Team Obama launches “Smear the Whistle Blowers Campaign”

Reaganite republican has a breakdown of the depravity

• The head-of-the-snake Obama Administration engaged in an utterly shameful vengeance campaign: Operation Smear the Witnesses.

• Servile Obammunist lackeys in Congress attempted to blame the Benghazi debacle on Sequestration.

• Outside of Fox and Cheryl Atkins of CBS, televised MSM media all but ignoredyesterday’s SIX HOUR Benghazigate hearing while some milked details of the Cleveland sex-dungeon story as a handy-dandy smokescreen.

• As thanks for her principled journalism, Atkins is already being treated like an unprofessional pariah 
  by her own network.

• Predictably, goofy lib bloggers are flailing-away with puerile ’arguments’ and attempts at mockery of the hearings, and will continue to do so until those wackadoodle Republicans drop all this unpleasantness and join them in a chorus of 
  ‘What Difference Does It Make’.

So is that it? Hardly- there’s now a rising call that a Select Committee on Benghazi be convened- but like most things we need to get done these days, that’s going to require 
some prodding of Speaker John Boehner: I encourage all to
do just that today.

 

Things are hard out there for serious journalists like Sharyl Attkisson

Lonely Conservative has more

Emmy award winning reporter Sharyl Attkisson has been battling not only the Obama administration over the coverage of the Benghazi scandal, but also her own bosses at CBS News. This was pointed out by Politico in response to a WaPo piece.

Farhi’s piece places Attkisson in a David-vs.-Goliath narrative, wherein the Obama administration is Goliath: “Attkisson, who holds a third-degree black belt in taekwondo, takes a fighting stance when she feels she’s being stonewalled. Which is exactly what she thinks the White House has done to her on Benghazi,” Farhi writes.

But from where Attkisson is sitting, there are actually two Goliaths, one of which is almost entirely absent from the Post profile.

The second Goliath is CBS News, which has grown increasingly frustrated with Attkisson’s Benghazi campaign. CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told POLITICO. Attkisson can’t get some of her stories on the air, and is thus left feeling marginalized and underutilized. That, in part, is why Attkisson is in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract, as POLITICO reported in April. (Read More)

Shameful!

 

Pat Summerall passes away at 82

Very sad news today. I grew up listening to greats like Dick Enberg, Verene Lundquist, Charlie Jones, and yes, this man, Pat Summerall. He had a great voice, something that is surprisingly rare in the broadcast business. He will be missed

For many sports fans in the 1960s through the 1990s, Pat Summerall was the voice of the NFL, starting with CBS’ Sunday telecasts and later with Fox, famously paired for much of that time with John Madden.

Summerall, 82, passed away Tuesday in Dallas, said his daughter, Susie Wiles.

“He was an extraordinary man and a wonderful father,” Wiles told the Associated Press. “I know he will be greatly missed.”

The Dallas Morning News reported Summerall died in his room at Dallas’ Zale Lipshy Hospital, where he was recovering from surgery for a broken hip.

Summerall worked a record 16 Super Bowls, drawing on his football relationships made during his nine-plus years as a kicker in the NFL, primarily for the then-Chicago Cardinals and New York Giants from 1952 to 1961.

RIP

 

Did Adam Lanza pick Newtown school because it was an easy target

We argue that “gun-free zones” make easy targets for nutcases. The Left scoffs at our logic. Well………..

According to law enforcement Newtown killer Adam Lanza picked the local primary school because it was an easy target and he knew he could murder a lot of children in one attack. And he did just that.
CBS reported, via Pirate’s Cove.

Law enforcement sources say Adam Lanza was motivated by violent video games and a strong desire to kill more people than another infamous mass murderer.

Sources say Lanza saw himself as being in direct competition with Anders Breivik, a Norwegian man who killed 77 people in July 2011.

Two officials who have been briefed on the Newtown, Conn., investigation say Lanza wanted to top Breivik’s death toll and targeted nearby Sandy Hook Elementary School because it was the “easiest target” with the “largest cluster of people.”

Evidence shows that his mind, sources say, Lanza was also likely acting out the fantasies of a video game as he killed 20 first graders and six adults at the school. For Lanza, the deaths apparently amounted to some kind of “score.”

So, in short he was whacked completely out of his mind, and picked the easiest target he could find. What a shocker! The Left, of course, will still blame guns.

 

So where is news made these days?

The Liberal Consensus Factory of course!

Otherwise known as the news media:

In the wake of the horrific school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks quickly moved to exploit the tragedy to push for more gun control legislation while mostly ignoring solutions that respect gun owners’ Second Amendment rights.  . . .
Stories advocating more gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control by 99 to 12, or a ratio of 8 to 1.

And they wonder why we think they are biased?

 

What the mainstream media never reports

Defensive uses of firearms might make local news, but the national headlines never feature these stories, yes that also includes YOU Fox News. Imagine how the national attitude might differ if thee stories were reported.

