Who's The Racist/Bigot?

Mike Tyson: Bigoted Tea Party Can't Stand Seeing Obama As President

PIERS MORGAN: Did you think America, Mike, has become more or less racist since Barack Obama, an African-American, became president? (via Weasel Zippers)

MIKE TYSON, former undisputed heavyweight champion: There’s a great possibility, yes.

MORGAN: That it’s become worse?

TYSON: A hundred percent, yes. Because that’s how these groups surface, these red – Tea Party and everything. Listen, it’s new stuff, being a black man, having the image of the strongest man on the planet, the biggest man in the world, from a political point – standpoint – that’s a political standpoint, you can send the strongest army in the world and in the country and stuff. And that must be pretty tough to take in when you – I don’t know. It’s just the way this country is. I just believe this is just the best country in the world.

Commentary

Come on like Tyson was smart enough to come up with that on his own LOL!

Buchanan On Trayon Martin Issue

Opinion

It's all about race

By Pat Buchanan

If it had been a white teenager who was shot, and a 28-year-old black guy who shot him, the black guy would have been arrested.
So assert those demanding the arrest of George Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin. And they may be right.
Yet if Trayvon had been shot dead by a black neighborhood watch volunteer, Jesse Jackson would not have been in a pulpit in Sanford, Fla., howling that he had been "murdered and martyred." Rep. Hank Johnson would not be raging that Trayvon had been "executed." And ex-Black Panther Bobby Rush would not have been wearing a hoodie in the well of the House.
Which tells you what this whipped-up hysteria is all about.
It is not about finding the truth about what happened that night when Zimmerman followed Trayvon in his SUV, and the two wound up in a fight, with Trayvon dead.
It is about the exacerbation of and the exploitation of racial conflict.
And it is about an irreconcilable conflict of visions about what the real America is in 2012.
Zimmerman "profiled" Trayvon, we are told. And perhaps he did.
He saw a male. And males are 90 percent of prison inmates. He saw a stranger over 6 feet tall. And he saw a black man or youth with a hood over his head.
Why would this raise Zimmerman's antennae?
Perhaps because black males between 16 and 36, though only 2 percent to 3 percent of the population, are responsible for a third of all our crimes.
Listening to the heated rhetoric coming from demonstrations around the country, from the Black Caucus and TV talkers -- about how America is a terrifying place for young black males to grow up in because of the constant danger from white vigilantes -- one wonders what country of the mind these people are living in.
The real America is a country where the black crime rate is seven times as high as the white rate. It is a country where white criminals choose black victims in 3 percent of their crimes, but black criminals choose white victims in 45 percent of their crimes.
To much of America's black leadership and its media auxiliaries, what happened in Sanford, as Jackson put it, was that an innocent kid was "shot down in cold blood by a vigilante."
Yet, from police reports, witness statements and the father and friends of Zimmerman, another picture emerges.
Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, and was punched in the nose, knocked flat on his back and jumped on, getting his head pounded, when he pulled his gun and fired. That Trayvon's body was found face down, not face up, would tend to support this.
Some Sanford police believed Zimmerman; others did not.
But now that it is being investigated by a special prosecutor, the FBI, the Justice Department and a coming grand jury, what is the purpose of this venomous portrayal of Zimmerman?
And convicted of no crime, he is being crucified in the arena of public opinion as a hate-crime monster and murderer. Is this our idea of justice?
No. But if the purpose here is to turn this into a national black-white face-off, instead of a mutual search for truth and justice, it is succeeding marvelously well.


Pat Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?"

Commentary

Pat Buchanan right as usual telling it like it is

NYT Foiled Again

Opinion/Editorial

    Well its nice to be back bashing the so called leaders of the leftist print/lame stream media.This mornings lead OPED in this mornings New York Times "The Full-Employment Congress" is the title.
    Although I am not a big fan of US.Rep.and GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tx) but he does need support when the NYT attacks him.
    The rant begins "Representative Ron Paul’s signature libertarianism takes on a whole new meaning with the disclosure that he has paid more than $300,000 in salaries and fees to his daughter, brother, grandson, daughter’s mother-in-law, granddaughter and grandson-in-law. There is no Congressional ethics rule against employing family members in the pursuit of public service, as the office of Mr. Paul, Texas Republican and presidential candidate, points out.But a new report detailing how the families of more than half of all House members similarly benefited financially from their ties with a lawmaker makes for particularly interesting reading when politicians all over are promising voters: jobs, jobs, jobs."
  All fine and well but why arenot the Democrat lawmakers mentioned oh they conveinently left it out though.With the left wing media at times like the NYT it's not that they don't report the news its also when they leave out the facts and different parts that is just as bad as the liberal bias.
 Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) her  Daughter: Christine Pelosi (former chief of staff for US Rep. John Tierney (D-Ma) my old Congressman from the Massachusett 6th Congressional so hey NYT a little more fact checking before you go to bat for your Demorat buddies.In fact other of Pelosi's family have Government hack jobs her Son: Paul Pelosi Jr. (President of San Francisco's Commission on the Environment) back in her district.
  Here is the rest of the BS rant "Eighty-two lawmakers paid family members through their office payrolls, campaign committees and political-action funds, according to the 346-page report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, an independent watchdog group in Washington. Forty-four had relatives who lobbied or worked in government affairs. Twenty members dipped into their campaign coffers to help a relative who ran for office, and 14 made sure they charged interest when they were reimbursed for personal loans that they advanced to their own campaign committees.

