was a single mom who raised her daughters while putting herself through school and got a Harvard Law degree.”
Wow. Make her the Governor, stat!
was a single mom who raised her daughters while putting herself through school and got a Harvard Law degree.”
Wow. Make her the Governor, stat!
Imagine if this news hit the wires in 2004. I suspect the media would have been interested:
According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Bush and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.
Now substitute the name “Obama” for “Bush,” and change the date to 2012. Will the media bury the story? Time will tell.
The Franklin Center and The Heritage Foundation may be on to something here.
Nominations are due by May 25th.
“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.
He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, ‘THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.’ ”
Brent Bozell points out the latest pop culture dumpster-swill to hit the TV, a show called GCB.
My reaction? Mostly yawns. This is to be expected from our brave, transgressive betters in Hollyweird. It’s always cool and titillating among their crowd to pick on Christians. We expect it, and tend not to fight back in any serious sense beyond withholding our financial support. Re-read the quote above, and you’ll understand why we often regard their disdain as an honor. Sinful and imperfect as we are, there’s also that whole Turn The Other Cheek thing to live up to.
I’ll give the secular progressives in the entertainment biz some credit for real courage if and when they ever take a similar swipe at muslims. Don’t hold your breath, though. That kind of thing tends to provoke a much more primitive and physical response from the targets.
I give GCB one season, tops.
Professor Derrick Bell was one of the earliest and most strident advocates of Critical Race Theory:
Bell believed then, as he does to this day, that whites would support civil rights protections for blacks only if those protections would also promote white self-interest and social status. Since Bell maintains that racial minorities are a permanently oppressed caste — and that racism is a normal, permanent aspect of American life — he reasons that equality before the law is unfair to blacks, whose moral claims are superior to those of whites. He has endorsed a journal dedicated to the “abolition of whiteness,” called Race Traitor, whose motto is “Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity.”
According to Professor Bell and his fellow Critical Race theorists, existing legal structures are, like American society at large, racist in their very construction. Critical Race Theory suggests that to combat this “institutional racism,” oppressed racial groups have both the right and the duty to decide for themselves, which laws are valid and are worth observing. Critical Race Theory also promotes the use of storytelling narratives in law-review articles to better reflect the “oral traditions” of black experience. Bell has used the technique of placing legal and social commentary into the mouths of invented characters extensively in his writings. While acknowledging that this “style of storytelling” is “less rigorous than the doctrine-laden, citation-heavy law review pieces,” he employs it nonetheless.
He was also a mentor to a young Barack Obama, who idolized the aging racist and organized at least one student demonstration supporting him while the future president was a law student. Selectively-edited footage of that demonstration leaked today, but the raw footage will air tonight thanks to Andrew Breitbart’s happy warriors.
3/8 Update: More on Bell and his past.
3/8 Update 2: Well, look what we have here.
The observed data doesn’t support the theory that humanity is causing global warming. Read that again, and focus on the word data. You can talk all you want about government grants, the consensus of “all reputable scientists,” sophisticated computer models, or anything else, but hard data always trumps scientific theory.
The Scientific Method:
1) Define a question
2) Gather information and resources (observe)
3) Form an explanatory hypothesis
4) Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5) Analyze the data
6) Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7) Publish results
See what got missed there? This is Science 101. No amount of cover-ups can fix this, you environmentalist wackos and media leftists. Give it up. The fraud has been exposed. Find your next scam to push.
In an effort to help Representative Betty Sutton (D-OH) break her streak of relentless profligacy with her constituents’ money (including stimulus packages for terrorists), I invite her to take a look at a Federal Trade Commission scheme to prop up failing newspapers with revenues from taxes on internet news sites, cell phone bills, iPads, Kindles, and computers.
Gee, when do I get to tar all Democrats as violent egg-throwing nutjob loonies? The left relishes smearing all Tea Party activists and conservatives and Republicans as violent bigots based on scanty evidence, after all.
As for proof of a Tea Partier shouting the racist epithet “ni**er” at a black congressman … well, we’re all on pins and needles waiting for it. I’m sure that any day now, someone’s gonna jump on that $100,000 challenge. Yup. Real soon.
Cue the crickets.
9:30 PM Update: Lest we forget …
10:30 PM Update: A little perspective would seem to be in order, don’t you think?
The Other McCain has several good points:
The people who control access to Republican leaders go out of their way to prevent their bosses from ever having direct contact with any rank-and-file conservative who wants to help. It’s a tragically familiar story.
A key reason the [George] Allen campaign couldn’t fix the “macaca” problem was because they had no friends in the MSM — and this by design, rather than accident. Republican campaign operatives routinely and habitually treat reporters as the enemy. Somewhere, I believe, there must be a boot camp where GOP staffers are trained in an attitude of hostility and suspicion toward the press.
Republican leaders habitually blame media bias for all their woes, but rank-and-file Republicans need to start asking to what extent this media bias is fomented and exacerbated by the cluelessness of GOP leadership and the insulting arrogance of GOP political operatives.