Resident shoots, kills armed intruder

Man shoots two armed intruders killing one

Utah Pastor uses his gun to fend off, subdue attacker

North Carolina man fires at man invading his home

Concealed carry holder fires at two armed men, sends them running

Homeowner shoots, kills convicted sex offender during home invasion

Ohio Homowner shoots, kills burglar

Texas man shoots knife wielding home invader

More here

And Here Guns Save Lives has a map of many more defensive gun uses almost 700 stories are in their files

Of course these stories of average Americans stopping crimes, and many saving their lives are not reported by CNN, or MSNBC, or CBS, ABC, NBC, or even Fox. In researching crime stats, I found estimates of defensive gun uses, the lowest number I found was 108,000 per year, that adds up to almost 300 per day! But, these stories do not get told do they? Liberals love to discount any chance of am armed citizen using a gun to defend themselves, they also love to pretend that having a gun, or carrying one is dangerous, and will lead to Wild West shootouts. These stories disprove that malarky. Of all the people I have known, most had guns, heck in the South, guns are part of just about every home, and no bad ever comes  from the vast majority of those guns, or gun owners .

Clap on, Clap off, James Clapper deleted terrorism from Susan Rice talking points

The Lonely Conservative has the scoop

Just out from CBS, sources are saying that the Director of National Intelligence was the office responsible for editing the talking points.

CBS News) WASHINGTON – CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to “al Qaeda” and “terrorism” from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack – with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.

Clearly CBS is trying its best to insulate Obama from culpability and deflect the real issue to make it sound like this is really not a scandal. CBS does not do that good a job at that with this news:

However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too “tenuous” to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information — the reference to al Qaeda — in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.

“The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level — which Rice, as a member of President Obama’s cabinet, would have been privy to.

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of “standard procedure”.

Something stinks here. David Patraeus testified that he did not know who removed the mentions of terrorism that he approved of, so it seems unlikely that the CIA approved of the changes. The Lonely Conservative also notes that editing of the information was not just about editing out

What CBS conveniently leaves out is that while the DNI edited out terrorists from the talking points, the DNI is not being blamed for editing IN the idea that a protest occurred and violence was the fault of a video. Petraeus made it clear last week that the CIA knew there was no protest and the violence was not related to an escalating protest due to the video. The CIA knew from the beginning that this was an organized terrorist attack. CBS also makes it clear that even Rice was aware the CIA suspected it to be a terrorist attack.

All the media is trying to do here is again change the subject. The subject is why security was pulled from Libya, why the Ambassador had to go to Benghazi (a known terrorist hot bed) without security to meet a Turkish official, and why the administration blamed a video that no one in the intelligence community ever blamed.

So, basically, we are back to what we already know. The powers that be knew very early this was a terror attack, and not a protest. We know it had nothing to do with a video, and we know Team Obama bent over backwards to delete the truth and instead blame a video. The Director of National Intelligence is James Clapper, and he may get thrown under the bus, but I would not imagine that he took out the references to terrorism without being told to do so. For whatever reason (election) Team Obama did not want to admit that their sloppy handling of security had allowed a terror attack. Maybe Obama wanted his “Al Qaeda is on the run” line to go unchallenged. Maybe he did not want this to hurt his campaign, either way, this is looking progressively worse.

 

Obama’s credibility gap

The media loves to talk about gaps during presidential campaigns. Well, OK, they love to talk about gender gaps, or other gaps that they hope will cost Republicans the election. Gaps that hurt Democrats? They pretty much ignore those. But me, I like to talk about those gaps, and this morning, Smitty points out that Obama has a credibility gap. Call it postvarication

Obama caves to Romney, according to Munro in the Examiner:

President Barack Obama used Air Force One to conduct a policy loop-de-loop Wednesday, asserting in a CBS interview that he supports Americans’ right to criticize Islam, following almost 18 hours of determined condemnation from Team Romney and damaging news from Egypt and Libya.
“We believe in the First Amendment,” Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft during an interview arranged days earlier.
“It is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution that I’m sworn to uphold, and so we are always going to uphold the rights for individuals to speak their mind,” he said, according to a transcript narrated by White House spokesman Jay Carney.

This is about the bazillionth time in the last three years that:

1. Crisis event occurs.
2. Obama administration offers a creepy response.
3. American outrage ensues.
4. Obama administration mumbles something recognizably American.

In other words, we just cannot believe this president, unless we are one of his apologists whose eyes go glassy every time they see Obama. The president’s repeated gaffes and missteps have left many Americans saying WTF? And no, that does not stand for Winning the Future. The credibility gap occurs when politicians, who most Americans do not trust in the first place, refuse to stand up, speak clearly, and stick to their principles. And you can quote me on this, Obama’s credibility gap will hurt him in November. Americans do not like to see weakness or vacillation from their leaders, especially when American blood has been shed on foreign soil. Obama, and his administration, and their collective Dhimmitude are dangerous, as the events Tuesday pointed out.

Michelle is fired up in that video, and all of us ought to be just as fired up. This administration is an absolute joke. Appease, appease, apologize, and enable our enemies. Michelle has more on her blog

What a disgusting and disastrous, but wholly predictable, way to end this day. As you may have heard, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo chose the 11th anniversary of 9/11 to apologize for “hurt Muslim feelings” as radical Egyptian clerics stoked faux-rage over an obscure documentary attacking Islamic extremism. The Obama administration’s mortifying apology, of course, did not mollify the Muslim agitators. Appeasement has nevermollified the practitioners of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage.

Naturally, the Muslim mob stormed the Embassy compound, anyway — and the pretextual violence spread to Libya, where an American State Department worker was killed today* (UPDATE: FOUR killed, including the US Ambassador to Libya and Foreign Service information officer Sean Smith, along with TWO U.S. MARINES). The feckless State Department has deleted its groveling tweet and the White House is in pathetic damage control mode.

UPDATE: And now, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is calling for worldwide protests.

