Posts Tagged ‘Foxnews’

The New Communists at FoxNews

Sunday, December 6th, 2015

cargile_fnc_smSaturday afternoon, I took a little bit of time to watch some news. I flipped over to FoxNews, and there I witnessed Mickey Cargile explaining to openly supportive host Eric Shawn and his audience that drug prices are a moral issue, and a quality of life issue, more than economic issue. I couldn’t agree more.  His conclusion, however, was based on the moral system of collectivism. I realize that the anchors and stories on FoxNews on weekends tend to be the “B-Team” or even the “C-Team,” but this is despicable. Watch for yourself:

Apparently, Cargile believes this is a moral issue, but unfortunately, his moral standard is collectivism. He ignores entirely the morality of a civilized country inasmuch as he openly attacks private property rights, private wealth, and the freedom to choose. Reading between the lines, he’s advocating some sort of government-enforced price control at the very least, and perhaps even complete expropriation at the worst. This implies violence. In order to enforce such a thing, what one is saying is that one is ready to kill people in order to take their things if they do not otherwise consent.

The host, for his part, is no better. He smears the owners of the rights to the Hepatitis C treatment under discussion as people who are merely out to profit, first, as if profit is somehow an evil, and second in that they might use that profit to “buy a new Ferrari.” This shameful broadcast merely confirms my contention that FoxNews is all about co-opting conservatism. There’s nothing remotely conservative in this, Cargile’s protests about his continuing devotion to the free market notwithstanding.

For those who don’t understand the principles involved, let us be clear: If you invent a thing, and I purchase the rights to that thing from you, my moral claim to the thing in question is every bit as legitimate as yours when you had invented the thing. More, since it’s now my thing, I have the absolute right to buy it and sell it as I see fit, and the only moral method by which to obtain it is to pay the price at which we arrive by mutual consent. Any government interference in that exchange, either to my benefit or to a purchaser’s, is tyranny.

What Cargile advocates in this clip is tyranny. What the hapless Mr. Shawn approvingly supports is no different from what Hugo Chavez had imposed in that poor, enslaved, collapsing communist state that is Venezuela: Communism. The closer we get to complete collapse, and the more people begin to shrug their shoulders over the concepts and moral standing of individual rights, the more rapidly our collapse will accelerate.

One might argue, as the communists at FoxNews seem to insist, that there is some maximum amount that ought to be charged for some life-saving, or quality-of-life-preserving drug or treatment. My question for you is: Had I Hepatitis C, how much of my earnings would I forego for how long a period to finance a cure? Is there any amount of money I would not pay? One might argue, as the dolts on FoxNews have done here, that such a burden is unaffordable, and use this as a justification to steal. Theft via government action is still theft, even though done under color of law. The fact that the government was placed in office by vote does not reduce the significance of the crime, but merely multiplies the number of criminals and broadens the expanse of the guilt(though its concentration is not diluted.)

With this sort of thing becoming the norm on FoxNews, as further evidence of the spread of collectivist ethics throughout the culture, we cannot and will not last.

Debunking Stupid Ideas in Mainstream Media

Tuesday, December 10th, 2013

Bloviating Zone

Seldom is there a shortage of stupid, insipid, vapid ideas in the mainstream media, but lately, it’s coming from every direction.  I was watching the idiot at 8pm(Eastern) on the diminishing network that is Fox News, when he promoted an upcoming segment featuring Michele Bachmann(R-MN.)  The segment has not yet played, and I’m not really interested in anything this perpetual TV dipstick has to say, so I was not surprised at the vacuous formulation of his segment, based on a recent McClatchy-Marist poll: “Why are the American people still more dis-satisfied with Republicans than Democrats?”  Let me suggest an answer that refuses to evade the obvious, irrespective of what Bachmann may or may not say in response, and howsoever the bloviating 8pm-er may otherwise characterize it.  It’s really a simple math problem, and it’s time we ask goof-balls like O’Reilly to understand mathematics. There is one reason Republicans are doing more poorly in Congressional approval polls, and it is not because they’re not moderate enough.  In fact, it’s just the opposite.

Various surveys tell us that roughly 20-25 percent of the populace considers itself liberal.  As much as 42 percent consider themselves conservative.  The rest  consider themselves mushy moderates and independents.  Let me suggest that we break this up into a simpler math question: If 33 percent of respondents approve of Democrats in Congress, that is roughly equivalent to the number of avowed liberals and a portion of the “moderates” who are simply embarrassed liberals hoping to maintain some semblance of non-partisan cover.  The rest of the country hates the Democrats, including some actual moderates.  Meanwhile, the same 33 percent can be counted on to hate the Republicans. One might then think that since 40-45 percent of the populace considers themselves conservative, Republicans would gain the benefit.  Actually, it’s not like this at all.  You see, since Republicans register around 25 percent approval, let us then admit that the group most likely to be adding to disapproval of Republicans isn’t the moderates, but instead, the conservatives.  42 percent plus 33 percent equals 75 percent.  While I am confident there will be some instances in which this isn’t precisely true, the obvious answer is that the Democrats are disapproved less because their own core constituents support them relentlessly.  In contrast, conservatives who constitute the core of the Republican constituency are as unhappy with Republicans as liberals are. Only squishy moderates like O’Reilly support Republicans.

