The Case Against Obama

Extremely comprehensive argument against Barack Obama over at Hot Air. Includes video clips, links, and more. I highly recommend reading this and passing it on.

Largest Re-enlistment EVER

I saw this over at Ann Coulter's website, in her "Quotations from Chairman Ann" (LOL, she's so funny) and had to repost it. Pass it on:

From an e-mail being sent around:

I'm sure you already know about this. It was shown over and over on TV, right? OK, so maybe it wasn't shown over and over, but surely it was shown on TV at least ONE time, wasn't it ? Yep, on Fox news!

This was the largest re-enlistment ceremony ever held in military history. The ceremony was held on the 4th of July, 2008 at Al Faw Palace, Baghdad, Iraq . General David Petraeus officiated. This amazing story was ignored by the 'mainstream' media.

For those who have been in the Al Faw Palace, you'll have a better appreciation of the number of people crammed around the rotunda supporting the re-enlisting soldiers.

Over 1200 American men and women volunteering to stay longer in Iraq, so that when we leave, the new democracy will have a chance of surviving, is the exact opposite of what the media wants you to think about Iraq. If a bomb had killed 5 civilians in a marketplace - that's the kind of news the media is eager to tell you about.

A pizzeria in Chicago donated 2000 pizzas that were made and shipped to Baghdad, and were delivered on the 4th of July. The media did report that 2000 pizzas were sent to Iraq on July 4th... The only part they left out of the report was the event for which the pizzas were sent.

I can't help but wonder...

What would the opinion of Americans be if they weren't getting such obviously biased 'news?'

Pass this on and we will do the work for the Media.

Take that, NBC!

This is fabulous. Via NRO:

Steve Capus

President, NBC News

30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112

Mr. Capus:

This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush's actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel's question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President's answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.

In the interview, Engel asked the President: "You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?"

The President responded: "You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn't get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you've got to take those words seriously. And if you don't take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn't take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolph Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon."

This answer makes clear: (1). The President's remarks before the Knesset were not different from past policy statements, but are now being looked at through a political prism, (2). Corrects the inaccurate premise of Engel's question by putting the "appeasement" line in the proper context of taking the words of leaders seriously, not "negotiating with Iran," (3). Restates the U.S.'s long-standing policy positions against negotiating with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, and not allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Engel's immediate follow-up question was, "Repeatedly you've talked about Iran and that you don't want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?"

The President replied, "You know, Richard, I don't want to speculate – and there's a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we'll continue to rally the world to isolate them."

This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.

NBC's selective editing of the President's response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel's characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President's follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that "negotiating with Iran is pointless" and amounts to "appeasement."

This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President's responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.

As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.

On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'Let's call this a civil war.' This took careful deliberation.'"

I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News's carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?

Lastly, when the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: "If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession."

The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession – neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).

Furthermore, never in our nation's history have we characterized economic conditions as a "recession" with unemployment so low – in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.

Are there numbers besides the "government number" to go by? Is there reason to believe "the government number" is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop "just short of the official declaration of a recession"?

Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

Sincerely,

Ed Gillespie

Counselor to the President

To View The Edited Version Of NBC News' Interview, Click Here

To View The Full Interview Of The President, Click Here

Love it!

Shut them down!

Liberals and other Catholic-haters like to behave as though every Catholic priest in the history of Catholic priests has been a child molester. The MSM write countless stories about the very small number of actual Catholic priests who have sexually abused children (or allegedly) and then act like their "facts" come from the Bible. Then, people who hate the Catholic Church call for it to be investigated, tried, and done away with.

There is, no doubt, a higher percentage of school teachers who sexually abuse children. Have a look at this article:

Students in America's schools are groped. They're raped. They're pursued, seduced and think they're in love.

An Associated Press investigation found more than 2,500 cases over five years in which educators were punished for actions from bizarre to sadistic.

There are 3 million public school teachers nationwide, most devoted to their work. Yet the number of abusive educators — nearly three for every school day — speaks to a much larger problem in a system that is stacked against victims.

Most of the abuse never gets reported. Those cases reported often end with no action. Cases investigated sometimes can't be proven, and many abusers have several victims.

