This Is What The Left Wants

Giuliani To Gingrich: "What The Hell Are You Doing, Newt?"

"What the hell are you doing, Newt? I expect this from Saul Alinsky! This is what Saul Alinsky taught Barack Obama, and what you’re saying is part of the reason we’re in so much trouble right now," Rudy Giuliani said about Newt Gingrich attacking Romney over Bain on "FOX & Friends."

"It’s ignorant and dumb. It’s building something we should be fighting in America, ignorance of the economic system, playing on the dumbest, most ridiculous ideas about how you grow jobs," he said.

Commentary

Come on GOP field wake up or lose come November

New DNC Chair Blames Tea Party For Congresswoman Giffords Shooting

 This Story From the web site TeaParty.org

DNC chair blames Tea Party for Tucson shooting - VIDEO PROOF!

"You had town hall meetings that they tried to take over, and you saw some their conduct at those tea party meetings," Wasserman Schultz said today. "When they come and disagree with you, you're not just wrong, you're the enemy."

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., speaking in New Hampshire this morning, reminded her audience of the tragic Tucson shooting last year -- and also insinuated that the Tea Party, which she said regards political opponents as "the enemy," has enhanced divisiveness in Congress and had something to do with the shooting, at least indirectly.

"We need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago, where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords -- who is doing really well, by the way, -- [was shot]," Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chair said during a "Politics and Eggs" forum this morning. "The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular . . . has really changed, I'll tell you. I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement."

Having brought up the Giffords attack as a political cudgel, Wasserman Schultz doubled down on that attack. "You had town hall meetings that they tried to take over, and you saw some their conduct at those tea party meetings," Wasserman Schultz said today. "When they come and disagree with you, you're not just wrong, you're the enemy."

Warming to that theme, she added that "when they disagree with you on an issue, you're not just wrong, you're a liar."

Giffords' shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was eventually discovered to be a mentally unstable loner with no immediate partisan agenda and a serious alcohol problem. In 2007, he had attended a forum and asked a question of Giffords, which she had not answered to his satisfaction.

Commentary

What should we expect from the Communist Left in this country

My Piece About Romney In Pittsburgh Tribune Review

Opinion

Why not Romney
Monday, January 9, 2012

Here are a few reasons why Mitt Romney should not be the GOP nominee. For one, he is not the conservative he claims to be, especially on the more controversial social issues.
In Massachusetts, an obvious one is what is known as "RomneyCare," but there is also a little-known issue on same-sex marriage. When the high court in Massachusetts allowed same-sex marriage to become law, Romney didn't bat an eye to oppose it.
Romney also claimed to be against higher taxation, but as governor he was for higher fees, such as for registry of motor vehicles and for gun ownership. Romney basically used the office of governor as a stepping stone to the presidency.
On the campaign trail, Romney keeps defending his RomneyCare and how great it was for Massachusetts. Well, costs skyrocketed as a result, so how could it be good for anyone?
When the primaries in the South come to pass, hopefully the nomination hopes of one Mitt Romney will dissolve.
David R. Beaupre
West Mifflin
The writer is formerly from Salem, Mass.

Eagan Has To Go

                                

