Meet Linda Kellen Biegel, aka Celtic Diva.  She is a radical left-wing blogger who has hounded the Governor relentlessly. She is just one of thousands of lefty nutcases who’s bloodlust for Palin’s scalp was all that drove them, and what will continue to drive them even after she has left office.  Those who are upset or disappointed in Palin’s decision have to ask yourselves, would you put your kids through it?  Would you continue to take hit after hit from fat slobs like Biegel, Olbermann and others while your young children remain victims of their onslaught?  Palin was a woman with the nomination of her party in the palm of her hand, the first woman ever in such a position, and she gave it up to protect her family from the very worst of what our country has to offer.  The pure scum that make up much of these lefty blogs, cable news, and every newspaper from NY to LA simply were not worth tolerating, the power of the Presidency not worth seeing your children destroyed.  It’s really a remarkable indictment of the so-called elite, how they delight in ruining a human being and her small children, but in the end it may provoke a change in how the chattering classes work. Maybe a backlash will begin against those who caused this, maybe they will finally be held to account for betraying the trust that America instills in it’s press, and for giving up their integrity and their dignity to become advocates of leftist ideology and of this President.  Maybe, just maybe, there will be justice for Sarah Palin.

UPDATE: Almost on cue, Huffington Post proves why Palin wants to get her family away from the press:

PALIN WILL RUN IN ‘12 ON MORE RETARDATION PLATFORM 

So Barack, this is the change in discourse you said you’d bring?  FAIL

UPDATE:** Huff is trying to cover their tracks, here are screen shots of the story taken before the Huff coverup.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

From Rush earlier:

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, as a powerful, influential member of the media I am asked questions frequently as though I am an expert — which I am, of course.  One of the most often asked questions is, “How in the world did Obama get elected?  How can this happen?”  I call your attention to the story here in Florida where a guy and his girlfriend are living together. The guy has a nine-foot python in the house — and it does what snakes do, it snuck outta there.  And it strangled the woman’s baby girl.  Now, who…? There are a lot of things that I don’t understand.  That’s one of them.  It’s not the animal’s fault.  I mean, the python’s a python.  It strangles things.  “Yeah, but, Rush, it was an albino!”  So what?  It’s a sad situation. 

If you spent any time watching the news today, somewhere in between reports about Michael Jackson and Mark Sanford, you probably saw this story.  From the Associated Press:

OXFORD, Fla. — A Burmese python more than 8 feet long broke out of a terrarium and strangled a 2-year-old girl in her bedroom yesterday at a central Florida home, authorities said.

Shaiunna Hare was already dead when paramedics arrived at about 10 a.m., Lt. Bobby Caruthers of the Sumter County Sheriff’s Office said.

Charles Jason Darnell, the snake’s owner and the boyfriend of Shaiunna’s mother, discovered the snake missing from its terrarium and went to the girl’s room, where he found it on the girl, who had bite marks on her head, Caruthers said. Darnell, 32, stabbed the snake until he was able to pry the child away.

Authorities removed the snake from the home yesterday afternoon after obtaining a search warrant. Once outside the small, tan home, bordered by cow pastures, the snake was placed in a bag then inside a dog crate. The snake was still alive.

Darnell did not have a permit for the snake, which would be a second-degree misdemeanor, said Joy Hill, a spokeswoman with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. He has not been charged, but Caruthers said investigators were looking into whether there was child neglect or if any other laws were broken.

This story caught my attention when I heard it on the radio this morning, but it was not until I heard the 911 call being played repeatedly on the news channels today that it really got me mad. 

First of all, what in God’s name would possess some idiot to have this kind of animal in the house… especially with a toddler?  You have got to be a MORON to even consider such a thing.  I mean… unless you’re the F***in’ Crocadile Hunter then there is no excuse to have an animal of this nature around children.  Hell, they shouldn’t be around people at all. 

The Dorton family in Florence has had their Burmese python for one year. They said they hope the Florida tragedy won’t put a bad light what they call gentle creatures.

Belle is an albino Burmese python, and very similar to the snake that killed the 2-year-old in Florida.

“It’s tragic, absolutely tragic,” said Dolly Dorton. ”I have a 2-year-old grandbaby and a 5-year-old niece, so, they love her to death.”

Dorton said Belle has been a great pet. She only has to feed her every two weeks, and she never makes a sound.

“They are cold,” she said. ”She helps with my hot flashes.”

Many snake owners say that they actually make wonderful pets. Dorton did encourage anyone who wants a snake to remember they are dangerous if not handled carefully, and owners must be very responsible.

“If you have something of that size, its a danger,” said Vinnie Grosso with Florence Animal Control.

Grosso himself is the owner of two snakes. He said he doesn’t know the details of the Florida incident, but says there was probably a reason the snake attacked.

“A snake of that size is not going to go after a 2-year-old unless its very, very hungry,” he said.

Grosso said snakes can go up to a year without food, but if they have an opportunity to eat, they will.

“If you’re going to have a snake of that size, you can’t buy a cage,” he said. ”You have to have something built.”

And the most important part is to make sure the snake can’t get out.

The man who owned the snake that killed the child in Florida could face child endangerment charges.

Some “snake enthusiasts” will bring up the fact that only 12 incidents have been reported where a pet python kills its owner in the last twenty-six years, which is an accurate number according to experts.  Of course, less people have been killed by tigers in that same period (only 8), BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS SAFE TO HAVE ONE IN THE HOUSE AND RAISE IT LIKE A PET! 

And then having heard this jerk off’s 911 call played numerous times today, it’s safe to say that I’ve got no sympathy for them.  Yes, the child’s death breaks my heart, and she did not deserve to die the way she did, but THEY SHOULDN”T HAVE HAD A FREAKING SNAKE IN THEIR HOUSE. 

I’m completely with Rush on this:  It’s not the python’s fault.  The python did what a python does.  A python can not discriminate between a rat and a toddler when it decides that it’s dinner time, the way a domesticated dog would do. 

