Two and a half years after one of his administration’s Fast and Furious guns killed border patrol agent, Brian Terry, and even as the guns continue to kill Mexican citizens, Obama used his trip to Mexico as a pretext to push for gun control, blaming our lax gun laws for gun violence in Mexico.
“Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States,” President Obama said during a speech at Mexico’s Anthropology Museum. “I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will.”
“But at the same time, as I’ve said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States. It’s the right thing to do,” Obama added.
Are we all supposed to have forgotten about his crooked administration’s Fast and Furious gun running scheme, already? Really?
Well, I haven’t forgotten, and if this president is going to be brazen enough to go to Mexico and blame the US for their gun violence, I’m happy to remind people.
Sharyl Attkisson of CBS reported in December on one of the latest Fast and Furious gun seizures.
Another weapon from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agency’s controversial Operation Fast and Furious was recently recovered at a Mexican crime scene, CBS News has learned. Congressional investigators say the crime scene was likely where a recent shootout took place between reported Sinaloa drug cartel members and the Mexican military, in which Sinaloa beauty queen Maria Susana Flores Gamez and four others were killed.
According to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the Justice Department did not notify Congress of the Fast and Furious firearm recovery in November, even though Grassley has requested an accounting of weapons that surface from the case. During Fast and Furious, ATF allowed more than 2,000 weapons, including giant .50-caliber guns, to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels and other criminals. Other so-called “gunwalking” operations by ATF let hundreds more guns hit the street. Most of them have never been recovered.
The latest known recovery is a Romanian AK-47-type WASR-10 rifle. It was picked up at a crime scene Nov. 23 in Ciudad Guamuchil, Sinaloa, Mexico. That’s the same area and weekend of the shootout involving Flores Gamez’s death. A trace report shows the rifle was purchased by Uriel Patino, the Fast and Furious suspect who allegedly bought more than 700 weapons while under ATF’s watch.
Here’s a common sense reform that I think could go a long way toward keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people.
Californians are turning in for the night knowing that a homicidal maniac is on the loose. Under normal circumstances, during normal times, that would be all anyone needed to know. But in today’s hyper-political environment, it’s become necessary to point out the political affiliationsof every madman in the news because of the media double standard and hypocrisy.
Because we know that if former LAPD officer, Chris Dorner were a Republican, the left-wing media complex would be all over it. If we didn’t know what his political affiliations were (hard left), the media would be pointing fingers at the right because after all, he’s a disgruntled veteran and former cop – heck - he fits the profile of a right-wing domestic terrorist. If it were not known beyond a shadow of a doubt that this guy is a huge Obama supporter, the left would be blaming his murderous rampage on the right.
2/7/13 – The manifesto written by murder suspect and LAPD office Chris Dorner contains some bizarre ramblings about how much Dorner loves media personalities like Chris Matthews, Piers Morgan, and Ellen DeGeneres. Sean Hannity tonight noticed that these details have gone largely unreported in the media, whereas if he had been a fan of right-wing TV hosts, the liberal media would have been eager to report on it to death. Hannity pointed out how Dorner is a big fan of liberal politicians and celebrities, while finding the NRA a deplorable organization. Hannity remarked, “don’t expect to hear much about this on liberal news outlets,” since Dorner appears to be a fan of networks like CNN and MSNBC. Hannity brought on Media Research Center president Brent Bozell to take on the media coverage, or lack thereof, of the manifesto.
Here’s the NY Times story on Christopher Dorner. The authors devote a little space to his “manifesto”:
The 6,000-word manifesto was bristling with anger and explicit threats, naming two dozen police officers he intended to kill. Mr. Dorner laid out grievances against a police department that he said remained riddled with racism and corruption, a reference to a chapter of the department’s history that, in the view of many people, was swept aside long ago.
No mention whatsoever of the political and media commentary that made up a significant portion of his manifesto. Is it relevant that Dorner wanted to smash George Zimmerman’s head in or that he was a fan of MSNBC and CNN? Apparently the Times thinks it is not.
I hope everyone has seen the flashback video of Piers Morgan telling Mark Kelly that Sarah Palin should call Kelly’s wife, Rep. Gabby Giffords, to apologize for her alleged role in creating the “Climate of Hate” that led to the Tucson shooting.