So, whose fault was it that the MSM portrayed Sarah Palin as a ditzy bimbo? You can blame the press all you want, but at some point — if the Republican Party wishes to present itself as representing the principles of accountability and personal responsibility — the role of GOP campaign staffers in mishandling the media needs to be examined.
Read the rest. It’s quite thought-provoking.
Washington Post reporter Alec MacGillis doesn’t like the power wielded by U.S. Senators from states with small populations. He writes:
The Senate Finance Committee’s “Gang of Six” that is drafting health-care legislation that may shape the final deal — without a public insurance option — represents six states that are among the least populous in the country: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, New Mexico and Iowa.
Between them, those six states hold 8.4 million people — less than New Jersey — and represent 3 percent of the U.S. population. North Dakota and Wyoming each have fewer than 80,000 uninsured people, in a country where about 47 million lack insurance. In the House, those six states have 13 seats out of 435, 3 percent of the whole. In the Senate, those six members are crafting what may well be the blueprint for reform.
Climate change legislation, which passed in the House, also faces daunting odds. Why? Because agriculture, coal and oil interests hold far more sway in the Senate. In the House, the big coal state of Wyoming has a single vote to New York’s 29 and California’s 53. In the Senate, each state has two. The two Dakotas (total population: 1.4 million) together have twice as much say in the Senate as does Florida (18.3 million) or Texas (24.3 million) or Illinois (12.9 million).
Was this really what the founders had in mind? One popular story tells of Thomas Jefferson asking George Washington what the Senate’s purpose is. “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” Washington asked in return. “To cool it,” Jefferson replied. To which Washington said, “Even so, we pour legislation in the senatorial saucer to cool it.” A nice tale. But what if the coffee gets so cold that no one bothers to drink it? Or if the Senate takes its coffee black in a country that opted overwhelmingly for sugar and cream?
Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota (pop. 641,481, third smallest), chairman of the Budget Committee and one of the Gang of Six, does not see any problem. Asked whether it is appropriate that his vote counts as much as those of senators from states 20 times as large, he was flummoxed. “One would hope that people would support the Constitution of the United States,” said Conrad, who was reelected with 150,000 votes in 2006, when Virginia’s Jim Webb needed 1.2 million votes to win. “This was the grand bargain that was struck when the Founding Fathers determined the structure and form of the United States Congress.” He added: “Are you proposing changing the Constitution?”
Well, maybe. Regardless, there’s nothing wrong with taking a closer look at how things came to be the way they are. The fact remains that, hallowed as it is, the Senate is as much a product of bare-knuckled, self-interested politics as last week’s fight over military earmarks.
This is so damn simple to refute that my head hurts (probably due to banging it on my keyboard after reading this garbage). Apparently, neither MacGillis nor his trusty fact-checking editors bothered to read Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which sets forth the rules for changing that Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Mr. MacGillis, your entire essay was an exercise in futility. To answer your question, yes, the Founding Fathers did actually construct the Constitution with ironclad protection for each State’s equal representation in the Senate, even if every other State wants to strip it away through the amendment process.
This ain’t rocket science.
Hat tip: This Ain’t Hell
If this unethical tactic for pushing an immoral policy doesn’t justify a full-throated attack, what does? Via Drudge:
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
Hey, Ohio Republican Party bigwigs! What in the world are you waiting for? Blast this! Get aggressive. This is a no-brainer in at least two ways. 1) Americans don’t want socialized medicine. 2) Americans hate biased media outlets that claim to be unbiased.
Couple that with cratering support for Obama’s policies and you guys have a perfect opportunity to contrast the statist path of the Democrats with the traditional GOP values of rugged individualism, independence, and capitalism. Yes, Obama’s popular. So what? Attack his policies and his plans, not him.
Stop worrying about being treated badly by the media. You lost that war in the 1960s. They’ll never like you. Use it to your advantage. Say things that they can’t afford to ignore, things that they’ll have to cover. Call ABC “a wholly owned subsidiary of ACORN and the Democratic Party.” Draw comparisons to Joseph Goebbels’ “Big Lie” strategy. Remind people of what Pravda used to publish. The media and the statists on the Left have just exposed their weakest point of vulnerability to you. Hit it with a sledgehemmer!
Learn from Sun Tzu:
You may advance and be absolutely irresistible, if you make for the enemy’s weak points; you may retire and be safe from pursuit if your movements are more rapid than those of the enemy.
Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards.
So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.
Get off your asses and attack!
On the hilarious Jim Treacher’s blog, I found a serious plea to upload a copy of the following video created by Founding Bloggers (yes, that’s my copy below):
CNN is abusing copyright law to strong-arm YouTube into removing the clip. CNN’s embarrassed, but that’s no justification for a b.s. claim of copyright violation. Patterico has the details.
For the record, what Susan Roesgen does is anything but objective reporting.