Let me use an example to show you what I mean:  a wolf mother cares for her pups until they are able to fend for themselves.  Here is the wikipedia article describing how a wolf is normally raised in the wild:

The gestation period lasts between 60 and 63 days. The pups, which weigh 0.5 kg (1 lb) at birth, are born blind, deaf, and completely dependent on their mother.  The average litter size is 5-6 pups, though there are two Soviet records of litters consisting of 17 pups.  The pups reside in the den and stay there for two months. The den is usually on high ground near an open water source, and has an open chamber at the end of an underground or hillside tunnel that can be up to a few meters long.  During this time, the pups will become more independent, and will eventually begin to explore the area immediately outside the den before gradually roaming up to a mile away from it at around 5 weeks of age. Wolf growth rate is slower than that of coyotes and dholes.   They begin eating regurgitated foods after 2 weeks of feeding on milk, which in wolves has less fat and more protein and arginine than dog milk.   By this time, their milk teeth have emerged — and are fully weaned by 10 weeks. During the first weeks of development, the mother usually stays with her litter alone, but eventually most members of the pack will contribute to the rearing of the pups in some way.  After two months, the restless pups will be moved to a rendezvous site, where they can stay safely while most of the adults go out to hunt. One or two adults stay behind to ensure the safety of the pups. After a few more weeks, the pups are permitted to join the adults if they are able, and will receive priority on anything killed, their low ranks notwithstanding. Letting the pups fight for eating privileges results in a secondary ranking being formed among them, and allows them to practice the dominance/submission rituals that will be essential to their future survival in pack life.  During hunts, the pups remain ardent observers until they reach about 8 months of age, by which time they are large enough to participate actively.

Now, compare that to the Burmese Python:

Burmese Pythons breed in the early spring, with females laying clutches which average 12–36 eggs in March or April. She will remain with the eggs until they hatch, wrapping around them and twitching her muscles in such a way as to raise the ambient temperature around the eggs by several degrees. Once the hatchlings use their egg tooth to cut their way out of their eggs, there is no further maternal care. The newly hatched will often remain inside their egg until they are ready to complete their first shedding of skin, after which they hunt for their first meal.

It is pretty dumb to think one could raise a pet wolf  because they are not safe, but wolves at least have some sort of sense of companionship.  The Burmese python, on the other hand, does not.  At the same time, the python in the Florida case didn’t know it was doing anything wrong.  To the contrary… 

The idiot who thought he could keep a nine foot predator in the same house as a toddler has no one to blame but himself.  I realise that he was angry and stabbed the snake to get it to release the child’s body, but in the end…  it didn’t know it was doing anything wrong.  It only followed it’s instincts.  The jackass who thought it was a good idea to keep a python in the same house as a toddler might not have suffered from a lack of instinct, just from having no common sense.

Barack Obama held a “forum” about health care yesterday. It was a throughly unenlightening affair, stacked from top to bottom with prearranged audience members and questions. The apex of the event, an emotional moment during which a woman hugged the president, who vowed to help her find a solution to her cancer, was scripted.

This comes on the heels of a scripted question at a presidential press conference from the liberal Huffington Post.

And let’s not forget the president’s scripted opponents — and his thoroughly scripted remarks and answers.

This is the showbiz age, and this is the showbiz presidency. Everything, from top to bottom, is scripted. There are no such things as actual “town halls,” “forums,” or legitimate interrogations of the president’s policies by opponents. There is no debate. There is no opposition.

There is no accountability. Congress is Democratic, with its sixtieth Democratic senator a lying pundit coming from showbiz. The press corps is Democratic, broadcasting “infomercials” from the White House. The president’s opponents are acknowledged only by the generosity of the president and his allies — and when they are acknowledged, they come in the form of 2-d cardboard cutouts, suitable only for knocking down.

In the hot new movie The Presidency, politics is a grand melodrama, not an exchange of ideas. The good guy, Change Agent Barack Obama, must defeat the villains: big corporations, “special interests,” “those who say change isn’t possible,” and above all, that wicked wretch Rush Limbaugh. They want to prevent change from coming to America. Will our hero be able to stop them before they deny the American people the change they need?

Frank Rich gives it “two thumbs way up!”

But this movie world exists only in the fantasy of the left. What will happen if the American people turn on this charade? What will happen if the Republicans retake Congress or bust the supermajority? What will happen if unemployment reaches double-digits? What will happen if there’s a true international crisis?

Could the script have a twist ending?

What will become of our hero? Stay tuned…

The headlines from New York Magazine’s daily blog says it all:

There Might Be A John Edwards Sex Tape

My breakfast just came back up in my mouth.

I’m still quite stunned.  An actual critique of The One, with the added bonus of a smackdown of Huffington Post’s endless hypocrisy? Too good to be true, and too good to be in the elite Beltway media.  But to my surprise, there it is in the Washington Post.  Hopefully, this is just the beginning with much more to come as our legged-thrilled media begins to wake from it’s Obama fantasy. Good show, Mr. Milbank. 

After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. “I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post,” he announced.

Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. “I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet,” Obama went on. “Do you have a question?”

Pitney recognized his prompt. “That’s right,” he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”

Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.

The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world — Iran included — that the American press isn’t as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn’t so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, “The Obama Show.” Missed yesterday’s show? Don’t worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting “Good Morning America” from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), “World News Tonight” from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room.

You have to love the ending as well:

A couple of more questions and Obama called it a day. “Mr. President!” yelled Mike Allen of Politico. “May I ask about Afghanistan? No questions about Iraq or Afghanistan?”

Sorry: Those weren’t prearranged.

Rasmussen Reports Hatred in America Survey

A Doctor who performs late term abortions, a soldier at a recruiting station, and a guard at Washington’s Holocaust Museum were recently murdered. Are these isolated incidents or a sign that hate is growing in America?

• Isolated incidents 35%
• A sign that hate is growing in America 50%

Does extreme political rhetoric on Radio, Television, and the Web lead to increased hatred in America?

• Yes 44%
• No 37%

Survey of 1,000 adults was conducted June 16-17. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of women see the incidents as a sign that hatred is increasing in this country, while men are more closely divided on the question. Married Americans are similarly divided, but adults who are not married by a 61% to 25% margin think hate is growing.

Again, while 50% of women blame extreme media rhetoric for increasing hatred, men by five points disagree.