If not, give it a couple of spins while you listen to Morgan whining and crying like a pitiful wretch, now that L.A. spree killer Chris Dornerspecifically named Piers Morgan as one of his inspirations. Time to live up to your own standards, Piers. Get on the phone and start apologizing to the families of Dorner’s victims for your role in the murders. Do it live on the air, and maybe you can squeeze out a few more ratings points for CNN.
Who in there right mind needs a fucking silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one. No more Virginia Tech, Columbine HS, Wisconsin temple, Aurora theatre, Portland malls, Tucson rally, Newtown Sandy Hook. Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!!
Mia Farrow said it best. “Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.”
Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB. Never again should any public official state that their prayers and thoughts are with the family.
If the consequences weren’t so tragic, one could almost find laughable the way in which this guy takes hackish lefty arguments to an extreme. I’m hopping mad about mass killings not being reined in by gun control. So I’ll show you! I’ll commit mass killings with guns to prove my point about how people like me should not have guns!
Funny thing about this new policy of Pier Morgan’s–I mean his not wanting to bring politics into America’s latest mass-murder spree. Because in the past, whenever the CNN host was able to exploit dead innocents and sanctimoniously demand the government restrict our Second Amendment civil rights, he has done so without shame or conscience.
Obama supporters leaving an Obama event at Ohio State University, were asked by Revealing Politics’ Caleb Bonham what they thought of the so-called “obstructionist” politics of the Republicans.
Many of the Obama supporters blamed Republicans and denounced obstructionist tactics. The most ardent activists called for Republicans to cross the isle and help enact Obama’s economic and social policies.
However, when the tables were turned, the interviewees were not so quick to advocate bipartisanship if it meant Democrats helping Republicans enact Mitt Romney’s economic and social policies. In fact, many of those interviewed advocated for obstructionism. Go figure.
The mind-blowing hypocrisy that is caught on tape is just too delicious for words….
By now, it is abundantly clear that Obama’s PAC has no intention of returning trash talker, Bill Maher’s, dirty money, even after the President called the 31 year old reproductive rights activist, Sandra Fluke, in an ostentatious display of fatherly concern over Rush Limbaugh’s harsh rhetoric. Conservatives have rightly called the President out on his gross hypocrisy, but other than her mom, very few have the “absolute moral authority” to confront Obama on the issue, that the young mother, Bristol Palin has.
You don’t know my telephone number, but I hope your staff is busy trying to find it. Ever since you called Sandra Fluke after Rush Limbaugh called her a slut, I figured I might be next. You explained to reporters you called her because you were thinking of your two daughters, Malia and Sasha. After all, you didn’t want them to think it was okay for men to treat them that way:
“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” you said. “I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”
And I totally agree your kids should be able to speak their minds and engage the culture. I look forward to seeing what good things Malia and Sasha end up doing with their lives.
But here’s why I’m a little surprised my phone hasn’t rung. Your $1,000,000 donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about my family. He’s made fun of my brother because of his Down’s Syndrome. He’s said I was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.” (In a classy move, he did this while his producers put up the cover of my book, which tells about the forgiveness and redemption I’ve found in God after my past – very public — mistakes.)
If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager. That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.
Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you. Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women. You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.
But…
Read the rest at Bristol’s blog.
See also, Gateway Pundit,for the video clip from the Bill Maher show she referred to in her letter.
Gateway Punditflagged some tweets from Fluke and her BF which shared the fun-loving couple’s pix of themselves, living it up in Spain and Italy.
It was a lovely getaway for the women’s rights activist and her rich socialist boyfriend.
What a brave woman. How does she manage it all?
Brooks Bayne has much more on Sandra and her very rich boyfriend.
I don’t begrudge a person who has the money to travel the world. We would all love to do that. But what kind of woman launches a media campaign to force a Catholic university to offer birth control coverage against its will, (so women like herself can better afford their birth control needs) when she can obviously afford to go to an expensive school, and expensive vacations in Europe?
