This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Liberals suck

  • Chaka Fattah meets Neil Cavuto (Video added)

    I just watched Neil Cavuto interview Congressman Chaka Fattah on Cavuto’s show. I’ve never listened to Fattah before, but I get impression that Fattah is another one of those double talking hucksters that made Philadelphia famous. If I find the video, I’ll put it up here – but I guarantee that you’ll be chucking things at the screen like I did.

    UPDATE: I added the video at 6:40AM June 17;

    Cavuto’s main point that he was trying to get Fattah to admit was that this health care bill was actually a tax hike on working Americans. Fattah wandered all over the map trying to avoid answering. He preached about what he learned in church about giving to the least of us. He said that the President has promised that we don’t have to participate in the government health plan and we can keep our own current plan.

    Fattah said that he didn’t know who was going to pay for this healthcare plan “whether it’s the rich or corporations” or whether it’s just those of us who decide not to participate and keep our own insurance – while we pay for everyone else’s health insurance as well as our own.

    He even said that 95% of Americans got a tax cut. We did? My Army pension shot up $64/month. Is that the tax cut he’s talking about? That was just a reduction in my withholding – it doesn’t affect my tax bill at the end of the year. I finally figured out my withholding and the Democrats just screwed me all up. Just like they did in 1993.

    And since we got that whopping tax cut – is that justification to slam us with someone else’s health insurance bill?

    I have a rule of thumb; as soon as an interviewee begins an answer with either phrase “Well, look…” or “I mean…”, I’m about to hear a lie. Fattah began every answer with “Well, look….”

    In fairness, he probably didn’t lie – but he didn’t say anything to convince me he wasn’t.

  • Alo Presidente

    Hoping to cuddle with the new president, ABC News has decided to do an infomercial for the Administration on June 24th, according to the Drudge Report. They’ll film a live prime time special from the White House on the president’s health care plan without offering any opposing voices. Kinda like Hugo Chavez’ weekly rants on Venezuelan TV.

    Drudge reprints the RNC protest that ABC isn’t giving a fair airing of the opposition view. ABC, in turn answers on their web presence. It’s really rather humorous – ABC outraged that Republicans think they’re biased. DrewM at Ace of Spades summarized ABC response; “…shut up you f***ing whack jobs, we are the deciders.”

    But here’s the quote from ABC;

    Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.

    Yeah, I’m sure it’ll be a huge audience. On a June night, several hours long, the only folks watching will be bloggers looking for that one slip that will propel them into the ionosphere overnight. I can’t picture families huddled around their TVs taking notes.

    Other than the fact that ABC has decided to jump straight into the bag for Obama, there’s really no story here. What could this possibly accomplish? It’s not like there’s going to be a referendum on socialized health care (although, there really should be – the wonks might be surprised).

    It’s all just that feel-good ownership bull sh*t that won Obama the election. We all know that every damn Democrat is going to vote for this economy-killer and they’re in the majority. And the Democrats will vote for it for no other reason than to buy the votes of the ignorant, pliant masses who think government health care is the answer to overpriced medical treatment.

    I don’t know how ABC even thought this was a good idea – it just illustrates how stupid these TV execs are these days. I wonder how long before NBC, CBS or CNN offer Obama three hours every week in his red shirt and beret. Maybe The Sniper can give us a preview of how that’d look.

  • Panetta: Cheney hoping for terrorist attack

    I’m sure you’ve heard that our new CIA director, Leon Panetta, claimed in an upcoming New Yorker magazine interview that it seems that former Vice President Dick Cheney talks as if he’s hoping for another terrorist attack on the US. From the Washington Times;

    CIA Director Leon Panetta says former Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to terrorism almost suggests the former vice president would be glad of a major terrorist attack as vindicating his criticism of President Obama.

    “I think he smells some blood in the water on the national security issue,” Mr. Panetta said in an interview published in the New Yorker magazine’s June 22 issue.

    Well, I wonder if Panetta was hoping the war in Iraq against al Qeada would fail when he wrote the following paragraph in a commentary from his Leon Panetta Institute entitled “Surge Not Working as Hoped”;

    In our report, the Iraq Study Group concluded that “because none of the operations conducted by U.S. and Iraq military forces are fundamentally changing the conditions encouraging the sectarian violence, U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end.”

    In fact, the Panetta Institute has provided us with a whole internet page of his criticisms of the Bush Administration. Can we assume that Leon Panetta was hoping the Bush Administration would fail?

    Did any of the CIA directors under President Bush state that criticism of the Administration was an expression of hope we would be attacked again? I guess that’s the problem when you hire a politician to do a sheepdog‘s job.

    Vice President Cheney is merely defending the policies of his administration. If Panetta is so sensitive, maybe he should go back to tossing stones at glass houses from the safety of his nondescript “institute” instead of living in a glass house.

  • Worst case of projection ever

    I came across a link at Don Surber‘s place this morning to a HuffPo piece by Rachel Weiner (I don’t know if it’s pronounced “weener” or “whiner” but either would be appropriate, i suppose) entitled Right-Wing neocons Rooting for Ahmadinejad Win. It’s a pretty sad display of projection. here’s the screen capture;
    huffpo-vs-neocons
    Don did an excellent job of knocking Weiner down a few pegs. But I’d like to add that the American Left has been rooting for Ahmadinejad for six years. they’ve been rooting for Ahmadinejad’s new buddy Hugo Chavez for ten years.

    Remember when Ahmadinejad spoke to the National Press Club for lunch? And how the Left apologized to Ahmadinejad for the crude neocons treatment of him? I remember The Nation’s piece charging the exact same neocons that Weiner says root for Ahmadinejad of provoking him. In fact, I remember Code Pink defending Ahmadinejad last year.

