriff’s Office says an investigation is underway into claims that Saldana may have sexually assaulted a second child. Authorities would not comment further on whether the second child is related to Saldana.

Saldana remains in the Camp County Jail on bonds totaling more than $100,000. Officials say Saldana can not bond out of jail because of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, hold.

thumb

EU Should ‘Undermine National Homogeneity’ Says UN Migration Chief

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - EU Should ‘Undermine National Homogeneity’ Says UN Migration Chief

Peter Sutherland
Peter Sutherland’s global migration forum brings together 160 nations to discuss policy

The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, the UN’s special representative for migration has said.

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.

He also suggested the UK government’s immigration policy had no basis in international law.

He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.

Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.

He told the House of Lords committee migration was a “crucial dynamic for economic growth” in some EU nations “however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states”.

‘More open’An ageing or declining native population in countries like Germany or southern EU states was the “key argument and, I hesitate to the use word because people have attacked it, for the development of multicultural states”, he added.

“It’s impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated.”

At the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice”

Peter Sutherland UN special representative for migration

The UN special representative on migration was also quizzed about what the EU should do about evidence from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that employment rates among migrants were higher in the US and Australia than EU countries.

He told the committee: “The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others.

“And that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.”

Mr Sutherland recently argued, in a lecture to the London School of Economics, of which he is chairman, that there was a “shift from states selecting migrants to migrants selecting states” and the EU’s ability to compete at a “global level” was at risk.

‘No justification’In evidence to the Lords committee, he urged EU member states to work together more closely on migration policy and advocated a global approach to the issue – criticising the UK government’s attempt to cut net migration from its current level to “tens of thousands” a year through visa restrictions.

British higher education chiefs want non-EU overseas students to be exempted from migration statistics and say visa restrictions brought in to help the government meet its target will damage Britain’s economic competitiveness.

But immigration minister Damian Green has said exempting foreign students would amount to “fiddling” the figures and the current method of counting was approved by the UN.

Committee chairman Lord Hannay, a crossbench peer and a former British ambassador to the UN, said Mr Green’s claim of UN backing for including students in migration figures “frankly doesn’t hold water – this is not a piece of international law”.

Mr Sutherland, a former Attorney General of Ireland, agreed, saying: “Absolutely not. it provides absolutely no justification at all for the position they are talking about.”

‘UK support’He said the policy risked Britain’s traditional status as “tolerant, open society” and would be “massively damaging” to its higher education sector both financially and intellectually.

“It’s very important that we should not send a signal from this country, either to potential students of the highest quality, or to academic staff, that this is in some way an unsympathetic environment in which to seek visas or whatever other permissions are required… and I would be fearful that that could be a signal.”

Mr Sutherland, who has attended meetings of The Bilderberg Group, a top level international networking organisation often criticised for its alleged secrecy, called on EU states to stop targeting “highly skilled” migrants, arguing that “at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice” about whether to come and study or work in another country.

Mr Sutherland also briefed the peers on plans for the Global Migration and Development Forum’s next annual conference in Mauritius in November, adding: “The UK has been very constructively engaged in this whole process from the beginning and very supportive of me personally.”

Asked afterwards how much the UK had contributed to the forum’s running costs in the six years it had been in existence, he said it was a relatively small sum in the region of “tens of thousands”.

thumb

Politico Suspends Reporter Joe Williams for ‘Controversial Comments’ About Mitt Romney

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - Politico Suspends Reporter Joe Williams for ‘Controversial Comments’ About Mitt Romney

Politico announced Friday that it has suspended White House correspondent Joe Williams for “controversial comments” he’s made about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in recent days.

Dylan Byers reported hours ago:

“Regrettably, an unacceptable number of Joe Williams’s public statements on cable and Twitter have called into question his commitment to this responsibility,” POLITICO’s founding editors John Harris and Jim VandeHei wrote in a memo to the staff. “His comment about Governor Romney earlier today on MSNBC fell short of our standards for fairness and judgment in an especially unfortunate way.”

“Joe has acknowledged that his appearance reflected a poor choice of words,” the continued. “This appearance came in the context of other remarks on Twitter that, cumulatively, require us to make clear that our standards are serious, and so are the consequences for disregarding them. This is true for all POLITICO journalists, including an experienced and well-respected voice like Joe Williams.”