Sandra Fluke is the model Welfare Queen for the 21st Century. Upper middle class to start, going to a very expensive (and very liberal law) school on scholarship, and now (as we know from news reports) a tool of the White House media shop. She won’t have kids like the old-style welfare queens. Instead, she will first absorb all the government benefits she can while in school, and then work for a liberal law firm or political organization as a political activist. Or she may become another trusted lieutenant of Eric Holder at Justice. She is a product of the American version of the cradle-through-career indoctrination and career of the old Soviet Komsomol.
Welfare Queen Fluke will never produce anything of value to society. She will fit easily into the industry of regulation, bigger government, and reduced personal freedoms. She believes everything she wants — birth control, abortion, whatever — is an entitlement for which the government must pay. The welfare queens of the 1980s were small-timers. Welfare Queen Fluke and her ilk are an existential threat to fiscal responsibility. Just think about how many thousands of them are graduating this year to enter government jobs or political campaigns. They will be spreading their ideas to all within hearing.
ShePacreleased this outstanding mash-up featuring Bill Maher saying vile things about Republican women (mostly Palin.) while Obama looks the other way. You see, it’s only a “teaching moment” for the whole country when a Republican says something nasty.
Exposing left-wing hypocrisy has never been so much fun.
Kudos to FrankStrategiesfor exposing the breathtaking hypocrisy of these left-wing women in Congress. Neither Congresswoman was willing to condemn Bill Maher for his offensive treatment of conservative women.
Democratic Congresswomen Sheila Jackson Leeand Jan Schakowskyrepeatedly refuse to condemn Bill Maher’s crude comments that former Gov. Sarah Palin is a “c*nt” and a “dumb twat.” They also refuse to call for President Obama’s SuperPAC to return Maher’s $1 million contribution to the President’s re-election effort.
Did you notice how amenable to an interview Shakowsky seemed when the name “Limbaugh” was first brought up? He briefly had her attention – until she saw where he was going with his questioning – then she turned tail and skedaddled.
If it takes private citizens to go out and do the media’s job for them, so be it.
As I keep saying, the cynical Democrat election year ploy of labeling Republican reactions to Obama’s contraception mandate as a Republican “War on Women” is deeply disingenuous and absurd on it’s face. Half of the people who make up the Republican party are women, and (just like the men!), we don’t think it’s the government’s responsibility to pay for people’s birth control. We also think it’s a shocking violation of religious liberties for the federal government to force individuals and organizations to buy a product that violates their conscience. That is what the debate is about. It has nothing to do with women’s rights.
After 30 year old reproductive rights activist, Sandra Fluke, testified before Congress to make the case that religious institutions should pay for her contraception needs, Rush went a little overboard to draw attention to the absurdity of it all.
Since she was basically arguing that someone else should pay for her to have sex – to the tune of $1,000 a year, Rush called her a prostitute and a slut. He has since apologized for stooping to the level of discourse more typical of the left. He really should be above that.
But the left’s outrage over one radio personality’s inappropriate comments and their Stalinesque attempt to drum him off the air must be addressed. The orchestrated anti-Rush media campaign has predictably led to multiple death threats against the popular radio host.Because the unhinged left responds to dog whistles, and for the past week the the Dem Media complex has been blowing the whistle on Rush.
What is the point of the HuffPo publishing pieces like this? The only effect will be to make people complacent about the beating of women in Islam, instead of calling the Muslim community to account and demanding they act to stop this or face prosecution. Does Ariana want Muslim women to get beaten up?
They don’t care. Standing up for Muslim women won’t win them any votes. But attacking conservatives gets the left-wing base all excited.
There has been a war on women in this country, but it’s a war on conservative women as Michelle Malkin rightly notes:
Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent “respectable,” “mainstream” liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator.” It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for “authentic” female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body.”
Some of us have not forgotten when liberal Wisconsin radio host John “Sly” Sylvester outrageously accused GOP Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch of performing “fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee” and sneered that she had “pulled a train” (a crude phrase for gang sex). (Earlier, he called former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a “black trophy” and “Aunt Jemima.”)
Or when MSNBC misogynist Ed Schultz called talk show host Laura Ingraham a “talk slut” for criticizing Obama’s petty beer summit. Or when Playboy published a list of the top 10 conservative women who deserved to be “hate-f**ked.” The article, which was promoted by Anne Schroeder Mullins at Politico.com, included Ingraham, “The View’s” Elisabeth Hasselbeck, former Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann and others. Yours truly topped the list with the following description: a “highly f**kable Filipina” and “a regular on Fox News, where her tight body and get-off-my-lawn stare just scream, ‘Do me!’”