Let’s cut through the diplomatic blather and Obama State Department’s p.c. charade. This isn’t about ordinary Egyptian Muslims being offended by Koran-burning or some genuine outcry for religious tolerance or widespread anger over how Mohammed is being portrayed. It’s about Egyptian imams and Muslim Brotherhood propagandists concocting any excuse for a violent anti-Western conflagration.

Much more at the link. Anyone who has a clue knew what the Muslim Brotherhood is. Michelle raises the point in the video, that these embassies were apparently not protected properly. Maybe the president was too busy campaigning to make sure that on 9-11 our embassies were secure. As Big Government asks “Where were the Marines”

 

CBS News is reporting that Ambassador Stevens suffocated to death while two Marines and an embassy staffer were shot to death. CBS also reported that more Marines were being sent to Libya.  But these reports raise more questions than they answer:

Military officials told CBS News an anti-terrorism team of U.S. Marines was being deployed to Libya to help secure U.S. interests following the attack. The State Department said, however, that no Americans were remaining at the facility in Benghazi. State officials would not confirm how many Americans were evacuated, or to where….

Stevens died of suffocation, while two U.S. Marines sent to Benghazi when the clash erupted were shot and killed by well-armed protesters. It was not immediately clear whether the Marines were part of Stevens’ security detail. The American whose death was confirmed on Tuesday also died of a gunshot wound. He was identified by the State Department on Wednesday as Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.

Security at the consulate was apparently provided by Libyan nationals hired by the United States. While security for American embassies is typically provided by our own Marines, the two Marines reported killed in yesterday’s attacks appear not to have been stationed at the embassy, but were sent there from another unknown location as the violence erupted. There is also no indication if these two Marines were the only American military personnel on site at the time of Ambassador Stevens’s death.

All reports indicate that the security forces at the consulate were overwhelmed by the size of the militant crowds and offered no resistance as they stormed the building, looted it, and killed the four Americans.

I really did not intend for this post to morph into a rant against President Obama’s awful foreign policies, but, since it has morphed, I might as well note what Maggies Notebook has done a great job of illustrating. That Obama has been enabling Islamists over Secularists in the Middle East

2009: The Brotherhood’s spiritual leader — Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi — writes an open letter to Obama arguing terrorism is a direct response to U.S. foreign policy.

2009: Obama travels to Cairo to deliver apologetic speech to Muslims, and infuriates the Mubarak regime by inviting banned Brotherhood leaders to attend. Obama deliberately snubs Mubarak, who was neither present nor mentioned. He also snubs Israel during the Mideast trip.

2009: Obama appoints a Brotherhood-tied Islamist — Rashad Hussain — as U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which supports the Brotherhood.

2010: State Department lifts visa ban on Tariq Ramadan, suspected terrorist and Egyptian-born grandson of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna.

2010: Hussain meets with Ramadan at American-sponsored conference attended by U.S. and Brotherhood officials.

2010: Hussain meets with the Brotherhood’s grand mufti in Egypt.

2010: Obama meets one-on-one with Egypt’s foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who later remarks on Nile TV: “The American president told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”

2010: The Brotherhood’s supreme guide calls for jihad against the U.S.

2011: Qaradawi calls for “days of rage” against Mubarak and other pro-Western regimes throughout Mideast.

2011: Riots erupt in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Crowds organized by the Brotherhood demand Mubarak’s ouster, storm buildings.

2011: The White House fails to back longtime ally Mubarak, who flees Cairo.

2011: White House sends intelligence czar James Clapper to Capitol Hill to whitewash the Brotherhood’s extremism. Clapper testifies the group is moderate, “largely secular.”

2011: Qaradawi, exiled from Egypt for 30 years, is given a hero’s welcome in Tahrir Square, where he raises the banner of jihad.

2011: Through his State Department office, William Taylor — Clinton’s special coordinator for Middle East transitions and a longtime associate of Brotherhood apologists —gives Brotherhood and other Egyptian Islamists special training to prepare for the post-Mubarak elections.

2011: The Brotherhood wins control of Egyptian parliament, vows to tear up Egypt’s 30-year peace treaty with Israel and reestablishes ties with Hamas, Hezbollah.

2011: Obama gives Mideast speech demanding Israel relinquish land to Palestinians, while still refusing to visit Israel.

2011: Justice Department pulls plug on further prosecution of U.S.-based Brotherhood front groups identified as collaborators in conspiracy to funnel millions to Hamas.

2011: In a shocking first, the State Department formalizes ties with Egypt’s Brotherhood, letting diplomats deal directly with Brotherhood party officials in Cairo.

April 2012: The administration quietly releases $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the new Egyptian regime.

June 2012: Morsi wins presidency amid widespread reports of electoral fraud and voter intimidation by gun-toting Brotherhood thugs — including blockades of entire streets to prevent Christians from going to the polls. The Obama administration turns a blind eye, recognizes Morsi as victor.

June 2012: In a victory speech, Morsi vows to instate Shariah law, turning Egypt into an Islamic theocracy, and also promises to free jailed terrorists. He also demands Obama free World Trade Center terrorist and Brotherhood leader Omar Abdel-Rahman, a.k.a. the Blind Sheik, from U.S. prison.

June 2012: State grants visa to banned Egyptian terrorist who joins a delegation of Brotherhood officials from Egypt. They’re all invited to the White House to meet with Obama’s deputy national security adviser, who listens to their demands for the release of the Blind Sheik.