“Following discussion of this matter with editors, Joe has been suspended while we review the matter,” they wrote.

The MSNBC incident, reported by Washington Free Beacon, involved Williams saying on the Martin Bashir Show Thursday that Romney appeared most comfortable around “white folks.” This was quickly linked by the Drudge Report receiving a huge amount of attention.

Hours later, Breitbart’s John Nolte caught Williams tweeting, “Either Ann Romney meant Mitt is flaccid or that when we ‘unzip him’ we’ll find he’s a dick.” This included a link to an ABCNews.com blog.

Certainly, Politico is to be commended for its action, but this raises some other issues.

First, will there be any disciplinary action taken by MSNBC against Bashir for tacitly agreeing with Williams’s comments Thursday by not challenging them?

Let’s understand that since Romney has become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, virtually every hour of MSNBC broadcasting includes someone making deplorable comments about the former Massachusetts governor and his family.

Maybe it’s high time the head honchos at NBC, Comcast, and General Electric recognize as Politico has that its anchors and commentators regularly fall “short” of “standards for fairness and judgment.”

On the other hand, MSNBC has practically become Politico’s news network. You almost can’t turn on this cable station without seeing a Politico reporter or editor either speaking Democrat talking points or trashing Republicans, in particular Romney.

If Politico has any intention of being perceived as an impartial news source and not as Rush Limbaugh would say “an annex of the Democrat National Committee,” it seriously needs to rethink its ties to MSNBC.

To be sure, the exposure the publication gets as a result of its employees constantly being on this so-called “news network” is considerable despite the low ratings.

But as no one on the planet takes seriously what emanates from this farce of a station, having your representatives regularly on television laughing and guffawing with the likes of Martin Bashir, Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, and Lawrence O’Donnell as they exclusively trash Republicans can’t possibly help your brand.

thumb

Media Obsessed with Watergate, Not Fast and Furious

Original Article - Media Obsessed with Watergate, Not Fast and Furious

If you want to see a liberal media member’s head explode, compare Fast and Furious to Watergate. If you want to see an entire newsroom freak out, say that Fast and Furious is worse than Watergate.

The Activist Old Media has spent this month celebrating the 40th Anniversary of Watergate. Make no doubt about it, they are celebrating. They worship at the alter of Woodward and Bernstein for two reasons. 1) They took down a Republican President. 2) The media broke the story. Nothing can replace this perfect storm in their minds. Those are also the reasons why the media will not give Fast and Furious the attention it deserves.

With a Democrat in the White House and his reelection on the line, this is the absolute worst time for a scandal like this to blow up. The story of Eric Holder and the contempt vote must run after a hot day in June, as it was treated by ABC World News Tonight.

Also, since bloggers broke this story, the Activist Old Media cannot take ownership and create shrines to fellow “journalists.” CBS says that Sharon Atkisson broke the story, but it was on the ‘net before it went to the Network. Certainly, Atkisson has done a great job on this story – so good that she was yelled at by Holder’s lackeys. She was the first network news reporter to do the story, partly because the other networks have been historically absent on it, until now. But, no network “broke” this story, as they claim. It’s a brave new world out there on the internet, and the Activist Old Media is doing everything it can to ignore and diminish that fact. Blind by choice.

There are many elements that make Fast and Furious #WorseThanWatergate. Brian Terry’s death and the deaths of 300+ Mexicans should be first on that list. Nobody died in Watergate. It was a botched burglary of Democrat campaign headquarters by Republican operatives. Then came the Richard Nixon cover-up. We have always been told the cover-up was worse (which it was), and it brought down a President. In Fast and Furious, both the operation and the attempted cover-up are scandalous. Holder has already lied many times to Congress, and now Barack Obama has become the first President to use Executive Privilege to keep secret documents he claims he has never seen. The media can’t see the historic relevance here, because they don’t want to see it. Blind by choice.

Concocting a scheme to put the most dangerous hand-held weapons on the planet in the hands of Mexican drug cartels should be enough to bury anybody and everybody responsible. Congress wants to see how far this scandal goes up the food chain, and they have been blocked at nearly every turn. Oh, Holder has turned over some documents, but it is clear there is more out there that this administration is hiding, or why the Executive Privilege? I guess that part is hard for the Activist Old Media to figure out. They are busy popping the champagne corks on 40-year-old Dom.

thumb

The America Hater (An Expose)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article – The America Hater (An Expose)

They always get the benefit of the doubt, these America haters — from our enemies, of course. But also from our celebrities, our “mainstream” press and other organs of liberal opinion.

