Video: Anderson Cooper Skewers MSNBC Blob, Schultz,

Every single second of this epic smack-down of  MSNBC dope, Ed Schultz is golden.

Via Newsbusters:

As NewsBusters previously reported, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz last week actually suggested that CNN’s Anderson Cooper might have had something to do with him being named to GQ’s “The 25 Least Influential People Alive” list.

On Friday’s Anderson Cooper 360, the host nicely put the pathetic Schultz in his proper place – The RidicuList (video follows with transcript and absolutely no additional commentary necessary):

Near perfection.

I especially loved Anderson’s catty, repeated use of ” a guy named Ed Schultz”…and, “Now, let me be honest. I don’t really know who Ed Schultz is. I think I met him once in passing years ago, but I have never actually seen his show. I’m told he yells a lot, and I know he works at MSNBC. And I know he’s moved around a lot in various time slots. That is it.”

LOL.

It’s enough to make me forgive him for his obscene teabagging joke in May of 2009, for which he did almost immediately apologize, unlike the classless MSNBC trolls who use the slurs to this day.

Bonus video:

While I was searching for the above video on Youtube, I found this….bizarre clip….of Cooper getting into a laughing jag watching Justin Bieber get shot?  What is so funny about this?

My goodness, what brought that on?

Hat tip: Dana Loesch, Big Journalism

Monday-Catch-up:Too Much Going On!

Why am I having such a hard time focusing, today? Maybe I’m overwhelmed by the influx of tips in my inbox – maybe it’s the scrabble game I have going on Facebook – maybe it’s the recorder that’s sitting next to my computer, (the instrument – not recording device) beckoning me to play it – maybe it’s the fact that I’m putting off some online shopping that I need to do before it’s too late. Or it’s the laundry that I’m also putting off…

I give up. I’m doing a linkfest, and then I’m playing “When John Baptized By Jordan’s River” on the recorder.

***

The oped piece to read today is by Charles Krauthammer:  Mitt vs. Newt:

…Romney has profited from the temporary rise and spontaneous combustion of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain. No exertion required on Romney’s part.

Enter Gingrich, the current vessel for anti-Romney forces — and likely the final one. Gingrich’s obvious weakness is a history of flip-flops, zigzags and mind changes even more extensive than Romney’s — on climate change, the health-care mandate, cap-and-trade, Libya, the Ryan Medicare plan, etc.

The list is long. But what distinguishes Gingrich from Romney — and mitigates these heresies in the eyes of conservatives — is that he authored a historic conservative triumph: the 1994 Republican takeover of the House after 40 years of Democratic control.

Which means that Gingrich’s apostasies are seen as deviations from his conservative core — while Romney’s flip-flops are seen as deviations from . . . nothing. Romney has no signature achievement, legislation or manifesto that identifies him as a core conservative.

Read it all – – you may not like his conclusion, but I challenge you to tell me where he’s wrong. I’m resigning myself to the inevitability.

***

Every time I see a  Rince Priebus interview, I think, “Eh – could have been better”.

I had the same reaction with his Sunday appearance on MSNBC’s Meet The Press, but I have to admit he’s hitting all the right notes when he says, “Obama “Has Been A Disaster For This Country”:

I just wish he didn’t make it look so obvious that he’s operating out of the Republican playbook, page by page….

A MUST READ at Maggie’s Notebook: The Other Pennsylvania Child Molestation Story: Democrat Donor Pedophile Ed Savitz Story Told by Victim Greg Bucceroni

Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is tied up in this filth, too.

***

Here’s how Nancy Pelosi thanks Newt Gingrich for sitting on that stupid couch with her: Pelosi: I’ve Got Dirt on Gingrich.

When “the time is right” she’s gonna unleash, she tells TPM.  How quaint. As we all know, there’s never been a more ethical Speaker than Nancy Pelousy.

