Thursday, January 31, 2013

My Favorite Liberal has a Warning....


Although I have to look past her sickening admission she once dated former NY congressman Anthony Wiener, Kirsten Powers’ op-ed exemplifies why she’s my favorite liberal: 

"In a recent interview with The New Republic, President Obama was back to his grousing about the one television news outlet in America that won’t fall in line and treat him as emperor. Discussing breaking Washington’s partisan gridlock, the president told TNR, "If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News…for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”
Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him. What other motive could a journalist have in holding a president accountable? Why oh why do Ed Henry and Chris Wallace insist on asking hard questions? Make them stop!"
President Obama has gotten adulation from the Agenda Media since before he’d been elected to the Senate. Books have been written about the media’s slobbering love affair with President Obama. Still, that isn’t enough for the messiah.

Anything less than constant adoration isn’t acceptable with this administration. Here’s a warning from Ms. Powers that liberals should pay attention to:

"Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.
In fact, if you are a liberal, as I am, you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.
That more liberals aren’t calling out the White House for this outrageous behavior tells you something about the state of liberalism in America today."
Whether it’s fascists implementing ‘speech codes’ on college campuses or whether it’s the fascist staff in the White House, the result is the same: censorship.

There’s no such thing as acceptable censorship.

This is particularly appalling information: 

"What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling – it’s a deep freeze.
On the heels of Dunn’s attack on Fox, Brock wrote a letter to progressive organizations bragging about the U.S. government trashing a news organization: “In recent days, a new level of scrutiny has been directed toward Fox News, in no small part due to statements from the White House, and from Media Matters, challenging its standing as a news organization.”Point of order: who put Media Matters in charge of determining what is and isn’t a news operation?
A Media Matters memo found its way into the public domain and if you care at all about decency and freedom of the press, it will make you throw up. If you like McCarthyism, it’s right up your alley. It details to liberal donors how they have plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees.
It complains of the “pervasive unwillingness among members of the media to officially kick Fox News to the curb of the press club” and outlines how they are going to change that through targeting elite media figures and turning them against Fox. They say they want to set up a legal fund to sue (harass) conservatives for any “slanderous” comments they make about progressives on air. They actually cite one of the best journalists around, Jake Tapper, as a problem because he questioned the White House about calling a news outlet “illegitimate.” Tapper can see the obvious: if the White House can call one news outlet illegitimate for asking tough questions, then guess who is next? Anyone."
________________________________________________________________ 

PULL!

via my buddy Will Profit

Apparently, I know more about being British than Piers Morgan knows about being American..

via Sense of Events 
"According to news reports, Her Majesty's government has suddenly decided that if it is going to admit people to live in Britain and possibly become subjects of the crown, perhaps they should actually know something about, um, Britain."
Applicants for British citizenship will be expected to answer 75% of 24 questions correctly.
How did Diogenes fair....
You scored 90%!
Hey Piers, an eighth grade civics class may be right up your alley there ol' chap!
Can you pass the British immigration exam? 
________________________________________________________

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Craigslist ad shows reality hitting Obama voter right in the wallet…

via Talk Straight-

Click on for full size
Welcome to the real world, nimrod. It’s not like you weren’t warned.
You get what you vote for and you’re receiving everything you deserve. Reap it!
_____________________________________________________ 

Monday, January 28, 2013

Obama Accepts Transparency Award In Private

 "President Barack Obama accepted an award for making the government more open and transparent – presented to him behind closed doors with no media coverage or public access allowed......"
 
The discrepancy between the honor and the circumstances under which it was delivered bothered open-government advocates in attendance, they said Thursday. They were even more perturbed when they discovered later that the meeting hadn't even been listed on Obama's public schedule, so there was no way for anyone to know about it. 
The award was given by Bass's group and several others Monday to recognize Obama's work toward government openness and encourage him to do more......."
Read More 

Obama to Keep His Flying Monkeys Busy for 2016

”If the NRA’s got a list, then Obama for America has a bigger list” - Robert Gibbs
WAPO - "President Obama’s recent announcement that he is setting up a group to keep his supporters energized and enrolled for action in a second term. To be called Organizing for Action, the group will harvest the rich data — e-mails and names — of the Obama foot soldiers who knocked on doors and got out the vote. Certainly, there’s something bigger going on here — a mix of technical prowess and grass-roots smarts. But there is also a whiff of something fishy.

The group will be tax-exempt under Section 501(c)4 of the Internal Revenue Code. This category is intended for social welfare organizations, and if the Obama team sticks to organizing and talking about issues, there’s nothing wrong with that. But in the past election cycle, a number of dark-money campaign groups took advantage of the fact that 501(c)4 does not require them to disclose their donors to the public. The Obama team says that it will disclose. It is a promise but entirely voluntary. 

A second worry is that the Obama team is willing to accept corporate money. While officials say that the group won’t accept cash from political action committees and lobbyists, they apparently welcome companies and individuals making donations. At a closed-door meeting during the inaugural celebrations, the group made its first pitch to Democratic donors and bundlers, Politico reported. No doubt some donors will sign checks in hopes of influencing Obama administration policy decisions. 

A third minefield is what role Organizing for Action might play in election campaigns. Under the law, a 501(c)4 group can engage in some electoral politics, but that can’t be its “primary” purpose. As we’ve noted, several organizations appear to have abused this standard in 2012 by spending heavily for political advertising to support candidates. Is the president now creating an apparatus that could do the same?

What’s most troubling is that President Obama seems to have developed a tin ear about shadow money in politics. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United campaign-finance case, Mr. Obama warned of “a new stampede of special-interest money in our politics.”

Why, then, is he opening a cashier’s window with his name on it for the same special interests? The president and his team may be wizards at social media and grass-roots organizing, but from an influence-peddling standpoint this organization looks to be fraught with hazard."

So,This is What It's Come to.........

A Good Monday Morning



Saturday, January 26, 2013

The Lunacy of Piers Morgan Taken to its Logical Conclusion

Pendark's Perceptions


"If we are to say that it was the object and not the principle; which is exactly what Morgan said; then we must be prepared to argue that the words written in any of the documents of that era were written only to protect the object named as it existed in that era and not the principle at hand.
If we are to assume that what is written in The Constitution only applies to the direct objects cited in the day and age it was written, then we must also assume only the states that existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution are protected by the clauses affecting states.
If we are to accept the logic that it was merely the object of the time protected by the words written and not the principle of the matter in perpetuity; then we must also assume that the words in the preamble to The Bill of rights:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Means only—
The number of states existing at the time of ratification. (As any states to follow would be more modern and therefor more powerful and more dangerous.) Misconstruction or abuse of only the powers of government existing at the time of ratification. (As any powers of government to follow would be devised according to their time and therefor more powerful and dangerous.)
Declaratory, restrictive clauses only applying to the laws of the time; (since any laws after that would be created in different times and could potentially be more powerful and thus more dangerous.) Extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, as only the government of that time and the confidence of the public of that time; since the public at large would by the very virtue of their creation be in more advanced times and therefor more powerful and potentially dangerous.
We must, given this logic, further assume that ONLY the original 10 Amendments to the Constitution may be applied to any time; (as any Amendment thereto beyond the ten original Amendments; was written in a later period of time and thus is more modern and more powerful; thus more potentially dangerous.)"