Since much of the criticism after the shooting incidents was directed at conservative talk radio and television, it’s not surprising that 52% of Democrats blame radio, TV and Internet rhetoric for increased hatred, while a plurality of Republicans (44%) feel the opposite way. Adults not affiliated with either party are almost evenly divided on the question.

Nor was Sanford

The only thing “missing” is the credibility of the leftist myth that we can’t function as a people without Big Brother government monitoring our every move 24/7 365.

Hence, the Drive-by media’s breathless non-story, aided and abetted by Democrats and big government Republican political opponents, to try and discredit him as “missing” for four days even though the press “reports” that he was missing, included the following:

His communications director, Joel Sawyer, wouldn’t disclose Sanford’s location but said that before the governor left town last week “he let staff know his whereabouts and that he’d be difficult to reach.”

I am in my personal residence.There are no witnesses here, but I did tell my paralegal I was going home when last I saw him at 1400 hours.

Seems like everybody’s sore at S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford these days.

And for good reason – he talks like a crazy man.

Sanford says he doesn’t want to pour money on a fire.

Which is crazy talk. After all, it’s free money. Straight from Washington.

As part of the recovery plan, federal stimuluteers earmarked $700 million for S.C. education. Sanford balked.

Sanford says things like, when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

Which is crazy talk. After all, who cares how deep it gets?

Mark Washburn of The Charlotte Observer gets who is really crazy, as he continues:

But he said more than 10 percent of S.C. taxpayer money goes to debt service. If he took the $700 million, he said, he’d rather spend it on paying down the principal.

Sanford says things like, we ought to put some hay in the barn like farmers do, knowing winter is coming.

Which is crazy talk. After all, winter is far away. And the problem is here now.

Washington, wise in its ways, said take the money. But give it to schools, now.

But he argued that taking the money would just cause more problems. South Carolina would spend the cash over the next two years, then be left with a huge hole in its budget when the windfall ran out.

Sanford says things like, I don’t want to just kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with.

Which is crazy talk. After all, he’d be out of office by then.

Folks went to court and got an order telling him to take the money. After all, they said, we must think of the children. We must pay for education.

Sanford says things like, it will be those children who will pay the money back.

Which is crazy talk. After all, we’ve been sticking our kids with the bill for years. That’s how it works.

Sanford was one of those politicians who said when he was running that he’d be an agent for effective but efficient government. He said he’d make the hard decisions when they came along. He said he’d do the right thing, even if it was unpopular.

Which, as it turns out, isn’t crazy talk.

Which, as it turns out, is exactly what he did.

So, hop in governor. Traffic is pretty light on that road you want to go down. And even though there’s plenty of room in the car, I happen to like where you’re headed.

Gamecock likes where Sanford is headed, too.

Call me crazy, but it seems that what the fears that Sanford could lead a movement that would a lot of big government nanny-state jobs missing from future budgets.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

The mullahs have basically total control of the infrastructure in Iran, from power, to communications, to water, to public services. The rest of the public and privately held resources are also subject to the current government’s whims.

That being said, it does not seem absurd that the mullahs and their proxy government should have the ability to really block most ISPs/ Cellular networks pretty darn quickly. Now that this uprising has been going on for a few days, for sure they should have shut down the pipes that are airing the “dirty laundry”.

This seems like a pretty basic and easy way to kill the communications from the common man.

So, why haven’t they done this? Do they want this aired in this fashion while feigning righteous indignation for some other cause/ propaganda? what is the up side? Do they NOT have this type of control (over the ISPs and Cellular networks?) Am I totally off my rocker here?

I have been watching Fox News today and they sure are using this event for an advertising bonanza. Most programming has been cancelled and Shepard Smith is getting real annoying at this time.

Your thoughts?

The largest scandal of Pres Obama’s administration to date has occurred, and it gets barely a whisper’s coverage.  What am I talking about?  None other than the firing of Gerald Walpin.

Why is this story important?  A summary of facts:

• Gerald Walpin is an inspector general, who inspects recipients of federal funds
• Mr Walpin investigated Mayor Kevin Johnson, a good friend of Pres Obama, and found he had misused about $900K in federal funds.  This finding would preclude Myr Johnson from ever getting federal funds.
• The relevant prosecutor cuts a deal with Myr Johnson for paying back half the funds and restoring his ability to receive future federal funds.
• Pres Obama, through staff, tells Mr Walpin to resign or be fired.  Mr Walpin refuses to resign.
• In direct violation of the 2008 Inspector General reform bill that Pres Obama co-sponsored, Pres Obama fires him immediately.  The reform bill required 30 days written notice and a formal explanation made to Congress.

The implications are clear: Pres Obama fired one of the people watching our tax dollars for no more reason than the inspector investigated one of his friends and cost his friend nearly $900K (and potentially a lot more, as the initial finding would have cost him stimulus funds).

Now, to be fair, Pres Obama has said he fired him because he was “disoriented, confused, and ignored exculpatory evidence.”  If that’s true, he should have been fired.  The explanation just seems bizzare, though, and probably would have warranted a psych evaluation (to see if he’s got mental issues that would preclude him from doing this kind of work).

Anyway, I find this kind of behavior to be a certain indicator of corruption (perhaps because I’m in the auditing field), and a very troubling indicator of pay-for-play kind of politics learned at the foot of fmr Gov Blago.  This isn’t a “people around him” kind of issue, this deals directly with Pres Obama and his politics.  No real surprise, but one that should be discussed.

The continued, slow self-destruction of US media.

Letterman merely insulted a respected national Republican leader.  The entire ABC network apparently wants government to run nearly every part of your life, under the label of “health care;” so much so, that ABC won’t allow opposing viewpoints to its “news” coverage.

According to Drudge:

ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!

The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party’s views during the Obama special.

Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60-second spot immediately preceding ‘Prescription for America’.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge co-owns the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  You can contact Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

There is no more more compelling evidence that the MSM is a rotting, fetid corpse than its (non) coverage of the Iranian Green Revolution currently underway.

At the age of sixteen, I remember taking several extended breaks from my job as a clerk in a local drug store to watch the live non-stop network coverage of the military coup which, eventually, led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

As I survey the different news networks: Fox News, CNN, CNN Headline News, and MSNBC, not a single one is discussing what is, perhaps, the biggest development in U.S. Foreign relations since the Berlin Wall fell.