                                               Holier-than-thou Rick’s got to go

               Pol politicized church sex abuse scandal

By Margery Eagan Boston Herald Columnist


Yesterday morning, while Rick “Faith, Family, and Freedom” Santorum was preparing for another I’m-holier-than-you-are day in New Hampshire, I was sitting in a Cambridge Street Holiday Inn conference room. It was packed with survivors and advocates celebrating the 10th anniversary of the uncovering of Boston’s horrific Catholic Church sex abuse crisis.
Two times in a half hour the name Rick Santorum, the self-proclaimed uber Catholic, was mentioned. Two times he was politely and genteelly booed.
I loved it.
This was a mostly Catholic gathering. There were nuns, ex-nuns, ex-altar boys, and middle-aged and elderly people. And many in the crowd couldn’t stomach Santorum for one big reason. Just as the depths of this sex abuse deprivation were revealed, Rick Santorum, in 2002, went on the record to blame the rape of children in and around Boston on “cultural liberalism.” He’s never said he was wrong.
Think about that obnoxiousness before you vote, New Hampshire.
Let me add. The website BishopAccountability.org lists bishops and priests credibly accused of abuse, which means priests with multiple accusers or with cases settled by the church. More than 60 such priests were accused by hundreds and hundreds in New Hampshire.
Perhaps Rick Santorum blames New Hampshire’s “cultural liberalism” for those assaults, too, though liberal is hardly a word I’d use to describe the Granite State. It is not clear what he blames for priestly attacks on teenagers and children in Ireland, throughout Europe, parts of Africa, South America and most recently Haiti.
Perhaps in his loathsome world view, it’s cultural liberalism gone wild ’round the world!
Unfortunately for Santorum, however, the corrupt church hierarchy that knew of and then covered up these many crimes was not made up of cultural liberals but cultural conservatives. Like Santorum, the pope, most bishops, Bernard Cardinal Law and John B. McCormack (Law’s accessory and until September the bishop of Manchester, N.H.) oppose premarital sex, sex between married couples using birth control, any kind of gay sex, of course, and abortion.
Here’s the Santorum twist. You know the term cafeteria Catholic, used most often to describe those Catholics who disagree, in good conscience, with the church’s endless anti-sex stands.
It turns out that Santorum, despite his uber Catholic posturing, is a cafeteria Catholic in reverse. Or maybe I should call him an “all about sex” Catholic because he only agrees with the church’s doctrines on matters sexual.
Look at his record. He’s for the death penalty and a foreign policy macho hawk (both against Catholic teaching). He’s opposed to illegal immigration and social justice for the poor (both big time against Catholic teaching from the Vatican and the American church).
I’m not sure how he can reconcile his stand against birth control (because of his church’s teaching) while proclaiming readiness to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age (despite his church’s teaching). But that’s what he does — and still does his holier-than-thou shtick. Yet what really got me this weekend, hearing retold the brutal stories of small Catholic children molested, is how Rick Santorum both belittled and politicized their suffering.
I wished they booed him louder at the Holiday Inn yesterday. I hope New Hampshire sends this creepy guy packing.


Comments

DevildogDave

  

No Im sorry this left wing liberal Margery Eagan should go not Rick Santorum.She should go write columns for the leftist Communist tabloid the Boston Globe

 

A Leftist Defending His Stance Against The Death Penalty

                                             

  