And then there’s the left’s war on Sarah Palin, which would require an entire national forest of trees to publish.
But it’s really not. It’s merely a common, left-wing past-time.
The Media Research Center has been tracking the the left’s hatred and bile for years. That DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz pretends to act shocked and dismayed over Limbaugh’s comment’s, while ignoring the more serious offenses of her allies in the media tells you all you have to know about her true motives.
What is funny is that Schultz’s disapproval came less than two months after she appeared on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” program on HBO. Unconstrained by broadcast decency codes and advertising, Maher and guests lash out at conservative women in some of the nastiest language and sexual imagery imaginable.
In September, 2011, Maher was talking about Texas Gov. Rick Perry and decided to throw in a vulgar Sarah Palin joke: “He sounded like a sixth grader who didn’t do the reading. Garbled syntax, messing up simple facts, sentences that went nowhere. Sarah Palin was watching and she said, ‘If only he was black, I’d fuck him.’”
That was actually pretty mild for Maher. In March, 2011, he called Palin a “dumb twat.” The same month, according to the Dallas Voice, at a public appearance in Texas, Maher called Palin a “cunt” and said “there’s just no other word for her.”
In October 2011, Maher said that if conservative pundit Michelle Malkin were told of how much killing President Obama had ordered without knowing anything else about him she’d “name her vibrator ‘Obama.’”
While some say Maher is a comic who says a lot of outrageous things as part of his routine, he’s a regular guest on CNN.
Beating up on Bachmann
Few conservative women seem to raise the left’s hackles more than Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. The former candidate for the GOP presidential nomination has been called “Barbie with Fangs,” and “Crazy Eyes,” and she’s been accused of being “hypnotized” and “the Mata Hari of Minnesota” by none other than Chris Matthews.
Bachmann has been a frequent target for HBO’s Maher, but also for his guests. In July, 2011, former Air America comedian Marc Maron said of Bachmann’s husband, I hope he fucks her angrily because, because that’s how I would. And I’ve thought about it. I just … It’s a political statement I’m trying to make.”
Liberal radio host Mike Malloy thrilled his dozens of audience members in May 2010 by calling Bachmann a “phony-ass broad” and a “skank.”
Rolling Stone Magazine’s Matt Taibbi penned a 5,000-word hit piece on Bachmann in June 2011. He called her a “batshit crazy” “political psychopath” with a “gigantic set of burnished titanium Terminator-testicles swinging under her skirt.”
If you Can’t Beat ‘em, Slime ‘em
Taibbi has another distinction when it comes to conservative women – back in 2009 he launched an almost unbelievably vile, hateful sexual attack on pundit Michelle Malkin.
In a Tax Day 2009 blog post, Taibbi claimed he was “really enjoying this whole teabag thing” and that “it’s really inspiring some excellent daydreaming” that involved Malkin in incredibly vulgar ways.
“[T]his move of hers to spearhead the teabag movement really adds an element to her writing that wasn’t there before,” he wrote. “Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy, set of balls in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.”
In the same piece, Taibbi said of conservative author Ann Coulter “When you read Ann Coulter, you know you’re reading someone who would fuck a hippopotamus if she thought it would boost her Q rating.”
Keep reading.
A small sampling of left-wing bile was compiled for this video mash-up:
To sum up – there is no Republican war against women. Republican opposition to left-wing policies that left-wing women support does not constitute a “war” in any way, shape, or form. It’s a patently absurd, and transparently deceptive argument for the left to make.
There HAS been a war against conservative women (and conservative blacks) for some time now because we refuse to accept the left’s false narratives. And now, there is also a war against the Catholic church, which is being manifested in actual government policies.
Don’t accept the false narratives of the Democrat media complex.
Limbaugh opened his program today explaining the inside baseball of radio advertising. There is a difference between local advertisers, whose dollars do not go to Limbaugh at all, and national advertisers — like Carbonite. Media Matters — and I debatedMedia Matters’ guy Eric Bohlert yesterday on KQED in San Francisco — deliberately misleads, and knows it, since it surely understands the difference in revenue streams between local and national advertisers.