The MSM is now utterly useless to our society. Has there ever been a greater media failure than this?

Don’t worry, she won’t mind that I called her a slut.

You’ll understand once you watch this rather scary clip:

Another chapter in the sad fall of the American media, once the watchdogs of the government, now the slobbering lapdogs of The One.

No, not because of this. It’s the fact that Britain might be the last, best place for actual free-thinking journalism that has won my heart, and simultaneously, the scorn of Robert Gibbs. This is one of many shining examples of how Britain’s media holds politicians (ours and their own) feet to the fire, regardless of the reporter’s own personal beliefs.  Can we trade NBC News for the Telegraph? We’ll throw in Katie Couric and a Mickey Mantle rookie card! If the British press keeps this up I may finally be able to forgive them for the Spice Girls.

Memo to US Press secretary Robert Gibbs

1. Congratulations. Your presidential regime has managed to secure the most supine, slobbering, spineless, unquestioning media coverage since Enver Hoxha’s Albania. A report last month by the Center for Media and Public Affairs said Obama has received more coverage than his two predecessors combined. On ABC, CBS and NBC news the majority of evaluations – 58 per cent – have been favourable. (Compare GW Bush – 33 per cent; Bill Clinton 44 per cent – in first 50 days of office). More importantly, you have Pravda. Yes, no less than 73 per cent of all evaluative comments in your chief propaganda organ – aka The New York Times – have been favourable to Obama.

2. Sure your congenitally libtard Mainstream Media were probably biased that way anyway, but you have played your part. Your combative style – which led you to dismiss the entire British print media just now in one glib, sneering phrase - has earned you the nickname “The Enforcer.” You have a reputation for coming down hard on any media outlet which doesn’t follow your approved version of reality. “I work the referee a little bit,” as you once put it. (A reference, perhaps, to when you played goalkeeper for your college football team).

3. If you are going to make clever-sounding football references displaying your rich understanding of the British press, try to get your terminology right. We call it the “Champions League.” Not the “Champions League cup.”

4. That’s only the beginning of your problems, matey. Your treatment not just of the British media but of Britain generally smacks of a risible ineptitude. First, you let President Obama send back the Winston Churchill bust. Then, you insult our visiting prime minister with a dismally low-key reception (worthy of a minor African head of state, not your closest and most loyal ally) and shoddy gifts (those DVDs). Then you compound the insult by having one of your monkeys declare, Chicago-politics-style, “”There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.” OK so we know Obama’s not much interested in foreign affairs and has a special loathing for Britain because it roughed up his Kenyan granddad during the Mau Mau insurrection. But don’t you realise, that one of your jobs as his press secretary is to make out like he loves us so much even his underpants have a union flag on them?

5. Insulting the British print media. Big mistake. We know we’re not angels. We know we can go over the top sometimes. But unfortunately that’s a much bigger problem for you than it is for us. You see, while a lot of your mainstream media will hold fire on stories which they think may reflect poorly on your wondrous Obamamessiah – what his half-brother has been up to, say – we have fewer qualms about telling it like it is. So far, you’ve had a pretty easy ride. The Obama Kool Aid has proved almost as popular beverage in Britain as it is in the US. But just you wait till we start showing our teeth.

6. A lot of Americans know this. They appreciate our irreverence. They enjoy our frank criticisms of all the myriad areas where Obama is getting it so badly wrong – everything from his disastrous cap and trade measures, to his brutal treatment of Chrysler dealerships which didn’t support him, to his pork barrelling, to his failure to do anything that looks remotely like rescuing the US economy. That’s why they come to read us online: because they can and there’s nothing you can do to stop them.

7. We had a guy just like you over here once. Guy named Alastair Campbell. Did for our now heavily discredited prime minister Tony Blair what you do for Obama: a little light press bullying; professional turd polishing; that kind of thing. We hated Alastair Campbell, really loathed him. But he got away with bullying us because in those days we didn’t know any better. We were still going through this sort of dumb-cattle phase where we still had some vestigial respect for politicians and trust that they knew what they were doing.

8. But we don’t respect politicians any more. Not our politicians, and not yours either. Imagine how this new strain of irreverence bordering on utter contempt is going to affect our reporting of political affairs. Actually, you’ve no need to imagine. Just read some of our Telegraph blogs.

Just to make sure we have a FPP on this story:

California voters legally outlawed same-sex marriage when they approved Proposition 8 in November, but the constitutional amendment did not dissolve the unions of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before the measure took effect, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

The 6-1 decision upholding Prop. 8 was issued by the same court that declared a year ago that a state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the right to choose one’s spouse and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

Prop. 8 undid that ruling by reinstating the definition of marriage that the court had struck down, this time as an amendment to the state Constitution. The author of last year’s 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ronald George, said today that the voters were within their rights to do so.

“All political power is inherent in the people,” George said, quoting the Declaration of Rights in the state Constitution. He said the voters’ power to amend their Constitution is limited – and might not include a measure that, for example, deprived same-sex couples of the right to raise a family – but that Prop. 8 did not exceed those limits.

I, for one, see things both sides can like about this, as gay rights activists gain a victory in the court upholding the legality of pre-Prop. 8 marriages, and traditional marriage activists gain a victory in the court upholding the referendum.  This won’t be the last we’ve heard about Prop. 8, though, as gay rights activists have already vowed to take the fight to the federal level.

In a harsh blow to Rollie the Pooh, a federal judge has ruled that the Senate Ethics Committee can review a wiretapped conversation between Sen. Burris and Rob Blagojevich, Rod’s brother:

Sources tell CBS 2 the wiretapped phone conversation occurred on Nov. 18 while Blagojevich was still governor and before he named Burris to President Barack Obama’s former U.S. Senate seat.

Sources say that on the tape, Burris suggests that he could contribute, or have associates contribute, money to the Blagojevich campaign. Burris also expresses desire to be appointed to the U.S. Senate.

Burris’ lawyer, Timothy Wright told CBS 2 that after that conversation, Burris decided against making any contribution. However, the Sun-Times reports that Burris never disclosed that information in an affidavit detailing his actions before he was appointed by Blagojevich.

So, even if Burris “never did anything wrong”, as his buddy Blago has often claimed about himself, he may face perjury charges.