The Right Scoop: Newt fires back at Pelosi: Bring it on! :

First of all I’d like to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift. If she’s suggesting she’s gonna use material she developed while she was on the ethics committee, that is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I would hope members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it.

***

Noisy Room, never ones to over react to events, are saying…Apocalypse Nowish. Looking at recent events in this country and around the world it’s hard not to agree.

***

I wanted to throw this out there because there has been so much handwringing about the McCain-Levin amendment in the otherwise unremarkable  defense-authorization bill currently under congressional consideration.

Andrew McCarthy tries to set the record straight at NRO:

Claiming the “constitutionalist” mantle, Senator Paul is currently crusading against the concept of indefinite detention for enemy combatants under the laws of war. It is a deprivation, he claims, of the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. And once the government succeeds in rolling back such guarantees, he insists, they are never restored.

As a matter of constitutional law and of history, this is nonsense on stilts. The framers would have been appalled by Paul’s premise that the Constitution endows alien enemy combatants with the due-process rights of American citizens, particularly combatants who are detained outside the United States, where the writ of neither federal nor state judges runs. The only thing the framers might have found more appalling is the notion that the Constitution licenses lawfare — i.e., that it permits the American people’s courts (which, other than the Supreme Court, are creatures of statute not required by the Constitution) to be used by foreign enemies to put on trial the armed forces of the American people over the manner in which they conduct wartime combat operations that have been authorized by the American people’s representatives (indeed, overwhelmingly authorized, because after almost 3,000 of us were slaughtered on 9/11, the public broadly demanded that the enemy be subdued).

Paul is attacking the McCain-Levin amendment as if it broke new ground. But the amendment only reaffirms what the Constitution has always provided: Congress has the power to authorize combat operations against foreign enemies, and when it does so, the law of war governs those operations — except to the extent Congress modifies that venerable corpus. Under the law of war, enemy combatants may be detained indefinitely, which is to say, until either (a) hostilities have concluded, or (b) Congress withdraws the authorization of military force, effectively returning us to peacetime conditions.

***

Chris Friend at The Daily Times: Made in America not as simple as it sounds

In the latest segment, Sawyer states that the average American family will spend $700 this Christmas season, and that if each just spent $64 on American-made goods, over 200,000 jobs would be created.

If that’s the recipe for success, then why stop at just $64? Well, ABC thought of that. Reporting that total Christmas spending would total more than $465 billion, it stated, “..if that money was spent entirely on U.S.-made products, it would create 4.6 million jobs.” Great idea, if you’re playing make-believe. But in the real world, things don’t work that way.

***

Herman Cain at North Star Writer Group: Brokenhearted, but not broken:

You’re not defeated as long as you never stop fighting. And while my presidential campaign is suspended, it’s important to remember that my pursuit of the presidency was only a means to an end. As long as the end is achieved, victory will be at hand.

My incredible army of supporters, whom I can never thank enough for all they have done so far, have not labored in vain. The real prize is still ours for the taking.

I did not want to become president just for the sake of being president. I’m perfectly happy with what I’ve accomplished in my life and I don’t need the ego boost. Rather, I sought the presidency because our nation has some big problems to deal with, and it’s clear that our political class has neither the will nor the ability to solve them.

For that very reason, I was not surprised that I was viciously attacked once I rose in the polls. I was surprised by the nature of the attacks. Me, a womanizer? I would never have thought they’d come up with that one. But I knew the establishment would not like the idea of my success, because I will not get along by going along like so many do. I will not kick the can down the road to the next generation of leaders, because our problems are serious and they need to be solved now.

That threatens people who know there may be a political price to pay for enacting solutions that will work, and would rather wait things out and let someone else take the heat. That would not have been possible during a Cain presidency.

Keep reading…

I feel bad for him. We may never know how much truth there was to any of the stories. But I know I always got a good vibe from him, if that means anything at all.