Limbaugh also announced that new national sponsors are lining up to replace those who left — and notably, that there are at least two who want back in. In fact are “begging” to do so.
MORE evidence (as if it were needed) that Democrats are not serious about improving public discourse:
Eric Allen Bell was a regular blogger for the “Daily Kos” until he was recently banned for the crime of writing three articles that ran afoul of the mindset there, specifically naming “Loonwatch.com” as a “terrorist spin control network.” He is currently producing a documentary entitled “Not Welcome” that is about the backlash against construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in America’s Bible Belt.
Recently two extraordinary articles have appeared at the Daily Kos — extraordinary because, to the rage and dismay of many of that site’s commenters and regular readers — they depart from the standard Leftist line that Islamic jihad violence has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, even if jihadists invoke Islamic texts and teachings to justify that violence, and that only greasy Islamophobes think otherwise.
The articles are “Loonwatch.com and Radical Islam” and “How and Why Loonwatch.com is a Terrorist Spin Control Network,” both by Eric Allen Bell, who is so far from being a “right-wing Islamophobe” that he made a documentary about the “Islamophobia” supposedly being suffered by the proponents of a huge new mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee — and is far enough to the Left to get space to write at the Daily Kos.
Yet Bell had the intellectual honesty to make this entirely true observation about the hate and defamation site that is the subject of his pieces: “But for LoonWatch.com any criticism of the Koran or of violent Jihad – even those criticisms that might have some legitimacy to them – even of radical Islam, are branded as Islamophobia and anyone who dares to raise questions about the nearly constant acts of Jihad going on increasingly around the world today is labeled a ‘Loon’ – thus the title of their blog, LoonWatch.com.”
Here is the complete Glazov Gang video, in case you’re interested – it also featured Nonie Darwish (Author, The Devil We Don’t Know) and Mark Tapson (Shillman Journalism Fellow):
Another great video by Granny Jan- this one highlighting the gut-wrenching hypocrisy of the Obamas who tell everyone else to “sacrifice”, while living life high on the hog, themselves:
UPDATE: Video removed from YouTube by user due to pressure from Obama minions. (Attaaaaaack Waaaaatch). Janice, AKA Granny Jan commented:
Sorry, Deb. The Obama people told the photographer at the Aspen Times that I used his photos of MO skiing. I got them from the Daily Mail UK.
He made remarks on my video. I don’t know why he tipped his hand but I immediately removed the video before You Tube did causing me serious problems. I assume he wan’t sitting watching You Tube videos all day so I know it was the Obama campaign. Everyone is using the photos. I’m honored that they would pick on little ol’ me Janice
With the economy on its knees, many American families have had to forgo their annual holiday just to make ends meet.
But barely a month after returning from a luxury Christmas break in Hawaii Michelle Obama is on holiday again – this time at the exclusive Colorado ski resort of Aspen.
The first lady, who just returned last month from 17 days of relaxation in Hawaii, is skiing in Colorado on Presidents’ Day Weekend for the second year in a row. Last year she went to Vail.
Michelle’s decision to ski out West again instead of hitting slopes closer to Washington would seem an inopportune choice for a first lady who is helping her husband campaign on issues of “fairness.”
The Obama campaign has set itself up as the defender of the poor and the middle class against the “One Percent,” a theme which clashes with the image a first lady who is taking frequent and exclusive vacations.
Just last August, she sojourned on Martha’s Vineyard, and the month before she travelled to southern Africa for a trip that mixed official business with tourist outings like an African safari. In July 2010, she took an exorbitant excursion to the southern coast of Spain, flying out with friends and family on a large jet that often serves as Air Force 2 and then staying at a ritzy hotel.
What’s more, as the government struggles to cut the deficit, the symbolism of a first lady jetting out to Aspen with a security entourage at taxpayers’ expense to ski would seem to send the wrong message about cutting back on spending.