This is not difficult math, so simple in fact, that even a mindless dolt like O’Reilly should be able to figure it out. The problem is, however, that it’s only easy to see if one is willing to see it.  O’Reilly isn’t willing to see anything that contradicts the DC orthodoxy. When O’Reilly implies that it’s all because Republicans are too immoderate, he’s evading the truth, because it’s not a truth he wants to purvey.  If the Republicans in Congress were interested in getting a better approval rating, they wouldn’t push ridiculous “bi-partisan” budget deals like the one now being offered by Paul Ryan(R-WI) and his Senate counterpart, the estimable Patty Murray(D-WA.) Conservatives are rightly disgusted with this and other deals, and the explicit unwillingness of Congressional Republicans to fight. 42 percent plus 33 percent equals 75 percent. Mathematical wizardry is not required.  All one needs is a commitment to the simple truth, and that’s something Bill O’Reilly plainly lacks.

(Editor’s Note: Apparently, the math escaped Bachmann too, because her explanation turned out to be that the media is against Republicans, which while true, doesn’t answer the heart of the question.)

Is the Real Cultural War Against Men?

Saturday, December 1st, 2012

The Surrender of Adam

One story that garnered some media attention this week was a commentary written by Suzanne Venker at FoxNews.  In the article entitled War on Men, Venker contends that the real war in our culture has been waged against men.  Her conclusions are based on the observation that fewer and fewer men seem to have any interest in marriage, while interest among women is on the rise, but there exists a widespread lament about an alleged dearth of good men.  In the end, Venker concluded that women may bear the blame for this situation, but that conclusion garnered outrage and mockery from the typical leftist outlets.  At the same time, Limbaugh discussed the matter at length, but his conclusions were clearly different than those of the shrill left.  What’s the truth?  Is there a “war” on men?  Is it being waged by women who are unknowingly setting themselves up for failure?  I believe Venker is onto something, but I also think her article didn’t fully explore the ramifications, never mind all the conspirators.  If real, this war has had a silent collaborator or two, and I think rather than casting most of the blame on women, she should have identified all of the  culprits.

It is true to say that the character of women has fundamentally changed, and much of that was driven by the so-called “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s.  Women have entered the workplace in unprecedented numbers, and they are now a majority of employees across the nation.  Women now dominate  numerically the college campus, and in many respects, women have managed to displace men entirely.  According to Venker, much of this owes to anger with men, a feeling engendered and supported by our education establishment, much of which is dominated by women.  Writes Venker:

“In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.”

This may not be entirely true, but there is at least a nugget of truth in it.  There is a clear hostility toward men being engendered by the culture, and I think it is safe to say that any number of men might secretly agree with this sentiment, but while Venker seems to focus on the pedestal from which men were knocked, she spends a good deal less attention on the pedestal being abandoned by women. She finally arrives at a statement that some will find offensive, but nevertheless contains a good bit of information about one of the collaborators in this war:

“It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.”

Here is where Venker both reveals an effect, but slips and falls on the cause.  Spending a good deal of time researching relationships and the culture, Venker should have realized that there is some truth to that old admonishment that “men are only after one thing.”  In the main, and in the short-run thinking of men, that’s probably more often true than not, so that when women climbed down off their once-lofty pedestal in favor of the lower pedestal men had always occupied, it wasn’t true that they were kicking men off, but that men went willingly, at least initially.  The truth is that men hadn’t been kicked off the pedestal so much as bribed off of it. Of course, this is not all the story, but it provides some insight.  When Venker says “no responsibilities whatsoever,” she is mostly correct when viewed from the short-run perspective of men, however those responsibilities would need to be fulfilled by somebody, and therein we shall find the chief collaborator.

While men were busy stepping down from the lower pedestal to which feminism had enticed women, after spending some time on that lowly perch, women were finding it wasn’t all they were promised it would be.  Venker’s point has merit, but the question is: “Why would women so easily leap from the higher perch?”  The roots of this phenomenon may be fundamental to our nature, and has been understood about the nature of people since the beginning of time.  How close does this parallel what the Judeo-Christian ethos regards as the moment of the original sin?  Genesis 3:6 relates:

“So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.”

This would have made it seem as though Adam had been a bystander, but as 1 Timothy 2:14 records:

“Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

 

This line of thinking then begs the question: “Who played the role of the serpent?”  This is the identity of the other collaborator in the “War on men,”, and its name is government. If there is a war on men, there is no institution that has benefited more from the battle.  If it is to be alleged that while Eve was beguiled by the serpent, and thus caused herself to be cast out of the garden, so it is true that men had been complicit inasmuch as they partook also of the fruit, raising no objection, but knowing the fruit would have a bitter aftertaste. Just as the serpent knew to make his case to women, so too have statists. In our modern culture, the aftertaste of this temptation is to be measured in the wreckage of families, both those dissolved and those never fully constituted, and its evidence is seen in the fundamental breakdown of our society that continues at breakneck speed.  It is true that men have shirked responsibility, but the worst of it is not in their roles as fathers, so much as in their role as men altogether.   You see, men didn’t fight for their pedestal because they assumed that if they yielded it, they would partake of the fruit too, and like Adam, foolishly believed they would avoid the consequences.

Now we arrive in a world in which Venker describes women as angry and resentful of men, but I can imagine Eve being resentful of Adam too, as they were cast out of the garden.  “If you had known better, why didn’t you stop me?”  Adam might respond in coy pragmatism: “How was I to stop you?”  His unstated truth had been: “I didn’t want to…”

All of this demonstrates a strong cultural decline that evades description in modern platitudes.  Instead, what drives all of this is a pervasive immorality based on the notion that one can have anything one wants instantly, without consequence or responsibility, and without regard to the costs.  The provider of this temptation has been big government, and those who advance its cause.  Men sought the immediate benefits of the sexual revolution without concerning themselves with some murky consequence in some distant future.  That future has arrived, and if men now find they are bearing the cost, as Venker explains, women are bearing a terrible consequence:

“It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.