July 2012: Obama invites Morsi to visit the White House this September.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s sudden ascendancy in the Mideast didn’t happen organically. It was helped along by a U.S. president sympathetic to its interests over those of Israel and his own country.

Unbelievable, this administration is an absolute catastrophe for America. Economically, fiscally, and internationally. Which, I guess, brings us back to that credibility gap, and to Obama’s glaring competence gap as well. The media, of course, ignores all of that and actually finds a way to question Romney’s fitness to serve.

Wall Street Journal, “Romney Offends the Pundits“:

Tuesday’s assaults on the U.S. Embassies in Benghazi and Cairo have injected foreign policy into the Presidential campaign, but suddenly the parsons of the press corps are offended by the debate. They’re upset that Mitt Romney had the gall to criticize the State Department for a statement that the White House itself disavowed.

We’re referring to the statement issued Tuesday under the headline “U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement.” The statement came in response to Muslim protests against a 13-minute anti-Islamic video making the rounds on YouTube.

In response to anger in Egypt at the video, the Embassy in Cairo issued its statement saying that “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” It added that, “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”…

Mr. Romney reacted late Tuesday with his own statement: “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” He followed Wednesday with a press conference reinforcing his criticisms of the Administration’s “mixed signals” on “our values.”

The Obama Presidential campaign jumped on the remarks Wednesday as inappropriate, yet a “senior Administration official” had told the website Politico later on Tuesday night that “The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government.” So the White House can walk away from its own diplomats, but Mr. Romney can’t criticize them?…

The broader point is that the attacks on the embassies do raise questions about how America has fared in the world in the last four years. (See above.) Throughout his candidacy, Mr. Romney has supported the necessity of America’s global leadership, sometimes against the wishes of Republican voters. His comments this week are consistent with that worldview, which is also consistent with that of every recent conservative President.

His political faux pax was to offend a pundit class that wants to cede the foreign policy debate to Mr. Obama without thinking seriously about the trouble for America that is building in the world.

In closing I give you the video of Governor Romney concerning these attacks via The Lonely Conservative

Romney, unlike Obama, sounds like a patriot, like a man with principles, and most of all like a president.

Child care workers ran fight club using toddlers?

 

This is a story that enrages me, I have a niece that is almost three. And, trust me, there would be Hell to pay for anyone that did any of this to my niece

Three child care workers from the Hands of Our Future Daycare in Dover, Del., have been arrested for allegedly encouraging toddlers to fight each other, CBS Philly reports.

Tiana Harris, 19, Lisa Parker, 47, and Estefania Myers, 21, (pictured) were charged with “Assault, Endangering the Welfare of a Child, Reckless Endangering and Conspiracy for the incident,” which took place in March. All three were released on $10,000 bail on Tuesday

 

The ugly truth about Justice Roberts is that he sold out his principles

Via The Blaze

CBS News’ Jan Crawford is reporting that Chief Justice John Roberts originally sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of Obama’s health care reform law, often referred to as “Obamacare,” but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

CBS continues (all subsequent emphasis added):

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

“He was relentless,” one source said of Kennedy’s efforts. “He was very engaged in this.”

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, “You’re on your own.”

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts’ decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

 So what got to Roberts? What made him change the vote? Apparently, he simply lost track of his principles

CBS explains a possible reason for the change of heart:

[Unlike some other justices] Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said.

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

So, basically, he was worried about PR rather than the Constitution? What a gutless wonder! The report also says Roberts tried to convince the other justices to switch votes, to make the court appear more  ”united”. Also it seems that Justice Kennedy was trying to get Roberts to come back until the very last-minute. Here is part of Kennedy’s dissent, the words are, to me, chilling.

“The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty in peril…Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead our judgment today has disregarded it.”

Indeed sir, indeed! 

Linked at I’m a Man thanks! BC adds this

This is a prime example of why the liberals keep winning. 

Conservatives fear being labeled  ideological  or ignorant, so they let the left  dictate what is appropriate for debate. Some are even willing compromise their good sense or integrity to stay in the elitist crowd.

Yes, Liberals are NEVER afraid of what they will be called no matter what they say. Some Conservatives forget this. They also seem to forget that Liberals will say whatever they want about Conservatives, no matter what the Conservative says or does. To the Left is is all about winning, anything is acceptable to them if it leads to a victory for them.

The Liberal reaction to nanny Bloomberg’s soda ban proves that Liberals are emotionally driven children

When I first heard about the latest inanity from Mayor Nanny State up in New York, I was not shocked, or surprised. This is simply Bloomberg being Bloomberg. He is an ego maniac who wants to run everyone else’s life, so this type of thing is par for the course. The reactions from Conservatives did not surprise either. The Right, and Libertarians soundly criticized the ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces in theaters, restaurants, and ballparks. We ripped into this ban for its absurdity, we ripped Bloomberg for his absurdity, again, no surprise.

The thing that I wanted to see was the reaction of Liberals to this ban. And, while some lampooned it, others went right into Liberal mode, meaning they were simply orgasmic that another agent of government was trying to be their mommy and daddy.

Take Gayle King, of the CBS Morning Show, called, oddly enough This Morning, boy those cats at CBS are creative, for example. King and her guests had some revealing reactions Via Newbusters

WAXMAN: You know what? I think – you know, I’d rather have people do it on their own, but if people need a road sign, why not? You know, I think — you know, I’m kind of happy that someone’s making a stand here, because I think that it’s empty calories. It’s not what we should be eating or drinking in our lives.