See also: RS McCain: They Don’t Pay Extra for Tears:

All the pundits who low-rated Cain’s presidential prospects never seemed to see what Foley and I and so many other Cainiacs saw. For all his gaffes and blunders, for all the ineptitude of his campaign staff, Cain had something special that appealed to ordinary Americans sick of the cynical rhetoric of establishment politicians. Once the Cain Train gained momentum, pundits like Karl Rove seemed to find it personally offensive that an inexperienced outsider running an amateur campaign could win the enthusiastic support of millions. Two polls in October showed 30 percent of Republican voters ready to vote for Cain. By Oct. 20, despite all his mistakes and all the criticism from naysayers, the amateur outsider moved ahead of establishment favorite Mitt Romney in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls. And it was just about then that reporters began contacting the campaign’s recently hired communications director, J.D. Gordon, to ask about accusations of sexual harassment made more than a dozen years earlier during Cain’s tenure at the National Restaurant Association. Were the accusations true? We still don’t know and may never know. But to borrow Shakespeare’s famous phrase from Marc Antony’s funeral oration for Caesar, “If it were so, it was a grievous fault, And grievously hath Herman Cain answer’d it.”

***

Weekly Standard: Climategate (Part II):

How many of you are aware that the latest batch of ClimateGate emails are even more damaging to “the cause” than the first? Global warming hysteria is finally getting its just rewards – getting relegated to the ash-heap of history where it always belonged.

Before anyone had time to get very far into this vast archive, the climate campaigners were ready with their critical review: Nothing worth seeing here. Out of context! Cherry picking! “This is just trivia, it’s a diversion,” climate researcher Joel Smith told Politico. On the other side, Anthony Watts, proprietor of the invaluable WattsUpWithThat.com skeptic website, had the kind of memorable line fit for a movie poster. With a hat tip to the famous Seinfeld episode, Watts wrote: “They’re real, and they’re spectacular!” An extended review of this massive new cache will take months and could easily require a book-length treatment. But reading even a few dozen of the newly leaked emails makes clear that Watts and other longtime critics of the climate cabal are going to be vindicated.

Don’t worry, the gullible simps who latched onto the AGW scare-mongering from 1995-2011 will be talked into some other horror that needs big government solutions in no time at all.

***

Ever notice how Ace’s headlines almost tell the whole story:

Economic Reportage Under Bush: Don’t Fall For Illusory Reductions in Unemployment Rate; That’s Just People Leaving the Workforce In Frustrated Agony
Economic Reportage Under Obama: Ka-Effing-Ching!, Baby!

(See David Gregory’s interview of Rince Priebus, above, for example.)

Jesse Jackson: I Am Disgusted That Christmas Is Currently A Celebration of Consumerism, With People Forgetting The Real Reason For The Season, Which Is, Of Course, Hardcore Leftist Class Warfare Political Agitation

I mean that pretty much covers it, doesn’t it? There’s almost no need to go on. But please, do – more LOLs at the links.

Jeremy Lott of The American Spectator obviously on the wrong email list: You’re Starting to Creep Me Out, First Family.

Senator Grassley Offers Sneak Preview Of December 8th House Judiciary Committee Hearing On Senate Floor

Via Sipsey Street Irregulars, Ben Barrack comments:

Consider this to be a 10 minute appetizer for the December 8th House Judiciary Committee hearing at which Attorney General Eric Holder will be grilled by the likes of Darrell Issa and other congressmen. Here, Grassley raises very serious and legitimate questions that are certain to be asked of Holder. In sworn testimony in front of various committees, both Holder and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano allege that they were not made aware of Fast and Furious until February of 2011, despite the fact that Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered on December 15, 2010.

Senator Grassley  wants to know why Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano didn’t know for months about the connection between Fast and Furious and the death of Agent Brian Terry.

 

Republican Senators Need to Correct an Error and Jump on The Eric Holder Resignation Bandwagon

When Eric Holder was confirmed in January of 2009 with the support of 19 Republican Senators, I was sick to my stomach. Like the election of Barack Obama, it was a sad day for freedom, and the rule of law in America.

Senator Hatch, Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee while Holder was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia under Clinton, knew Holder from his dealings with him in the nineties.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), who chaired the panel for a decade beginning in 1995, told The Hill that he will support Holder.

“I intend to,” said Hatch.

His decision could undermine GOP efforts to stall or block the confirmation. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said Friday that Holder would be the only Cabinet nominee to face a tough confirmation fight.

Hatch said that Republicans should try to strike a cooperative tone with President-elect Obama during the first days of his administration.

“I start with the premise that the president deserves the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think politics should be played with the attorney general,” he said.

“I like Barack Obama and want to help him if I can.”

Hindsight is everything, of course – but there are two border agents and about 200 Mexican citizens who would be alive, today, if Hatch had not given the President the “benefit of the doubt” on this one.

Senators Hatch and Grassley, both yay votes, should have known better. They KNEW Holder was a liar and an obstructionist. They KNEW he couldn’t be trusted.

A long piece in The American Thinker by Ronald Kolb, The Ethics of Eric Holder, lays it all out.

When Attorney General Eric Holder recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his role in the Fast and Furious operation, where 2,000 rifles were deliberately “walked” from the United States into Mexico, his answers at times seemed incredible and stretched the limits of believability.

A few months earlier, on May the third, Holder had testified before the House that he had only recently learned of the deadly and disastrous operation.

But a series of memos was uncovered by CBS News last October showing that during 2010, Holder had received at least five different notices concerning Fast and Furious from Michael Walther, the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center.  He also received another memo from Assistant Attorney General (and long-time associate) Lanny Breuer.

But at the recent hearing, Holder stated three times that he had learned of Fast and Furious only earlier this year, after the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona.  Five times Holder testified that he never saw any of the damning memos.

Senator John Cornyn from Texas queried Holder.  “Those are memos with your name on it, addressed to you, referring to the Fast and Furious operation.  Are you just saying you didn’t read them?”

“I didn’t receive them,” answered Holder.  “They are reviewed by my staff and a determination made as to what ought to be brought to my attention.”

Cornyn then asked Holder if he had apologized to Brian Terry’s family.  The exchange that followed showed a coldness and lack of sensitivity that was truly stunning.Holder: I have not apologized to them, but I certainly regret what happened.

 Cornyn: Have you even talked to them?

 Holder: I have not.

***

The two events that Eric Holder is most defined by before becoming attorney general were his key roles while in the Clinton administration in obtaining freedom for members of the Puerto Rican nationalist terrorist group known as the FALN (also known as the Armed Forces of National Liberation).  Holder would later follow that by facilitating a pardon for fugitive billionaire Marc Rich.

In looking back at both of those controversies, the similarities to Fast and Furious now seem eerie.  Holder had proclaimed sympathy for the FALN victims, but only after the terrorists had been released.  He also proclaimed ignorance of both Mr. Rich and the case against him, even though the facts clearly suggest otherwise.

The FALN had conducted a deadly bombing campaign in numerous cities around America during the 1970s and ’80s, setting off nearly 140 bombs that killed six and injured more than 80.  Their most notorious act was the bombing of Fraunces Tavern in lower Manhattan in 1975, which killed four and injured 60 others, some of them seriously.

What slowed the FALN’s reign of terror was the arrest and incarceration of nearly all of the group’s members during the early eighties.  When Eric Holder arrived as deputy attorney general in Janet Reno’s Justice Department in 1997, he quickly took up the cause of freeing the FALN, and it became a near-obsession.

The question of why he was obsessed with freeing the FALN terrorists remains a mystery, one not explored in the lengthy American Thinker article. It should be noted that FALN was a Marxist-Leninist group whose overriding mission was to secure Puerto Rico’s political independence from the United States.

In order to make the offer (of clemency) more palatable to the public, Eric Holder had concocted a plan to have the terrorists express remorse for their actions.  But none of them would accept, and the situation went from bad to worse.  As the days passed and criticism continued, pressure from the Clinton administration intensified for the terrorists to accept the offer.

Finally, on September 7 — a full four weeks after the offer had first been made — all but one member each from the FALN and the Macheteros decided to accept.  Three days later, eleven FALN members were freed from numerous federal prisons around the country.  Within days, both the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to condemn the action.

On January 15, 2009, Senator Grassley (who ended up voting for his confirmation!?) played a tape for Holder showing two of the the “remorseful” freed terrorists constructing bombs:

Senator Grassley began his questioning after the lunch recess.  The hearing room was darkened, and the now-infamous FBI surveillance tape showing now-freed FALN members Edwin Cortez and Alejandrina Torres constructing bombs was shown.

When the lights went back up, Holder told Grassley that “I’ve not seen that video before.”

Moments later, he changed his story, telling Grassley that “I think I’ve seen it in some news accounts in the recent past, like, in the last week or so, something like that.”

Holder then told Grassley that he wasn’t aware of any threats by the FALN towards Judge Thomas McMillen at their sentencing in Chicago in 1981.  For example, FALN member Carmen Valentine told McMillen that “you are lucky we cannot take you right now.”

Holder then told Grassley that “I’m not sure I ever described them as non-violent…it’s a difference between — let’s hypothetically say — murder and attempted murder.”

Did anyone bother to ask why he was obsessed with freeing the terrorists to begin with? As  Kolb recounts in the American Thinker piece, his involvement in the pardons was extensive, but his habit of citing executive privilege whenever his role was brought up, made it difficult for investigators discover the truth.

Back on October 20, 1999, Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions but whenever questions focused on his own role, he  “would either refer to executive privilege — which he did 40 times — or shift the blame for the clemency offer to Mr. Clinton — which he did 15 times.”

 The most egregious and bizarre claims of executive privilege came in exchanges with Senator — and Judiciary Chairman — Orrin Hatch.  The 1996 report from Margaret Love that had recommended against clemency was accidentally released to the committee, and Hatch asked Holder to comment on it.

Holder: The letter should not have been produced. It seems to me that the information contained in the letter is clearly within the bounds of executive privilege.

Hatch: Seriously?

Holder: Excuse me?

Hatch: Seriously, you can’t really believe that.

Holder: Oh, absolutely.

Hatch: Well, we have a copy of the letter. And you are aware that she recommended against clemency.

Holder: I really would not comment on what recommendations were made by the pardon attorney. As I said, I think that falls well within the bounds of executive privilege.

Later, Hatch asked Holder about the 1999 report that he and Roger Adams prepared that effectively replaced the 1996 Love report that recommended against clemency.

Hatch: Did the second report contain a recommendation of whether the president should or should not grant clemency?

Holder: Mr. Chairman, with respect to those questions, it seems to me the answers to those questions are prohibited by the assertion of privilege of the…

Hatch: How? Tell me. I mean, where in the law do you find that?

It should be noted that Holder had fired Love after she’d made that recommendation against clemency. Read the entire American  Thinker piece which also includes the gory details of the Marc Rich pardon – an example of pure corruption – if ever there was one. I’ve barely brushed the surface, here.

Not dealt with was Holder’s role in the heinous and illegal 2000 seizure of Cuban refuge,  Elian Gonzalez,  away from loving relatives in Florida – and tragically returned  to his  Communist father in Cuba.

Newsbusters, on November 20, 2008 as Holder was being considered for Atty Gen,  reported:

As the April 23, 2000 edition of the Media Research Center’s CyberAlert noted at the time, Andrew Napolitano of Fox News charged that the early-Saturday seizure of the then 6 year-old Gonzalez from those who were taking care of him flagrantly disobeyed a ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In response to a question from Fox News anchor Jeff Asman, Napolitano said the following (bolds are mine throughout this post):

The order issued by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals four days ago …. said once the INS chooses the guardian, and the INS chose Lazaro Gonzalez (Elian’s paternal great uncle — Ed.) to be the guardian, and an application for asylum has been made by the guardian, the INS can not change the guardian and that’s exactly what they did here.”

Asman: “So is this executive overreach?”

Napolitano: “This is more than executive overreach. This is contempt of the circuit court of appeals order. This is a high class kidnapping is what it is, sanctioned by no law, sanctioned by no judge…”

In an interview later that morning, Napolitano left Holder speechless (also available in the fourth item at this link):

Napolitano: Tell me, Mr. Holder, why did you not get a court order authorizing you to go in and get the boy?

Holder: Because we didn’t need a court order. INS can do this on its own.

Napolitano: You know that a court order would have given you the cloak of respectability to have seized the boy.

Holder: We didn’t need an order.

Napolitano: Then why did you ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for such an order if you didn’t need one?

Holder: [Silence]

Napolitano: The fact is, for the first time in history you have taken a child from his residence at gunpoint to enforce your custody position, even though you did not have an order authorizing it.

Earlier in that interview, as noted in a different CyberAlert item on the same day, Holder showed that he wouldn’t admit the truth, even when in plain sight:

Napolitano: When is the last time a boy, a child,

When Attorney General Eric Holder recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his role in the Fast and Furious operation, where 2,000 rifles were deliberately “walked” from the United States into Mexico, his answers at times seemed incredible and stretched the limits of believability.

A few months earlier, on May the third, Holder had testified before the House that he had only recently learned of the deadly and disastrous operation.

Holder: “He was not taken at the point of a gun.”

Napolitano: “We have a photograph showing he was taken at the point of a gun.”

Holder: “They were armed agents who went in there who acted very sensitively…”

Here is the Pulitzer Prize-winning photo taken by Alan Diaz of the Associated Press depicting how Elian Gonzalez was “was not taken at the point of a gun” :

Elian, today:

April 5, 2010 – Ten years after his kidnapping and forced return to Cuba, Elian González is now a member of the army that keeps in place the military dictatorship from which his own mother tried to escape.

Elian’s mother gave her life to make sure that Elian was able to grow in a free country, where he was free to study, express his opinions without going to jail, work for whoever he wanted, start his own business if he chose to do that, in other words, live like a free man.

After 5 years of indoctrination, the brainwashed youth told the CBS 60 Minutes interviewer the obvious lie that ‘he never had a good moment in Miami.’

Mission accomplished, Eric Holder.

Tom Blumer at Newsbusters plaintively asked back in November 2008:

Someone should ask Barack Obama if he is at all bothered by Mr. Holder’s inability to even recognize when someone is being taken at gunpoint, and how, among all the possible Attorney General candidates out there, Mr. Holder was still deemed so deserving to be nominated as the nation’s highest law enforcement official.

What difference would it make?

As Ann Barnhardt succinctly notes; psychopaths ‘like Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and all the rest, feel nothing when they lie and thus do it almost constantly. Oaths are something that they laugh at as the domain of stupid religious rednecks. If we don’t acknowledge this plain, obvious truth and stop treating these people as if they are psychologically normal and honorable and presuming that they are honest and bound by any oath, then they will destroy all of us with their lies and deceit. So when we watch Corzine “testify” before the Senate committee, we MUST be wise enough and discerning enough to KNOW that he is lying every single time he says, “I don’t recall,” or “I had no knowledge of that.”‘

She may be a little too blunt for some people, but she’s absolutely correct.

It’s crucial for Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee to understand this basic fact on December 8, when they pose another round of questions to the corrupt, pathological liar who should never have confirmed.

They must know by now that they’re not going to get any honest answers.  It’s time for more Senators and Congressmen to jump on the Eric Holder Resignation Bandwagon.

Hat tip Retired Geezer.