Finally, I wanted to highlight another instance of the MSM framing the Sotomayor nomination.  Here are some excerpts from a CNN article entitled “Latinos rejoice in Sotomayor nomination”:

Cecilia Lopez, a student who is the first person from her family to go to college, sees something of herself in the first Hispanic woman to be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“To me, as a student that comes from a low-income background, I think she’s a true example of the fact that when you’re wanting to achieve something, it’s truly possible, regardless of your background,” said Lopez, a 20-year-old senior at the University of Texas.

Her story of battling past obstacles is an inspiration for all Hispanic people, said Roberto Ramirez, president-elect of the Puerto Rican Bar Association.

…”It’s here! It is the right nominee. It is a woman who will make this country and the U.S. Supreme Court proud, so I’m not going to ask whether it was a long time coming,” he [Ramirez] said. “I’m just glad that it is here.”

David Perez, a 23-year-old student at Yale Law School, where Sotomayor attended, said many people in the Hispanic community feel such excitement about the nomination that they’re almost numb.

“People are going to remember where they were when they heard about this nomination,” he said.

…However, some conservatives in the Hispanic community said a judicial nominee’s ethnic background and life story are not as important as his or her interpretations of the law.

“While it is laudable and desirable to have a Supreme Court that reflects a diversity of views and backgrounds, Justices must check these at the Supreme Court door,” Raquel Rodriguez, a Miami attorney who was general counsel to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, said in a prepared statement. “Personal views must be surrendered in favor of applying the law.”

Anne Guarnera, spokeswoman for the Hispanic College Fund, said Latinos are inspired by the fact that someone of their ethnic group is being portrayed in such a positive light.

Sotomayor will inspire young Latinas to chase their dreams, she said.

“I think her cultural background does give her an advantage in being a role model for these students,” she said. “It’s, in a way, redeeming or affirming to see someone who looks like you succeeding in the public sphere.”

Notice how the article characterized Hispanic college students, law students or law professionals as representative of the general view of all Hispanics (as evidenced by the article title)?  Notice that the quoted people probably already support Obama?  Notice how John Sutter, the writer, made sure to preface Raquel Rodriguez’s statement by identifying her as a “Hispanic conservative” and acknowledging her experience with Jeb?  What about the other people the story quotes?  Why weren’t we told about their political leanings?  Why did the author imply that their thoughts on the topic embody the position of a majority of Hispanics?  Just another day at the office for the MSM.

Lately, my growing work schedule has prevented me from being more active here, but after returning home from 7 hours in the car today, I stumbled across this bit of news and wanted to comment.

The press really needs to lay off Mel Gibson.  Idiotic bloggers, such as this one for Eonline, are so quick to judge Gibson harshly.  Quite frankly, they seem to be foaming at the mouths to take a potshot at the man whenever a chance comes up.

It is too easy to label Gibson a hypocrite, and it is also lazy and underhanded.  For the record, Gibson and his wife have been seperated for over three years.  From the Perth Sunday Times:

In a formal response to his wife’s divorce petition filed, Gibson said the couple had been separated since August 26, 2006

According to statements made by attorney, both he and his wife had gone their seperate ways in August of 2006.  Since that specific date, Gibson has met someone else, and is now expecting a child.  Of course most readers, and the bloggers who follow the details of the private lives of the famous devoutly (I am not among them), have no clue what goes on behind the doors of Gibson’s house.

What it comes down to is this…  how can one be labeled a homewrecker in this situation, when most of these same writers do not add the “homewrecker” to each article they write about Angelina Jolie or Penelope Cruz (or whoever it was Tom Cruise divorced Nicole what’s her name for)?  These same writers don’t foam at the mouths to trash the behavior of a Brad Pitt at every opportunity.

No, Gibson is an easy target for them because they have found some of his remarks offensive or contrary to their own world view. 

If that was not enough, the Eonline article goes on to label Gibson as an old man who chases young skirts:

 I think I could probably be into it if he signed onto an indie flick where he plays a creepy, middle-aged weirdo and flaunts the fact that he’s no longer the goofy Hollywood star from Lethal Weapon.

Considering the fact that Gibson’s current girlfriend is about to turn 40 years old, while he is 53… that’s hardly creepy, when it comes to Hollywood standards.  In fact, Harrison Ford is 22 years older than fiance, Calista Flockhart… and who cares about old Woody Allen these days?

Roger Simon, over at the Politico, has written up a hit piece on Dick Cheney and the Republican Party. After going on about how Cheney, being “old and bitter,” perfectly represents today’s GOP, he brings up the old Democrats-as-nurturing-mother/Republicans-as-strict-father paradigm. Cheney’s a tough dad that keeps you safe from terrorists, Simon says, sarcastically:

One of Cheney’s greatest attributes is that he revives the whole “Daddy Party vs. Mommy Party” argument that has bedeviled Democrats for decades.

Republicans say they are the Daddy Party. They are strong and will protect us from communists, terrorists and people who want to take away our guns.

Ah, but I would contend that it’s actually the Democrat Party that’s the Daddy Party.

It’s like an irresponsible, deadbeat dad: it keeps spending money it doesn’t have on things it doesn’t need, and never comes through for you when you need him.

Or maybe it’s like a Sugar Daddy. It keeps handing out lots of goodies as long as we treat it well with votes.

Or perhaps it’s like an abusive father: it keeps beating up America, but half the public keeps coming back to it.

Simon’s screed continues:

After that, Maureen Dowd wrote: “Cheney, who had five deferments himself to get out of going to Vietnam, would rather follow a blowhard entertainer who has had three divorces and a drug problem (who also avoided Vietnam) than a four-star general who spent his life serving his country.”

To which the Republican wing of the Republican Party replies, “Yeah? So who wouldn’t?”

First of all, are we sure Maureen Dowd wrote that?

Regardless, it’s an asinine argument: didn’t Dowd choose to follow a neophyte, undistinguished senator over an accomplished diplomat, Congressman, governor, and energy secretary? (”Yeah, who wouldn’t?”) Moreover, didn’t they spend a lot of time bashing that very same four-star general when he wasn’t on their side? Leftists turn from being military-haters to jingoists as soon as they can use it as a stick to beat Republicans with.