What? Who needs a road sign to know that over consumption of sugar laden drinks is NOT good for the waistline? EVERYONE knows this, they have for years. Yet here is a Liberal who thinks that we dumb Americans need a road sign! Waxman by the way is a chef in New York

KING: All right-

ROCCA: He’s making us healthier. I don’t love the nanny state, but I love ‘nanny’ Bloomberg. (Rocca and King laugh)

How is Bloomberg making anyone healthier? Seriously, how? The ban does not stop anyone from getting two, or more 16 oz drinks, Bloomberg himself said that! It does not ban sodas over 16 ounces in many other places, yet Rocca “feels” warm and fuzzy because now his “daddy”, the government is making him healthier.

WAXMAN: No, no. I one hundred percent agree. (laughs)

KING: Yes. Listen, I’m all for anything that’s going to make us healthy. Thank you, Jonathan.

AGAIN! This law will “make us healthier” somehow. I suppose King never thinks that anyone can control what they consume? Again, I work in the restaurant business, I have for a long time, most people today, without ANY law dictating what they can and cannot drink, chooses diet soda, or sweeten their tea/coffee with non-sugar sweeteners. Also a lot of folks opt for veggies or salad over fries. And again, no law requires this act. They actually do it for themselves! Imagine that!

Now, to another reaction, from a New York Times columnist, Frank Brunni who, despite admitting the absurdity of this law, is all for it!

WHILE Michelle Obama focused on carrots, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg brandished a stick. It’s what we deserve. Cry all you want about a nanny state, but as a city and a nation we’ve gorged and guzzled past the point where a gentle nudge toward roughage suffices. We need a weight watcher willing to mete out some stricter discipline.

Ah yes, we the people deserve to be punished by our betters in government, right Frank? No matter how ABSURD the law punishing us is apparently

It’s in many senses an absurd and random gesture. A merchant could still peddle a 20-ounce milkshake with more calories than a Coke. A customer could still buy two 16-ounce Pepsis, using tandem vessels and two straws to do the work of one supersize abomination. There are many vendors unaffected by the proposed ban, and there’s a wide world of caloric villains untouched. Man cannot balloon on Mountain Dew alone.

So, here Brunni admits that the law does not really do one damn thing to fight obesity. Yet, he is absolutely delighted over the law, why you ask? Simple, because it makes Liberals like Brunni feel good! Liberalism is largely a feelings driven ideology, and Brunni is a perfect example of this.

The proposed ban is also an act of government control and regulation that makes no small number of people squeamish. Should we not have the liberty to ingest what we elect to ingest, and to decide whether the pleasure is worth any ill effects? Are we not capable stewards of our own welfare? In general, yes, but the government has taxed cigarettes to high heaven, as a means (successful) of steering us away from them, and made it illegal to partake of many recreational drugs. Like those substances, heavily sugared soft drinks are wholly unnecessary and are implicated in health problems that wind up affecting all of us, not just the individual suffering from them. Food ceased to be a frontier too far when the fraction of American adults who qualify as obese climbed above one in three.

And, there he goes again. The Collectivist heart is revealed in those last two sentences. Liberals believe we must not allow individual liberties to stand in the way of the collective good!

A question for radical atheists. Why does something you do not believe in piss you off so much?

This kind of BS is getting so old. 

Anti-ACLU (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

MIDDLEBORO (CBS) — A statue that has stood in the same spot for 53 years is now at the center of a Constitutional debate.

In 1959, Middleboro Kiwanis Club erected a 12-foot brick cross bearing the word “worship” on a traffic island on Route 28.

Recently, the statue caught the eye of a Boston attorney who has since filed multiple complaints with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. The state declined to release the name of that attorney.

The cross sits mostly on town land. The state owns a small fraction of the traffic island where it is located, and thus, the ACLU says, the cross violates church and state separation laws.

A number of locals who spoke to WBZ-TV defended the statue, including Bob Kinney of the Middleboro Kiwanis Club. They argue that the statue is a local landmark.

“For someone to go by it one time and complain, I think that’s sad,” he said.

But the state and the ACLU want to see the structure come down.

No more comments from me, lest I break my “no F-Word rule”

And Your Nanny Statist of the Day is……….

Mayor Doucheberg!

Every single menu in New York City could soon be getting a major overhaul if Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way.

The man behind calorie counts is set to announce a new public health initiative to battle obesity, taking aim at super-sized sugary drinks.

In other words, it may soon be time to say goodbye to those Big Gulps, those Slurpees or even Venti at Starbucks, CBS 2’s Derricke Dennis reported.

“That’s okay,” one person said.

No it’s not, according to Mayor Bloomberg, who is set to propose a ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces everywhere, all across the city.

“I disagree with it, because it’s the right to choose. If you want to drink a Slurpee, you should be allowed to drink a Slurpee,” said Jamie Sawyer, a tourist from Oklahoma.

Can we just trade New York, Bloomberg and the sheeple who keep electing him to Canada for some maple syrup? Good grief!

Journalistic Malpractice: CBS Under Fire For ‘60 Minutes’ Segment Attacking Israel

Journalistic Malpractice: CBS Under Fire For ‘60 Minutes’ Segment Attacking Israel – Washington Free Beacon

Christian leaders, Middle East experts, and observers on Capitol Hill are crying foul on a CBS News report that they say erroneously blamed Israel for the persecution and migration of Palestinian Christians.

The report by “60 Minutes” contributor Bob Simon blamed Israeli security policies for the outflow of Christian Palestinians from historically Christian areas such as Nazareth and Bethlehem.