“So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.”

I disagree with Venker inasmuch as I believe the worst victims of this entire problem are children.  Men are largely absent from the lives of their children, and they’re being raised in a world that diminishes roughly half of them explicitly, but all of them in fact.  We are now more than two generations into this culture of instant gratification, and yet few seem to have been gratified in the long run.

Just as there was a rush by many on the left to screech at Venker, so I expect there will be those who take a similar stance toward me, who will accuse me of some misogyny or other “primitive thinking.”  Apart from the fact that I don’t care who doesn’t like it, the simple fact is that we can measure the tragedy that has arisen in an America transformed by post-modern feminism, and it’s ugly.  I don’t blame women even as much as Venker, because I believe men were tempted by short-run “benefits” just as surely as Adam stood by as Eve was beguiled.  Venker concludes that women can correct all of this, but I disagree:

“Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.”

“If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.”

Men cannot permit themselves to be complicit bystanders, who partake of the fruit but point back at women as the blame. Men have let their own standards slide, and until they raise them a good deal, and for longer than the short-run, it’s going to continue because women will have no cause to change.  Imagine a world in which men are the ones who say “no.” Preposterous? Perhaps, but if our society is to survive, never mind return to a past “golden age,” somebody is going to have to say it, and what Venker’s article reveals is that slowly, men have begun to shift in that direction. Today, they’re saying “no” to marriage in unprecedented numbers. Where Venker sees this as a result of a war on men, I see it as a result of their moral capitulation. Far too many men have adopted the shoddy notion encapsulated in that well-worn misogynist retort: “Why buy the cow if the milk is for free?”  The real question laid before men is now:  Is it so free as you once thought?  On that basis, women are right to ask if the contempt so many women now feel for men is so entirely undeserved as Venker’s piece suggests. If, as the Bible explains, men were to be the moral leaders, one might ask where they had been.  After all, it wasn’t Eve alone who fell into temptation. If the war on men began with the serpent’s whispers in the Garden of Eden, we ought to ask why Adam surrendered so easily.

Secession? Pharoah, Let My People Go!

Tuesday, November 13th, 2012

In what can only be described as a poke-in-the-eye to President Obama, residents of as many as thirty states have begun to petition the President to let their states peaceably secede from the union.  This movement seems to be gaining momentum, and it’s largely in response to the election results of last week.  Anger over widespread vote fraud is one of the chief complaints I’ve seen cited as the reason for the desire to split, but I think this simply demonstrates how divided this country has become.  Most of the petitions seem to originate from what have been traditionally “red states,” but no state has more petitioners at present than the Lone Star State, Texas, with nearly sixty-thousand signatures already.  No response has been forthcoming from the White House on this matter, but at some point, they will be forced to respond in some way.  I don’t know that this is anything more than symbolic at this point, but the plain fact that so many Americans are openly talking about secession is certainly amazing.  On Foxnews, Monday, the following graphic was run, captured by a Facebook user:

Since this graphic aired on FoxNews, more petitions have been added.  The petitions can be viewed on the White House website, here.  Maybe we can petition him to resign. What are the chances that he’ll respond favorably?  Will he respond like an actual liberal and come down on the side of self-determination?  Will he simply ignore it?  Will his staff laugh it off? Will his response demonstrate his radical Marxist view by being somewhat more dictatorial?

My bet is that the White House tries to ignore it, and if cornered on it, Carney will laugh it off as just the rantings of nuts.

 

Killed By the Coward in the White House

Saturday, October 27th, 2012

Despicable

As more facts are revealed about the events in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11th, 2012, what is becoming increasingly obvious is that President Obama not only lied to the American people about the role of the now-infamous anti-Islam video, but also systematically covered-up the entire fiasco resulting in the deaths of Americans serving at the President’s direction in Libya.  The President and others in his administration are playing fast and loose with the facts, and sources now say that there were at least three requests for aid that were denied by the chain of command.  This is astonishing news, because what it directly implies is that the President’s statements about his first direction being to secure Americans was a bald-faced lie.  President Obama not only lied to the American people, but he and those acting at his direction abandoned Americans on the field of battle.  He flew off to Las Vegas, precisely to create an alibi.  The problem is, as President of the United States, the White House goes with you wherever you may be.  No, there will be no alibis this time, and this President must face the music, but if he is re-elected, he will not.  Any political black eye will come long after he begins his new term, if it materializes at all.  I can no longer refer to him as “President” Obama.  No American president has ever behaved so cravenly.  Re-elect him if you like, but he will be “the Coward” on the pages of this blog, for leaving Americans to be slaughtered, some who fought valiantly to save others, giving their lives for their countrymen.

One of the lies being pushed around is that he needed to “get to the bottom of this.”  That’s hogwash.  We now know that there were Predator drones in the air over the scene, at least one providing a live video feed of the situation on the ground.  More, we also know that the valiant Tyrone Woods – one of the Navy Seals killed in this action – maintained contact and was actually ordered to stand down in his efforts to save others before he ignored orders and ultimately gave his life in that pursuit.  His father, Charles Woods, has given several interviews, but on Friday night, he gave one to Sean Hannity, and during this interview, we learn a good deal about the character of Tyrone Woods as well as the  Marxist Coward.  You can play the audio of the phone interview below:

Alternative content


 

A number of the people in media are ignoring a central point about all of this, and I think it needs to be understood, because it demonstrates the absurdity of the Marxist Coward’s lies. There can be no way that Barack Obama was out of the loop.  There can be no way he ever believed this was the result of protests against a video.  That entire story was cooked up in the bowels of the Obama campaign.  You might ask how I know this with such certainty.