                      Linclon Caplan Editorial Board Member Of New York Times

   Here is another so called expert on the Editorial board of the New York Times which of course is an oxymoron.Well Mr.Caplan who went to the usual route (for liberals that is) A 1972 graduate of Harvard College, he attended Cambridge University in England as a Harvard Scholar in 1972-73 and received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1976.
  He has an interesting OPED this morning about a common sense subject the death penalty/Capital punishment."The Random Horror of the Death Penalty" is the title and from what I read of it seems that Mr.Caplan could use a PHD in common sense.
 Just from the opening of his brain -dead piece "The Supreme Court has not banned capital punishment, as it should, but it has long held that the death penalty is unconstitutional if randomly imposed on a handful of people. An important new study based on capital cases in Connecticut provides powerful evidence that death sentences are haphazardly meted out, with virtually no connection to the heinousness of the crime."
 Here is the same old BS from a leftist like Caplan "A number of studies (click studies to read the BS) in the last three decades have shown that black defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death if their victim is white rather than black. But defenders of capital punishment often respond to those studies by arguing that the “worst of the worst” are sentenced to death because their crimes are the most egregious."
 When the left makes a BS arguement they have to revert to some crap filled study or in this case playing the race card.
 Here is the rest of the OPED "The Connecticut study, conducted by John Donohue, a Stanford law professor, completely dispels this erroneous reasoning. It analyzed all murder cases in Connecticut over a 34-year period and found that inmates on death row are indistinguishable from equally violent offenders who escape that penalty. It shows that the process in Connecticut — similar to those in other death-penalty states — is utterly arbitrary and discriminatory.
From 1973, when Connecticut passed a death penalty law, to 2007, 4,686 murders were committed in the state. Of those, 205 were death-eligible cases (capital murders that include the killing of a police officer, murder for hire, murder-rape and murder committed during a kidnapping) that resulted in some kind of conviction, either through a plea bargain or conviction at trial. The arbitrariness started at the charging level: nearly a third of these death-eligible cases were not charged as capital offenses as they could have been, but as lesser crimes. Sixty-six defendants were convicted of capital murder, 29 went to a hearing for a death sentence, nine death sentences were sustained and one person was executed.
Why was this small group of defendants singled out for death? Did their crimes make them more deserving of execution than all the others?
To get answers, Professor Donohue designed an “egregiousness” ratings system to compare all 205 cases. It considered four factors: victim suffering (like duration of pain); victim characteristics (like age, vulnerability); defendant’s culpability (motive, intoxication or premeditation); and the number of victims. He enlisted students from two law schools to rate each case (based on fact summaries without revealing the case’s outcome or the race of the defendant or victim) on a scale from 1 to 3 (most egregious) for each of the four factors. The raters also gave each case an overall subjective assessment of egregiousness, from 1 (low) to 5 (high), to ensure that more general reactions could be captured.
The egregiousness scores for those charged with capital murder and those who were not were virtually identical; the nature of the crime bore almost no relationship to how the case came out. Among the 29 who had a death penalty hearing, there is no clear difference in the level of egregiousness for the 17 who got life without parole and the 12 sentenced to death (three eventually had their sentences vacated for various reasons). Among the 32 most awful cases on the four-factor egregiousness scale, only one resulted in a death sentence.
Rather than punish the worst criminals, the Connecticut system, Professor Donohue found, operates with “arbitrariness and discrimination.” The racial effect is very evident (minority defendants with white victims were far more likely to be sentenced to death than others), as is geographic disparity. In the city of Waterbury, a death-eligible killer was at least seven times as likely to be sentenced to death as in the rest of the state.
In 1972, the Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia struck down state death-penalty laws that lacked guidelines on how the penalty should be applied. It found that with only 15 percent of death-eligible murder convictions in Georgia leading to a death sentence, imposition of the penalty was “freakishly” rare — and therefore arbitrary and unconstitutional. The rate in the Donohue study is far more extreme at 4.4 percent.
The court also said in Furman that a death-penalty system must have a “meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which it is imposed from the many cases in which it is not.” Clearly, Connecticut’s system fails this requirement. Because it’s a small state, Professor Donohue was able to conduct a comprehensive study of every capital murder case with a conviction. But Connecticut’s lessons also apply to bigger states, like California, Texas and Ohio, where prosecutors even in neighboring counties use drastically different factors to impose the death penalty.
In 2011, the number of new death sentences imposed in the United States fell by 25 percent to 78, the lowest number since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. This “freakishly” rare application — among the thousands of murder cases a year — is strong evidence that every state system is arbitrary and capricious. The death penalty in Connecticut is clearly unconstitutional, barbaric and should be abolished, as it should be everywhere.
 You yourself decide if you think that the death penalty is used in the issue of race or not.We know as Conservatives why the left wants the death penalty abolished so they can continue down the road of their sick thoughtless agenda with the liberal bleeding hearts.

       

RINO Endorses RINO Who Cares!

                                         