In interviews with Palestinian Christian leaders and others, Simon concluded that Israel, through its settlements and security measures, is squeezing Middle Eastern Christians into obscurity.

……..

The segment’s profound inaccuracies were startling, Christian leaders and other experts argued. Simon’s report, they say, whitewashed the extremist rhetoric of its various subjects and intentionally failed to tell the real story behind the West Bank’s Christian exodus – and the continuing growth in Israel’s Christian population.

“I find it incomprehensible for CBS to focus on one Christian population that is not actually shrinking and blame its troubles on the steps Israel is taking to protect itself from these same Islamic terrorists” who target Arab Christians, said David Brog, executive director of Christians United for Israel, one of the nation’s largest pro-Israel groups.

“They leave out the fact that the only Christian community that is thriving is the one in Israel,” said Brog, explaining that Christian minorities across the Middle East routinely face slaughter at the hands of Islamic extremists.

The CBS report purports to reveal that Israeli policies are asphyxiating Christian minorities throughout the West Bank. Statistics, however, reveal that Muslim populations in Greater Israel have increased over the years, leading experts to determine that most Christian persecution is being carried out by Islamic hardliners, not Israel.

“CBS is falling for the same tricks that a lot of tourists to the region fall for,” said Brog, whose supporters fired off more than 19,000 emails of protest to CBS executives Monday. “I’d expect more from a veteran CBS reporter than a first time tourist. It is irresponsible and misleading; it’s journalistic malpractice.”

Experts on the region noted that Palestinian Christians live in fear of their Muslim neighbors, who routinely intimidate them and sometimes carry out violent attacks. For this reason, it is incredibly dangerous to criticize the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which control the areas they live in.

“As a persecuted minority, if [Christians] shift the blame to Israel, they take the heat off of themselves,” said Jordanna McMillan, director of outreach for the International Israel Allies Caucus Foundation, a group that unites pro-Israel advocates across the religious spectrum. “‘60 Minutes’ doesn’t understand the intricacies of the issue.”

William Daroff, the Jewish Federations of North America’s D.C. point man, said that the news program displayed “a shocking lack of journalistic balance.”

Reporter Simon, Daroff said, “did not note that Christian Arabs who speak up against their Muslim oppressors risk having their throats cut.”

Others noted that tensions between Arab Christians and Muslims existed long before the modern state of Israel.

“Christians and Muslims do not now get along well in the Palestinian territories and they did not ever,” said Lee Smith, a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who frequently writes about these issues. “If that was really the case, then we would find it difficult explain the fact of a Muslim majority in the Middle East, and in particular in the birthplace of Jesus. Christians are a minority because the conflict between Christians and Muslims has lasted for more than a thousand years, and the Christians did not win it.”

Christians living in the Palestinian territories routinely criticize Israel as a way to gain acceptance from their Muslim neighbors – a fact that makes the “60 Minutes” report all the more misleading, said Smith.

“Basically, ‘60 Minutes,’ the producers, and journalists regard the Middle East the way Palestinian Christians do – it’s safe to criticize Israel and the Jews because what are the Israelis going to do about it? Sic Ambassador Michael Oren on you? You won’t wind up with [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] trying to take you to court or some Sunni fanatic chasing you with a saw. It’s a free shot, why not take it?” Smith said.

The CBS report also relied on documents and interviews with sources that are highly biased, though it did not report this context.

Rev. Mitri Raheb, for instance, was quoted at length in the report and was portrayed as a tireless advocate of Arab Christian minorities. His years of anti-Israel activism and support for the Jewish state’s most vicious critics were not mentioned.

Raheb has been labeled as anti-Semitic by Israeli embassy officials for his work to delegitimize Israel and promote boycotts of the country’s products.

CBS also mischaracterized a polemical Palestinian Christian document, labeling it a harmless call to resistance. The document in question, “Kairos,” decries the Israeli “military occupation of our land [as] a sin against God and humanity,” and accuses Israel being an “apartheid” state.

“The piece failed to present any contrary views to Palestinian pastor Mitri Raheb, who denies the document is anti-Semitic, saying it ‘doesn’t ask for violence’ or ‘revenge,’ only hope, love, and faith,” B’nai B’rith International President Allan Jacobs said in a statement. “But ‘Kairos’ demonizes Israel alone, calling the presence of Israeli Jews in disputed territories a ‘sin against God’ and denying the very legitimacy of the Jewish state.”

“Perhaps most disturbing,” added the group’s Executive Vice President Daniel Mariaschin, “the ‘60 Minutes’ report failed to point out that Israel is the only pluralistic democracy in the region, where Christians are able to live free from persecution and have grown in actual numbers, unlike so many other places in the Middle East.”

The report employs questionable statistics in its examination of Palestinian Christian demographics and fails to mention the 2002 seizure of the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem by Palestinian radicals.

“This isn’t news, it’s political indoctrination,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq who studies religious rhetoric in the Middle East. “One of the questions ‘60 Minutes’ didn’t ask is why the flight of Arab Christians occurred after Israel transferred the areas back to the Palestinian Authority.”

CBS, Rubin said, “needs to say from where they got these statistics” that indicate a gross shift in demographics due to Israeli policies. Official Palestinian demographic breakdowns have been shown to be historically inaccurate. Israeli government population reviews show that Israel’s Arab population has steadily increased over the decades.

Observers on Capitol Hill said that CBS could have trouble attracting pro-Israel members of Congress to its interview chairs.