By keeping track of the First Ladies exorbitanttravel expenses,The Daily Mail is doing the work no one in the mainstream media, here, is willing to do:
When I saw the video of US soldiers urinating on Taliban corpses, the other day, I was neither shocked, nor outraged. I did think it showed a certain lack of discipline, and I wondered why the soldiers would videotape themselves doing such a thing and then post it on YouTube. That turned out to be a very bad move.
Media Matters appears fixated on a mission to try and silence the free speech of Big Journalism editor Dana Loesch, while also engaging upon a campaign to somehow damage her with CNN. True to their Leftist origins, it never seems enough for them to disagree, or even take offense, at someone, or something, they invariably resort to attempting to silence them. Such thuggish tactics have no place in media, least of all in America.
Here’s what Dana said:
“Now we have a bunch of progressives that are talking smack about our military because there were marines caught urinating on corpses, Taliban corpses. Can someone explain to me if there’s supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who, as part of an organization, murdered over 3,000 Americans? I’d drop trou and do it too. That’s me though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say? Come on people, this is a war. What do people think this is?”
As a response, a number of left-wing media outlets, most notably Politico, have drummed up more phony indignation than they’ve ever been able to summon against anything the monstrous Taliban have done to our troops or to innocent Afghans.
CNN hired Loesch, a co-founder of the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition, to join the “Best Political Team on Television” in February of last year. “I’m excited to be working with CNN and am appreciative of their efforts to showcase diverse political thought on their airwaves,” Loesch said at the time. “I look forward to the discussions.”
CNN, which has looked to bring in voices from across the political spectrum, also prides itself on being positioned in the center of the more ideologically driven Fox and MSNBC networks.
But here is where Byers reveals his true agenda:
I’ve reached out to CNN to ask for their response to Loesch’s comments, andwhether or not it will have any impact on her role at CNN.
The emphasis there is mine but the subtext is all Byers, and how painfully obvious that subtext is. Byers is pushing to have Dana taken off the air or punished. But his true agenda is something bigger than that. What Byers and Politico really want is for Dana to be marginalized and her conservative voice silenced. This is obvious for two reasons. First off, what Dana said is completely defensible (especially in an era where Bill Maher, Whoopi Goldberg, and Michael Moore are cherished as MSM talking heads), and secondly, I know the Media Matters/Color of Change playbook when I see it.
I, like most people, understand on a purely intellectual level that what the soldiers did was wrong, and think they should be punished for it. But on a more human -emotional level, I not only don’t fault these soldiers, like Dana, I sympathize. They deal with these savages on a day to day basis and have seen their comrades blown to pieces by them. War is hell, especially in a backwards and barbaric country like Afghanistan where there are much worse atrocities going on than corpses being peed on.
Media outlets that have nothing to say about those atrocities, yet react to soldiers urinating on corpses like it’s one of the worst crimes against humanity ever witnessed, need to have their outrage meters recalibrated. Something is clearly wrong, there.
I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.
All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?
The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.
As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.
You think Bill Maher was a hero after 9/11 for saying terrorists are brave, and Dana Loesch is a villain for insulting them. (He agrees with her on this one, BTW.)
You insist you don’t sympathize with terrorists, but you fly into a rage when somebody insults them.
Your reply to criticism of Obama is “Oh yeah, well, who killed Bin Laden?”, but you become furious when Bin Laden’s pals are humiliated.
Let this be a lesson to everyone: If you want to pee on a dead terrorist, first wrap him in an American flag. Then Keith Olbermann, Eric Boehlert, and other leading lights of liberalism will cheer you on.
My entire point of the past two days was to highlight the absurd reaction from militant troop-bashers to these Marines. In my Twitter timeline yesterday progressives called our military “killers, kids, barbaric trash, murderers …” The only time soldiers are celebrated by the left is when they engage in protests like OWS. The rest of the time they’re demonized. They get the red carpet rolled out for them, too.
And let’s not forget how lefty bloggers like Markos Moulitsas feels about dead American military contractors. His excuse for his “screw them” comment? He was angry about soldiers getting killed. You know what? So am I. But I blame the people who are trying to kill them–not the people they are trying to protect. And I won’t condemn American soldiers on the battlefield.
This is nothing but an exercise in situational, exploitative outrage, and it completely proved the point I was making. The phrases “defile” and “desecration” popped up in my replies on Twitter every minute or so. If “desecration” is a concern for progressives, where was their outrage when the remains of over 200 Air Force members were dumped in a landfill? I’ve seen more outrage towards our troops over this incident than I have ever seen towards the Taliban themselves who’ve beheaded soldiers (American and Afghan), raped and tortured women, sent out suicide bombers, and carried out horrific attacks.
Occupy Wall Street attacks income inequality and the richest 1 percent, adopting as its slogan ”we are the 99 percent.” In October, its protesters staged a ”millionaires march’ ‘in New York City, parading to the homes of wealthy citizens such as Rupert Murdoch and David Koch. But only some riches bother the Occupiers, who have ignored the massive wealth of celebrities in their own ranks.
The top 25 richest celebrities supporting Occupy Wall Street, according to the website Celebrity Net Worth, possess a combined net worth just over $4 billion.
While JP Morgan and Chase banker Jamie Dimon (worth $200 million) was one of the targets of the ”millionaires march,” he has a net worth less than five of the celebrities supporting OWS.
Here’s the list of the 25 richest celebrities supporting #OWS:
1. Yoko Ono – $500 million
2. Jay-Z – $450 million
3. David Letterman – $400 million
(tie) Stephen King – $400 million
5. Russell Simmons – $325 million
6. Sean Lennon – $200 million
7. Mike Myers – $175 million
8. George Clooney – $160 million
9. Brad Pitt – $150 million
(tie) Don King – $150 million
11. Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) – $145 million
12. Jane Fonda – $120 million
(tie) Miley Cyrus – 120 million
14. Al Gore – $100 million
15. Roseanne Barr – $80 million
(tie) Deepak Chopra – $80 million
17. Kanye West – $70 million
(tie) Dan Rather – $70 million
19. Alec Baldwin – $65 million
(tie) Matt Damon – $65 million
21. Tom Morello – $60 million
(tie) Mia Farrow – $60 million
23. Katy Perry – $55 million
24. Michael Moore – $50 million
(tie) Susan Sarandon – $50 million
Total: $4.1 billion
It makes you wonder how many of these one percenters have put their money where their mouths are by donating to “the cause”. Because a great many of these occupations are rat-infested sh*tholes where occupiers subsist in disease-ridden squalor. And now that winter is upon us, occupiers could use donated funds to warm their tents.
A couple of weeks ago, I interviewed a KC occupier who was pan-handling in the cold for money to buy kerosine. When I asked her what she was trying to accomplish by being there, she answered that she would like to see the minimum wage increased.
She then told me that she had lost two jobs because they couldn’t afford the labor, prompting me to ask: “How do you think increasing the minimum wage will help with jobs if employers are letting people go because they can’t afford the labor?”
-
No I didn’t donate any money because I don’t support the cause in any way, shape or form.
-
But those #OWS-supporting celebrity fat cats sure could.
Via Breitbart TV, it appears at least as far as some protesters are concerned, capitalism is A-okay as long as they’re the ones doing the money grubbing.
The expression is that “A picture is worth a thousand words”.
This one is the ultimate intellectual expression of the American Left. In it, one sees the contempt that they have for other people’s achievements, and those who help perpetuate society by safeguarding those achievements and keeping the peace. Any discussion of the inconvenient truth that no matter WHO leads it, Marx/Commu/Socialism will never work is wasted on people who can find eloquence in excrement. They are blind to a political and economic system that allows the individual to “pursue happiness” by taking responsibility for their own destiny, rather than being yoked to a collective standard chosen by other people.
I have had exchanges with some of the #OWS (Occupy Wall Street) supporters this week on Twitter. All condemn the “greed” of Wall Street, while being completely blind to their own envy and sense of entitlement to what these “evil” greedy people have. They rail against corporations for their lack of “accountability to the people”, and refuse to acknowledge that corporations answer to their shareholders and the government, and were designed that way, instead of focusing their attentions on the people who were always intended to be accountable to them: elected officials.
They tell their sob stories of hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt for their MFA degrees and living in parents’ basements, unable to get food stamps for their cats, or jobs that allow them to pay back their student loans. Each adds their plaintive voices to a chorus of whiny stories that call themselves “We Are the 99%” as opposed to the evil, greedy 1% of rich people who they feel entitled to “take” from. I’d call them “We Are The Falsely Entitled”. They talk about “new” economic models where workers have a say in how businesses are run, and how they have to “collapse the system” in order to build a society that is “fair” and doesn’t pick winners and losers, which is utter nonsense. If society didn’t pick winners and losers, then you should be able to go to the corner store and purchase an ice cold Chrystal Pepsi for yourself. They are immune to the suggestion that it is reasonable and understandable to be angry about a government that picks winners and losers, when its role is to act as referree.
This insistence on “fairness” is the expression of the naive and those blinded by envy, both of whom are eminently willing to surrender a potential that they have been tricked into thinking that they do not have, or that they are too afraid to command for themselves, to people only too willing to harness for their own ends. In either event, their childish notion of “fairness” pervades their demands and beliefs. A fairness that betrays opportunity for a physical equality, doled out by beneficent “rulers” who decide what is best for all and make it the assigned task for society.
But what I find the most offensive is that this segment of society, clinging to their Noam Chomsky readers, talking about the need for greater Democracy everywhere, and approving of every new law made by activist federal courts over the last 40 years utterly rejects the Democratic apparatus we already have. It is urgent to “collapse the system” because “The Corporations” make all the choices for them, leaving the voter with only Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee when the time comes to cast the ballots. When you point out the flaws in this thinking, such as the success that the Tea Party had in backing and electing candidates in 2010, they only offer the electronic equivalent of a blank stare, followed by “That can’t be right. I saw all about the Tea Party is bad on MSNBC.”
When you suggest that if they really are the 99%, then it should be any problem for them to field and elect their own candidates, the only response is mumbling about corruption. And when you suggest that they simply don’t have the right to “collapse” a system that everyone else in society relies on, and has built their lives around, then they don’t have much to say at all, other than to condemn you as one of the 1% or as someone being led by the nose by that 1%.
As ridiculous as they appear to be, their ignorance and their appetites are dangerous. This is a mob that largely has no understanding of civics, of their political history, both the one that is their birthright, and the one they stupidly embrace, and yet believe that society can and should provide them with a life free from want, difficulty, or hard labor. They demonstrate no understanding that the democracy they cry out for is, at its core, only what 50%+1 wants, or that without safeguards for the minorities that are part of the system they want to collapse, they will inevitably be part of the 49%. While I don’t want to spare them the impact of learning that lesson firsthand, I do not want to live in the environment that would teach them, because revolutions are messy, and the temptation for the rest of the world to interfere is too great. That means that we HAVE to engage them, and let them know that they are nowhere near being 99%, and that the only reason this has gone on this long is because the rest of us had to get up and go to work in the morning.
Sergeant Schultz was giddy because when Union boss James Hoffa said he wanted to take out those sons of bitches in the tea party, he was “spot on!”
Schultz proceeded to make some truly absurd remarks about how there was nothing wrong with what Hoffa said because of things previously uttered by conservatives such as former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann.
I guess he forgot about all the calls for civility in political discourse – including from himself! – following the tragic January shootings in Tucson.
Missing his own hypocrisy, Schultz actually told his viewers that President Obama’s poll numbers are down “because liberals in many parts of the country are very frustrated that nobody in the White House is talking like James Hoffa.”
Yeah, he really said that.
Note, he even took time to slam the Republican “young guns” ( Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan) because “young guns” is somehow a troublesome nickname, while glorifying Hoffa’s violent rhetoric.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Schultz brought Hoffa on via satellite to ask the burning question, “Do you think the Republicans are sons of b—hes?”
Hoffa responded, “Well, I think they are if they’re trying to take away food out of the mouth of working people.”
Well yes, that’s the thinking man’s answer. Of course middle class tea partiers (who work for a living, too) “want to take food away from the mouths of working people.” That makes perfect sense.
-
After listing off a litany of tea party offenses from wanting to take away public union “collective bargaining rights” (guilty!) to “basically (wanting to)take away their pensions” (make modest cuts), he declares, “that’s a BAD person!”
-
You can count me among the legions BAD persons and SOBs out there who aren’t down with the Obama/big labor/CPUSA agenda.
Janice