A little-noticed House hearing recently admitted that Congress, wallowing in 10 percent approval ratings, was “broken” and needed to be “fixed.” No one said anything about ending the rampant bipartisan nepotism cushioning Capitol Hill careers.

If nothing else, the report is a measure of the creativity quietly at work in Congress when it comes to hearth and home. If only this could be applied to something other than achieving full employment in the halls of the Capitol."

  I just wonder how many of those 82 lawmakers are Demorats and most of the are RINO Republicans

I hear crickets chirping from the NYT.

    

Tierney/Tisei Both Frauds In Boston Globe Article

 Please notice the color change this will show the bias of the Globe in pink

GOP sees Tierney as wounded, beatable

March 16, 2012|By Noah Bierman

When Representative John Tierney’s wife pleaded guilty in 2010 to charges of helping her brother falsify his tax filings, it was an unsettling October surprise for the Salem Democrat. But Tierney’s Republican opponent at the time, Bill Hudak, could not capitalize. A far-right candidate dogged by image problems of his own — like publicity about a sign he once put on his lawn comparing Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden — Hudak lost by a wide margin.(see bottom of this post for the facts) But Tierney’s bid for a ninth term has been far more difficult. Patrice Tierney’s legal proceedings generated a stream of potentially damaging headlines, and the congressman is facing a far more formidable opponent this year.
Richard R. Tisei, a 49-year-old Republican real estate agent, is a moderate with 26 years in the state Legislature and the full backing of his party. And unlike Tierney’s last challenger, Tisei ran a major campaign before.
Observers say the race is shaping up to be the state’s most competitive House election this year, more so than the highly publicized contest between Joseph Kennedy III and a field of others to fill the seat vacated by longtime Democratic congressman Barney Frank.
Tisei raised $311,000 in his first two months in the race, and Republicans at the national level have named Tierney their top target in the all-Democratic House delegation. Democrats are acknowledging concern. Both sides have been gathering reams of opposition research.(see facts at bottom)
Tierney, who has won reelection comfortably in the past, largely has been playing defense. Patrice Tierney was sentenced last January to a month in prison and five months of house arrest after pleading guilty in US District Court in Boston to helping her brother, Robert Eremian, falsify his tax filings. She admitted to “willful blindness’’ in not reporting his gambling operation in Antigua. Last year, Patrice Tierney testified in the trial of her other brother, Daniel Eremian, who was convicted in December of racketeering and gambling charges related to the offshore operation.
A federal judge has said there was no evidence that John Tierney knew the Eremian brothers were running an illegal gambling operation, but publicity of the case has provided ample campaign fodder.
The National Republican Congressional Committee this month launched a website called “How Could Tierney Not Know?’’ Each day, it trickles out a new question about his wife’s legal troubles, including asking why Patrice Tierney refused to answer questions about her husband, invoking spousal privilege, when she testified at her brother’s criminal trial. The website has prompted local reporters to ask Tierney questions about the legal troubles nearly every day.
Over coffee at a diner in Danvers recently, Tierney reasserted that he did not know about the gambling operation. He said that his wife testified under advice from her attorney when she invoked the spousal privilege, probably under the belief that the prosecutor was playing to the media during questioning.
Tierney was eager to change the subject, insisting voters, by reelecting him in 2010, made clear they do not hold his wife’s problems against him.
“I don’t talk to a single soul that asks me about this,’’ he said.
Voters, he said, are more concerned with jobs, the preservation of Medicare, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear arms, and other issues.
Republicans “can’t win on the issues, and I think Mr. Tisei knows that,’’ he added.
Tierney, 60, has kept a lower profile than some members of the state’s congressional delegation. The Salem native, who worked his way through Suffolk Law School as a janitor in the State House, said higher-education affordability has been his passion, pointing to several bills he helped craft to improve access for poor and middle class families, amid a list of broader legislative accomplishments.
Steve Israel the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, this month warned Washington lobbyists that Tierney has “an even tougher race’’ than many of his colleagues, according to Politico, which cited an unnamed lobbyist who heard the remarks.
Tisei, who led the tiny Republican caucus in the state Senate for four years, is pitching himself as an independent who can work across party lines in the mode of Scott Brown, who served with him on Beacon Hill before going to the US Senate in 2010. Tisei gained a measure of statewide recognition when he ran for lieutenant governor in 2010, as Charles D. Baker’s running mate. The pair lost to Governor Deval Patrick and Lieutenant Governor Timothy P. Murray.
“I’m a live-and-let-live Republican,’’ Tisei said in an interview. “I think the government should get off of your back, out of your wallet, and away from the bedroom.’’(see the facts at the bottom of this post)
If elected, Tisei would be the first gay Republican in the US House to come out before entering Congress.
Democrats have tried to undermine Tisei’s moderate reputation and paint him as a foot soldier for national congressional leaders, who are unpopular in opinion polls. They have noted that he is courting the Tea Party movement, addressing the Greater Boston group last week.
Tisei has been endorsed several times by abortion rights groups in his state Senate races and is regarded as moderate on social issues.
But he recently called the Tea Party a “godsend’’ and said in a follow-up that he understands where the movement “is coming from with regard to spending, debt, overregulation, and the growth of government.’’
But he does not believe that government is a bad thing, he said.
“His reputation was that of someone who could be pragmatic and work with both sides toward a compromise,’’ said Steven C. Panagiotakos, a former Democratic state senator from Lowell who was the chamber’s lead budget writer.
The district, which includes Essex and parts of Middlesex counties, has the makings of a competitive race in a state that offers few opportunities for Republicans.
It was held by Republican Peter G. Torkildsen before Tierney defeated him in 1996, and grew slightly more conservative when the towns of Billerica, Tewksbury, and parts of Andover were added this year.
Brown won the district with 63 percent of the vote in his 2010 special election victory, and Baker and Tisei took about 51 percent of the vote there.
But in presidential elections, Democrats John Kerry and Barack Obama both won with about 56 percent of the vote.
“It’s a tough race, obviously, because of the publicity about Patrice, who I think is being unfairly treated,’’ Frank said.
But Frank said he believes Tisei will not be able to overcome the national party’s low standing in Massachusetts.
“He’s not running as just an individual. He’s running as a guy who’s going to vote to keep [John] Boehner as speaker,’’ Eric Cantor as majority leader, and Paul Ryan as head of the budget writing committee, Frank said.