More:

The Republican Party has no serious wing other than the Cheney wing. The moderate wing of the Republican Party is distinguished by the fact that it does not exist, and yet it is still shrinking.

Arlen Specter, senator from Pennsylvania, recently left the Republicans for the Democrats, and Jon Huntsman, the Republican governor of Utah, is joining the Obama administration as its ambassador to China.

I don’t even know what that second sentence means. I don’t think Roger Simon knows what it means, either.

But a few questions come to mind:

1) What’s “the Cheney wing,” anyway? The wing that dislikes President Obama?

2) How is Huntsman’s departure as governor an indication that he represents a “shrinking of the moderate faction”? He’s still a member of the Republican Party!

3) I suppose our lineup of moderate/center-right 2010 candidates — Meg Whitman, Rob Simmons, Charlie Crist, Mike Castle, Mark Kirk, Carly Fiorina, George Pataki — just does not exist?

But back to the Daddy Party crap:

Cheney offers a clear choice. He is for waterboarding to save the United States from terrorism. He is a Daddy Party kind of guy.

True, President Obama gave the go-ahead for the military to shoot three pirates last month. But Cheney actually shot a guy in the head once. How Daddy Party can you get?

Thirty years from now, Democrats will still be laughing at their own Cheney shooting jokes.

While not laughing at Cheney, they’re laughing off the prospect of the United States being hit by Islamic terrorists. It’s ironic that men like Dick Cheney — as opposed to little girls like Roger Simon — can be thanked for creating such a safe domestic environment. One that’s safe enough for “journalists” like Simon to laugh off threats to America.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.

Awww, poor Meghan. 

Political blogger Meghan McCain isn’t exactly the toast of D.C. right now.

Sen. John McCain’s daughter — who writes online for The Daily Beast and will soon release a book about life as a Republican — lost it after getting stopped by security when she arrived at the White HouseCorrespondents dinner Saturday. The problem? She had only two tickets, but brought two friends.

“The security guard sent her to talk to someone to sort out the situation, but Meghan got bratty and nastily told him, ‘We’ll just stand here then,’ like an insolent child,” our source said, adding that after dealing with the guard, “She muttered to her friends, ‘Does he even know who the f— I am?’ ”

An insider told us, “Those tickets were harder to get than gold dust and Meghan blatantly only had two and thought she didn’t have to follow the same rules as everyone else.”

The vocal McCain “was complaining about everything from the air-conditioning to the wait,” says our leak.

Once inside, the bubbly blond’s mood didn’t improve; she was annoyed at Wanda Sykes’ roast. 

“Sen. McCain gave you grief about the new helicopters you didn’t order,” said Sykes, adding, “I think Mr. McCain was a little bitter because he wanted to be in the new helicopters. Mr. McCain, I’m sure if you ask nicely, your wife will buy you a new helicopter.”

While the assembled crowd of politicos, journalists and celebrities roared with laughter, Meghan was not among them.

“I didn’t like the joke about my mom [Cindy],” the young McCain told us after the dinner. “Why talk about her at all? I (didn’t mind the jokes) about my dad, but leave my mom out of it. It really wasn’t in good taste.”

Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News’s God & Country blog had a great post Friday about the exaggeration of the growth of religiously unaffiliated individuals in America.  Here’s the text:

It turns out that the explosion in the number of Americans who identify with no religious tradition doesn’t mean there’s been an explosion in faithlessness.

In fact, a new Pew survey finds that most Americans who were raised in religiously unaffiliated homes now belong to one religious tradition

or another. And only a distinct minority of those who’ve left organized religion say that modern science has disproved religion, as many atheists believe.

While the religiously unaffiliated are the fastest growing segment of the American faith landscape, they also have pretty low retention rates.

Here’s the top of my piece about rethinking “religious nones”, which originally ran in U.S. News Weekly:

Signs abound that more Americans are leaving Christianity and embracing a secular worldview. The cover of Newsweek recently proclaimed “The End of Christian America.” Books like The God Delusion and God Is Not Great have topped bestseller lists. David Niose, president of the American Humanist Association, which is working to organize nonbelievers into a national movement, says, “Our membership has doubled in the last five years—and we’ve been around since 1941. We’re at an all-time high.”

Polls have reinforced the anecdotal evidence. A Trinity College report last month found that Americans who decline to associate with any religion now constitute the fastest-growing segment of the national religious landscape. They represent 15 percent of the adult population, up from 8 percent in 1990.

But all that may be misleading. A survey out this week from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life challenges the conventional portrait of America’s unchurched as a burgeoning society of proud secularists, atheists, and agnostics. Yes, the religiously unaffiliated are the fastest-growing religious group, the survey reports, accounting for nearly 1 in 6 Americans. But it turns out that the unaffiliated are much less antagonistic toward religion than previously thought.

The new Pew survey finds that most Americans who were raised in religiously unaffiliated homes now belong to one religious tradition or another. And only a distinct minority of those who’ve left organized religion say that modern science has disproved religion, as many atheists believe. “There’s this naive secularization theory that says when somebody becomes unaffiliated, they stay there because they’ve become adults and found that religion is silly,” says Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion professor who analyzed the Pew survey. “But it turns out that you call them back the next year and they’ve joined a Lutheran church. They were just looking for the right fit.”

Once again, the MSM misleads the public about the “demise” of elements of the conservative movement (granted, not all religious people have conservative views).

Click for the most horrifying example of media bias in modern history…

(more…)

Ross Douthat, taking over for Bill Kristol as the New York Times’ resident conservative, debuted today with quite the eye-catching article, ‘Cheney for President’. Now right off the bat you would think Douthat is off his medication, but that isn’t the case at all (despite all the Huffposters spewing vile toward him without even reading the article, proving just how dumb you have to be to post on Huff). The title is a bit of a tease because the article is not advocating for a Cheney presidency but rather a thought experiment on how the GOP would have reacted to a neo-con like Cheney losing in an epic landslide to Obama.  Without the excuse of ‘McCain was too liberal, that’s why we lost’, instead we could have learned how the GOP would have responded.  Douthat, along with David Frum and Reihan Salam are the kind of new voices the party needs to start listening to if we plan on turning things around. Douthat/Frum or Beck/Limbaugh. Depending on which side prevails will determine just how long our stay in the wilderness will be.