Romney accepts McCain’s endorsement in GOP race


MANCHESTER, N.H. — A triumphant Mitt Romney roared into New Hampshire this afternoon trumpeting an endorsement from U.S. Sen. John McCain — the winner of the bitter 2008 Granite State primary — as he seeks to coalesce his support following an Iowa win.
"Our message to President Barack Obama is you can run but you can’t hide from your record,” said an enthused McCain at Manchester Central High School, where Obama spoke to a packed house only two months before. “I’m really here with one reason and one reason only and that is to make sure that we make Mitt Romney the next president of the United States ... New Hampshire is the state that will catapult him to victory in a very short period of time, that’s why I’m here."
Romney welcomed McCain despite a furious battle downplayed his narrow lead in Iowa, calling him, “a friend, an American hero, a giant among men.
Romney’s push to secure his Granite State support comes as former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum surprised the nation with a tie finish in Iowa, leading to a big boost as he tours the state today and tomorrow. Romney congratulated Santorum on his campaign earlier today but during the rally made it clear that he is the most electable candidate. He downplayed his slim win in Iowa yesterday.
“What a squeaker, but it sure is nice to have a win, let me tell you, and the question is can we do better in New Hampshire,” said Romney, who later fielded a barrage of often hostile questions about big corporations, why he changed health care, and why he insults Asians.
“I hope I haven’t put any Asians down,” said Romney, who often slams China in his stump speech for violating trade laws. “I love people who come from other lands. I love legal immigrants and if I’m president we’ll have more of them.”
McCain also weighed in, however, blasting the communist country.
“When you carry out a basically totalitarian form of government, then I can’t admire that,” said McCain,
He also trucked out most of his high profile surrogates, including U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte
Nashua resident Brian Dooley said the boost from McCain carries a lot of weight with New Hampshire voters.
“He’s well known and his reputation precedes him. He’s a Republican of the greatest stature,” said Dooley, a Romney supporter. “I think he’s an American hero and the endorsement couldn’t be any stronger.”
Arlene Phillips, of Tuscon, Arizona, however, wasn’t too impressed by the nod.
“He’s O.K. He’s not my favorite,” she shrugged. “He hasn’t been that great for Arizona.

Photo by Nancy Lane

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney appears with Senator John McCain at an event at Central High School in Manchester, New Hampshire, today.

Commentary

Who gives a rats $%^^&&**&

Global Warming/Climate Change Blame Game Still In 2012

Opinion/Editorial

  First of all I want to wish everyone a very Happy New Year but it seems that those who are brain-dead still in this year of 2012 as far as the lame stream media is concerned there's nothing new going on.

 Even the New York Times cannot seem to get out of their own way here in the New Year and make a resolution.I have a great suggestion how about telling the TRUTH for once in what they call the reporting of the news and maybe come out of the funk that they have been in for God knows how long and actually give their readers (as few as they may be) a solid OPED for once.

 Even in a new year the more things change the more they stay the same especially is the case with the second lead OPED this morning where the NYT and the rest of the left on a Sunday morning have to worship their religion of Global Warming/Climate change or what ever they want to call it this year.

 "A Tempestuous Year" is the title of their second lead OPED today.A better title would have been "Blame Game Continues."

 Here is the opening "Is there a connection between last year’s extreme weather events and global warming? The answers might be a lot clearer if the Republicans in Congress were less hostile to climate change research."Ahem! but NYT research costs tax payers $$$$ but of course you don't want to comprehend that.How can you research something that has been researched over and over again and yet has been proven to exist?Its called wasting tax payer $$$$$$.

 Like any religion out there taking a verse say from the Holy word of our Lord the Holy bible trying to shape and form it to their likeness here is some inconsistencies with the OPED "Climate researchers have been cautious about linking individual events to rising global temperatures."Oh now they are Climate researchers oh ok and they are now CAUTIOUS maybe because they have been caught in the very LIE which they perpetrated.
 Here is where the old saying goes the bigger the lie the more the people will believe it.This would be to a preacher the very doctrine (or for you NYT readers teaching) or foundation for their beliefs "Yet the evidence tells us the earth is warming, largely as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and other human activity."Once again its our fault and mainly those of us out here on the right.
 More of the finger pointing "House Republicans, many of whom reject the scientific consensus about the human causes of global warming, took aim at almost every program that had to do with global warming. Senate negotiators managed to protect most in the 2012 budget, but the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — the hub of much of the government’s research into the effects of climate change on weather — took a big hit."Once again the NYT cannot get it right most of NOAA's budget was cut because of the effects and OVER REGULATION of the fishing industry you idiots which had nothing to do with the BS of your fictitious belief in Global warming.
 The NYT had to end the OPED in reference to the fiasco of global warming "So far, the Republican presidential candidates are matching their House colleagues in willful denial."