The reports of Friday morning that urgent requests for assistance were denied offers the first bit of evidence.  The damning bit of evidence came later in the day, when the CIA put out this statement:

“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi.  Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.  In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night—and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”(emphasis added)

“No one at any level in the CIA.”  Notice it does not say “No one at any level.”  This qualification is the damning bit.  The CIA does not claim that requests for aids weren’t denied.  The statement merely claims nobody in the CIA denied them.  Once you realize this, it’s now a more important statement, because it doesn’t tell us who did deny such requests, but merely who did not. With that in mind, we must now ask: Who else would have the authority to deny a CIA request?  The State Department doesn’t have that authority, except insofar as the request might have been made of them, but it wasn’t.  They were asking for military support.  That means the Department of Defense.

Those of you who have spent any time around any government operation will know that a situation or request spanning different departments and agencies of this sort will always go all the way up the chain of command, before coming back down.  Unless there had been some sort of standing order to the DoD to provide support, there would have been, of necessity, a request up the chain through the CIA, landing on the desk of whom?  Ultimately, there is only one office that can then take such a request and issue orders to DoD for such support.  Only one.  And that office and its occupant were beating feet for Las Vegas on Air Force One.  Got it?

That’s right, a move like that can only happen with Presidential approval, either explicitly in advance, in the form of some blanket order, or as events unfold, in the certain terms and context of the moment.  Hillary Clinton could not deny such a request.  The Department of Defense couldn’t deny such a request.  Only the President of the United States, in this case, the Cowardly Marxist, could deny such a request, or refuse to act on it.  A President could ignore such a request until the event was over and the request mooted by the outcome, but that sort of request must pass through national command authority.

That’s right people.  You want a smoking gun?  You want proof that the cowardly Marxist-in-chief knew all along, and was hip-deep in this?  There it is.  The CIA says no one at any level in the CIA denied such requests. They did not say that there were no such requests, or if there were, what had been the ultimate disposition of such requests.  What you have here is a CIA statement intended to relieve its director of culpability.  Later, it will not be said that this had been a false statement.  No, the CIA is off the hook.  This statement shields the CIA so long as it’s a true statement, to the degree it says anything of use.  The value in this statement is what it leaves unsaid, and that is a whopper that lands in the lap of the lying Marxist coward who sporadically occupies the White House between fund-raising jaunts and Letterman appearances.

Ladies and gentlemen, the matter is clear, and the answer is simple: Either Barack Hussein Obama denied the request, or he shelved it until moot.  What you have in Obama is a professional liar, and his administration is staffed with people who exist to obfuscate, shade the truth, and outright lie when necessary to fulfill their political agenda.  Americans have died because of this rotten, miserable soul, and there’s a reason Tyrone Woods’ father sensed something akin to a dead fish in Obama’s handshake: Like all miserable cowards, he’s dead inside.  It is time for Barack Obama to go.  He has lost all valid claims to moral authority.  Our country can no longer afford him, and if he remains in office, we will never know the whole truth, and no justice will be had for Tyrone Woods, a young man who acted heroically in the face of his own chain of command’s cowardice.

 

Sarah Palin on Cavuto (Eric Bolling Guest-Hosting) Video

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

Governor Palin with Eric Bolling

Governor Palin appeared on Fox with Eric Bolling to talk about the Ted Cruz victory, as well as other matters.  Bolling asked her about a remark by lobbyist and former Senator Bob Bennett(R-UT) who had said that the “Tea Party wave is receding.”  Gov. Palin responded: “Bless his heart, he’s a little out of touch… Bolling also asked Governor Palin about the convention, and she said “I just want to help,” but that “sometimes, helping means you step aside,” apparently meaning that Governor Palin won’t be part of the convention as a speaker, at least as it stands.  Here’s the video, courtesy of the Barracuda Brigade:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvsewdIQ9GI]

Sarah Palin on Hannity Thursday

Friday, March 9th, 2012

Sarah Palin on Hannity

Governor Palin appeared on Fox News with Sean Hannity on Thursday evening.  They discussed a wide range of topics, including the controversy over the Barack Obama Campaign’s unwillingness to urge an Obama SuperPAC to return a million dollars donated by Bill Maher in light of his long history of misogynist remarks over the years, including some aimed at Governor Palin and other women, including Rep.Michele Bachmann (R-MN).  This highlights the hypocrisy on the left, as they continue to pummel Rush Limbaugh for remarks that are tame by comparison to anything Maher has said.

The video is in two segments:

In the second segment, Hannity asked Governor Palin about the Breitbart tape:

Sarah Palin: I Voted for Newt

Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

On Super Tuesday, Fox News talked to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.  She was asked who she voted for in the GOP Primary in Alaska, and she was blunt: She voted for Newt Gingrich.  She explained her thinking, and she explained why she thought the Republican primary contest should go on.  She also referenced the behavior of the media, and its focus on other irrelevant issues, or distractions.  She pointed to the focus Newt Gingrich has placed on the energy question, and she made it clear that Barack Obama must be replaced if we are going to turn this country around.