Facts That the Boston Globe Does not want out

  1.) Bill Hudak was one of the Conservatives in the 2010 Congressional races got 45% of the vote so for the Globe to say that Hudak lost by a wide margin is BS
  2.) Richard Tisei did raise over $311,000 but it came from the establishment RINO Massachusetts Republican Party Ran by a fraud new chairman Bob Maginn funny the Globe didnt mention that
 3.) Richard Tisei is a liar no better than Tierney he supported something well known as the "Transgendered Bill a.k.a the Bathroom Bill while in the State Senate in Massachusetts so how can Tisei make a BS claim on wanting the Government off your back

 Myself being the former leader of the Independence Tea Party of Massachusetts we had the foresight into not endorsing Richard Tisei for Congress the 6th in Massachusetts this from itpma.org

ITP Endorses Bill Hudak

For Congress

One of the main reasons why we here at ITP have endorsed Bill Hudak is his primary opponent former Mass State Senate Minority Leader and failed Lt.Governor candidate Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield).Tisei is no conservative and continues to embrace the issues near and dear to the hearts of the establishment Massachusetts Republican Party.Those issues are not the beliefs of us here at ITP which is true conservative all American values.We believe that if elected to Congress Bill will pursue those traditional Constitutional values that the Tea Party movement as a whole embraces.We are proud to endorse Bill Hudak for his election in 2012 to the U.S. House Of Representatives.

 

 Other Tea Parties as well are NOT supporting Richard Tisei for the same reason they are as follows MERRIMACK Valley Tea Party (no affiliation to THE Merrimack Valley Tea Party) Cape Ann Tea Party as well as the North Shore Tea Party and the Pioneer Valley Tea Party

 

For the record the aforementioned Tea Parties have no affiliation whatsoever with the Greater Boston Tea Party the group in which Richard Tisei addressed in this Boston Globe article

Vice President Joe "Bit Me" Biden Booed

Biden Gets Booed At St. Patrick's Day Parade In Pittsburgh

NBC in Pittsburgh reports on VP Joe Biden's cold reception during the parade (March 17, 2012).

Commentary

I just love my new Home here in Pittsburgh

MRC's Brent Bozell On Media Liberal Feminism

Who's really bashing women?

By L. Brent Bozell III
Sunday, March 18, 2012

Our transparently feminist media are cranking up their hyperbole machines in their war on Limbaugh. They are reporting -- chortling, really -- that Republicans have a huge problem with women voters.
The Washington Post breathlessly reports that its poll found Democrats won by 25 points on "Cares more about issues that are especially important to women."
But there's an enormous, deliberate, daily oversight by most of these pro-Obama journalists. They are choosing to ignore the vicious way liberal talk show hosts and comedians talk about women -- and not just conservative women -- on a regular basis. Many of them come from NBC and MSNBC.
Take Ed Schultz in 2009 trashing Sen. Joe Lieberman's wife for lobbying for health insurers: "Does the word 'whore' apply?" Try to find a single media outlet that considered that newsworthy.
Schultz has also dismissed grown women as "little girls." In September 2010, he sneered, "There's a couple of gals who've been riding the wave of crazy that's been sweeping the nation's right-wingers: Shooter's little girl, Liz Cheney, has been hitting the lecture circuit, parroting daddy's fear-mongering rhetoric."
Liz Cheney holds a law degree from the University of Chicago and served as a deputy assistant secretary of State. That's more of a resume than Big Ed will ever have.
On MSNBC in October 2010, Keith Olbermann unloaded a bag of hatred on blogger and columnist Michelle Malkin because he believed she threatened a woman who posted a video of school kids singing their praises to President Barack Obama. "(The woman) received death threats and hate-filled voice mails all thanks to the total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk fascistic hatred, without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."
Sometimes these attacks air on the NBC News mother ship. During a June 2009 discussion on NBC's "Today" show about Sarah Palin's role in the GOP, comedian Chuck Nice cracked, "I've got to say, she is very much like herpes. She's not going away." The network's legal analyst Dan Abrams said admiringly, "That's the advantage of being Chuck Nice. You can say that and there's no repercussions."
There are no repercussions when women who are not liberal enough are thoroughly insulted for their lack of enlightenment.
Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign was a joke to MSNBC. Joe Scarborough said so: "(She) is a joke. ... Her candidacy is a joke." Instead, Scarborough favored Jon Huntsman because, "He can speak in complete sentences. One sentence actually relates to the previous sentence."
If the woman is a liberal -- an apparently full-blooded authentic female -- then NBC and MSNBC are more likely to bend. Liberals who wanted Hillary Clinton to beat Barack Obama in 2008 actually campaigned against Chris Matthews for suggesting Mrs. Clinton was "witchy."
Let's not countenance those media elites sermonizing that Republicans have a monopoly on running down women. Every journalist should face the reality that networks such as NBC and MSNBC have waged their own rhetorical war on women -- and one that is far nastier, far more insulting than any remark by Rush Limbaugh.


