Politik Ditto

CBC chairman Emanueal Cleaver: African Americans would ‘march on the White House’ if Obama wasn’t black

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 04:25:00 +0000

Rep. Emanueal Cleaver — the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus – told The Daily Caller that African Americans won’t “march on the White House” over the high unemployment rate in the black community because President Barack Obama is black.

Following his appearance at Republican Rep. Allen West’s Black Conservative Forum, Cleaver elaborated on his past comments about Obama’s image in the African American community, saying, “The point I was making is that black people hold the president in such high esteem, that they would not dare march on the White House even though unemployment is at 15 percent and higher and if there was a white president we would do that because we’ve had white presidents since George Washington.”

Cleaver continued, “The point was that if we had anybody else in the White House, with this level of unemployment, that you know, you would see a lot more African Americans, African American organizations and retro organizations speaking out against it. But because he is revered, you know, he gets I guess the benefit of, you know, understanding that the situation was terrible when he came in. So, we’re not doing that.”

The Missouri Democrat told TheDC that he personally resisted a proposed Annual Legislative Conference (ALC) “prayer” demonstration at the White House.

“I was resistant to a group of individuals who wanted to lock arms, surround the White House, with several thousand people during the ALC this past October and pray. I resisted it because I thought if we did that it would be interpreted as some kind of assault on the president, which I was not willing to launch,” he said.

Lesbian Actress Cynthia Nixon Says Being Gay Was Her "Choice"

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:07:00 +0000

One word...wow:

As shocking as Cynthia Nixon's bald-headed debut was on Tuesday morning's "Live with Kelly," her remarks about her homosexuality in a recent New York Times magazine article proved to be far more inflammatory.

The former "Sex and the City" actress appeared on the morning talk show sans her trademark ginger locks, a look she's adopted for her upcoming role in Broadway play "Wit" about an ovarian cancer patient.

But it was her decision to refer to her homosexuality as a "choice" that really has shocked fans and an angry LGBT community talking.

"For me, it is a choice," Nixon told the Times of her sexual orientation. "I understand that for many people it's not, but for me it's a choice, and you don't get to define my gayness for me.

"I say it doesn't matter if we flew here or we swam here. It matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not."

Nixon, 45, is currently engaged to longtime partner Christine Marinoni, but was previously linked to her old college sweetheart, Daniel Mozes, before the pair split in 2003.

It's no secret that morally bankrupt social liberals and their gay activist pals need to state that homosexuality is not a choice (despite there being no credible proof to this great lie), as saying that you were "born this way" provides teh gheys with the tools they need to create and gain "civil rights". And while many other folks (including celebrities) have made the same factual claim to choosing gayness, it has to hurt the gay crowd tremendously to hear someone like Nixon (who has been heavily involved in the gay community since she "came out" some years ago) admit that it was her choice to be in a sexual relationship with a woman. But Nixon's right. Sexual behavior is an act, nothing more, nothing less. And while most homosexuals only identify themselves by who they sleep with, clearly Nixon (who besides being a lesbo is also a mother, an actress and has been in several relationships with men) doesn't buy the ludicrous idea that it took till her 40's to "discover" that she's gay. And while Nixon's choice to be gay is still despicable and sinful, good for her for speaking the truth to the bullies to in immoral masses that call themselves "gay activists".

Rep. Allen West: Yes, Obama Is The Food Stamp President

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:45:00 +0000

Mediaite.com:

Col. Allen West, a Republican congressman from Florida, joined Fox & Friends Monday morning to talk about his state’s upcoming GOP primary, Congressional doings, and the President’s shortcomings.

Host Brian Kilmeade began the interview by asking West what Newt Gingrich had to do to win the primary in Florida. West suggested that the candidates channel Ronald Reagan, and ask the people if they’re better off now than they were three years ago.

“Start drawing the contrast with major economic factors,” West suggested, “like gas prices, a gallon of milk, even a carton of eggs. Things that the American people can understand.”

Kilmeade then asked about “race code” being used between Gingrich and Juan Williams at the GOP debate last week in South Carolina. He asked West if he heard the same thing, as an African-American.

There is no race code. It’s a fact. Since President Obama has been in the oval office, you’ve seen a 41% increase in food stamp recipients in the United States of America. We have a President that is making more Americans victims than victors.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 1/23/12

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 04:52:00 +0000

Gabrielle Giffords Will Resign To Focus On Her Recovery

Newt Gingrich Pushes For Campaign Cash

Religious Liberty: The Latest Target of Obamacare

John Boehner: State of Union Speech May Be `Pathetic

Miss America Contestant Tepid About Occupy Wall Street, Loses Competition

Obama Administration Says No to Oil, Yes to Biofuels

Planned Parenthood Tries To Cash In On Mrs. Tebow's Choice To Pass On Abortion

Maureen Dowd: Obama Is 'Maddeningly Naïve' - His Presidency Has 'All the Joy of a Root Canal'

MSNBC's Bashir Superimposes Republican Candidates In Front Of Confederate Flag

Rick Santorum: No Pressure to Quit Race

GOP Race Is Now A Tossup

Penn State Coach Joe Paterno Passes Away

Ann Coulter: ‘With Newt Gingrich You Throw Out The Baby And Keep The Bath Water’

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 02:17:00 +0000

DailyCaller.com:

On a Sunday morning appearance on “Fox & Friends,” conservative columnist Ann Coulter explained why Romney fell short in the South Carolina GOP presidential primary, blaming the priorities of South Carolina voters for Gingrich’s success.

“Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall,” Coulter, the author of “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,” said. “We saw it in the debates when Gingrich would say things that didn’t really make sense. That is what you usually associate with Democrats, which I described in my last book, ‘Demonic,’ how mobs behave.”

Some of what Gingrich has said might appear to make sense, she said, but should be analyzed more closely.

“Something that sounds like it makes sense like, ‘Mitt Romney doesn’t have influence over his super PAC — that makes you wonder if he’ll have influence as president,’” she continued. “How many times does Mitt Romney have to say it is illegal for a candidate to have influence on the super PAC. It is not, interestingly, though, for a president to have influence. So it makes no sense if you think about it for all of three seconds, but it sounds like it makes sense. It is just like what you get from liberals most of the time and the cheers and yahoos, and that is what we kept getting from this audience.”

Coulter, who has been a Romney supporter since New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said he would not be seeking the Republican nomination, was asked if Romney should change his strategy now that he suffered a defeat in South Carolina, and perhaps go on the offensive with “fire in the belly.”

Supreme Court Throws Out Texas Election Maps

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:38:00 +0000

Reuters.com:

The Supreme Court handed Texas Republicans a partial victory in a partisan fight over election redistricting that has erupted after a huge increase in the state's Hispanic population.

Throwing out a set of election maps that favored Democrats and minorities, the justices on Friday sent the case back to a lower court, forcing further review of a matter with a limited timetable for resolution as 2012 elections are fast approaching.

In its first ruling on political boundary-drawing based on the 2010 U.S. Census, the high court unanimously rejected interim election maps that had been drawn up by federal judges in San Antonio.

The court said the judges' maps did not sufficiently take into account an earlier set of maps that were drawn up by the Texas state legislature that favored Republicans.

Under the high court's ruling, the Texas judges must redraw the maps for primary contests set for April 3 that will decide party candidates for congressional and state legislature elections in November.

The case is typical of redistricting fights that unfold in states across the country every 10 years after a national census. In this one, protecting the voting rights of millions of minorities and substantial political power are at stake.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, said, "The Supreme Court's swift decision will allow Texas to move forward with elections as soon as possible under maps that are lawful."

The case is being closely watched because it could help decide whether Republicans or Democrats gain as many as four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in November. The Texas delegation now has 23 Republicans and nine Democrats.

MEXICAN-AMERICANS GROUP WEIGHS IN

A civil rights group representing Hispanics, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said the ruling reaffirmed Texas' obligation to comply with the voting rights law. The group said it looked forward to further proceedings in San Antonio to secure fair interim maps.

Abbott had appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the lower court had overstepped its authority, and arguing that the judges should have deferred to maps drawn by elected lawmakers.

Those maps favor Republican candidates, but have been challenged for violating the voting rights of Hispanics and other minorities.

The Supreme Court ruled that the federal district court judges appeared to have unnecessarily ignored the state's plans in drawing certain districts and that those maps can at least be used as a starting point.

"Some aspects of the district court's plans seem to pay adequate attention to the state's policies, others do not and the propriety of still others is unclear," the court held in its narrow opinion limited to the unique facts of the Texas dispute.

Redrawing the Texas districts has been a major political and legal battle. The state's population went up by more than 20 percent, or 4.2 million people, over the past decade, with Hispanics accounting for 2.8 million of the increase.

Newt Gingrich Rips John King/CNN For Opening Debate With ‘Open Marriage’ Question

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 04:21:00 +0000

This was pretty powerful:

Republican hopeful Newt Gingrich excoriated CNN’s John King at Thursday’s South Carolina debate for asking if the former Speaker of the House wanted to respond to the allegations by Gingrich’s ex-wife that he had asked her for an “open marriage.”

“No, but I will,” a visibly angered Gingrich fumed. “I think the destructive vicious negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. I’m appalled you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.”

“Is that all you want to say, sir?” King responded.

“Let me finish,” Gingrich replied. “Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign, is as close to despicable as anything i can imagine. My two daughters, my two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am, frankly, astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.”

“This story did not come from our network,” King contended. “As you also know, it is the subject of conversation on the campaign. I get your point, I take –”

“John, it was repeated by your network,” Gingrich interjected. “You chose to start the debate with it. Don’t blame it on somebody else. You and your staff chose to start the debate with it.”

Rick Perry Drops Out, Endorses Gingrich

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:27:00 +0000

CNN.com:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry suspended his struggling presidential campaign Thursday and threw his support to Newt Gingrich, a development that could alter the dynamics of the Republican race just two days before the tightening South Carolina primary.

"I believe Newt is a conservative visionary who can transform our country. We've had our differences, which campaigns will inevitably have, and Newt is not perfect, but who among us is?" Perry said at a press conference in Charleston, South Carolina.

Perry said "there is no viable path forward for me in this 2012 campaign."

"I have no question that Newt Gingrich has the heart of a conservative reformer, the ability to rally and captivate the conservative movement. The courage to tell those Washington interests to take a hike if that's what's in the best interest of our country," Perry said.

Shortly after Perry's speech, the former House speaker said he was "honored and very humbled to have Perry's endorsement.

"He understands exactly the mission of defending and expanding freedom and he understands that every citizen has different ways to participate," Gingrich said at a press conference in Beaufort, South Carolina.