Here’s the video:



Governor Palin on Hannity: “A Boiled Egg is Hard to Beat” – Video

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012

Sarah Palin: Steal Sharpening Steal

Governor Palin appeared on Hannity on FoxNews on Tuesday evening, explaining why she thinks this process of vetting is far from over.  Hannity asked her a number of pointed questions, on a variety of topic revolving around the primary season, including whether the process should end soon, since it seems they’re damaging one another more than the President.  She answered with a play on words:

“A boiled egg is hard to beat.”

Asked about the possibility of a brokered convention, she made it perfectly clear as to whether she thought she would have any role in it when Hannity asked about her willingness to step forward:

 

“The establishment will never come to me, I know that for a fact.”

They discussed the attacks coming at Rick Santorum, and went on to explain that people should stand with Santorum on the question of good and evil in this world.  More, she stressed the very topic she’s discussed before, and I have explained at length in these pages about the direct link between our economy and the availability of energy resources, and how the lack of the latter throttles the former.  You can watch the video here:

 

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeOgdcCVlqc]

Ann Coulter Finally Loses It – Video

Sunday, February 5th, 2012

Good Grief!

At least she wasn’t ranting and raving, quite. I think Ann has lost the last shred of her rapidly declining credibility.  Her littany is exhausting:

Romney is “conservative.”  Newt isn’t electable.  Obama is “personally charming.”  Tea Party is a bunch of “utter hypocrites” for supporting Newt. The “era of Rockefeller Republicans is over.”

Oh, and again: “Romney is the most conservative….”

H/T GatewayPundit

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0sH_gpbAwU]

Sarah Palin: “Annoy a Liberal, Vote Newt!”

Sunday, January 29th, 2012

Sarah Palin with Judge Pirro

In an appearance on Judge Jeanine Pirro’s Saturday show on FNC, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin explained her rationale for who would be the candidate best able to handle Obama in the debates, who would be most likely to prevail over Obama, and how she draws those distinctions.  It was a telling interview, inasmuch as she did not endorse Newt Gingrich, but instead suggested that she wants to see the honest vetting of these candidates go on, and she made it plain that she didn’t think Mitt Romney had been entirely honest with some of his attacks.

This interview began only a few minutes after Herman Cain announced he was endorsing Newt Gingrich at an event in Florida. Here’s the video:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXsMf6OqEvQ]

Sarah Palin pointed out that Romney’s negative ads were not merely normal rough-and-tumble campaigning in Florida and reflected the politics of personal destruction.  Palin pointed out that Romney drew first blood with negative attack ads in Iowa, but that Gingrich had tried to run a positive campaign. She mentioned how the tone of the campaign worsened when those in the DC establishment.  She described Gingrich as an “agent of change.”  The former Alaska governor spoke of her dislike of pundits, on Fox and elsewhere, who are “gleefully proclaiming” Romney as the “inevitable nominee.” Among other things, she also defended Gingrich, and describe him as the best candidate to “clobber Obama in the debates.” She said “Rage against the machine? Vote Newt! Annoy a liberal? Vote Newt!”  In addition, Palin went to some lengths to explain that she would like to hear more about how Romney’s Massachusetts Healthcare plan was the model for Obamacare.

Again, while Governor Palin clearly isn’t endorsing a candidate as yet, she seems to be very supportive of Gingrich at this time.  She also seems of the mind that there’s still some honest vetting to do, and while she was clearly disappointed with the dishonest smear tactics that had been used against Gingrich, she did stress that issues are issues, and we ought to welcome that fight.  Lastly, I don’t know if it was just Pirro rushing to make the hard break, but near the end of the segment, Pirro talked over Palin several times, and the segment ended with an abrupt cut-off just as Palin was explaining her view of the establishment.  I don’t know that this means anything, but then again, we’ve learned a good deal about media outlets recently.

Endorsement or not, Palin’s message was pretty clear: In Florida, vote Newt! Rage against the machine? Vote Newt!  Annoy a liberal?  Vote Newt!  (I must admit the last one particularly appeals to me.)

 

Ann Coulter Flails; Implies Conservatives, Tea Party Stupid

Sunday, January 22nd, 2012

Ann Coulter Loses Mind

Another so-called conservative lost her mind in public again today, this time on Fox and Friends. It’s funny to see Ann Coulter attempt to pass herself off as a mainstream Republican.  In New York, maybe.  She puts forward a pair of contradictory premises.  On the one hand, she says that the voters who Republicans need to attract for the general election are those who trend more to the center, or even a little left, but on that basis, Gingrich isn’t the best choice.  Then she attacks Gingrich for being to the left of Romney.  The fact that Coulter can’t see this contradiction before she proposes it is all the evidence you need to know that she has now become completely unhinged.

The war against Newt continues to escalate.  The GOP establishment is clearly terrified.  Here’s the video:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBIsCOuzvDg]

The fact that Coulter dismisses the plurality of the South Carolina electorate who voted for Newt, or the vast majority that didn’t support her guy, Mitt Romney, is a key to understanding that Coulter has now left us.  I’m certain there will be future instances in which she will say something conservatives and Tea Party folks like, but in the main, Coulter has demonstrated repeatedly throughout the last year that she is now irrevocably committed to the GOP establishment.  She’s grown comfortable among them, and is now one of theirs. Of course, as she offers you her contradictory premises, she assumes you’re too stupid to notice, so her dismissal of conservatives is not surprising.