(Emphasis Added)

That's a lot of abuse. And teachers see students more often than priests do. Think of all the abuse that takes place. Yet, I don't hear for anyone calling for the public school system to be shut down (for this reason).

Those are the findings of an AP investigation in which reporters sought disciplinary records in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The result is an unprecedented national look at the scope of sex offenses by educators — the very definition of breach of trust.

The seven-month investigation found 2,570 educators whose teaching credentials were revoked, denied, surrendered or sanctioned from 2001 through 2005 following allegations of sexual misconduct.

Young people were the victims in at least 1,801 of the cases, and more than 80 percent of those were students. At least half the educators who were punished by their states also were convicted of crimes related to their misconduct.

The findings draw obvious comparisons to sex abuse scandals in other institutions, among them the Roman Catholic Church. A review by America's Catholic bishops found that about 4,400 of 110,000 priests were accused of molesting minors from 1950 through 2002.

Look at the numbers:

• From 2001-2005, 5 years, 2,570 educators were accused of "sexual misconduct."

• In at least 1,801 cases the victims were young and more than 80 percent were students.

• From 1950-2002, 50 years, 4,400 priests were accused of abuse.

Perhaps I'm just really bad at math, but 2,570 educators accused in only 5 years sounds a lot worse than 4,400 priests accused in 52 years.

One report mandated by Congress estimated that as many as 4.5 million students, out of roughly 50 million in American schools, are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade. That figure includes verbal harassment that's sexual in nature.

Four and a half million children.

Of course, the teachers' unions are firmly on the side of . . . the teachers:

The overwhelming majority of cases the AP examined involved teachers in public schools. Private school teachers rarely turn up because many are not required to have a teaching license and, even when they have one, disciplinary actions are typically handled within the school.

Two of the nation's major teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, each denounced sex abuse while emphasizing that educators' rights also must be taken into account.

"Students must be protected from sexual predators and abuse, and teachers must be protected from false accusations," said NEA President Reg Weaver, who refused to be interviewed and instead released a two-paragraph statement.

And I thought liberals were all about "the children!!!"?

And what about the rights of the priests? Of the Catholic Church? Of the innocent Catholic priests who have been dragged through the mud and spat upon?

Sexual abuse is wrong wherever it takes place. We would all do well to remember that Catholic priests are not the only sexual abusers out there. School teachers are a hell of a lot worse.

A Not Surprising Great Divide

MSNBC has this list of journalists who have donated to political causes.

Drudge's big headline: THE GREAT DIVIDE: REPORTERS GIVE DEMS MONEY OVER REPUBLICANS 9 TO 1!.

It really isn't surprising, is it, that the MSM supports Liberals? I don't find it shocking. Anyone watching/reading the MSM and has half a brain knows this.

More over at Michelle Malkin (she's got a new layout and comments are open for registration!).

"Who does she think she is?"

I'm more than a little sick of Hollywood Hypocrites who think they run the world or even think they are saving the world.

They should practice what they preach.

Case in point: the role model for creepy-weird, marriage-wrecking, globe-trotting,thinking-well-of-herself (but not her biological child), liberal whore hypocrites---Angelina Jolie.

Via Drudge---

Fox News: Angelina Jolie's Freedom of Press, on Her Terms---

Angelina Jolie's true colors came out Wednesday as she promoted a film about freedom of the press and then tried to censor all her interviews.

Jolie is touting press freedom these days, playing the widow of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in a new movie called "A Mighty Heart."

But Jolie turns out to be a mighty hypocrite when it comes to her own freedom of the press. Her lawyer required all journalists to sign a contract before talking to her, and Jolie instructed publicists at first to ban FOX News from the red carpet of her premiere.

Ironically, Wednesday night's premiere of the excellent Michael Winterbottom-directed film was meant to support an organization called Reporters Without Borders. Jolie, however, did everything she could to clamp down on the press and control it.

(all emphasis added)

No surprise. People who behave immorally don't like to allow those who do (or anyone, really) to question their choices. So, they try to control everything. And they especially don't like it when people point out their hypocrisy (well, who does, but still?).