The case of Julian Assange, would-be scourge of America, is depressingly typical — if slightly surprising because the administration he sought to embarrass and discredit was Obama’s. There’s discomfiting news about Assange this week, which we’ll get to, but first, a review.

Remember the respectful treatment the Wikileaks founder received? After publishing 250,000 confidential documents obtained by an Army private — some of which provided names and addresses of Afghan civilians who had cooperated with NATO against the Taliban, others that simply provided embarrassing diplomatic scuttlebutt — Assange got a sympathetic “60 Minutes” interview. It was conducted at the country estate where he was under house arrest (or “mansion arrest” as the Daily Mail put it). A little matter of rape and sexual assault charges leveled in Sweden.

Why, you might ask, does an otherwise undistinguished Australian programmer and “Internet activist” get such cushy digs as the 10-bedroom Ellingham Hall in which to entertain foreign journalists and fight extradition? Why do Bianca Jagger, Jemima Khan, Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali and Michael Moore, among others, provide moral support and/or bail money for the pale crusader? Why does Time magazine feature a black and white photo of Assange on its cover, with his mouth taped over by a colorful American flag?

Why does Assange obtain cult status, whereas Women in White, who brave persecution to protest Cuba’s human rights abuses and Harry Wu, a 19-year veteran of the Chinese gulag who campaigns for religious liberty in China and Manal al-Sharif, the Saudi woman who drove a car to highlight the kingdom’s benighted treatment of women, struggle in relative obscurity? It’s simple: Assange hates America. He has compared Guantanamo to Auschwitz. He claims that Wikileaks has uncovered “thousands” of American war crimes. He disclosed a stolen 2004 Army memo detailing the “Warlock” system that jammed improvised explosive devices. He praised the leader of Hezbollah for “fighting against the hegemony of the United States.” Such paranoid anti-Americanism purchases credibility with the beautiful people.

Did they know or care what he was capable of? Assange was eventually persuaded to redact some of the material he received prior to publication, but as Declan Walsh of the Guardian reported, his initial attitude toward those who might lose their lives at the hands of the Taliban or others for cooperating with the U.S. was brutal. “‘Well, they’re informants,’ he said. ‘So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.’”

Assange is upheld, by those of limited understanding, as a symbol of openness and press freedom. Yet he has associated himself with some of the most flagrant abusers of press liberty in the world. He cheerfully agreed to serve as the host of a TV program on the Kremlin’s propaganda channel “Russia Today.” According to a report by the International Federation of Journalists, Russia has been responsible for the deaths or disappearances of more than 300 journalists in the past two decades.

His first interview — and it was a soft one — was with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who tends to torture people who displease him. When Nasrallah boasted that his code was unbreakable, the two men “laughed companionably,” reported The New York Times.

Now we learn that Assange, who remains under an arrest warrant, is seeking the protection of the Ecuadoran embassy in London. Yes, Ecuador, whose Chavez-wannabe leader, Rafael Correa, has called journalists in his country “media vultures.”

Ecuador’s criminal code now prohibits journalists from showing a “lack of respect” for the president. And Correa has abused a feature of the broadcasting code to require that private TV and radio stations interrupt their programming to transmit government messages called “cadenas.” Between 2007 and 2011, reports Human Rights Watch, there have been 1,025 such messages, sucking up 151 hours of broadcast time. The number of private outlets is shrinking though, as the government continues to shutter independent radio and TV stations (seven in June alone) on various pretexts.

That’s where our Internet crusader for “openness” is headed or would like to be. The British government isn’t cooperating, warning that Assange will be arrested if he steps out of the embassy.

One might say, “He’s got it coming. He deserves it.”

Crush Marxism!
Translate
DanishDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHindiJapaneseKoreanNorwegianPolishRussianSpanishSwedish
Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Boycott The Home Depot!


Take The Traditional Marriage Pledge!


Defend Marriage and Stop President Obama's Unconstitutional Power Grab


Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
Twitter Feed
Follow @wewintheylose (20374 followers)
Welcome , today is Friday, June 22, 2012