Newt Gingrich: ‘We Want to Run an American Campaign’ Video

Saturday, January 21st, 2012

Courtesy of FoxNews.com.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1010778&w=425&h=350&fv=location%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fv%2F1406802910001%2F%26core_ads_enabled%3Dtrue%26core_omniture_player_name%3Dfullpage%26core_omniture_account%3Dfoxnewsmaven%26core_player_name%3Dfullpage%26core_yume_ad_library_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fassets%2Fakamai%2Fyume_ad_library.swf%26core_yume_player_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fassets%2Fakamai%2Fyume_player_4x3.swf%26auto_play%3Dtrue%26video_id%3D1406802910001%26settings_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fassets%2Fakamai%2Fresources%2Fconf%2Fconfig.xml%3Fc%26show_autoplay_overlay%3Dtrue%26auto_play_list%3Dtrue%26show%3DNA%26cache_bust_key%3D1327207995%26autoplay%3Dfalse%26data_feed_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fv%2Ffeed%2Fvideo%2F1406802910001.js%3Ftemplate%3Dfox]

What The Media Talks About When You’re Not Looking

Saturday, January 21st, 2012

Dr. David Samadi - Regulating Life

Just a short while ago, I was retrieving a fresh cup of coffee, and I happened to hear something on the television that caused me to do a double-take.  FoxNews was on and America’s New Headquarters had a contributor on to talk about obesity in America, and the fact that obesity and even the classification “overweight” seem to have plateaued in the country.  The doctor, from Mt. Sinai in New York, a David Samadi, was discussing the implications of the new study showing this plateau.  The thing that caught my attention was not so much the discussion of obesity, but what this idiotic doctor was prescribing:  He wants new taxes, for instance, a “soda tax,” and he wants to reduce the number of fast-food outlets in the country. Excuse me?  Physician, heal thyself! This is the nature of the stories even allegedly “conservative” news outlets like FoxNews cover when most of us aren’t watching, and it almost always leans in the direction of socialism.

Let me say from the outset that like many Americans, I could stand to eat Five Guys burgers somewhat less frequently, but let me also suggest that it is none of this doctor’s business what I eat or drink, where I eat it or drink it, and most of all whether I am taxed for so doing.  Samadi’s view seems to be that he can issue prescriptions for three-hundred-million people, never having examined more than a few hands-full of them.  More, since he has no such authority or power or the ability to control, he exhorts government to do so on behalf of his preferred prescription for people the vast majority of whom he has never met, never mind examined or treated.  What sort of collectivized thinking permits this arrogant [expletive deleted] to sit there in a television studio and proclaim to all that he has the answers for your life, but that he needs government’s power to coerce and to tax in order to implement them?

There is something wicked about the minds of those who view their fellow men as cattle, to be poked and prodded and driven in a direction that they may not themselves wish to go.  It is born of a mindset that does not respect first and foremost the lives and rights of individual people. These people are those who I term “regulators,” who wish to regulate all persons in a given society of which they are members to conform to their view of what is right for all people.  Mayor Bloomberg’s various bans on salt or saturated fats in cooking oils are just two examples, but it is the mindset of a tyrant that is troubling in all of this.  I don’t need Mayor Bloomberg, Michelle Obama, or Dr. Samadi telling me what to eat, when to eat it, or whether I ought to have access to it at all.  It’s simply not their concern.  Or is it?

Now we arrive at the meat of this issue, because there is much more than burgers at stake here.  What is under examination is not whether they have the authority to control us, but how they derive such authority in the first place.  The answer is simple: They rely upon the faulty claims of the notion of “the public health.”  You may have noticed that they always portray this as a “public health crisis,” and as an “epidemic,” but this is a lie, and their authority in the matter only arises because of health-care, and the fact that government is the biggest player in that segment of the market.  They have routinely positioned the matter in such a way that they can make the claim that by virtue of governmental expenditures in this field, it therefore becomes an issue of public imperative.  Worse, by allowing their colossal medical expenditures and controls to grow out of all bounds, you have permitted them to enter this field, and thereby exert control over your breakfast, lunch, dinner, and evening snack besides.  More damaging still is the fact that the government is now the largest food provider on the planet. Again, I remind you: We have permitted this.

Here’s a basic rule of nature, and of civilization that the statists know and are now turning in their favor: If you are the provider of a thing, you can decide when to provide it, how to provide, how much of it to provide, and under what conditions you’ll provide it.  For instance, if I invite you to my home for a meal, since I am providing it, it is my natural right to determine all the particulars.  If you provide me a service without compensation, it is clear that I have no ethical or moral claim with respect to the manner in which you provide it. Only paying customers have any say-so in the matter.  The old adage “beggars can’t be choosers” should immediately leap into one’s mind.  That simple old adage merely paid homage to that which is self-evident, and yet it is this same concept that has been bent and twisted into the service of the state’s aggressive aggregation of power.  The strategy has been to blur the lines. Let’s see if we can reconstruct the approach.

First, we create simultaneously programs to:

  • Provide food to the poor
  • Provide health-care to the poor
  • Provide “health insurance” to the elderly

Do you see how this has mutated?  The idle poor are fed, but they are fed rations excessive for a person at hard labor, and we wonder why there is obesity? We then provide these same people health-care, and we wonder why there is a “public health crisis?”  Add to this that we simultaneous have a system of health “insurance” for our elderly that further obscures the difference between paying and non-paying, and at the other end of the spectrum, we now have federal food programs in schools, as the manner by which federal funds are dispersed and control exercised.

By exercising control over the disbursement of these commodities and services, the government is essentially putting itself in the position of the provider, and therefore has become the “chooser,” with all the beneficiaries effectively having been rendered “beggars.”  Those of us who are paying for this are the real providers, and yet we are now told it is a matter of “human rights” that we do this provisioning. Obamacare is simply the latest in this chain, but it’s hardly the only “improvement” to the system that has been foisted upon us in recent years, with the Bush Medicare Prescription Drugs program added to the mix.

