Politik Ditto

Politiks As Usual: In The News 5/20/13

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Mon, 20 May 2013 04:00:00 +0000

Connect Dots To Obama

Michelle Obama Challenges Black Youth Priorities

White House Word Of The Day – Irrelevant

NAACP Chair Julian Bond Is A Liar

Obama, IRS and Eric Holder: The Axis of Hear No Evil, See No Evil

Black Conservative Comes Out, Declares: 'I Am Not Gay'

In Worst Week of Obama's Presidency CNN Publishes Poll Saying His Job Approval Rose

Extreme Global Warming Seen Further Away Than Previously Thought

Restoring Hope For Homosexuals

Georgia Gov. Deal Orders Bibles Returned to State-owned Park

How Barack Obama’s ‘Tone’ Left Americans Defenseless and Abandoned in Benghazi

Mediaite Exclusive: Internal Memo Proves That CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson Did Not Get Benghazi Emails Story Wrong

Angelina Jolie Is Not A Hero

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Sat, 18 May 2013 02:27:00 +0000

It's both amazing and incredibly sad how so many people are so easily influenced by celebrities, who they don't know and will never meet, but read about or see on a screen and think they know all about. Take the case of renowned, Godless, bisexual, man-stealer and actress Angelina Jolie, a reclusive woman "raising" 6 kids while unmarried to fellow actor Brad Pitt.

This week Jolie suddenly came down from the heavens and blessed the unwashed masses with an announcement (in the form of a New York Times op-ed, of course) stating that she had recently undergone a double mastectomy and reconstructive surgery over a period of three months, after her doctor told her that if she didn't do so she could increase the risks of getting cancer.

Like night follows day, Jolie was quickly given the "hero" treatment for her "courage" by a mainstream, liberal press that worships Godless celebrities who promote their morally bankrupt agenda...nevermind the facts.

Like Jolie, a multimillionaire, failing to mention the huge costs (more than $50,000 and most health insurance plans don’t cover double mastectomies) of such an operation.

Or the fact that more than 99% of women do not have BRCA1, the type of gene discovered in Jolie that raises the risk of breast cancer which led to the actress making the "courageous" decision to have a preventive mastectomy in the first place.

Despite these facts, million of women everywhere are thankful that Jolie (who in the past has been given "sainthood" status by the press for her past humanitarian efforts) will get to live longer. Most of these naive women will also make the idiot choice to pursue unnecessary medical attention for something they don't need all because a rich celebrity (along with the mainstream press) gave them the thumbs up to do so.

Liberal Media Reverting To Familiar Theme Of Attacking Republicans Amid Obama’s Scandals

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Thu, 16 May 2013 04:34:00 +0000

Mediaite.com:

The last several days have been taxing for many members of the political press. The burst of scandals surrounding the conduct of the White House on a variety of fronts have forced the media to turn a critical eye towards the president. Some prominent conservative commentators have warned that this behavioral aberration by much of the establishment media cannot last. They have said that even the slightest overstep by Republicans in response to the White House’s scandals would give the press and excuse to revert to their familiar and satisfying focus on the GOP’s pathological mistrust of President Barack Obama and his policies. While the press does not yet have an overwhelming amount of material to support this effort, they have begun to settle back into that comfortable place.

“The IRS has admitted to targeting conservatives, even if the White House continues to be stuck on the word ‘if,’” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) at a Wednesday news conference. “Now my question isn’t about who’s going to resign. My question is: Who’s going to jail over this scandal?”

Sure, it’s not much to go on, but this undoubtedly a hyperbolic reaction – at least, at this stage — to the news that the Internal Revenue Service systematically targeted conservative groups with onerous and burdensome information requests which forced some to abandon their effort to secure tax-exempt status has given the press a reason to focus once again on Republicans.

With utter predictability, the media sprang into action with a righteous scolding.

“Now you’re hearing even further politicization of something that may not be so political,” declared CNN anchor Ashleigh Banfield. “When you start hearing the cry for potential jail terms — specifically when it comes to the IRS issue in targeting of conservative groups, do you see this as going that far?”

The short answer to this question from George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley was “no.” Not because of the criminal misconduct of the IRS, but because “rarely do people go to jail for it.”

MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts followed suit. He began his segment on GOP overreach by playing a portion of Republican National Committee web video chastising the president for failing to abide by his own promise of transparency.

Salon columnist Irin Carmon was available to defuse the president’s multiple controversies for MSNBC’s anxious audience.

“With Benghazi, Republicans have not really found a smoking gun,” Carmon asserted. “I don’t even understand that they are accusing the president of doing.”

She added that the scandals surrounding the IRS and the Associated Press are slightly more complicated but, in her opinion, the GOP would be exhibiting extraordinary hypocrisy if they were to even acknowledge the existence of a scandal.

“For Republicans, it would be pretty hypocritical to pretend to care about it,” Carmon said of the Department of Justice’s acquisition of months of telephone records form the AP.

“Well, sure,” Roberts agreed. “It was last year, roughly about this time, that the right – that is – was asking a lot of questions of the White House.”

“They even accused the president of being the one in the administration of sending these leaks out into the public on their own,” he noted.

This trend is certain to accelerate. These are, for now, the political press’ opening bid to shift the focus of the story about the White House’s scandalous overreach into a story about Republican’s pathological desire to attack the president and his administration.

Bipartisanship: Keith Olbermann And Reince Priebus Both Agree That Eric Holder Should Resign Over Associated Press Scandal

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Tue, 14 May 2013 22:50:00 +0000

Hey, remember when then-Senator Barack Obama and a legion of other Democrats demanded that Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for firing 8 U.S. attorneys? The liberal media sure doesn't. And yet, having miraculously survived the gross negligence and incompetency surrounding the “Fast and Furious” gun scandal, AG Eric Holder is once again making news for all the wrong reasons with the Associated Press-leak scandal and this time, even Obama stans can't defend him:

Who says there is no consensus anymore between hyper-partisan Democrats and Republicans? Well, just about everyone these days. But the usual Cassandras, often seen decrying the supposed lack of concord in Washington D.C., are unlikely to point to the developing consensus around the notion that Attorney General Eric Holder should resign as a welcome bit of political comity. Still, and in spite of the silence of the hollow, label-free political commentators who value unity for its own sake, anything that brings together former Current TV host Keith Olbermann and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has to be worth noting.