L. Brent Bozell III is president of the Media Research Center.
Commentary

Bozell is a good man on the issues

Editors Note

The New York Times' The Public Editor, Arthur S. Brisbane, is off today.So I will not bash the NYT this morning will be back next Sunday

Buchanan Right As Usual

Opinion

 

Cultural ascendancy of the left

By Pat Buchanan

Rush and the New Blacklist

By Pat Buchanan

 

The original "Hollywood blacklist" dates back to 1947, when 10 members of the Communist Party, present or former, invoked the Fifth Amendment before the House Committee on un-American Activities.
In a 346-17 vote, the Hollywood Ten were charged with contempt of Congress and suspended or fired. The blacklist had begun. Directors, producers and writers who had been or were members of the party and refused to recant lost their jobs.
Today, movies show sexually explicit scenes that make Howard Hughes' 1944 condemned film, "The Outlaw," starring Jane Russell, look like "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm."
Where Ingrid Bergman of "Casablanca" fame had to flee the country in 1950 after an adulterous affair with director Roberto Rossellini, the media today happily provide all the salacious details of every "relationship" that Hollywood stars enter into and exit.
All of this testifies to the cultural ascendancy of the left.
Every establishment has its own orthodoxy, its own taboos and its own blacklist. And, despite its pretensions to be open to all ideas, our cultural establishment is no different.
While the Hollywood Ten have been rehabilitated and heroized, Christians and conservatives are in cultural cross hairs now.
Traditional Catholic morality is mocked, as are Southern evangelical Christians. And the new cultural establishment has erected a new regime called Political Correctness.
The new mortal sins are not filthy talk or immoral conduct, but racism, sexism, homophobia and nativism. The establishment alone defines these sins and enforces the proscriptions against them, from which there is no appeal, only the obligatory apology, the act of contrition and the solemn commitment never to sin again.
If you believe homosexuality is unnatural and immoral and gay marriage absurd, you are a homophobe who is to keep his mouth shut.
If you think some ethnic and racial groups have greater natural athletic, academic or artistic talents, don't go there -- if you do not wish an early end to your journalistic career.
If you think illegal aliens should be sent home and legal immigration should mirror the ethnic makeup of the nation, you are a xenophobe and a racist.
To control the politics of a nation, control of the culture is a precondition. For who controls the culture defines what is moral and immoral, and what is heroic and villainous. And if you can set limits on what journalists write and broadcasters say, you can shape what people think and believe.
When Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a "slut" for demanding that Georgetown Law School subsidize the $3,000 women students annually require for birth control, the media that piled on Rush objected less to the term than to the target he picked: one of their own.
Bill Maher routinely uses far more odious terms to describe Sarah Palin. Yet his $1 million gift to an Obama super PAC was welcomed by agents of the same president who phoned Fluke to console her over Rush's remarks.
Rush apologized. But the left still campaigns to have his voice stifled and censored, by threatening advertisers of his radio show with boycotts if they refuse to drop him.
Thus does the left honor the First Amendment.
As shown in HBO's "Game Change," John McCain in 2008 ruled out attacks on Barack Obama's 20-year ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Chicago preacher of "God damn America!" fame.
Why? Wright and Obama were black, and such attacks might agitate the latent racism of white America. The Republican Party censors itself so as not to antagonize a cultural establishment that wants to see it dead.
"Beautiful losers," my late friend Sam Francis called them.

Pat J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?"

Commentary

 

Now we knew why MSNBC DNC but kissers got rid of Pat

 

Obama And The Democrats Need To Hear This

Obama could use a lesson in humility

By Jennifer C. Braceras
Not so long ago, school children were taught that, in America, government is “of the people, by the people and for the people.”
Today, it is easy to see why most kids think that our government is “of Barack, by Barack and for Barack.”
After all, turn on any television and you are likely to see our president lecturing others about their inadequacies or bragging about his accomplishments.
There he is, pontificating about our SUVs and our wasteful energy consumption. Here he is, condemning religious institutions as intolerant simply because they do not want to pay for people’s contraceptives and abortions.
Wait five minutes and you’ll catch him attacking successful people, who have worked all of their lives, as part of that greedy 1 percent. Or you’ll hear him express righteous indignation at congressional leaders who dare to propose solutions to the nation’s troubles that differ from his own.
President Barack Obama does not convey the impression of a humble servant of the American people. He presents as an enlightened monarch — sent by the gods to heal the planet, unite the races, redistribute the wealth, and (of course) save the auto industry and pay off the unions.
It is an impression reinforced by Obama’s habitually self-referential language. Take, for example, his recent statements about Iran: “I reserve all options . . . My policy is not containment. . . . My policy is to prevent Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.”
Not the “United States reserves all options.” Not, “it’s the policy of the United States of America.” But “I, Barack Obama, reserve all options.” It’s not about the country. It’s all about him.
Here is Dear Leader on the capture of Osama bin Laden: “I directed [the CIA] to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority.” “I met repeatedly with my national security team.” “I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden.”
Compare this to the language used by George W. Bush after the capture of Saddam Hussein: “The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force.”
For Bush, military victories were a collective effort and the source of shared national pride. For Obama, they are occasions for personal bravado.
This attitude has led some political commentators to wonder if our president suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder. Clinical evidence abounds.
Defending his presidency to donors at a New York fundraiser, Obama said, “Around the world — Gandhi, Nelson Mandela — what they did was hard. It takes time. It takes more than a single term.”
Huh?
Did he really compare himself to Gandhi and Mandela? Or was he simply asking for more time to prove himself worthy of that Nobel Peace Prize?
Either way, the arrogance is astounding, but not surprising from a man who once likened his election to the West’s victory in the Cold War.
To be sure, Obama’s self-love has long been on display. In 2008 he bragged, “I know more about policies on any political issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m a better political director than my political director.”
Given the historic import of Obama’s 2008 candidacy, many voters gladly overlooked this man’s delusions of grandeur. In 2012, their patience may have worn thin.