With the government now being the largest payer in the health-care market, you can expect that it will naturally displace market imperatives in the delivery of health-care goods and services, and it will necessarily prioritize that delivery(death panels, for instance,) while reaching into unrelated markets to regulate those things that it will make the case as having some influence over the costs to government.

This then leads to the grotesque spectacle of Dr. Samadi appearing on FoxNews telling us what we can eat, where we can procure it, and what taxes we ought to pay along the way, as the whole miserable assembly comes lurching into plain sight.  You can be told what you can eat because you will [eventually] rely upon government to pay for your health-care.  The market can be told what it may provide, and how, because the government has an interest in reducing its costs.  The tax-payer can be told to shut up about it, since it’s virtually established as some sort of irreducible premise that every person ought to be somehow entitled to that which does not pour from the heavens, but must be obtained by human effort.  As you can therefore see, it is inevitable that government has now used this to become a dictator in every important facet of our lives, and all because somewhere along the march from our founding to present, we permitted them to make our needs the means to its ends.

When you consider that this is the sort of thing that is discussed on allegedly conservative media when most of the country isn’t watching, it ought to alert you to the underlying premises of the discussions in media many more of us witness.  What we should note is that in most every media outlet, there is a sort of inherent reverence for the state, and for the under-girding foundational constructs of collectivism, and we ought to be very careful not to ignore that these media outlets are fundamentally in favor of it, almost all of them, and widely across the board. It’s easy to dismiss this sort of news story as simple time-fillers on a weekend with no ongoing crisis-bound event on which to report, but I think we should be careful to see that is also a sign of what lies behind the blaring headlines, and it is key to understanding why the country continues to be dragged ceaselessly leftward.

Allen West Agrees With Newt Gingrich

Wednesday, January 18th, 2012

On Newt: "He is Absolutely Right"

Allen West appeared On the Record with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News.  He was asked about his opinion on Newt Gingrich’s statement about the question of work ethic, and the matter of unemployment and job creation.  West gave his unreserved support for the notion, and when Van Susteren called it a “touchy subject,” West immediately said:  “It shouldn’t be a touchy.”  Van Susteren asked West what Obama could do to address the high unemployment, he pointed out taxes and regulations, and Dodd-Frank as various sources of trouble for job creation. He focused on the state of the economy and the role of work in lifting oneself out of poverty, warning against making a safety net into a hammock.  In his usual no-nonsense manner, West took on the issues.

Watch the video:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8Cxwwi_vR4]

One of the points West made is that we shouldn’t have conversations limited by so-called “touchy subjects” because of race.  He’s right. The destructive results of the Obama administration’s war on wealth and work knows no racial boundaries.  It’s time to discard these faulty, racially charged notions of politics and economics.  It’s time to set aside any claim that one party has the interests of any race at heart, and Allen West sees this. It’s time for our President to see this as well.

 

 

You Have to Vote For Me to See My Tax Returns

Monday, January 16th, 2012

No Tax Return? No Vote!

After watching Monday’s FoxNews debate, I have some pointed advice for voters in the upcoming South Carolina Republican primary:  If a candidate will not disclose his tax returns before you vote, consider him ineligible.  You have no need for a candidate whose dirty secrets will be aired only after you’ve voted for him.  Mitt Romney talks about April, but I want to see them now, before any of us have voted(other than Iowa and New Hampshire, whose residents have already voted.)  You have every right to demand this sort of disclosure from the candidates, and if they won’t meet your expectations, you have every right to withhold your vote.  The suggestion of at least one of the candidates who hem-hawed this issue in Monday night’s debate is that you have no need to see them until  after he thinks he’ll already have the nomination.

I want right now to pause and suggest to you that this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.  It ranks right up there with Nancy Pelosi’s infamous:

“We have to pass this bill before you can find out what is in it.”

Ladies and gentlemen, if you accept this from Mitt Romney or any of the candidates, you have no right to complain when Nancy Pelosi pushes through a monstrous health-care bill, or any bill, before anybody has had time to read it.  The voters of South Carolina, and every subsequent state, all have a right to demand this of somebody asking for their votes.  If you let Mitt Romney sneak by you with this one, it’s just the beginning, but I don’t care which candidate offers you this lie, because you must reject it, and you must do so by withholding your vote.

I am going to walk even further out on this limb: I will not vote, either in the Primary, or in the General Election in my state for ANY candidate who has not disclosed his tax returns before the date of the primary. I will not buy a pig in a poke, and neither should you. No tax returns?  No vote!

Todd Palin Goes On The Record With Greta

Tuesday, January 10th, 2012

Endorses Newt Gingrich

Todd Palin caused a significant stir today when it was announced he had endorsed Newt Gingrich.  Todd Palin, ever his own man, was a guest by telephone on Greta Van Susteren’s On The Record on FoxNews.  Conservatives have been abuzz with this news, and some are taking it to imply something about who Sarah Palin will support.  The theories today have been wild and untamed, from the preposterous to the vaguely feasible to the outright maniacal. Facebook and Twitter are likewise jumping with activity, as people try to figure out why Todd is making an endorsement, but Sarah has not.  Meanwhile, Gingrich was quite happy with this turn of events.

Anybody who follows the Palins knows that by their own accounts, they don’t always agree, so maybe it’s that, or maybe Sarah Palin simply hasn’t made up her mind.  Whatever is going on, it will be difficult to ignore that Todd Palin has come out for Newt Gingrich.  I expect that this will be the subject of much discussion on the eve of Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary. Still Palin supporters are scrambling to understand the meaning of this announcement, but it’s likely to be precisely that which it seems: Todd Palin prefers Newt Gingrich at this juncture, and Governor Palin isn’t ready to endorse a candidate just yet.