“If ‘60 Minutes’ continues to peddle this biased bullshit, it will not only be not welcome in Jewish households, but on Capitol Hill also,” said one Hill aide.

JFNA’s Daroff said that the biased report speaks to a larger media bias against Israel.

“There is a pronounced bias in the mainstream media against Israel,” Daroff said. “We see it in the pages of the newspapers, we see it on T.V., and we see it in books. Unfortunately, it has become more and more acceptable within elite journalism circles, and this CBS ‘report’ is one of the more egregious examples.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Wyblog: Are 41% of Americans really this stupid?

According to this poll, yes. Or perhaps, as Chris notes, maybe it is not stupidity, but partisanship at work. Of course, if you are so partisan that you deny reality maybe you are just stupid.

But the Real Story is that 41% of Americans are so blindly partisan, and/or sand-poundingly stupid, they still believe Barry is doing a good job.

President Obama’s approval rating has hit the lowest level ever in CBS News polling, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times survey.

Just 41 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, according to the poll, conducted from March 7 to 11. Another 47 percent disapprove of his performance, up from 41 percent last month.

Perhaps the missing 12% are the folks Obama’s labor department refuses to count in their unemployment statistics. They’re inconvenient, so they’re invisible.

Whenever I see a poll like that I wonder one thing. Who the hell are these people who actually think Obama is doing a good job? What could possibly make them give the president a thumbs up? Again, as Chris says, it is stupidity or partisanship. There is no stat that anyone can find to indicate President Obama is doing well.

 

Dumbest school suspension evah?

Not sure where this one ranks, but it is up there!

Toronto Star:

A Catholic high school student is appealing a suspension he received after distributing a Valentine’s Day letter to classmates that praised women’s inner beauty.

“Real attractiveness comes from having a certain dignity,” wrote Paul Gomille, a 17-year-old student at Archbishop Denis O’Connor Catholic High School.

Initially, Principal Donna Modeste was on board with his idea, said Gomille, who wanted to deliver his message as a speech.
…
But later, Modeste suggested some revisions to the address, in particular sentences where Gomille is “judgmental” and describes his audience as “the ones that don’t talk about people behind their backs, the ones that guys don’t flock to in droves, the ones that don’t dress in revealing clothing.”

Gomille didn’t comply with Modeste and ultimately decided to make 136 copies of his speech — the approximate number of students who sit in the cafeteria — and distribute them on Feb. 14, during lunch.

Hours later, he was summoned to the principal’s office and handed a two-day suspension for his “opposition to authority.” Gomille served his at-home suspension on Feb 15 and 16.

What was the offending passage?

The people this message concerns are the young women of this school, and of the world. In particular, it concerns the silent ones, the intelligent ones, the ones that don’t talk about people behind their backs, the ones that guys don’t flock to in droves, the ones that don’t dress in revealing clothing, the ones who would love to be in love, and the ones that are continually disappointed in their appearance because the only thing they have to compare themselves to are the women that have been put on pedestals by our society. This message also concerns those of you who may consider yourselves the so called “opposite” to the demographic I just described. The ones who do dress in revealing clothing, and the ones who try to fit in with the crowd.

H’T Blazing Cat Fur

And the Speech codes continue. One day, if we are not careful, we will all be too scared to even speak, and of course, that IS what the Left wants isn’t it?

Conservative Blog & Conservative News Source for Right of Center Activists | RedState

“That language is insulting, in my opinion. It’s incendiary and most of all, it’s a distraction. It’s a distraction from what are very real and important issues,” said Fiorina on CBS’s “This Morning.”

Well of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting. He was using it and sarcasm to highlight the absurdity of Sandra Fluke and the left’s position, which in a nut shell is they think you, me, and every other American should pay for them to have sex.

They call it “women’s health”, but the language associated with it involves pregnancy and sex. They have, in other words, turned “women’s health” into a euphemism for having sex.

Bill Quick lays it on the line, I could not agree any more with him

Of course. This is the leftist, Alinskyite strategy: change the very meaning of language so that not only can you not talk about opposing the left, it becomes difficult even to think about such opposition.

That’s why I’m so brutal in my own use of language. I call “post birth abortion” cold blooded murder. I call “leftists” communists, because in the end, they all worship at the dark altar of Karl Marx. (We already know what you are – now we’re just dickering over price…).

We who love liberty in America are in a war to the death (of liberty) with the communists. It is a war of ideas, and must of necessity be fought with words. Don’t let them take the words we need to wage that fight away from us.

Amen!

Does this sound like America to you?

I have said many times that some of the most direct trespasses against our liberties come from county and city governments. Here is an example from Orange County, California. Via Weasel Zippers

MISSION VIEJO (CBS) — An Orange County couple has been ordered to stop holding a Bible study in their home on the grounds that the meeting violates a city ordinance as a “church” and not as a private gathering.

Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what one city official called “a regular gathering of more than three people” that requires a conditional use permit, according to Pacific Justice Institute, the couple’s legal representation.

The Fromms also reportedly face subsequent fines of $500 per meeting for any further “religious gatherings” in their home, according to the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI).

“We’re just gathering and enjoying each other’s company and fellowship. And we enjoy studying God’s word.” Stephanie Fromm told CBS2.

After city officials rejected the Fromms’ appeal, PJI, which represents both the Fromms and other Bible study participants, will appeal the decision to the California Superior Court in Orange County.

“This is also about a city trying to get a family to pay fees — to pay fees and pay money to them — just to be able to have friends over to read the Bible,” attorney Brad Dacus of PJI told CBS2.

My first question was if this possibly was a situation where the meetings were causing parking issues, or if neighbors had complained. That question seems to be no

Neighbors have written letters to the city in support of the Fromms, whom they said have not caused any disturbances with the meetings, according to PJI.

“The Fromm case further involves regular meetings on Sunday mornings and Thursday afternoons with up to 50 people, with impacts on the residential neighborhood on street access and parking,” City Attorney Omar Sandoval said.

So, I wonder if these folks had “more than three people over” for dinner, or to watch a game, would the city be breathing down their necks? No matter, the city has overstepped their legitimate role by miles here. This is why voting for your city council or county commission is so crucial. Often times, people who run for council seats let the power go to their heads, and those people have no business having any authority.

And while the media is reading Palin’s Emails, and digging through Michelle Bachman’s husband’s trash……….

They missed this story

Is this, sadly, going to be the second campaign in a row where the so-called mainstream media will make a fetish of fact-checking the Republican candidates while ignoring the misstatements and gaffes of the Democratic candidates — of which there is now just one, President Barack Obama?

Last week, as both Newsbusters and the MRC documented, the New York Times (Kevin Sack) published a lengthy piece on how the White House “declined to challenge” a new book by ex-Times reporter Janny Scott that documents how Obama “mischaracterized a central anecdote about his mother’s deathbed dispute with her insurance company.”

The broadcast networks — throughout the 2008 campaign and the President’s push for ObamaCare — repeatedly conveyed Obama’s claim that while his mother, Ann Dunham, was sick with terminal cancer, she had to fight with insurance companies to “pay for her treatment.”

“I will never forget my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final months, having to worry about whether her insurance would refuse to pay for her treatment,” Obama told an August 11, 2009 town hall meeting in New Hampshire.

But ABC, CBS and NBC have yet to mention Scott’s now-undisputed account, drawn from a review of Ms. Dunham’s correspondence with the insurance company: “Ann’s compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment. Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann only to pay the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”

Wow, just wow.

Rubio: America’s Problem Is Debt, Not Debt Limit – CBS News Video

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) spoke with Bob Schieffer on what he truly feels caused the country’s current debt crisis and the provisions he feels necessary to be included in a compromise for him to vote on raising the debt ceiling.

.

Washington Post And CBS Receiving Money From Obamacare Slush Fund

Washington Post And CBS Receiving Money From Obamacare Slush Fund – Daily Caller

Two mainstream news organizations are receiving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars from Obamacare’s Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) – a $5 billion grant program that’s doling out cash to companies, states and labor unions in what the Obama administration considers an effort to pay for health insurance for early retirees. The Washington Post Company raked in $573,217 in taxpayer subsidies and CBS Corporation secured $722,388 worth of Americans’ money.

“It is fine with me if they continue covering the ObamaCare debate,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, in an e-mail to The Daily Caller. “When NBC used to cover energy issues, they identified themselves as a subsidiary of General Electric. CBS and Washington Post just have to disclose that they are subsidiaries of the Obama Administration.”

The ERRP, which Republicans call a slush fund, provides taxpayer money to Obama administration-selected states, companies and labor unions with already-in-place early retiree health insurance programs, and aims to make certain that their employees who retire early still have health insurance coverage before they reach Medicare eligibility age. Almost $2 billion of the $5 billion fund, which was supposed to last until 2014, has already been distributed to corporations. New projections expect the funding to run out before the end of 2012, if not sooner.

At a Friday morning hearing, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, chaired by Rep. Cliff Stearns, Florida Republican, asked Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight (CCIO) official Steven Larsen for how the administration decides who gets a slice of the $5 billion pie – and how the application process works. In his response, Stearns referred to the fact that corporations like General Electric, Verizon and AT&T in addition to several labor unions were getting taxpayer funding.

Stearns was not impressed. “This program is providing ‘free’ money to corporations, states, unions, and pension plans,” the Congressman said in an e-mail to TheDC. “In addition, the Washington Post and CBS received funding under this program. How can the Washington Post and CBS be impartial on the issue of health care when they received funding under the health care law?”

CBS Corporation spokesman Gil Schwartz told TheDC that newsroom employees, like any other CBS employees, are indeed allowed to take the taxpayer subsidies.

“Yes they are,” Schwartz said. “Why wouldn’t newsroom employees be allowed access to that money like all other CBS employees?”

CBS gets the money from the government, then provides early retirees with health insurance.

Though no current newsroom employees can benefit from the ERRP funds, they could retire early and still benefit from the money – or any newsroom employee who has retired since Obamacare became law could benefit from it too.

The Washington Post declined to comment. “We have no additional information to provide you other than what you have,” Post spokeswoman Rima Calderon told TheDC.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told TheDC she couldn’t disclose information about applications or disbursements for specific companies.

In addition to CBS Corporation and the Washington Post Company, recipients of ERRP funding include the United Auto Workers union, which secured $206,798,086 in taxpayer money, AT&T, which took in $140,022,949, and General Electric (GE), which raked in $36,607,818. GE has made headlines recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year. IBM got $12,989,690 in taxpayer money.

Verizon pulled $91,702,538 in taxpayer cash, too, and General Motors received $19,002,669. More than $6 million went to different Teamsters groups nationwide, and millions more went to the United Mine Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers, the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Click HERE For Rest Of Story