Jennifer C. Braceras is an attorney and a political commentator.

Commentary

Good advice if you ask me

NYT Trying To Pin Point Conservatives

Opinion/Editorial

    As the saying goes you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.Stubborn as it is the New York Times this morning in one of their OPEDs is trying to do this by attacking the far right members of the US House.
   The OPED is entitled "A Breach of Trust."What trust one may ask?
   It begins here with their rant "The hard-fought deal that settled last year’s debt-ceiling fight made painfully deep cuts in spending, but it promised one thing: a year’s peace from the destructive Congressional battles that led to threats of government shutdowns and defaults. By signing the pact, Republican and Democratic leaders set spending levels for 2013, putting off further budget wars until after the election.But now a coalition of extreme conservatives in the House wants to break the budget agreement and cut spending below the agreed level, and the House Budget Committee seems willing to go along."
  I love it how the NYT puts it as if they are feeling the pain deep cuts in spending and its always a blame game on the Government shutdown which might be a good thing.Obviously the NYT is making reference to the Tea Party conservatives when they talk about the extreme ones.
  Here comes more of the blaming "Reneging on the agreement would not only endanger vital programs like Head Start, but it would erase the thin residue of trust left in Congress. It would clearly demonstrate that the current House cannot be trusted to live up to its own pledges.When Republicans created the debt-ceiling crisis in August, their principal goal was to cut spending, and they got their wish. By threatening a government default, they forced an agreement, negotiated by Speaker John Boehner, that cut $2.3 trillion from the budget over a decade without a dime of new taxes. That includes more than $800 billion cut from nondefense discretionary spending, in vital areas like education, housing assistance, transportation, public health and veterans benefits."
  Oh My God since when has the NYT ever stood up for Veterans here we go with more of their political game of chess.Cut ENTITLEMENTS SPENDING get lazty Democrat voters off of their collecting asses.
  Here comes more BS excuses on supposedly how cuts would efffect who "That $19 billion cut, on top of the ones already agreed to, could have terrible consequences. Assuming it was applied evenly to all nondefense programs, it would mean that 50,000 children would lose access to Head Start; 20,000 families would lose child-care slots; and 10,500 teachers and their aides would lose their jobs."   
  The children the children the children and bringing in the teachers BOOOOO WHOOOOO!
Cut more pork Tea Party members of the House lets drive the left and NYT more nuttier than they already are.
 

Why Doesn't This Surprise Me At All

Stimulus Money Used To Hire Foreign Workers Over Americans

Federal Stimulus money went to hire foreign workers before Americans as KVAL-TV (Eugene, OR) reports.

Reportedly, four companies in Oregon used nearly $7 million in taxpayer-funded stimulus money for a job that hired 250 foreign workers. The companies were able to exploit a loophole that allowed them to hire workers using the H-2B visa system.

Commentary

Thank you Obama and the far left for all of this

They Got It Right

Opinion

Romney, 'weak'?

By Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Thursday, March 8, 2012

The "conventional wisdom" (as told by the stenography pool, er, "journalists" regurgitating spoon-fed opposition talking points) is that Mitt Romney's Super Tuesday victories, including one in bellwether Ohio, somehow weren't victories at all.
Mr. Romney's numbers indicate a manifest weakness, goes the popular narrative, and that -- "Mark our words!" -- Barack Obama will exploit those weaknesses and dispatch the former Massachusetts governor with ease come November.
What, are they taking blotter acid? Talk about a bad trip.
The simple math and the simple facts tell the real story. Slowly but surely, and quite conservatively, Romney is building a commanding delegate lead. In fact, he only needs less than 50 percent of the outstanding delegates in two dozen or so states to capture the GOP nomination.
And for all the criticism that Romney is not garnering the support of the most conservative of the conservatives in the primaries, he is capturing a majority of the cohort of voters he'll need to defeat Mr. Obama this fall.
Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich (and their handlers) can bloviate all they want. But they lack the right stuff to capture the nomination. Heck, Mr. Santorum couldn't even get on the ballot in his native Virginia and was ineligible for a third of Ohio's 66 delegates because he couldn't get the paperwork right.
Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president -- no matter the "reportage" of that stenography pool.