At the very least, a Cheney-Obama contest would have clarified conservatism’s present political predicament. In the wake of two straight drubbings at the polls, much of the American right has comforted itself with the idea that conservatives lost the country primarily because the Bush-era Republican Party spent too much money on social programs. And John McCain’s defeat has been taken as the vindication of this premise.

We tried running the maverick reformer, the argument goes, and look what it got us. What Americans want is real conservatism, not some crypto-liberal imitation.

“Real conservatism,” in this narrative, means a particular strain of right-wingery: a conservatism of supply-side economics and stress positions, uninterested in social policy and dismissive of libertarian qualms about the national-security state. And Dick Cheney happens to be its diamond-hard distillation. The former vice-president kept his distance from the Bush administration’s attempts at domestic reform, and he had little time for the idealistic, religiously infused side of his boss’s policy agenda. He was for tax cuts at home and pre-emptive warfare overseas; anything else he seemed to disdain as sentimentalism.

This is precisely the sort of conservatism that’s ascendant in today’s much-reduced Republican Party, from the talk radio dials to the party’s grassroots. And a Cheney-for-President campaign would have been an instructive test of its political viability.

As a candidate, Cheney would have doubtless been as disciplined and ideologically consistent as McCain was feckless. In debates with Barack Obama, he would have been as cuttingly effective as he was in his encounters with Joe Lieberman and John Edwards in 2000 and 2004 respectively. And when he went down to a landslide loss, the conservative movement might – might! – have been jolted into the kind of rethinking that’s necessary if it hopes to regain power.

The most underreported story from the recent PEW Research Center poll was that only 24% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans.  Although some of these Republicans display a personal affection towards President Obama, they are very much opposed to his policies. 

March, 2009
Republican  24
Democrat    34
Independent 35
Lean Rep    12
Lean Dem    17

The question that needs to be asked is where have all the Republicans gone?  What elements of the party have left for the quasar of political independence, why did they leave and how do we get them back?

The basis of the formation of the modern Republican party is the fusion between cultural conservatives and small government libertarians, but fatigue in this coalition is becoming more evident and it is leading the Republican party on a path of permanent minority status.  Many center-right pundits and historians are becoming concerned that our party faces a repeat of the 1932-1968 political era, where Democrats won nearly all of the Congressional and Presidential elections.  What has become clear in the last three years is that small government, libertarian leaning Republicans have been and are continuing to leave the Republican party.  They feel betrayed that the cultural conservatives are no longer committed to the political contract devised for this coalition.    

Most libertarian Republicans do not oppose federal bans on gay marriage or abortion because of personal or religious beliefs, but because they oppose an activist agenda by federal politicians, as much as cultural conservatives oppose activist judges legislating from the bench.  Libertarian Republicans do not want any expansion of federals powers, whether they be the nationalization of banks, new entitlement programs, or mandated funding on states.                

Libertarian Republicans are happy to allow religious conservatives to control the cultural agenda of the party, but the fine print in the contract states that libertarian Republicans would maintain the keys to developing policy on economics, law and order and the federal bureaucracy.  Many libertarian Republicans believe this contract was violated under President W. Bush and some casted their vote for Obama in protest.  For some libertarian Republicans it was easy to talk themselves into supporting President Obama, as he offered the same economic populism that President Bush had governed with.  They also focused on the common ground on policy issues they had with Obama, such as on abortion, gay marriage, defense strategy and federal corruption.  For libertarian Republicans, who situate mostly in the mid-west and Great Lakes region, the GOP’s decision to grow government and expand federal powers was as treasonous to them as it would be for cultural conservatives if President Bush had enacted pro-choice legislation.

Libertarian Republicans are not asking for the party to be purged of cultural conservatives, they acknowledge their strength and importance to navigating through the critical path to election victory.  As Christie Whitman recently said;

“It’s not about saying to the Christian conservatives, ‘There is no place for you.’ It’s about saying, ‘Would you please stop saying there’s no place for us?’” 

States like New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Michigan used to be reliable Republican states for federal elections, but have been trending Democrat for the last 15 years.  Many Republicans have dismissed these patterns as merely based on changes to voter demographics, but maybe it is not the voters who have changed, maybe it is the GOP that has changed?  In local elections, voters in these states have proven to us that they are still willing to vote for pro-growth, small government, law and order Republican candidates.  

If the Republican party cannot find a way to widen their tent and allow back libertarian-leaning voters, permanent minority status may be a term used to refer to the GOP for decades to come.  The first step in this process is to ratchet down the rhetoric against these Republicans and develop and implement policies that play to their disdain of the federal government.  Stop referring to them as liberal Republicans and RINO’s, but only as equal members of the political family.  Only when this begins, can the party begin the long climb back to majority status.                          

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

Apparently, the left has become so arrogant that they believe we no longer know how to do simple math.  The Huffers are boasting in big, bold letters that President HopeNChange is cutting the budget. Unfortunately, the guys at Hotair remembered their 4th grade math. Obama is cutting $100 million out of a $3.5 trillion budget.  That’s 0.0029%. Wow. Now there’s some fiscal discipline! You sure showed us, Huff!

Gail Collins rightly takes Rick Perry and the “secede from America first” crowd to task, in her newest column.  She writes:

This all started during the recent anti-tax protests. You undoubtedly saw the pictures of the demonstrations full of people wearing teabags or tricorner hats who kept comparing themselves to the founding fathers at the Boston Tea Party. True, when it comes to taxation without representation, they were slightly different from colonial New Englanders on the minor point of having representation. But let’s not be picky.