Perry made the final decision Wednesday night and spoke with Gingrich on the phone shortly before he held the press conference Thursday morning, one source close to the Perry campaign said.

"He believes we need a conservative for president and Mitt Romney is not conservative," the source said.

Jesse Jackson: Deadbeat Dad

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:14:00 +0000

Morally bankrupt social liberals would love it if people would forget that Jesse Jackson, longtime minister, civil rights activist and co-spokesman (along with Al Sharpton) of the Obama-worshiping cult that calls themselves "black liberals", once fathered a child out of wedlock. After all, it was back in 2001 that Jackson, who at the time had been married 38 years with 5 children, revealed to the world that he had fathered a child with his mistress, Karin Stanford, who he met while she was an employee in his civil rights organization, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.

Jackson, a longtime advocate of victimhood and a champion of black people taking advantage of gov't-run entitlement programs instead of doing hard work or getting jobs to achieve success (many conservatives can recall when Jackson was caught threatening to cut then-senator Barack Obama's "nuts off" for having the gall to talk publicly about the lack of morals and self-responsibility in the urban/black community) surprised many at the time with his cheating ways. But now we come to find out that not only is the Good Reverend Jesse Jackson an adulterer, but a deadbeat dad as well:

The mother of JESSE JACKSON’s love child is blasting him as a deadbeat dad for falling behind on child support payments!

In official documents filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court and obtained by The ENQUIRER, Karin Stanford claims the 70-year-old famed civil rights leader owes $11,694.50 for their daughter Ashley, now 12.

Stanford was a top aide with Jackson’s Rainbow PUSHCoalition, and The ENQUIRER exposed their long-term extramarital affair in a bombshell world exclusive in January 2001.

After admitting paternity, the former Democratic presidential hopeful paid court-ordered support and regularly visited Ashley at Stanford’s California home for the past decade.

But according to the court documents, Jackson – who’s remained married to wife Jackie – failed to pay support from December 2010 until August 2011, including minimal monthly fees of $400.

“Karin has tried so many times to work with Jesse on their financial agreement,” a source told The ENQUIRER. “But he was only paying when he felt like it, so she’s taking him to court.”

Megyn Kelly: Is Newsweek Obligated To Put An ‘Actual Journalist’ On Its Cover Instead Of Andrew Sullivan

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:40:00 +0000

Mediaite.com:

Newsweek (and Tina Brown)’s decision to put Andrew Sullivan’s provocative essay (and an even more provocative headline) on the cover was purely about getting people to talk about Newsweek. That was the theory put forth by a Fox News panel during a segment dedicated to…talking about Newsweek. But, as Megyn Kelly proposed at the start, has Newsweek and the mainstream media “crossed a line in trying to get the President reelected?”

Of course, as this was a segment in which a cable news program discusses a news competitor, the customary discrediting had to be done before the conversation could get started in earnest. Ok, lets see. Kelly joked that only four people read Newsweek and then asked if the magazine had “some obligation to pu an actual journalist” on its cover. Ooh, burn, Andrew! Who’s dumb now?!

Ok, where were we?

Kelly then asked if Newsweek was obligated to tell readers that Sullivan was a former TrigTruther. Radio host Leslie Marshall pointed out that the audience has the ability to Google the columnist, but Kelly argued that most people think of Newsweek as straight reporting. The National Review‘s Rich Lowry claimed that the magazine hasn’t been for a long time and is now “the house organ of the Obama Administration.”

Kelly worried that older people like her mom and step dad wouldn’t know that. Well, lets hope they were watching the show today. No one could come out of this segment without realizing just how purely evil Newsweek truly is.

Of course, news outlets dissing other news outlets makes up for about 95% of the daily cable news output, so this segment wasn’t anything new. The most fun moment came right at the top as we got to watch Kelly continue to trash her show’s new music choices.

I don’t know what it is but, whether you’re writing for a magazine or anchoring a newscast, I’ve always found self deprecation more charming than full on attacks.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan has responded to the Fox News segment. In a blog post entitled “How Scared is Fox?”, Sullivan challenges the cable network to have him on to defend his piece.

“What I want to know is why they cannot invite the author of an essay to debate it, rather than two random individuals (including Rich “Starbursts” Lowry) to discuss. Surely that’s only fair – unless, of course, I am on a blacklist.

So this is an open challenge to Fox News. If you want to trash my work, have me on to defend it. Any time, Megyn. Any time. What are you afraid of?

Apart from the truth, that is. ”

Why People Dislike Atheists

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:37:00 +0000

ScientificAmerican.com:

Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America. Only 45 percent of Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential candidate, and atheists are rated as the least desirable group for a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law to belong to. Will Gervais at the University of British Columbia recently published a set of studies looking at why atheists are so disliked. His conclusion: It comes down to trust.

Gervais and his colleagues presented participants with a story about a person who accidentally hits a parked car and then fails to leave behind valid insurance information for the other driver. Participants were asked to choose the probability that the person in question was a Christian, a Muslim, a rapist, or an atheist. They thought it equally probable the culprit was an atheist or a rapist, and unlikely the person was a Muslim or Christian. In a different study, Gervais looked at how atheism influences people’s hiring decisions. People were asked to choose between an atheist or a religious candidate for a job requiring either a high or low degree of trust. For the high-trust job of daycare worker, people were more likely to prefer the religious candidate. For the job of waitress, which requires less trust, the atheists fared much better.

It wasn’t just the highly religious participants who expressed a distrust of atheists. People identifying themselves as having no religious affiliation held similar opinions. Gervais and his colleagues discovered that people distrust atheists because of the belief that people behave better when they think that God is watching over them. This belief may have some truth to it. Gervais and his colleague Ara Norenzayan have found that reminding people about God’s presence has the same effect as telling people they are being watched by others: it increases their feelings of self-consciousness and leads them to behave in more socially acceptable ways.

When we know that somebody believes in the possibility of divine punishment, we seem to assume they are less likely to do something unethical. Based on this logic, Gervais and Norenzayan hypothesized that reminding people about the existence of secular authority figures, such as policemen and judges, might alleviate people’s prejudice towards atheists. In one study, they had people watch either a travel video or a video of a police chief giving an end-of-the-year report. They then asked participants how much they agreed with certain statements about atheists (e.g., “I would be uncomfortable with an atheist teaching my child.”) In addition, they measured participants’ prejudice towards other groups, including Muslims and Jewish people. Their results showed that viewing the video of the police chief resulted in less distrust towards atheists. However, it had no effect on people’s prejudice towards other groups. From a psychological standpoint, God and secular authority figures may be somewhat interchangeable. The existence of either helps us feel more trusting of others.

Gervais and Norenzayan’s findings may shed light on an interesting puzzle: why acceptance towards atheism has grown rapidly in some countries but not others. In many Scandinavian countries, including Norway and Sweden, the number of people who report believing in God has reached an all-time low. This may have something to do with the way these countries have established governments that guarantee a high level of social security for all of their citizens. Aaron Kay and his colleagues ran a study in Canada which found that political insecurity may push us towards believing in God. They gave participants two versions of a fictitious news story: one describing Canada’s current political situation as stable, the other describing it as potentially unstable. After reading one of the two articles, people’s beliefs in God were measured. People who read the article describing the government as potentially unstable were more likely to agree that God, or some other type of nonhuman entity, is in control of the universe. A common belief in the divine may help people feel more secure. Yet when security is achieved by more secular means, it may remove some of the draw of faith.

The findings on why we distrust atheists also point towards another potential way of reducing such prejudice: by reminding people of charitable and altruistic acts committed in the name of atheism. In recent years, there has been a growing number of virtual communities dedicated to those interested in atheism. Some of these communities have begun to organize charitable efforts. For example, the Haiti earthquake led members of Richard Dawkins’ foundation to launch a campaign entitled Non-Believers Giving Aid. In December the Reddit.com online atheism community managed to raise over $200,000 worth of donations for Doctors Without Borders. It is possible that greater public awareness of altruistic atheists may help alleviate some of the distrust that many Americans feel towards nonbelievers.

If MSNBC Sacks Pat Buchanan, Will They Have To Answer For Al Sharpton?

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:24:00 +0000

Great points. Too bad they didn't mention Tawana Brawley or the people who were killed in Harlem at Freddy's Fashion Mart due to Sharpton's incendiary rhetoric:

We still don’t know what Phil Griffin and MSNBC will ultimately do in regards to the Pat Buchanan situation. What we do know is that if Buchanan is taken out permanently, there will be blow-back. And let’s start with what will likely become the focal point for those who take issue with Buchanan getting taken off permanently.

To remind everyone, here is what Phil Griffin said at the TCA concerning Buchanan.

Mr. Griffin said, “The ideas he put forth aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC.”

If that is now Griffin’s litmus test with regards to Buchanan, it will be one that people will use to examine the records of all other MSNBC contractual talent. And here’s where the trouble begins for MSNBC because if the person at MSNBC with the most baggage and history of controversial, provocative, and (some would argue) hate producing commentary at the network is Pat Buchanan, the person with the second largest amount of baggage and history of controversial, provocative, and (some would argue) hate producing commentary at the network is Al Sharpton. By using the “appropriate for national dialogue” litmus test on Buchanan, MSNBC is all but inviting the same litmus test to be applied to Sharpton. And Sharpton would fail that test just as Buchanan apparently has.

This would put MSNBC in a real quandary. If it takes Buchanan out but leaves Sharpton in place it’s opening itself up for a whole bunch of questions it really doesn’t want to answer. It will be forced to discuss how Buchanan’s controversial history is not appropriate to the point that he has to be taken off the air but Sharpton’s at times even more inflammatory rhetoric and history is. MSNBC doesn’t want to discuss that. It’s a lose-lose scenario.

The subject would next parry to how MSNBC could justify keeping Sharpton on the air if it got rid of Buchanan. Another lose-lose scenario. The conventional wisdom is Sharpton appeals to the Progressive demographic and that’s a core constituency MSNBC does not want to alienate right now because of the perceived threat from the even more leftward bent Current TV. Some would say MSNBC is paranoid about Current TV. I think the threat is vastly overstated because Current hasn’t shown that it can even do the most basic rudimentary cable programing things correctly. Look at Olbermann’s set or the network’s premature cut-out of the Iowa caucuses if you don’t believe me. And then there’s the hiring of Jennifer Granholm who isn’t exactly a progressive firebrand of the type that Olbermann and Uygur are. Given all that, plus the Al Gore backed channel’s poor distribution, one could easily argue that FBN is a bigger threat to CNBC than Current is to MSNBC.

Nonetheless, one could make the case that MSNBC has taken an irrational to the point of being paranoid defensive posture regarding being out-left-flanked by Current. I don’t think you’d see either Chris Hayes or Melissa Harris-Perry with weekend shows if MSNBC wasn’t worried about the potential of Current poaching. The fact that they’d be poached down what would amount to a Nielsen black hole is beside the point. They’d be poached.

When you are in a branding fight, facts on the ground can take a back seat to perception. Keith Olbermann first sowed the seeds of this fight by implying that MSNBC wasn’t progressive enough…that it was too much of the establishment. Cenk Uygur further drilled this thesis down by his very public falling out with the network. The perception was starting to take shape.

If MSNBC doesn’t get rid of Buchanan now, it re-enforces that perception amongst Progressives. Remember, this is a branding fight over ideology not a fight over indisputable facts. If it was a fight over facts and absolute appropriateness for the national dialogue, both Buchanan and Sharpton’s records would have to be examined side by side. MSNBC doesn’t want that because it forces the network into a position where it has to at least tacitly admit that it’s carving out an exception for Sharpton because Sharpton and his views carry Progressive street cred whereas Buchanan and his views carry Progressive street ire.

Newt Gingrich And Juan Williams Rumble Over Proposed ‘Child Janitors’ Claim

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 04:30:00 +0000

Mediaite.com:

Newt Gingrich has said several things on the campaign trail that raised eyebrows from a race perspective: his idea to turn young children into janitors, for example, or calling President Obama “the food stamp president.” It all came back at him tonight via Juan Williams, who asked, repeatedly, whether Gingrich saw the comments as “insulting” or whether he understood why it sounded like “you’re belittling people.” Gingrich’s short answer? “No.”

Williams listed several of Gingrich’s comments first about inner-city children and the lack of work role models they have in their lives, and his idea to give them jobs at young ages to teach them responsibility. “Can’t you see this is viewed at a minimum insulting to all Americans, but as particularly to African Americans?” “No, I don’t see that,” Gingrich replied, giving an anecdote of his daughter doing janitorial work as her first job, and another individual who worked in the donut industry. “Only the elites despise earning money,” he responded with a flourish.

Williams then turned and reasked the question somewhat more harshly: “My Twitter has been inundated with people of all races asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor,” he began, to boos from the crowd. Williams noted that he was asked by someone at a black church in South Carolina why he called President Obama a “food stamp president”: “it sounds as if you are seeking to belittle people.”

“The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps under Barack Obama than any other president in history,” Gingrich replied, adding that he believed that Americans had a right to “pursue happiness” and did mind that liberals disagreed, and “I will continue to find ways to help poor people find a job, get a job, and learn someday to own the job.”

MSNBC: Romney Racist For Giving $50 To Black Woman

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 04:25:00 +0000

Not only another no-win for a Republican, but yet another example of how desperate the Left is get the black vote in out there come November. Of course, if Romney ignored this woman or didn't offer her any money, they'd still call him "RACIST!!!". Proof again that Republicans are just wasting their tine going on a failing, liberal network like MSNBC:

MSNBC commentators were not pleased that Mitt Romney gave a struggling unemployed woman $50 after she told him about her hardships.

MSNBC's Alex Wagner called it "one of the more uncomfortable moments on the campaign trail," setting off an angry response from the analysts on the panel.

"As an African American woman it galls me. I don't even like to watch it. I felt like it plays into every sort of patronizing stereotype of black people." MSNBC contributor Joy-Ann Reid said, "'Oh, here is this little lady let me give her 50 bucks'. . . I think it plays into that conservative meme, that you don't need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity, I'll just give him 50 bucks."

"There are alot of very convenient elements to this story, as you said Joy, it really makes cringe. We have this black woman who suddenly almost becomes this mascot for the campaign." said MSNBC contributer Janell Ross, "She is sort of affirming all sorts of Conservative ideas about whose poor and how certain people deal with their poverty and seek out the assistance of a wealthy white man to hand you some form of aid."

Martin Luther King Jr. Quote of the Day!

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 04:14:00 +0000

“One of the great glories of democracy is the right to protest for right…if you will protest courageously and yet with dignity and Christian love, when the history books are written in future generations the historians will pause and say, ‘There lived a great people – a black people – who injected new meaning and dignity into the veins of civilization.’ That is our challenge and our overwhelming responsibility.”

- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968), during the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955

Source

Politiks As Usual: In The News 1/16/12

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:16:00 +0000

Source: Jon Huntsman To Drop Out Of Presidential Race, Endorse Romney

Bain Film Organizer Stands By Claims Against Romney; Holmes Schools Shuster

Horrifying: Obama As Lame Duck

How Progressives Work

NBC Brings More Raunch to Primetime with Launch of 'Chelsea'

Obama on Pace to Borrow $6.2T in One Term—More Than All Presidents from Washington Through Clinton Combined

Haley Barbour: Pardons Represent A Belief In Redemption

Gregory Tells Reid 'Democrats Haven't Put Together A Budget In A Year' - It's Been Almost Three

The R-Word: Hollywood Throws It Around So Effortlessly

Rick Perry Defends Marines Accused of Urinating on Afghan Corpses

“Daily Show” Destroys Liberal Columnist Froma Harrop Over “Civility” Hypocrisy

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:43:00 +0000

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Source

Bill O’Reilly Disputes ‘Dishonest’ ABC News Report Saying He’s Critical Of First Lady

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:43:00 +0000

Watch the original ABC News segment that O’Reilly took issue with below:

Mediaite.com:

On Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly strongly pushed back against a report by ABC News’ World News Tonight that he had advanced the narrative that First Lady Michelle Obama was an “angry black woman.” “ABC News didn’t tell the audience it got its clip they used on me from the far-left web site Media Matters which is in business solely to smear non-liberal media people,” O’Reilly opined. “We brought the situation to ABC’s attention today they say from now on they will call people like me who are injected into their news coverage. I think it’s important because I’m simply not going to let the presidential campaign degenerate into a race-baiting media propaganda exposition…let’s cut the crap.”

According to O’Reilly, ABC News used audio extracted from a Media Matters blog post from September 16, 2008:

During the “Obama Chronicles” segment of the September 16 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly stated of Michelle Obama: “Now I have a lot of people who call me on the radio and say she looks angry. And I have to say there’s some validity to that. She looks like an angry woman.”

During the segment, O’Reilly asked Vogue magazine contributing editor Rebecca Johnson: “The perception is that she’s angry in some quarters. Valid?”

“That sounds kind of bad, does it not?” O’Reilly acknowledged. “Here is the context — that interview was done three and a half years ago when the country was still getting to know Mrs. Obama, who did have some problems in the beginning. You will remember the ‘proud of her country remark.’”

During the segment defending himself, O’Reilly played a montage of every nice thing he has ever said about the First Lady.

“For ABC to paint me critical of her is flat-out dishonest,” O’Reilly exclaimed. “A lot of us have a lot riding on America’s future. It’s about America’s future. Let’s cut the crap. Can we?”

Unanimous Supreme Court Rules That Religious Organizations Can Hire And Fire Whoever They Want

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:27:00 +0000

This is not only a shocker for its unanimity, but could have consequences that would greatly benefit conservatives:

Religious organizations won a landmark victory Wednesday as the Supreme Court held that churches have the right to make employment decisions free from government interference over discrimination laws.

In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court endorsed for the first time the “ministerial exception” to state and federal employment discrimination laws while rejecting the Obama administration’s argument that churches should be treated no differently than other employers.

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the court’s 39-page opinion.

“When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us,” Chief Justice Roberts said. “The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.”

Allowing former employees to file anti-discrimination lawsuits “could end up forcing churches to take religious leaders they no longer want,” he said.

Advocates of religious liberty hailed the ruling as a crucial win for churches in the face of government encroachment.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court rejected the Obama administration’s profoundly troubling claim of power over churches, and glad to see that the Supreme Court has stayed out of the Lutheran Church’s affairs and allowed its internal rules as a body of believers to stand,” said Ken Klukowski, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council.

The case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, centered on a former teacher, Cheryl Perich, who argued that she was fired from the Missouri Synod Lutheran school in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mrs. Perich had been promoted from a temporary lay teacher to a “called” teacher in 2000, but had taken leave after being diagnosed with narcolepsy. School officials refused to hire her back because they had already replaced her with a substitute for the year. After she threatened to sue to get her job back, the Redford, Mich., church fired her, saying using secular courts to solve an interchurch issue violated its teaching on resolving such disputes.

After the EEOC sued on her behalf, a federal judge threw out the lawsuit, holding that her firing fell under the law’s ministerial exception. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, holding that the ministerial exception failed to apply because Mrs. Perdich taught primarily secular subjects.

The high court overturned the Circuit Court, concluding that the constitution’s free exercise and establishment clauses protect a church’s ability to select its leadership and lower-level employees.

Toddler to Say F-Word on Upcoming Episode of "Modern Family"

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:16:00 +0000

Newsbusters.org:

Who needs Glee to stretch the boundaries of acceptable behavior on broadcast television?

According to Entertainment Weekly, a toddler will say the F-word on an upcoming episode of ABC's comedy hit Modern Family:

On next week’s Modern Family, toddler Lily is going to use one of the worst of George Carlin’s famous Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.

The adopted two-and-a-half year-old character somehow picks up the profanity “f–k.” This naturally horrifies her parents, Cam and Mitchell, who in particular fear she’ll blurt it at an upcoming bridal party. Lily is shown saying the word, but it’s not audible to the viewer. The episode’s title: “Little Bo Bleep.” It might be the first time in a scripted family broadcast TV series where a child has said the f-word.

As EW reported, creator Steve Levitan had quite the sales job convincing ABC to go through with this.

That the network bought is quite a comment about the state of America's prime time broadcast media.

What's next?

No surprise here. "Modern Family" is a favorite in the mostly white liberal media world for its pro-homosexual agenda that features a gay, white, male couple "raising" a kid together despite the fact that it's in a child's best interest to be raised by a married man and woman. But morally bankrupt social liberals love shows that showcase anti-Christian sentiments, thus shows like "Modern Family", regardless of how funny it is or isn't, will forever be provided with a lifeline and will no doubt be deluged with awards from liberal Hollywood for continuing to promote an American culture that is growing increasingly hostile towards Christianity.

Rush Limbaugh Destroys Newt Gingrich For Promoting ‘Left-Wing Social Engineering’

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 04:53:00 +0000

Mediaite.com:

Last week, Rush Limbaugh was one of the many predicting Newt Gingrich’s shots at Mitt Romney, the man he Gingrich believes ruined his front runner position, would only increase in intensity following Iowa. At the time, Gingrich seemed fine with the idea, pointing out that it would only end up helping Rick Santorum. However, the radio host clearly has not enjoyed the tenor of Gingrich’s attacks since then as he spent a large amount of today’s show absolutely lambasting the candidate and comparing him to such GOP-unfriendly entities as Occupy Wall Street, The New York Times, and Barack Obama.

Limbaugh went so far that some commentators are describing this as the “nuclear bomb” been dropped on Gingrich.

Recently, Gingrich has been criticizing Romney’s Bain Capital past, making comments that some have seen as a knock on the free market. Rush Limbaugh certainly agreed.

“I don’t know why the Occupy Wall Street people are protesting Newt. They’re singing from the same hymnal on this. This is right out of the New York Times. Newt is parroting what the New York Times is writing about Romney.

…

Folks, it is clear here what is going on. This is not a campaign for the presidency. That’s not what this is anymore. This is payback time. It drove him nuts, that series of ads that Romney’s Super PAC ran in Iowa, and this is the result of it. That’s why we are where we are. I’m not trying to make excuses. I’m just explaining. I’m not defending anybody. I just think this is very unfortunate. This is not the kind of stuff that you want said by Republicans. Even the Establishment Republicans don’t go after Conservatives this way.”

Ouch.

Limbaugh isn’t the only one who’s seeing a leftist streak in Gingrich’s attacks. This is very similar to a piece Jon Stewart did last night. While Stewart was pointing out this seeming hypocrisy amongst the entire GOP field in their attacks on Romney, he did focus on Gingrich. More importantly, how often are we able to say Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart agree on something?

Newt Gingrich Blasts Media for Ignoring Anti-Christian Bigotry; ABC's GOP Debate Questions 6 to 1 Liberal, 25% on Contraception, Gay Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 06:20:00 +0000

Newsbusters.org:

ABC's GOP presidential debate on Saturday overflowed with liberal questions. Of the 48 queries by George Stephanopoulos, Diane Sawyer and others, 20 came from the left, three were from the right and 25 were neutral or horse race questions. A whopping 25 percent (12 questions) revolved around contraception-related subjects or gay rights.

Although birth control isn't exactly a pressing 2012 issue (especially in a tough economy), George Stephanopoulos wasted seven questions on contraception. The former Democratic operative began by noting Rick Santorum's belief that there is no constitutional "right to privacy." He added, "And following from that, he believes that states have the right to ban contraception." The co-moderator repeated, "Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?"

When the ABC journalists weren't grilling the Republicans on birth control, the subject was gay marriage and homosexual issues in general (five questions). Josh McElveen, of New Hampshire's WMUR spun the candidates as unfeeling for not supporting the rights of gays to adopt.

To Santorum, he chided, "Your position on same-sex adoption, obviously, you are in favor of traditional families, but are you going to tell someone they belong in -- as a ward of the state or in foster care, rather than have two parents who want them?"

Co-moderator Sawyer read a question e-mailed from "Phil in Virginia." She sympathetically quoted, "We simply want to have the right to...form loving, committed, long-term relationships." Sawyer added, "In human terms, what would you say to them?"

Only three questions came from the right. One of those was when McElveen hit Ron Paul for not being in sync with the party's stance of a strong national defense: "You have said that you wouldn’t have authorized the raid to get Osama bin Laden. You think that a nuclear Iran is really none of our business. How do you reconcile that, when part of your job as president would be" to defend America?

The bias grew so bad that Newt Gingrich, again, spoke out, slamming the moderators. In relation to the focus on gay rights, he ripped:

NEWT GINGRICH: I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration? The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.

Shouldn't the point of a Republican debate be to inform Republican voters who is the authentic conservative? All Stephanopoulos and Sawyer did was badger the candidates with liberal talking points.

Failing Liberal TV Station MSNBC Ousts Conservative Pundit Pat Buchanan

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:12:00 +0000

Conservatives know that MSNBC is nothing but a ratings fail, with consistently last-place shows that feature far-Left hosts that no one takes seriously but the few radically-leftist yahoos out there that bother to watch them (i.e. "echo chamber"). That's why it's kind of funny to see MSNBC get rid of one of the conservatives left on their programs, Pat Buchanan, for having the nerve to write a book in which he expounds on his conservative views. No doubt MSNBC was pressured by its few remaining viewers to get rid of Buchanan, but still:

Reading what Phil Griffin had to say today about the Pat Buchanan situation made me think about why this is happening.

“During the period of the book tour I asked him not to be on,” Mr. Griffin said. “Since then the issue has become the nature of some of the statements in the book.”

Mr. Buchanan argues in “Suicide of a Superpower” — which has the subtitle “Will America Survive to 2025?” — that the “European and Christian core of our country is shrinking,” which is damaging the nation “ethnically, culturally, morally, politically.” The book also contains a chapter titled “The End of White America.”

I haven’t read Pat’s book nor do I have any interest in doing so. But this is not new territory for Pat Buchanan to venture in to. He’s been on the edge of the paleocon xenophobic spectrum for a long time and anyone who has followed him even in passing can attest to this.

Certainly anyone who has dealt with Pat at MSNBC knows this. Pat has not changed. He may be a bit more vocal and shrill about it but he hasn’t changed his positions.

On the other hand, MSNBC has changed. It openly courts Progressive views and news. It puts out job ads asking for candidates with a progressive news background. Its pundit host class is all progressive and the network lets them show up en masse at the White House for off the record get togethers. The network is openly and aggressively courting the African American viewing audience so much so that it now notes how big it is in African American viewership in its releases.

Add all these things together and you now have a scenario where MSNBC, which used to be able to handle a Pat Buchanan and his intransigent controversial views, can no longer afford to do so without alienating core constituencies it covets. As Bill Carter wrote today…

Mr. Griffin said, “The ideas he put forth aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC.” The network has set out to brand itself as a network designed to appeal to progressive and liberal viewers.

Phil Griffin basically copped to it. If you piss off MSNBC core demographic audiences and they start going ape, as Color of Change did over Buchanan, you may end up being taken off the network, whereas five years ago such a tactic probably would not have succeeded.

And yet, this isn’t Michael Savage we’re talking about where some guy says something on MSNBC’s air that’s toxic. This is Pat Buchanan who is smart enough to moderate and modulate what he says on MSNBC vs. what he writes in his books. Buchanan in effect is being punished on MSNBC for something he didn’t do on MSNBC but is something that he’s been well known for by the people at MSNBC for years.

What I find ironic about this, and gave me the motivation to write up the headline the way I did, is with the Pat Buchanan situation MSNBC has gone and returned to the days of Phil Donahue and the run up to the Iraq War except it’s inverted because this time it’s not Conservative viewers MSNBC is afraid of alienating with Buchanan as it was nearly 10 years ago with Donahue…it’s Progressive ones.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 1/9/12

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 07:36:00 +0000

Obama Covered Up Lavish Secret Party

Giffords Leads Crowd In Pledge At Shooting Anniversary Vigil

Democrats Show No Willingness To Tackle Spending Madness

Pelosi Urges Obama To Run Against Do-Nothing Congress

DOJ Redefines Rape To Include ‘Any Gender,’ Any Penetration

HuffPo: Monogamy Is Killing Marriage

Contraceptives, Stephanopoulos, And What To Do About The Debates

Tapper Acknowledges In 2008 The Media ‘Tilted On The Scales A Little Bit’ For Obama

Lesbians Get On Girl’s Birth Certificate

The Gun Laws We Desperately Need

The Left’s So-Called Empathy For Rick Santorum

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Grey Ghost) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 06:36:00 +0000

NationalReview.com:

Lest you doubt that we’re headed for the most vicious election year in memory, consider the determined effort, within ten minutes of his triumph in Iowa, to weirdify Rick Santorum. Discussing the surging senator on Fox News, Alan Colmes mused on some of the “crazy things” he’s said and done.

Santorum has certainly said and done many crazy things, as have most members of America’s political class, but the “crazy thing” Colmes chose to focus on was Santorum’s “taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after childbirth home,” whereupon he “played with it.” My National Review colleague Rich Lowry rightly slapped down Alan on air, and Colmes subsequently apologized, though not before Mrs. Santorum had been reduced to tears by his remarks. Undeterred, Eugene Robinson, the Pulitzer Prize–winning Washington Post columnist, doubled down on stupid and insisted that Deadbabygate demonstrated how Santorum is “not a little weird, he’s really weird.”

The short life of Gabriel Santorum would seem a curious priority for political discourse at a time when the Brokest Nation in History is hurtling toward its rendezvous with destiny. But needs must, and victory by any means necessary. In 2008, the Left gleefully mocked Sarah Palin’s live baby. It was only a matter of time before they moved on to a dead one.

Not many of us will ever know what it’s like to have a child who lives only a few hours. That alone should occasion a certain modesty about presuming to know what are “weird” and unweird reactions to such an event.

In 1996, the Santorums were told during the pregnancy that their baby had a fatal birth defect and would not survive more than a few hours outside the womb. So Gabriel was born, his parents bundled him, and held him, and baptized him. And two hours later he died. They decided to take his body back to the home he would never know. Weirdly enough, this crazy weird behavior is in line with the advice of the American Pregnancy Association, which says that “it is important for your family members to spend time with the baby” and “help them come to terms with their loss.”

Would I do it? Dunno. Hope I never have to find out. Many years ago, a friend of mine discovered in the final hours of labor that her child was dead but that she would still have to deliver him. I went round to visit her shortly after, not relishing the prospect but feeling that it was one of those things one was bound to do. I ditched the baby gift I’d bought a few days earlier but kept the flowers and chocolate. My friend had photographs of the dead newborn. What do you say? Oh, he’s got your face?

I was a callow pup in my early twenties, with no paternal instincts and no great empathetic capacity. But I understood that I was in the presence of someone who had undergone a profound and harrowing experience, one which it would be insanely arrogant for those of us not so ill-starred to judge.

There but for the grace of God go I, as we used to say.

There is something telling about what Peter Wehner at Commentary rightly called the “casual cruelty” of Eugene Robinson. The Left endlessly trumpets its “empathy.” President Obama, for example, has said that what he looks for in his judges is “the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” As he told his pro-abortion pals at Planned Parenthood, “we need somebody who’s got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom.” Empathy, empathy, empathy: You barely heard the word outside clinical circles until the liberals decided it was one of those accessories no self-proclaimed caring progressive should be without.