    But we had a different president then so everything is different now, huh?

  • The weekend teaser

    TSO just called and promised two very revealing posts for Monday morning. The folks at IVAW can rest easy, it ain’t them. Nope, TSO’s target is Jon Soltz and his band of political misfits. He has assured me his posts will include Wesley Clark, Beaker, Dicksmith, Kayla Williams and the whole cast of characters at Vote Vets.

    Jon Soltz has quickly become one of the most authoritative voices on veterans issues and military issues. He has been interviewed by national outlets such as the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, TIME, Newsweek, among others, and in dozens of local outlets.

    They forgot to mention that he was interviewed by the Denver Post, too – in regards to the advertisement that Vote Vets bought and paid for starring Rick (Duncan) Strandlof. But, more about that on Monday.

  • Frank gets huffy, storms out on CNBC

    Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and a vocal critic of Wall Street, appeared on CNBC this morning to talk about what should be done to limit executive compensation. After tossing a hissy, he storms out in a snit when they continue to hold his feet to the fire. What a drama queen;

    From Politico.

    I think Barney is realizing how hard it is to be in the majority again and actually has to have a plan instead of just mouthing pretty words for the camera. How many other news outlets will be struck from his list of potential interviews?H

  • HuffPo diarist for concealed carry?

    Christopher Barron, chairman of the board of GOProud, an organization representing gay conservatives, writes at Huffington Post encouraging concealed carry permits so that gays can protect themselves.

    This summer, the Senate will consider the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, more commonly know as Hate Crimes legislation. Unfortunately, the bill, as currently written, will do little to actually prevent violent hate crimes from occurring. There is, however, a way to stop hate crimes before they happen: help law-abiding Americans at risk of hate crimes defend themselves from predators.

    While GOProud, the only national gay conservative group, doesn’t take a position on the current hate crimes legislation, we do strongly support empowering individuals to protect themselves – which is why GOProud urges the Senate to amend the current hate crimes legislation to include a provision dealing with concealed carry reciprocity.

    Before I start in, let me make clear my position of gay gun ownership – I don’t care. Anyone with a clean police record and a clean bill of health should be able to own a gun if they want, irrespective of their sexual proclivities, race, religion, or any other clumsily-assembled group of victims anyone can configure.

    However, the Left doesn’t see it that way. They’re apparently all ready to give gays guns to protect themselves from “wingnuts”, but they’re afraid that some law-abiding “wingnut” will slip through the cracks and get their hands on a legally-purchased gun and get a concealed carry permit and be able to protect themselves.

    Here’s a sample of the comments illustrating that;
    huffpo-comments6-10

    Notice that? Since a concealed carry permit wouldn’t have saved Dr Tiller or the security guard at the Holocaust museum, there’s no real justification – besides, it might place more guns in the hands of “wingnuts”. I suspect that this von Brunn fellow possessed his firearm illegally since he’d been arrested for gun crimes before. i also suspect that Carlos Bledsoe, the Little Rock jihadist, bought his illegally as well (because no one has mentioned how he got it – if he’d bought it legally, it’d have been all over the news).

    I love that last line in the first comment: “It’s time we monitor the wingnuts and locked them up before they do their damage.” There’s not much chance of convincing that rocket surgeon that it’s probably unconstitutional since they seem to be convinced that only their Constitutional rights should be enforced.

    Not to mention that most of the commenters would support a cpncealed carry permit for gays, but not for us wingnuts. Try to tell them that probably violates the equal protection clause…I dare you. But they’ll quickly tell you that gay rights isn’t about “special rights.”

    Oh, and for the defenders of Janet Napolitano’s DHS report – it seems in regards to this particular commenter, at least, the report has done it’s damage even though it’s been withdrawn. It allows the Left to call us names and call for monitoring us all without repercussions. Good job, Janet.

  • Those 600,000 jobs “saved or created”

    You probably watched the media swallow hook line and sinker that idiot line from the President yesterday about the 600,000 jobs he was going to “save or create”. And the 150,000 jobs he’s already “saved”. The Wall Street Journal weighs in today;

    [Bush Administration staffer, Tony] Fratto sees a double standard at play. “We would never have used a formula like ‘save or create,’” he tells me. “To begin with, the number is pure fiction — the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being ‘saved.’ And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it.”

    Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama’s jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one — not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics — actually measures “jobs saved.” As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama’s jobs claims are “based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs.” Nice work if you can get away with it.

    Yeah, I remember the Left complaining that the only jobs the Bush Administration was creating was at McDonald’s for eight years, but they’re perfectly content to hear ambiguous and imprecise language from their guy.

    “The expression ‘create or save,’ which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius,” writes [Harvard economist and former Bush economic adviser Greg] Mankiw. “You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus.”

    Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and — presto! — you have the president claiming he has “saved or created” 150,000 jobs.

    But MSNBC is ready to drink the Koolaid;

    Just how much of an impact Obama’s recovery program had on the pace of job losses is up for debate.

    Obama has claimed as many as 150,000 jobs saved or created by his stimulus plan so far, even as government reports have shown the economy has lost more than 1.6 million jobs since Congress approved funding for the program in February.

    Republicans remain critical of the stimulus spending, slamming it as a big government program that ultimately will do little for recovery.

    With only a fraction of the federal money actually spent thus far, it’s premature to give the stimulus plan credit for economic trends, congressional Republicans said last week.

    Of course, if the media is just going to take everything that Obama says at face value, why do we have a media? Just turn over MSNBC to the White House.

    ADDED: The folks at Newsy read my post and sent this video to accompany it;