“The First Amendment doesn’t request the federal government to respect it; it demands it,” declared RNC Chairman Priebus in a written statement released on Tuesday. “Attorney General Eric Holder, in permitting the Justice Department to issue secret subpoenas to spy on Associated Press reporters, has trampled on the First Amendment and failed in his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.”

Attorney General Holder has so egregiously violated the public trust, the president should ask for his immediate resignation. If President [Barack] Obama does not, the message will be unmistakable: The President of the United States believes his administration is above the Constitution and does not respect the role of a free press.
Priebus found some unlikely allies in his call for action from the White House regarding the DoJ’s decision to unilaterally obtain two months of telephone records from the Associated Press.

Making up Priebus’ coalition of the willing in his crusade to force President Obama to jettison his friend and close political ally are Olbermann and progressive radio and television host David Schuster:

“If Mr. Holder continues to support this rogue action, he should resign,” Olbermann declared on his Twitter account Tuesday.

Given all this unity, it is a curiosity as to where the members of the perpetually chagrined third way crowd are hiding? Shouldn’t this be celebrated? Is this not a Kumbaya moment which merits shouting from the rooftops? Granted, Holder’s potential resignation is not so much a policy achievement as it is a long-overdue correction, but it is a place to start.

Perhaps, in coming days, we will point to bipartisanship and say that this regularly lip serviced phenomenon actually accomplished something.

Wayne Brady Calls Out Bill Maher: ‘I Will Beat Your Ass In Public’ For Questioning My Black Cred

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Tue, 14 May 2013 00:58:00 +0000

Mediaite.com:

Comedian Wayne Brady‘s animosity towards Bill Maher has not softened since he said last June he wanted to “slap the shit out of” the Real Time host for jokes he had made about him. Speaking to Marc Lamont Hill on HuffPost Live Monday, Brady reaffirmed his desire to “beat [Maher's] ass in public” for saying President Obama, like Wayne Brady, is not a “real black” man.

Maher first explained his desire for Obama to be a “real black president” who “lifts up his shirt so they can see the gun in his pants” during a monologue in 2010. Subsequently, Maher referred to Obama as “your Wayne Brady,” a characterization that put into question the African-American credentials of both Obama and Brady.

“I’ve respected him as a comedian, and what he does on HBO is great,” Brady told Hill. “But when he starts to drag me in, to use me as the cultural linchpin of his not-black-enough argument, that’s bullshit.” Turning the argument around, Brady questioned Maher’s credentials to discuss the black experience. When he meets Maher again, Brady said, he’ll be that “stereotypical black dude” for him “and I will beat your ass in public.”

“Be careful when you make statements like that,” Brady warned Maher, because it will allow his viewers to make the same stereotypical assumptions about black people.

Politiks As Usual In The News 5/13/13

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Mon, 13 May 2013 06:04:00 +0000

Bullets Fly At Mother's Day Parade

Benghazi Whistle-blower a Democrat, Voted for Hillary and Obama Twice

How the Mormons Ensured Victory for Gay Marriage

Obama Suffering the '2nd-term Curse'?

Happy Mother's Day: Five Obamacare Taxes That Hurt Moms Most

Maureen Dowd: Obama's Benghazi Decisions 'Unworthy of Greatest Power on Earth'

George Will: If Bush Had IRS Going After Progressives 'We Would Have All Hell Breaking Loose'

Mark Sanford, Welcome Back to Washington

NBC Cancels 'The New Normal'

Melissa Harris Perry And Guests Translate Amanda Berry’s Decade Of Rape Into Agenda-Setting Narrative

House Republicans Announce Hearing on IRS Targeting Conservative Groups

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Sat, 11 May 2013 22:25:00 +0000

FOXNews.com:

The IRS acknowledging that it targeted conservative political groups during the 2012 election season has sparked bipartisan calls for investigation -- with House Republicans already saying they will hold a hearing on the issue.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Friday the Republican-led chamber would investigate the tax-collecting agency for flagging the groups for additional review to see whether they were violating their tax-exempt status.

“The IRS cannot target or intimidate any individual or organization based on their political beliefs,” the Virginia Republican said.

Cantor’s comments were followed within minutes by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp saying he would hold a hearing.

The IRS on Friday apologized for targeting groups, but Camp, R-Mich., argued the agency had “repeatedly denied” such activity.

“The admission by the agency that it targeted American taxpayers based on politics is both shocking and disappointing,” he said.

The committee has jurisdiction over the IRS, but it remains unclear whether other House committees also will investigate the issue, in which roughly 300 groups were flagged.

Republicans were joined by a leading Senate Democrat in the call for congressional investigations.

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said members have already been looking into the IRS's failure to make sure tax-exempt groups engage only in social welfare activities -- not partisan politics.

Minnesota Set To Become 12th State To Approve Godless "Gay Marriage"

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Fri, 10 May 2013 02:37:00 +0000

LATimes.com:

Minnesota is poised to become the second Midwestern state to legalize same-sex marriage after the state House of Representatives approved a bill Thursday that would allow the practice.

The House had been considered the measure's toughest hurdle. The bill passed 75 to 59 and heads to the state's Democratic-majority Senate, which is expected to consider it Monday.

Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, has said he will sign the measure.

Eleven states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage -- including Delaware, which acted Tuesday. Minnesota would be the first Midwestern state to legalize it with legislation. Gay marriage is legal in Iowa because of a 2009 state Supreme Court decision.