Commentary

I have to agree

A Race Baiter Then And Still Is Today

Obama Protesting At Harvard In 1990

Barack Obama is seen here speaking in support of Harvard Professor Derrick Bell at a 1990 protest for more diversity on the law school's faculty.
Via BuzzFeed:

Bell was the first black tenured professor at the school, and a pioneer of "critical race theory," which insisted, controversially, on reading issues of race and power into legal scholarship. His protest that spring was occasioned by Harvard's denial of tenure to a black woman professor, Regina Austin, at a time when only three of the law school's professors were black and only five women. He told Harvard he would take a leave of absence — a kind of academic strike — "until a woman of color is offered and accepted a tenured position on this faculty," and he launched a hunger strike to dramatize his point.

Commentary

Of all places at Harvard to Obama it has always been about race and it will always be he doesnot believe in equal rights that great men like Rev.Martin Luther King Jr. was

The Truth To Liberals

Commentary

This is why we don't like liberals and left wing Democrats and Yes RINO Republicans Like Yes again Mitt Romney

Clarity According The NYT Underling Boston Globe More Smoke and Mirrors

Opinion Editorial

 

Editorial

Obama offers clarity on Iran, and a vital message to Israel

March 06, 2012

IN THE DAYS leading up to his meeting Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama said he doesn’t, “as a matter of policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are.’’ But in the same interview, and then in his powerful speech before the pro-Israel group AIPAC on Sunday, Obama did just that - and brought important clarity to the most immediate national-security challenge facing his administration.

In one stroke, Obama raised the ante on Iran, declaring that his administration would work tirelessly to tighten economic sanctions in the short term, but in the long term would be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He also made it clear to Israel that the United States does not want a premature military strike against Iran, which would allow that government to cast itself as a victim of aggression.
Obama’s departure from his usual policy of not “advertising what our intentions are’’ was deeply necessary, to blow away the fog surrounding America’s position toward Iran’s nuclear program. Obama put new pressure on Iran, and also on potential US allies. To China and India, who purchase Iranian oil, Obama’s remarks over the weekend demonstrated the necessity for cooperation on sanctions against Iranian oil exports. Recently imposed international sanctions against Iran’s central bank are already being felt in Tehran. To Israel, where the Netanyahu government is considering whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Obama’s remarks underscored the president’s willingness to take the lead on Iran, but also established his opposition to an early strike.

While no country can cede its security interests to another, Israel should recognize that the path laid out by Obama - of tightening sanctions, international isolation, increasing military threats, and worldwide calls for negotiations - offers the best hope for a long-term solution. An early strike aimed at Iran’s research facilities wouldn’t settle the issue. It might set back some aspects of the nuclear program, but only strengthen Iran’s determination to become a nuclear power.

The global risks of an early Israeli military strike are manifest. Iran is already feeling pressure from unfriendly Arab neighbors, while its closest ally, Syria, is in turmoil. An Israeli strike against Iran, however, would rally other Muslim nations to Iran’s side. The potential disruption of oil from other Middle Eastern countries through the Strait of Hormuz would trigger a worldwide recession and propel the United States and perhaps European allies into a wider conflict.
It’s hard to see how any of this would be in Israel’s interest, but there are troubling signs that the Netanyahu government, uncertain of Obama’s commitment, has been sowing support for a military strike of its own among American backers of Israel, including Republican leaders.
Now, however, Obama’s intentions should be clear - and should satisfy Israel and its backers. The president’s message should be heard in Beijing, Moscow, and New Delhi, as well. And it should put Tehran on notice: Come to the bargaining table, establish peaceful intentions by allowing full inspections of Iran’s nuclear program, and thereby begin the process of rebuilding the country’s standing in the world.

Commentary

It makes me sick as to how the lamestream media can make anything clear as far as this Administration  is concerned

Netanyahu At AIPAC

Tue, March 06, 2012 Adar 12, 5772

Netanyahu in AIPAC speech: Israel cannot afford to wait much longer on Iran

Israel's prime minister warns of the dangers of a nuclear Iran, which he says will provide a 'nuclear umbrella' to terrorists; in earlier meeting, New York Times reports Obama said talk of war is increasing oil prices.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking at the AIPAC conference in Washington on Monday, called on the international community to acknowledge the fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

"Amazingly, some people refuse to acknowledge that Iran's goal is to develop nuclear weapons. You see, Iran claims that it's enriching uranium to develop medical research. Yeah, right," Netanyahu said.         

"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then what is it? That's right, it's a duck. But this duck is a nuclear duck and it's time the world started calling a duck a duck," he said. Netanyahu reiterated the fact that Israel reserves its right to protect itself. He added that for Israel all options remain on the table. “I will never gamble with the security of Israel.,” he explained. Netanyahu warned of the dangers of a nuclear Iran. “A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically increase terrorism by giving terrorists a nuclear umbrella,” he said. "That means that Iran’s terror proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas will be emboldened to attack America, Israel, and others because they will be backed by a power with atomic weapons." Drawing a parallel with arguments against attacking Iran, Netanyahu said the War Department explained that such an operation at Auschwitz could provoke "even more vindictive action by the Germans". "Think about that, even more vindictive action than the Holocaust," Netanyahu said. He dismissed arguments that an attack on Iran would exact too heavy a toll by provoking Iranian retaliation. He held up a copy of a 1944 letter from the U.S. War Department rejecting world Jewish leaders' entreaties to bomb the Auschwitz death camp because it would be "ineffective" and "might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans." "My friends, 2012 is not 1944," Netanyahu said. "Today, we have a state of our own. And the purpose of the Jewish state is to defend Jewish lives and to secure the Jewish future." Earlier on Monday, Netanyahu met with U.S. President Barack Obama in the White House and said that Israel has not made any decision on attacking Iran to stop its nuclear program. Sources who were briefed on the meeting afterward said Obama and Netanyahu agreed to increase their coordination on Iran. Israel's Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz is to visit Washington in two weeks to discuss the issue with U.S. officials. During their meeting, Obama told Netanyahu that Israel and the United States have an identical goal with regard to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. "I have no intention of trying to contain the Iranian issue," Obama reportedly told Netanyahu. "I think that there's time for diplomacy and in any case I am not taking any options off the table, including a military option." The New York Times reported that Obama said that discussion of a possible strike on Iran was leading to global oil price increases, and was undermining sanctions on Iran. Prime Minister Netanyahu responded that U.S. officials' remarks against an Iran strike may be showing weakness to the Iran regime, according to the New York Times report. Commentary BiBi laying it out to us here even liberals like Obama can understand