So, Jolie said, no personal questions especially about her relationships (with Brad "I rock" Pitt), no using any part of the interview in any way other than promoting the film (which is about Freedom of the Press---go figure), "The interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning, or derogatory to Ms. Jolie," and if any of these things happen the tape cannot be released, but if it does Jolie can sue. Oh, yes, and she can leave at any time during the interview (should we call it an interview? After all, it doesn't sound like she wants to be interviewed. Does she want people to see her film?).

So, a number of media outlets said, "Hell no" and then Jolie got in a tizzy and canceled all the print interviews.

"I wouldn't sign it," a reporter for a major outlet said. "Who does she think she is?"

Excellent question! I would say, "Queen of the World?"

And as for Fox News,

That's not all: Jolie told Paramount Pictures publicists to ban FOX News Channel and all FOX News affiliates from covering the "Mighty Heart" premiere on the red carpet. It was only with the intervention of mortified Paramount staff that an FNC camera crew was allowed to be present.

Apparently, no one told Jolie of the highly positive review FOX News had given "A Mighty Heart" from Cannes.

Jolie and Pitt enjoy encouraging freedom of the press for some, but not all. Fox News' Roger Friendman's

column reported a year ago, on June 8, 2006, about how Jolie and Pitt were responsible for the expulsion of journalists in Namibia where the couple went to have their child, Shiloh. Their bodyguards regularly got into fights with local photographers hoping to make some money from the couple's colonial residency in their country.

After Shiloh was born, Jolie and Pitt gave a news conference, but limited it only to Namibian journalists. No reporters from neighboring countries were allowed.

The couple sat on the dais with Sam Nujoma, Namibia's first president, aka dictator, who ruled for 15 years. (Lady Jane: Like they were king and queen . . . of the world???)

In 2002, Nujoma abruptly appointed himself minister of information and broadcasting. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Nujoma has routinely attacked reporters from his country calling them "unpatriotic" and "the enemy."

During the time Pitt and Jolie were in the country, a former photographer for the Namibian, the daily newspaper, was arrested twice for trying to get a picture of the couple.

South African John Liebenberg was arrested on municipal property during the Jolie-Pitt stay and pronounced guilty of trespassing. His passport and camera equipment were confiscated as well.

Treatment of the press is so bad in Namibia, in fact, that an organization called the National Society for Human Rights was formed several years ago to protect reporters' rights.

Wow, some champions for the press they are.

Just another grand example of Hollywood Hypocrisy.

UPDATE-15 June 2006:
Now she's trying to play it off like she wasn't the one to make the rules:

Jolie’s defense this morning is that a) her lawyer was overzealous with the journalists’ contract; and b) an “oversight” caused FOX News not to be invited to the red carpet. Both the lawyer, Robert Offer, and Paramount Pictures, are ready to fall on their swords for the star.

But neither statement is even remotely true. Jolie, the Ambassador, would never let her attorney distribute a contract without approval. And the good folks at Paramount Vantage know all too well what really happened. They cannot be blamed.

But, The Smoking Gun has a copy of the document she wanted reporters to sign! Oops!

The Stupidest Article Ever?

I just read this article in my stupid local newspaper and had to come find it online and post a link because it is so incredibly stupid.

They are really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one. What's next? A story about how he throws toothpicks out the window of his truck?

AP: Bush's seat belt usage not locked down

My local paper, the Socialist-Review has an even stupider headline: Does Bush regularly use seat belts?

WASHINGTON - President Bush encourages people to wear seat belts. Whether he routinely does so himself is not as clear.
[. . .]
Later, in his afternoon briefing, Snow was asked again to clarify Bush's personal policy.

"Well, it's always important to wear seat belts, especially when driving slowly on the ranch," Snow said.

He seemed to emphasize that Bush was driving slowly when he had no seat belt on.

Congratulations, Ben Feller, Associated Press writer, for such an article. Moron.

This article is sort of the runner-up: AP: Plan could jail illegal border crossers. Well, no kidding! After all, they have illegally crossed the border. And illegal means breaking the law, so . . .right.