Minnesota, like Iowa, harbors a Midwestern progressive streak. (The state's Democratic Party is formally known as the Democratic Farmer Labor Party.) But Thursday's vote marked a stark reversal from 2011, when -- after a wrenching and emotional debate -- state legislators voted to put a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on last November's ballot.

Voters rejected that amendment last year, and same-sex marriage supporters saw an opportunity.

State law bars Minnesota's government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. The current bill eliminates that provision and allows civil marriages between same-sex couples. In a nod to conservatives, churches could not be sued if they refused to perform such marriages.

RELATED: The Gay Takeover of America

Mother of Information Officer Killed in Benghazi Blames Hillary Clinton

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Thu, 09 May 2013 06:48:00 +0000

Townhall.com:

While politicians on Capitol Hill ready their questions for Benghazi whistleblowers ahead of a hearing on the 9/11 attack Wednesday, Pat Smith, the mother of State Department Information Officer Sean Smith who was killed in the attack, is blaming former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the lack of security for the consulate.

"I'm just told lies," she said in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. "She is in charge. Why couldn't she do something about it? I blame her [Clinton]."

Smith also expressed frustration with charges from State Department officials, the Obama administration and Democrats of the Benghazi investigation turning "political."

"They didn't do their job and now they're hiding behind the word political," Smith said.

No, Al Gore Did Not Just Want to "Count All the Votes" in the 2000 Election

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Tue, 07 May 2013 18:10:00 +0000

The idea that George W. Bush "stole" the 2000 election, while having died down over the years due to the total ineptitude of the Obama administration, is still pushed by some far-Left zealots who will go down to their dying breath hating and blaming Bush for everything wrong with the world. But as the far-Leftist News rag, the NYTimes, even admitted to (albeit reluctantly), Bush did get the most votes in Florida that year. Then too, the idea that somehow the Supreme Court's decision to stop Al Gore from finding enough votes to win in 2000 was biased and filled with errors, is again being debunked:

Last week I wrote that "count all the votes" emerged comparatively late in the game of the Bush v. Gore saga. A number of people have pushed back, here and elsewhere, have pushed back. Gore, they say, offered to do a hand recount of all 67 Florida counties on November 15th; if Bush would support it, and withdraw his lawsuits, Gore said he would withdraw his lawsuits too. Bush turned him down. This is supposed to prove that Democrats always had a committment to counting all the votes.

Well, not so fast. For starters, when Bush turned him down, Gore didn't go and start asking for recounts in all 67 Florida counties. His committment to "counting all the votes" was conditional on Bush withdrawing all of his lawsuits. It was a second-best alternative to just counting some of the votes, one which he offered when it looked like he might be losing. When it was turned down, he went on with his partial recount strategy.

And because of this, the voices raised in favor of counting all the votes were somewhat muted. A Nexis search for the phrase "Count all the votes" in major newspapers turns up just 26 uses in the week after the Florida election--before Gore had made his offer. In the first 17 days of the recount, it occurs just 57 times.

Then, on November 24th, the Supreme Court accepted cert for the Florida recount, with a hearing to be held on December 1st.

Observers knew that this meant the Florida Supreme Court ruling allowing partial recounts was likely going to be overturned (if they weren't likely to overturn, they would have just dodged the case on a technicality).

Suddenly, folks get very interested in counting all the votes: there are almost 100 mentions between November 24th and November 30th, with most of those seeming to come in the few days before the hearing. Then things quite down for the three days until the court decides: just 25 mentions.

Then on December 4th, the Supreme Court vacates the Florida Supreme Court's order allowing the partial recounts to be included in the total, and interest in counting all the votes explodes: 121 mentions in the 8 days that follow. And almost all of that was clustered in the three days immediately surrounding the court's stay of the recounts, and its decision in Bush v. Gore.

Overall, there are 73 mentions of the phrase "count all the votes" in major newspapers between November 7th, 2000 and November 27th, 2000 . . . more than halfway through the recount process. Over the next 20 days, it occurs more than 250 times.

In other words, people didn't get interested in counting all the votes when Al Gore offered a statewide manual recount as an alternative to lawsuits. They got interested in counting all the votes when the partial recounts suffered legal setbacks. People are retroactively remembering something that emerged several weeks into the recounts as having been more central to the Democratic case than it actually was. "Count all the Votes" became the central argument only after the Supreme Court had squelched the preferred "count some of the votes".

People remember having been outraged when the Supreme Court declined to "count all the votes". But partisan fervor was already running very, very high by late November.

Odds are that anyone who is old enough to remember that election was very probably just as angry and passionate before "count all the votes" emerged as the unifying rallying cry for Democrats. Indeed, most of those very people were probably in favor of counting some of the votes before they were against it.

They remember this particular issue as having been more salient than it was for two reasons: first, because all of us tend to remember the end of an experience better than the middle, and second, because "count all the votes" is a much easier grudge to nurse than "I wanted my guy to win, and he didn't".

I don't mean to suggest that Democrats are somehow specially hypocritical here; I am personally skeptical, for example, that Katherine Harris' maneuvers to cut off vote counts were motivated by her fervent committment to administrative efficiency and strict deadline discipline. Both sides had reasonable points, and reasonable grievances. But Al Gore was running for president, not Santa. The procedure he chose--and stuck with, until a court told him to knock it off--was not fair. And by the time the case hit the Supreme Court, his supporters (and the Florida Supreme Court) had already invested a huge amount of credibility in coming up with creative reasons that it should happen anyway.

Ironically, I suspect that if Gore had simply unilaterally requested a statewide manual recount, or the Florida Supreme Court had forced one upon him, the United States Supreme Court would have probably stayed out of it. But they didn't, and as they say, the rest is history.