I have not been all that impressed by the tea party movement, for various reasons.  Whatever you think of the country’s fiscal climate, it’s hard to argue that we’ve reached some kind of high tax plateau.  There were whole generations of Americans who never even contemplated tax rates this low (think 1930 til 2002).  Do the tea-partiers expect Obama to raise the top marginal rate to 85%?  Why would he, when he’s so blaisse about trillion dollar deficits?  So, we’re very far from loyal Englishman tossing overboard the symbol of their empire, after an agnozing decade long discussion about representative government and the taxation system.  If we must have tea parties, we’d be better off conjuring the image of a little girl sitting on a pink chair, chiding her teddy bear to use only one lump of sugar.  At least that has the advantage of conveying a message of restraint.  But, some of Collins’ criticism is frankly bizarre, and riddled with the sort of assumptions that mar a liberal’s shot, even when they have the right target.  She goes on:

Have you ever noticed that the states where anti-tax sentiment is strongest are frequently the same states that get way more back from the federal government than they send in? Alaska gets $1.84 for every tax dollar it sends to Washington, which is a rate of return even Bernard Madoff never pretended to achieve. Yet there they were in Ketchikan waving “Taxed Enough Already!” signs and demanding an end to federal spending.

Also, have you noticed how places that pride themselves on being superpatriotic seem to have the most people who want to abandon the country entirely and set up shop on their own?

These are meant to be exasperated asides- to other bunkered, cosmopolitan liberals- but they don’t make a whole lot of sense.  If Alaskans want to “end federal spending”, and they benefit from federal spending, doesn’t this make them more, not less, principled?  So what exactly is she implying here?  Or is this the typical Marxist pabulum about false consciousness?  The other bit is no better.  Conservatives have just spent 8 years listening to liberals who threatened to move to Canada; presumably so they could die waiting for a surgery; some of us spent 2 hours listening to a liberal praise a country where that’s one of the better ways to go.  Liberals invented the “I’d take my ball home in defeat, only home is a bastion of imperialist swine and Gaia pillagers” tact; some conservatives are only just now picking it up, and they’re rank amateurs in comparison.  I’d quote the rest, but it’s more of the same.   To be sure, these conservatives are terribly worrying.  Tea parties are harmless enough, but secession is deadly serious and every sensible conservative should look askance at Perry’s comments.  But, Collins does liberals no favors by taking legitimate criticism of a fringe, though vocal, element of the conservative movement, and injecting it with silliness.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

Surprisingly, Olbermann is not the craziest person in this video. That alone puts this into a special category of left-wing vile that stands out as some of the most hateful speech you will ever hear on television. Olbermann always tends to appear mild (hard as that is to believe) when paired with the disgusting Janeane Garofalo, who often offers up gems like this:

JANEANE GAROFALO: She dated him, so either she suffers from Stockholm Syndrome – a lot like Michael Steele, who’s the black guy in the Republican party who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, which means you try and curry favor with the oppressor.

KEITH OLBERMANN: Yes, you talk about self-loathing.

GAROFALO: Yeah, and there’s, any female or person of color in the Republican party is struggling with Stockholm Syndrome.

Get that? If you are a person of color and you don’t act and think the same way as liberal people of color, then you have a mental disorder.  I’m pretty sure suggesting that members of a certain race should all act and think the same way is…umm…RACIST.  

As for Olbermann, what can really be said at this point. The face of this network used to be Tim Russert. Now, it’s Kieth Olbermann.  That is something that should send a chill up and down the spine of every person who was ever lucky enough to watch Mr. Russert and unfortunate enough to catch a glimpse of Mr. Olbermann.

Here are a few of Janeane Garofalo’s fellow liberals protesting. Unlike the tea parties that focused on taxes, Garofalo’s fellow liberals protested things like the U.S. Marines and a 9/11 Memorial. I guess Susan Roesgen was too busy to interview these protesters over there on CNN. Content warning:

(more…)

Susan Roesgen, an Obama-supporting CNN correspondent, was called out by a protester following her biased coverage of a tea party held in Chicago.

Susan Roesgen may not have what it takes to be a reporter, but she is clearly qualified for other jobs such as Obama Press Secretary, Daily Kos Blogger, and host of MSNBC’s Countdown.

I just created a new word! Hypocritics.

Here are some of the comments left on mediatakeout.com, in regards to Obama’s brother and his legal trouble, here is a quick rundown.

MamiSoooPrecious06:

obama is like jesus. got SO MANY HATERS WORLDWIDE. overseas newspaper tryna put dirt on his name. have mercy. they’ll stop at nothing to bring a black man down.

(more…)

Since the media loves to go on and on at length about every salacious detail in the lives of Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and Levi Johnson, then perhaps Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and the rest of the lefty loons will enjoy this disturbing story about Samson Obama, younger brother of President Barack Obama. Perhaps Tyra Banks can talk about safe sex with Obama, as in how can we safely keep our kids away from his brother.

Now, obviously the media thinks the personal family life of the Alaska Governor is must-see news. However, shouldn’t the personal life of the President and his family rank as slightly more important? I would think so, unless of course there is some kind of agenda to protect the President from damaging stories, and I can’t imagine such honest journalists like Katie Couric or Brian Williams doing that.

The News of the World can reveal that Kenya-based Samson Obama tried to get into Britain on his way to Washington for his family’s big day, the historic inauguration in January.

But eagle-eyed immigration officials at East Midlands Airport, using the latest biometric tests, discovered he was linked to an incident here last November. The hi-tech database revealed that Samson – who manages a mobile phone shop just outside Nairobi – was the same man arrested by British police after he approached a group of young girls, including a 13 year-old, and allegedly tried to sexually assault one of them.

He then followed them into a cafe where he became aggressive and was asked to leave by the owner. That’s when police were called and Samson was arrested.

Move over Roger Clinton and Hugh Rodham, say hello to Samson Obama.

(more…)

Though MSNBC’s degenerate former sportscaster is unlikely to point this out, Markos Moulitsas continues to prove he is ‘The Worst Person in the World.’  Here is a Tweet from the great and powerful Kos on the Pittsburgh shootings from this weekend:

When we were out of power, we organized to win the next election. Conservatives, apparently, prefer to talk “revolution” and kill cops.

Democratic politicians who continue to accept money from this man’s website or attend his convention should be held to account for these disgusting comments.  Hey Barack, is this the ‘new politics’ you promised us?

Imagine if a Conservative had spoken like this about the recent Oakland shootings, where 3 cops were killed by an African-American gunman.  Imagine if we said ‘liberals kill cops’, referencing how more than 90% of blacks vote Democrat. Can you imagine how the MSM would cover that? Can you imagine what Olbermann and Matthews and co. would say about Rush Limbaugh if he had said something like this?  The hypocrisy is both sickening and overwhelming to say the least.