Benjamin Netanyahu talking at AIPAC conference Monday

New Obama Deal Please Spare Us

Opinion

What's that smell? Another Obama deal

The Obama administration's so committed to cronyism that it's violating its ObamaCare law to lend $314 million to New York's Freelancers Union, whose board members gave Democrats $11,000-plus between 2007 and 2011.
The law says recipients of such loans -- aimed at helping begin health-care cooperatives -- can't have issued health insurance before July 2009 and can't be for-profit organizations. Yet the union's members -- who don't get coverage through employers -- have owned the for-profit Freelancers Insurance Co. since 2008, The Washington Free Beacon reports.
The union says all the loan money will go to the co-ops, which it's just sponsoring -- a distinction without a difference. Founder Sara Horowitz, a labor lawyer and organizer, served with then-Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama to advise a think tank funded by leftist billionaire George Soros.
And, bad news, taxpayers: The government expects the default rate on such loans to approach 40 percent.

Overseeing the co-op program, the administration's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved the loan despite all that.

Disregarding its own law and financial common sense to lend to the Freelancers Union, this administration leaves no doubt that it puts politics above all else.

Commentary

What else is new with this corrupt Administration

Perfect Depection Of Obama In Cartoon

Editorial cartoon: Rising gas prices

• Article by: Steve Sack , Star Tribune

 

Commentary

 

Obama's administration being over ran

 

NYT Uses No Common Sense

Opinion Editorial

  Please correct me if I am wrong but back on the morning of September 11,2001 when our nation was attacked who were the culprits and who was behind these evil vicious events.It was carried out by Islamic Jihadists from a Muslim terrorist group called al-Qaeda hell bent on the destruction of America (and yes you out there on the far left wanting to apologize for America at every turn wake up and get a life) thus hi-jacking a religion id Islam the supposed religion of peace.
 This mornings lead OPED in the New York Times cannot seem to grasp this truth but continue to defend Muslims who hate America.I do want to be honest it is not every Muslim that hates America.
But the title of the Oped "Surveillance, Security and Civil Liberties" lacks alot of Common sense in what the NYPD are trying to do to prevent another attack.
 It begins "Taking office not long after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly wisely decided to beef up the Police Department’s counterterrorism program significantly, to help federal law enforcement agencies avert another disaster.Unfortunately, they did not provide for sufficiently strong supervision of this formidable and far-flung intelligence operation — to check the well-known tendency of all such agencies, operating in secrecy and under murky rules, to abuse their powers. It appears that many thousands of law-abiding Muslim-Americans have paid a real price for that omission. A series of articles by The Associated Press has exposed constitutionally suspect surveillance of Muslims in New York, New Jersey, Long Island and beyond. Unearthed police records noticeably lack any apparent link to suspected criminal activity, or any obvious payoff for public safety."
 Far flung give me a break well I say to those as the NYT puts it "law abiding Muslim Americans" quit bitching about being singled out and accept the fact that it was people from your background that caused this to us all not just you people.It figures that the AP and the NYT are the so called exposers of this BS.
 The story goes on "In particular, the A.P. reports revealed widespread police spying and the creation of police records containing information on Muslim people, mosques and campus groups, as well as luncheonettes, dollar stores and other legitimate businesses owned and frequented by Muslims, with no apparent reason to think anything wrong was going on.In mid-February, The A.P. disclosed that police officers systematically monitored the Web sites and blogs of Muslim student groups at N.Y.U., Columbia, Yale, Rutgers and a dozen other colleges. Documents show that an undercover agent accompanied 18 Muslim students from City College on a whitewater rafting trip in 2008. Dossier entries noted vital national security information — like the number of times they prayed.

Last week, The A.P. reported that plainclothes officers from the department’s euphemistically named Demographic Unit fanned out across Newark in 2007, snapping pictures of mosques and Muslim-owned businesses, listening to conversations, and gathering information about the makeup of mosque worshipers for an eerie 60-page internal police report stamped “NYPD Secret.” Similar reports were prepared on other Muslim neighborhoods."

 I'd like to bring some common sense to this post Were Christians or Jews or Hindus responsible for the attacks on 9/11/01?

 If you feel that I am being unfair to Muslims sorry I don't hate them enough to attack them as they did by hi-jacking a faith that is supposedly all about Peace for this I dont and I will never ever apologize.

              

Sandra "the Fluke" Fluke

Sandra Fluke Opening Statement (C-SPAN)

Commentary

Sandra "the Fluke" Fluke before Congress on her birth control BS

Post Gazette Just Plain Wrong

Share PageLikeTwitterFan PageMost ReadLatest PollsConnect via Meebo

OPINION / EDITORIALS

 

Campus diversity: This is not the time to weaken affirmative action

 

Thursday, March 01, 2012

 

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

 

Affirmative action in higher education is on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time since 2003. Three decades of settled law could be endangered by the court's conservative majority.

Nine years ago, the high court upheld on a 5-4 vote a University of Michigan policy that included race -- along with whether an applicant was an athlete, a musician, the child of an alumnus and other considerations -- in admissions decisions.

At the time, it appeared the victory might be short-lived because of potential retirements from the court. Since then, four justices have retired, including Sandra Day O'Connor, the author of the 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, the University of Michigan case. She was replaced by Justice Samuel Alito, who opposes racial preferences.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Abigail Fisher, who sued the University of Texas for discrimination. Ms. Fisher claims she was denied admission even though she had a better academic record than some minority students who were admitted. The court could hear arguments just days before the Nov. 6 presidential election.

This time, Justice Anthony Kennedy could be the deciding vote. He dissented from the 2003 ruling in the University of Michigan case. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she took part in the Fisher case as the Obama administration's solicitor general before the president named her to the high court.

The University of Texas automatically accepts the top 10 percent of seniors from all high schools in the state, then includes race among other factors in a competition to fill the remaining openings. The 2011 freshman class at the state's flagship university was 26.3 percent black or Hispanic -- good progress, but well below the percentage of the state population that is African-American or Latino.

Ms. Fisher claims she was turned down because she is white. But she also may have lost out to a student with a special talent, a more compelling personal essay or a special circumstance such as coming from an economically disadvantaged family. Universities routinely use these and other criteria to assemble freshman classes.

Several states do not permit race-based admissions to state colleges and universities. In California, which outlawed the practice in 1998, minority enrollment declined throughout its public university system, in some schools to as low as 3 percent. In Florida, which enacted its ban in 1999, the gap has grown between the percentage of minority students who graduate from high school and the share of minority college freshmen.

In 2003, Justice O'Connor wrote that the day was coming when racial preferences would no longer be needed. But the day she envisioned has not yet dawned. And it likely will not arrive as long as inequalities in education, economic opportunity and health care continue disproportionately to affect minority Americans.

Weakening affirmative action will only make it more difficult for these Americans to overcome such obstacles.

 

Commentary

 

It is time to get rid of Affirmative Action altogether it should have been shown the door along time ago

Williams Saying The Truth

Opinion

Equality & inequality

By Walter Williams

 

Rick Santorum's speech at the Detroit Economic Club stirred a bit of controversy when he said: "I'm not about equality of result when it comes to income inequality. There is income inequality in America. There always has been, and hopefully -- and I do say that -- there always will be."

That kind of statement, though having merit, should not be made to people who have little or no understanding. Let's look at inequality.

Kay S. Hymowitz's article "Why the Gender Gap Won't Go Away. Ever," in City Journal (Summer 2011), shows that female doctors earn only 64 percent of the income that male doctors earn. What should be done about that?

It turns out that only 16 percent of surgeons are women but 50 percent of pediatricians are women. Even though surgeons have more years of education and training than do pediatricians, should Congress equalize their salaries or make pediatricians become surgeons?

Wage inequality is everywhere. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Asians earn more than whites. Female cafeteria attendants earn more than their male counterparts. Females younger than 30 who have never been married earn salaries 8 percent higher than males of the same description.

Among women who graduated from college during 1992-93, by 2003 more than one-fifth were no longer in the workforce and another 17 percent were working part time. That's to be compared with only 2 percent of men in either category. Hymowitz cites several studies showing significant career choice and lifestyle differences between men and women that result in income inequality.

There are other inequalities. With all of the excitement about New York Knick Jeremy Lin's rising stardom, nobody questions league domination by blacks, who are 13 percent of our population but 80 percent of NBA players and the highest-paid ones. It's not much better in the NFL, with blacks being 65 percent of its players.

There's inequality in most jobs. According to 2010 BLS data, the following jobs contain 1 percent female workers or less: boilermaking, brickmasonry, stonemasonry, septic tank servicing, sewer pipe cleaning and working with reinforcing iron and rebar. But females are 97 percent of preschool and kindergarten teachers, 80 percent of social workers, 82 percent of librarians and 92 percent of dietitians and nutritionists and registered nurses.

Anyone with one ounce of brains can see the problem and solution. Congress has permitted -- and even fostered -- a misallocation of people by race, sex and ethnicity. Courts have consistently concluded that "gross" disparities are probative of a pattern and practice of discrimination. So what to do?

One remedy that Congress might consider is to require females, who are overrepresented in fields such as preschool and kindergarten teaching, to become boilermakers and brickmasons and mandate that male boilermakers and brickmasons become preschool and kindergarten teachers until both percentages are equal to their percentages in the population.

You say, "Williams, that would be totalitarianism!" But if Americans accept that Congress can make us buy health insurance whether we want to or not, how much more totalitarian would it be for Congress to allocate jobs in the name of social equality and the good of our nation?

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman said: "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

Equality before the general rules of law is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty that can be secured without destroying liberty.

Walter Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University

 

Commentary

 

Walter Williams knows Equality v. Inequality