Emergence of Whistleblowers Proves That Charges Of A Benghazi Cover-Up No Longer ‘Fox-Induced Hysteria’

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Mon, 06 May 2013 23:51:00 +0000

Mediaite.com:

The emergence of a number of whistleblowers who have come forward to refute the claims made by some members of President Barack Obama’s administration relating to the September 11, 2012, attack on an American consulate in Benghazi does not directly implicate the White House in a cover-up. They do, however, demolish the politically-motivated allegations by a slew of commentators on the left who asserted that those reporters doggedly investigating the American response to the attack were onto something. Those left-of-center commentators who dismissed the investigation into the Benghazi attack as a right-wing delusion animated by a personal hatred of the president have never looked more vacuous.

An interim report from the House investigation into the administration’s response to Benghazi released in April is particularly damning. The report found that the decision to withdraw security assets from the region is likely to have come from the highest levels of the State Department. The report also found State’s talking points relating to the attack were altered to remove references to Al Qaeda’s involvement. These edits are unlikely to have been made to protect classified information, and may have been made to support the White House’s election year claim that the terror group had been effectively neutralized.

Some of the claims made by the Benghazi whistleblowers support the interim House report’s assertions.
According to a report in Fox News, one anonymous source and deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, Mark I. Thompson, both allege that Sec. Hillary Clinton tried to get the anti-terror agency “out of the chain of reporting and decision-making” on the night of the Benghazi attack. This claim directly contradicts the testimony Sec. Clinton delivered before the House in January of this year.

“What happens when a lie goes astray?” Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman asked on November 5, 2012. “You may recall the right wing’s hysteria last week over the way that events had supposedly played out in Benghazi, Libya. Stoked by inflammatory, deeply irresponsible misreporting on Fox News, they insisted that this scandal was bigger than Watergate, and that for his cowardice President Obama would be disgraced as commander in chief and impeached and removed from office should he win a second term.”

On November 27, Bookman continued to celebrate the “utter collapse of the Fox narrative” regarding the Benghazi attack. “For more than two months, the network and those in Washington who follow its lead tried to create a firestorm of controversy regarding Benghazi, but time and again, as facts came to light, each right-wing claim about Benghazi was exposed as false and inflammatory,” Bookman wrote.

“Benghazi has entered the realm of churning, right-wing myth making,” declared Media Matters for America Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert in The Huffington Post on November 2, 2012. “The story has become completely detached from reality, and the twisted narrative feeds off itself with constant misinformation that’s repeatedly presented as ‘fact.’ This process is powered by Fox News and the burning desire within the GOP Noise Machine to portray Obama as a monster who is at war with the United States.”

Obama’s supposedly shameful role in the Benghazi story only confirms everything right-wing voices have hated, and warned followers, about Obama for the last four years: He’s foreign. He’s an other. He’s not like the rest of us.
In this way, Boehlert, and much of the MMFA apparatus, linked the ultimately credible claims about inaction on Benghazi with fevered and baseless attacks on Obama’s heritage levied by fringe and unserious actors on the periphery of legitimate political discourse.

“[T]he latest right-wing allegations about Benghazi have reached the realm of lurid conservative conspiracy porn,” wrote Salon’s Joan Walsh on October 15, 2012, in reaction to an Examiner.com story which noted that Sec. Clinton had and suggested that the White House, not the State Department, were the source of the confused blaming of the attack on an anti-Islamic YouTube video.

Of course, those invested in the narrative that charges of a cover-up relating to the response to the Benghazi attack are meritless are not backing off that insistence just yet. Mother Jones columnist Kevin Drum charges that the Benghazi whistleblowers may not be honest brokers because Obama himself has said he is not aware of their charges. Furthermore, the fact that the whistleblowers are represented by known conservatives is reason to be suspicious of their claims.

One of the State Department whistleblowers is represented by Victoria Toensing, a longtime Republican operative whose name you might recall from both the Monica Lewinsky and Valerie Plame affairs. Ed Henry of Fox News asked Obama about all this at his press conference on Tuesday, but apparently even the vast apparatus of the West Wing can’t keep up with the latest Republican conspiracy theories on Benghazi. Obama had no idea what he was talking about.
Drum cites author Tom Ricks, who made waves after accusing Fox News of hyping the Benghazi story on a Fox News program, who has taken to the pages of his Foreign Policy Magazine column to refute one whistleblower who insists that American air assets could have responded to the second attack on a Benghazi safe house on the night of the attack. Ricks also insisted in his infamous Fox News appearance that the claims of a cover-up in the Benghazi story “aren’t going to stop [U.N. Ambassador] Susan Rice from being Secretary of State.” While Toensing conflict of interest raises red flags for Drum, Ricks’ political allegiances and obvious motive to save face do not appear to serve as reason for Drum to be skeptical of him.

Beyond Ricks’ own conflict of interest, CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson‘s reporting has indicated that “The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.”

Make no mistake, the narrative that clears the Obama administration from culpability in the failure to save American lives in Benghazi is collapsing.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 5/6/13

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Mon, 06 May 2013 05:19:00 +0000

When Christians Become A 'Hated Minority'

Clinton Sought End-Run Around Counter-Terrorism Bureau on Night of Benghazi Attack, Witness Will Say

NBA's Jason Collins: 'Gay' Superhero!

Obama's Commerce Pick Funded Fox News Enemy

Obama: Americans 'Are Root Cause of Violence That's Been Happening Here in Mexico'

Obama's Deficit Promises Never Added Up

So. Carolina Dem Chair: Send Nikki Haley ‘Back To Wherever The Hell She Came From’

Planned Parenthood Targets Black Women

Israeli Raids in Syria Highlight Arab Conundrum

Referee Punched in Face by Teen Player Dies

Lawrence O’Donnell: Obama’s Tax Rate ‘In the High Twenties’; Nope! Try 18.4%

NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg Correctly Claims New York Times Fakes Interest In Plight Of African Americans

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Fri, 03 May 2013 14:30:00 +0000

I'd agree and go so far to say that 99% of so-called "liberals" have zero interest in the real plight of Blacks in this country. Now getting their votes? Well, that's a whole different matter entirely:

On Tuesday, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg fired back at the New York Times for accusing his administration of embracing a racially discriminatory law enforcement policy with his own accusations of racism. After being accused of embracing a the controversial “stop-and-frisk” policy which critics have said unfairly targets minority youth, Bloomberg leveled his own accusations of racial discrimination back at the Times claiming they are feigning interest in the plight of African-Americans.

Bloomberg spoke Tuesday about a March editorial in the New York Times which accuses his administration of unfairly singling out black youth with the “stop-and-frisk program.”

“Last week Bronx resident Alphonza Bryant was shot and killed while standing with friends near his home. He was 17,” Bloomberg said in response. “Like most murder victims, he was a minority.”

“It does not appear that he was even the intended target of the shooters. He was just a victim of too many guns on our streets,” the mayor continued. “But after his murder there was no outrage from the Center for Constitutional Rights or the NYCLU.”

“There was not even a mention of his murder in our paper of record, the New York Times,” Bloomberg noted pointedly. “’All the news that’s fit to print’ did not include the murder of 17-year-old Alphonza Bryant.

Do you think that if a white, 17-year-old prep student from Manhattan had been murdered, the Times would have ignored it? Me neither.”

Gay Mafia Takes Down Howard Kurtz

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Fri, 03 May 2013 02:08:00 +0000

Newsbusters.org:

Politico’s Dylan Byers reported “The Daily Beast is dropping Howard Kurtz, the veteran media critic who made headlines this week for his erroneous report about NBA star Jason Collins.” Kurtz erred in suggesting Collins hadn’t been forthcoming about his fiancee, even though he discussed her on both ABC and in the Sports Illustrated cover story that made “history.” Kurtz’s story was retracted on Thursday.

On top of Kurtz losing his $300,000-a-year Beast gig (which started in October of 2010), TV Newser reported “A source at CNN tells TVNewser that Kurtz’s current deal with the cable channel will likely be his last.” The New York Times had a source claiming it wasn't just a Collins thing:

“This is not a reaction to the Jason Collins story or the Daily Download situation,” said a staff member at The Daily Beast, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the organization wanted Ms. Brown’s statement to be its only public comment.

Kurtz is also active at the Daily Download website, and he and his regular partner in video productions there, the site's executive editor Lauren Ashburn, appear together on the PBS NewsHour. Erik Wemple at The Washington Post had a longer version of that line:

A source at The Daily Beast suggested Thursday that the parting of ways was a matter of accrual, saying, "It definitely wasn't a reaction to what happened yesterday with the Sports Illustrated post. It's been something that for quite some time - there've been some errors like this."

The anonymous source claimed, “Howie’s been quite distracted with other ventures. We were at the point where it was interfering with the quality of The Daily Beast...It kind of lets those people [at the Beast] down...when you have the feeling that someone in a senior position in the organization isn’t as focused.”

Beast boss Tina Brown announced “The Daily Beast and Howard Kurtz have parted company,” then lauded the excellence of her Washington operation “Under the direction of our newly named political director John Avlon.” Avlon likes to pose as the opponent of ideological “wingnuts” -- unless he has to fend off his colleagues at the Beast joking Dick Cheney didn’t deserve a new heart.

On Twitter, talk was sharp. McKay Coppins suggested the bad blood wasn’t new: “As someone who worked at the Beast for a while, I can say that rumors of Howard Kurtz's departure have been flying for at least 2 years.”

Sean Quinn joked in light of all the Collins goo, “Jason Collins is the Jackie Robinson of getting rid of Howard Kurtz”.

ESPN's Chris Broussard Provides Christians With The Perfect Response To The Sin That Is Homosexuality

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Thu, 02 May 2013 13:00:00 +0000

If you're a Christian afraid to speak up in a politically-correct world served up by ignorant, Godless liberals, ESPN's Chris Broussard provides you with the perfect response to the Gay Mafia and other liberal terrorists out there (it should be noted too that co-host DJ Envy, who lamely renounces Broussard's remarks at the end of this interview, recently admitted to cheating on his wife of 18 years with a D-list reality-TV star) who defend and endorse homosexuality and a host of other sins. Remember folks, no Christian claims to be perfect and "tolerance" is a two-way street.

Lesbian Activist Marsha Gessen Exposes Godless Liberals Real Agenda Behind "Gay Marriage"

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Wed, 01 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

For Hip Hop News & Entertainment at DimeWars.Com

It's all about destroying all tenets of Christianity.

RELATED: Has The Gay Marriage Slippery Slope Started? Slate Writer Calls for Legalizing Polygamy

Jason Collins' Own Ex-Fiancee and Twin Brother Had No Idea He Was Bisexual

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:36:00 +0000

In their attempt to indoctrinate the 4 most popular professional sport (baseball, football, basketball and hockey) organizations with the anti-God, alternative lifestyle that is homosexuality, the Godless Left has been attempting for months now to get any pro athlete to "come out" and admit that they're involved in same-sex, intimate relationships in their personal life. This has not only been done to normalize homosexuality, but to spread it to environments that have long been associated with heterosexuality and machismo--thus, lies the true purpose of the Gay Mafia as their attempts to destroy all tenets of Christianity continue to evolve and foster.

So after recently failing, for months, to pressure the "first gay" professional football player to "come out", the Godless Left lucked out and found their perfect tool in Jason Collins, a 12-year NBA veteran and backup center who recently announced (and made it on the cover of Sports Illustrated for the first time for no other reason but that he likes to engage in sex with other men) that he is "gay". Collins announcement has resonated around the sports world, with Godless Leftist advocates, hypocrites, race baiters and other trolls like Spike Lee and Barack Obama praising his "bravery" while denigrating anyone who dares to speak on Christian views towards homosexuality and/or anyone who doesn't stand up and praise Collins sexual choice.

Of course, it doesn't hurt the "race equals homosexuality" clause in radical liberal dogma that a movie is currently out celebrating the life story of a true hero like Jackie Robinson (the first Black player to make the major leagues). And if you're the mainstream media salivating over this kind of thing, it can't hurt to lie and mislead an ignorant public about Collins status as an "active player" (he's really a free agent) or that he's actually been with women (guess that fuax "gay gene" splits in half to cause bisexuality) sexually in the past (including a fiancee that he was recently involved with for 8 years) or that even his own twin brother didn't know that he was "gay". But hey, since when does a good indoctrination story have to include something like facts? Carry on:

The woman who was once engaged to NBA star Jason Collins tells TMZ, she had NO CLUE he was gay at the time of their relationship ... in fact, she only found out last weekend ... and she was floored.

Carolyn Moos (who played a few seasons in the WNBA) dated Collins for seven years and was engaged to him until they broke up in 2009 ... after Collins pulled the plug on their wedding.

Carolyn tells TMZ, she never once suspected he was gay, so the news is shocking. She says Collins eventually revealed everything last weekend -- just days before his big announcement -- and said that his homosexuality was the real reason he ended things with her.

At the time of their breakup, Carolyn says Jason gave a bunch of BS reasons for calling it quits ... and she could never understand what went wrong, until now.

Carolyn -- who's back on the hunt for Mr. Right -- tells us, "It's very emotional for me as a woman to have invested 8 years in my dream to have a husband, soul mate, and best friend in him. So this is all hard to understand."

She adds, "I care about [Jason] tremendously and only want the best for him. I want Jason to be happy for a lifetime and stay true to who he really is, inside and out."

Chris Broussard Quote of the Day!

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:53:00 +0000

"If you're openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits. It says that that's a sin. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and Jesus Christ."

- ESPN's Chris Broussard on the news of NBA backup center Jason Collins "coming out" as gay

Politiks As Usual: In The News 4/29/13

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 04:30:00 +0000

New York Officials Seek Human Remains Amid Debris from Boeing Jet

Obama Becomes First Sitting President to Address Planned Parenthood

Why Is Atheism So Appealing?

Is The US Ready For A Third President Called Bush?

Liberals Suck at Math and Eyeballs

Obama's Borrowed More Per Household ($53,616) Than Median Household Earns ($50,502)

Huffington Post Journalist Admits ‘Gay Marriage Opens the Door’ for Polygamy ‘and Other Things’

Liberals: ‘We Do Want to Change Marriage’

ABC's Lobbying Failed: NFL Teams Failed to Draft the Openly Gay Kicker They Promoted

Holder Defends Mirandizing Boston Bombing Suspect

Judge: Firing Teacher Who Called Homosexuality A Sin Reflects ‘Modern British Values Of Tolerance’

McCain, GOP Lawmakers: Syrian Chemical Weapons Threaten U.S.

Biden Says McCain Would’ve Won 2008 If Not For Economic Collapse, Senator Responds On Meet The Press

Eric Holder Ignores Black America And Says Citizenship For Illegal Immigrants Is A ‘Matter Of Civil And Human Rights’

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:27:00 +0000

Illegal immigration hurts Blacks esp. due to the high unemployment rate and minorities being on the lower end of the skill spectrum due to lack of education, the breakdown of the family and poverty. But sadly naive and ignorant black Americans will still support a half-black president (and his Stepin Fetchit attorney general Eric Holder) who openly supports illegal immigrants because their Godless, white, liberal massahs tell them to:

During an April 24 address to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Attorney General Eric Holder told the crowd that “creating a pathway to earned citizenship” is a critical element of any comprehensive immigration reform plan. He said that establishing legal status for the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants is a “matter of civil and human rights.”

“Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential,” Holder said to applause. “The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows transcends the issue of immigration status.”

“This is a matter of civil and human rights,” Holder continued. “It is about who we are as a nation. And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity.”

Holder said that the reform proposals under consideration in the Congress are “consistent with these basic principles.”

Four Years Later: George W. Bush Grows In Americans' Esteem

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 04:00:00 +0000

FoxNews.com:

When he left the White House in January 2009 after two tumultuous terms, President George W. Bush -- the only man to attain the presidency by virtue of a Supreme Court ruling and only the second son of a president to also serve as president -- was nursing an approval rating around 30 percent.

Four years later, however, public opinion has turned slowly but steadily in the former president’s direction. A nationwide Fox News poll conducted earlier this week now finds registered voters evenly split in their assessments of the 43rd president -- a verdict roughly equal to the esteem in which they hold his successor, President Obama.

As Bush prepares to attend the dedication of his presidential library in Austin, Texas, on Thursday, his increasing approval generally mirrors the trend for other former presidents, but Bush's turnaround is remarkable, given how low the numbers were when he left office. At his lowest, amid the dark days of the financial collapse in October 2008, only 23 percent rated Bush positively.

Throughout President Obama’s first term -- when the incumbent relentlessly blamed his predecessor for the state of the economy and a host of national security problems -- Bush, aside from promoting his 2010 memoir and giving a small number of paid speeches, mostly remained silent. This was in keeping with the practice of his father, George H.W. Bush, of never criticizing his successor, and it may partially explain the rise in esteem for the younger Bush.

“People are perhaps beginning to appreciate that President Bush, for all his Texas swagger, is a gentleman,” Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume said.

“I wish that some of my fellow scholars, particularly historians and law professors and political scientists, would do what academics are supposed to do, which is to bide their time, do the actual research before proclaiming a presidency a failure,” said Stephen Knott, a U.S. Naval War College professor and author of a book about Bush. He described the Bush legacy as "unfinished."

“It takes a long time for documents, for oral history interviews, particularly classified documents, to emerge," Knott said. "And then you get a fuller, more complete picture of a presidency.”

Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said he wasn't surprised by Bush's rising approval rating.

“We pummel presidents when they’re in the White House," said Brinkley, who's 2007 book "The Great Deluge" was critical of Bush's handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. "We give them a hard time. Then they leave and they write a memoir that becomes an instant bestseller. Journalists ask softball questions, and then they open up a presidential library. And people forgive a lot of the mistakes and say, ‘Hey, he brought our country through some tough times.'"

Obama Administration Alleged To Have Deliberately Edited and Whitewashed Benghazi Talking Points

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 05:21:00 +0000

Mediaite.com:

A new report by five House Republican committee chairmen, released Tuesday afternoon, claims the White House and State Department deliberately removed references to al Qaeda, as well as references to other recent attacks in Benghazi, from its talking points regarding the Benghazi attack. According to the report, internal emails, during the days immediately following the September 11, 2012 attack on the compound, show that such references were removed.

First reported on by Eli Lake of The Daily Beast, the new report claims that: “To protect the State Department, the Administration deliberately removed references to al-Qaeda-linked groups and previous attacks in Benghazi in the talking points used by Ambassador Rice, thereby perpetuating the deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a demonstration caused by a YouTube video.”

According to the report, although David Petraeus (at the time, CIA director) briefed a House intelligence committee on September 14th, noting five previous attacks in Benghazi since April 2012 and potential links to al Qaeda, as well as information that extremists participated in the attack, this information was then selectively removed:

When draft talking points were sent to officials throughout the Executive Branch, senior State Department officials requested the talking points be changed to avoid criticism for ignoring the threat environment in Benghazi. Specifically, State Department emails reveal senior officials had “serious concerns” about the talking points, because Members of Congress might attack the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings” about the growing threat in Benghazi. This process to alter the talking points can only be construed as a deliberate effort to mislead Congress and the American people….
Those edits struck any and all suggestions that the State Department had been previously warned of threats in the region, that there had been previous attacks in Benghazi by al-Qa’ida-linked groups in Benghazi and eastern Libya, and that extremists linked to al-Qaeda may have participated in the attack on the Benghazi Mission.
U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice then reportedly used those revised, scrubbed talking points in her remarks to the media that Sunday. As readers may recall, Rice famously even stated that the cause of the attack was a YouTube video.

Democrats have contested the report’s findings, claiming it is “partisan.”

Even Liberals Are Getting Nervous About ObamaCare

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 04:18:00 +0000

NationalReview.com:

The Department of Health and Human Services has just handed out a $3.1 million PR contract to improve the public image of Obamacare. Advertising Age reports that the firm Weber Shandwick will help “roll out a campaign to convince skeptical — or simply confused — Americans the Affordable Care Act is good for them and convince them to enroll in a health plan.”

Obama officials insist the ads won’t be political, but critics recall that just before the 2010 midterm election, HHS spent $3.2 million on “educational” TV ads praising Obamacare. The spots featured the late actor Andy Griffith, a favorite of seniors, who told his fellow retirees that “more good things are coming” from Medicare. But FactCheck, a nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, noted that the ads made no mention of the dramatic cuts to 10 million Medicare Advantage recipients, who are likely to see their privately managed care scaled back. “The words in this ad ring hollow, and the promise that ‘benefits will remain the same’ is just as fictional as the town of Mayberry was when Griffith played the local sheriff,” FactCheck concluded in July 2010.

Indeed, the facts today are that Obamacare remains as unpopular now as when it was passed in 2010, and Democrats are increasingly worried it will return to haunt them in the midterm election next year, the first to take place after the stepped-up implementation of the law. Reporters at the Cook Political Report, a respected Washington watcher of election trends, noted this month that “almost all” of the Democratic insiders they talked to “voiced concern about the potential for the issue to hurt Democrats in 2014.” At no point since its passage has Obamacare been viewed favorably by more than 45 percent of voters, and the latest Kaiser Family Health Foundation poll pegs its nationwide support at only 37 percent.

The administration is already preparing its excuses if insurance premiums skyrocket next year and parts of Obamacare miss key start dates. HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius complained this month that “no one fully anticipated” the difficulties involved in setting up Obamacare. She blamed obstructionist Republicans for engaging in “state-by-state political battles” to slow down the creation of health-care exchanges.
But many of her fellow Democrats aren’t exactly following her line. West Virginia senator Jay Rockefeller, one of the main architects of Obamacare, calls the bill “probably the most complex piece of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress.” Referring to the implementation of the bill, he says, “If it isn’t done right the first time, it will just simply get worse.”

Senate Finance chairman Max Baucus of Montana has an even gloomier assessment. “I just see a huge train wreck coming down,” he told Sebelius in a hearing last week. “When I’m home, small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect, they don’t know what affordability rules are, they don’t know what penalties may apply. They just don’t know.”

Some backers of Obamacare are even jumping ship completely. Kinsey Robinson, the president of the 22,000-member United Union of Roofers, issued a public statement last week calling for “repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act.” He explained that his union’s “concerns over certain provisions in the ACA have not been addressed, or in some instances, [have been] totally ignored.” Many of the bill’s quickly drafted provisions, he added, “are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer-sponsored coverage could keep it.”

The train wreck that Senator Baucus foresees could push young people into “rate shock” as their premiums increase to subsidize care for older Americans. Obamacare’s “community rating” rules and benefit mandates might prompt employers to drop coverage or avoid hiring new employees. “I talk with a lot of businesses that are thinking of self-insuring or finding any loophole they can to avoid the most onerous parts of Obamacare,” says pollster Scott Rasmussen. A study last month by the Society of Actuaries predicted that medical claims per policyholder will rise by 32 percent in the individual plans offered by Obamacare’s health-care exchanges. In some states, the increase could be as much as 80 percent.

The Obama administration is preparing for the worst. Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute reports that it is getting ready to spend $600 billion that Congress never authorized on federally run state exchanges in order to ease any sticker shock for consumers. But that may not be nearly enough.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 4/22/13

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:00:00 +0000

Adam Carolla: Why Did Boston Bombing Get More Media Attention Than Texas Explosion? ‘Boston Is 3 People Dead…’

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s Rebuttal to Bill O’Reilly on Same-sex Marriage

Media Stumped: It's the Jihad, Stupid

No Indication Obama Will Visit Devastated West, Texas

Barack Obama’s $8 Trillion Output Gap

Erosion of Traditional Marriage Spreads

Slate Embraces Slippery Slope: Legalize Polygamy Too

Media Chorus to Silence Ted Cruz Growing Louder

Bill Clinton Honored by Gay Group Despite DOMA

Family Group: Proposed Scout Resolution Compromises Biblical Values

George Bush Says Brother Jeb Best Man for the White House

Social Liberalism In The Midst Of A String Of Stunning Defeats

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 06:01:00 +0000

Mediaite.com:

April has not been kind to those who subscribe to the tenets of cultural and social liberalism. The advocates of progressivism in American life have suffered two defeats in recent weeks – one fight they sought but the other was unforeseen. The trial of Kermit Gosnell has forced the media and the public to ask themselves some disturbing questions about the nation’s abortion laws and the disdainful treatment of pro-life ideas and advocates by the press. Similarly, gun control advocates suffered a dramatic defeat yesterday at the hands of the country’s elected representatives. Neither of these events had to unfold in the way they did. Convinced of the righteousness of their cause, social progressives have for some time failed to engage their critics as honest brokers. Absolutist social liberals have made a virtue of dismissing their opponents as uncaring or unthinking brutes. This conceit led to some stunning defeats with as yet untold repercussions.

The revelation that the political news media had not pursued the Gosnell case in the same way it pursued other “local crime stories” which many in the press implied were indicative of a larger societal problem; the shooting of Trayvon Martin or 2012’s mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut, to name some recent examples. This admission that the press had abdicated its job provoked a level of introspection in the media that is virtually unprecedented.

Pro-choice writers issued mea culpas for their lack of coverage. Some wondered in print if they overlooked the story because of their own biases or because their social and professional circles simply are not interested in reports that ultimately lead to discomforting conclusions about some abortion practices.
“I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective — of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights,” wrote The Daily Beast columnist Megan McArdle. “The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories — if the sick-making was done by ‘our side.’”

“There is a bubble,” acknowledged Slate columnist Dave Weigel. “Let’s just state the obvious: National political reporters are, by and large, socially liberal. We are more likely to know a gay couple than to know someone who owns an ‘assault weapon.’ We are, generally, pro-choice. Twice, in D.C., I’ve caused a friend to literally leave a conversation and freeze me out for a day or so because I suggested that the Stupak Amendment and the Hyde Amendment made sense.”

Beyond the media, the Gosnell case has transcended the filter on information which the press jealously guards and has percolated into the national consciousness. The public, largely comfortable with the notion of “safe, legal, and rare,” must now confront the idea that some abortion practices in this country may be none of the above.

Not all in the media are willing to ask themselves the tough questions. Salon’s Irin Carmon has called into question the Democratic credentials of The Daily Beast columnist Kirsten Powers who so effectively shamed the media into covering the Gosnell case. She added that the Gosnell case, almost certainly an outlier, deserves as much coverage as the relatively high fatality rate for African-American women due to pregnancy. Those alleging a media cover-up of the Gosnell case “just want all reproductive freedom curtailed,” she writes.

Carmon raises valid points, but she is also shifting the terms of the debate. After failing to effectively justify the media’s silence on Gosnell last week, it is doubtful she will derail the debate about late-term abortion this week. For a nation which has been rapidly trending away from calling itself “pro-choice” over the last 20 years, the Gosnell case has focused the minds of many who would prefer not to face the gruesome realities of abortion after the first trimester. This is not evidence of a trend towards religiosity in America – data suggests the nation is turning away from organized religion. It is a trend in America towards libertarianism. The protection and preservation of an individual’s “right to life” has become a winning argument — emphasis on the word “right.”

This defeat – and it is a defeat – for one of social liberalism’s most sacred cows is compounded this week by the failure of the Senate to pass even a modest tightening of the nation’s gun laws. After four months of campaigning on the issue of gun control by the Democratic political establishment and by their allies in the media in the wake of the Newtown massacre, Republicans and red-state Democrats joined together to kill the token modification to the background checks for gun purchasers. This development was greeted with shock by gun control proponents, but it was a foreseeable development.

“Do we really think thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions and loss is not relevant to this debate?” President Barack Obama asked rhetorically during his post-vote berating of all of Washington D.C.

But Obama intentionally conflated reasoned opposition with cowed obedience to entrenched interests. The endlessly compassionate American people and their Congressional representatives did not cede their logic to their emotions on the issue of gun ownership, but gun control advocates steadfastly refused to accept that their opponents had a legitimate counterargument.

Further, gun control backers refused to reconcile a discrepancy in public polling which showed some proposed new gun laws to be wildly popular in the same way that the fundamental right to own a firearm remains wildly popular.

During the height of the debate over the Affordable Care Act, the law’s supporters dismissed the unpopularity of healthcare reform by identifying particular provisions within the bill that polled well. They said that the bill’s unpopularity would fade away as those popular provisions began to take effect. Of course, that day never came.

In this same way, gun control advocates are fooling themselves. A backlash against those Senators who struck down new gun laws in spite of their popularity is unlikely to materialize. Gun control supporters presumed that their opponents were animated by base or disingenuous motives. In doing so, they failed to make a convincing case for their cause.

RELATED: The World Is Marching Toward Anarchy