What some conservatives are wondering is if this is some sort of proxy endorsement on behalf of Sarah Palin, but I wouldn’t read too much into that.  Todd Palin said during this interview that he was glad Sarah decided to “sit this one out.”  It seemed to me to be a simple, straight-forward endorsement of Gingrich. Mr. Palin cited Newt’s credentials as a reformer, and that he thought Gingrich was best-suited to take on Obama.  Thinking about Gingrich, it’s true that he was the architect of the mostly successful “Contract With America,” and he did  lead to the first Republican majority in the House in more than four decades. Watch the video below:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1010060&w=425&h=350&fv=location%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fv%2F1378553998001%2F%26core_ads_enabled%3Dtrue%26core_omniture_player_name%3Dfullpage%26core_omniture_account%3Dfoxnewsmaven%26core_player_name%3Dfullpage%26core_yume_ad_library_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fassets%2Fakamai%2Fyume_ad_library.swf%26core_yume_player_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fassets%2Fakamai%2Fyume_player_4x3.swf%26auto_play%3Dtrue%26video_id%3D1378553998001%26settings_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fassets%2Fakamai%2Fresources%2Fconf%2Fconfig.xml%3Fc%26show_autoplay_overlay%3Dfalse%26auto_play_list%3Dtrue%26show%3DNA%26cache_bust_key%3D1326173003%26autoplay%3Dfalse%26data_feed_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fv%2Ffeed%2Fvideo%2F1378553998001.js%3Ftemplate%3Dfox]

Whatever Gingrich’s other flaws may be, it’s clear that in Todd Palin’s view, Gingrich is more inclined to lead the kinds of reforms Mr. Palin finds important to the nation’s future.  Whether this is a hint at Sarah Palin’s thinking is anybody’s guess.  Maybe we will get a better indication of Governor Palin’s thinking when she delivers the keynote address at CPAC on the 11th of February in Washington DC, if not sooner.

Sarah Palin Discusses GOP Field

Sunday, December 18th, 2011

Weighing Our Options

In a telephone interview with Shannon Bream on FNC today discussed the GOP candidates, and Tim Tebow.  She said she’s “just not there yet” with respect to the GOP field, and wants to withhold any endorsement until she can sincerely make one.  Bream asked what is to many conservatives and Tea Party folk the million dollar question:  “Does that person does exist in the field as it now stands?” Palin replied “We’ll see, I honestly don’t know yet.”  She mentioned that she believed Bachmann and Santorum would likely do better “than some RINO pundits predict.”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE0nj1LY5xs]

It seems that the former Alaska governor is taking her time and has yet to draw a firm conclusion about the field, but I suspect it will be comforting to many conservatives and Tea Party folk that at this late date, Sarah Palin shares in their lack of clarity about who to support.  She also made a very important point about candidates promising reform now, but who have to one degree or another failed to deliver such reforms when they had those opportunities in office, whether in Congress, or in state governments. Palin mentioned the desire to feel enthusiasm for a candidate, and she described what many conservatives feel about this race.  She also downplayed the value of endorsements in general, and pointed out that independent-minded Americans don’t necessarily weigh endorsements of others very heavily.

Rove Says Allred Adds Credibility – Question: To What Does Rove Add Credibility?

Tuesday, November 8th, 2011

There He Goes Again

I don’t frankly know which is more laughable:  Karl Rove’s claim that Gloria Allred’s representation of Sharon Bialek makes her claims more credible.  My first question in response to this assertion is: Among whom?   I don’t know a single person, apart from leftists, or Karl Rove, who thinks Allred adds credibility.  Most people view Allred as a carnival barker, selling side-show attractions on the basis of hyped assertions that are most often subsequently undermined by facts.  More, I don’t know who thinks Karl Rove has any credibility on the question of this matter, with respect to Herman Cain.  As I’ve asked before in a different context, why should we believe Karl Rove now?  Wasn’t it Karl Rove less than a week ago telling us “Cain is finished,” while prognosticating on Fox News?  In the days that followed, Cain didn’t decline in the polls as Rove predicted, so now I must ask:  What credibility does Karl Rove add to Gloria Allred?

Answer: None.

Karl Rove has no public credibility once you understand that he’s a master manipulator.  We’ve seen all of this before, and frankly, it’s despicable.  Rove is still trying to kill off the Cain candidacy in much the same we he’s successfully killed off some others.  Appearing on FoxNews Tuesday, Rove said the following:

“Credibility matters here, and Gloria Allred — while she is a Democrat and a liberal Democrat and openly so — nonetheless, has been involved in a number of high-profile cases like Tiger Woods and others, where the charges have been borne out.

So this gives Ms. Bialek’s charges and accusations a little bit of credibility, and that’s what we’re talking about here — credibility.”

Sorry, but this is laughable.  If you’ve forgotten last year, when Allred was engaged in another case smearing Meg Whitman, with purely political motives, she was dismantled quite thoroughly first by Mark Levin, and later by Greta Van Susteren.   Allred has no credibility, and the fact that Rove now expects you to think she has credibility, while ignoring the plentiful reasons she does not, constitute more reasons why Rove has no credibility.

Sorry Karl, you’ve been debunked here too many times.  Come to think of it, so has Allred. Below are the instance last year when she was clobbered by both Levin and Van Susteren: