Right-Wing Ex Icelandic PM Indicted for Causing 2008 Economic Crisis Wednesday, September 29 @ 03:57:32 UTC by default
Right wing ex-Prime Minister of Iceland Geir Haarde has been indicted (on a 33-30 vote) for "failing to prevent" the 2008 economic crisis. Iceland's response to the crisis was to nationalize it's largest financial institutions. Sound familiar? I would just love to hear the measures liberal Icelanders claim would have protected them from the crisis. Perhaps if they nationalized every bank?
It seems liberals all around the world think it's ok to use the justice system to lock up people they don't like. If this guy is convicted, can the U.S. sue Iceland for Icelandic "incompetence" that exacerbated the problem here? If he's convicted, will liberals in the U.S. stop blaming George Bush and point to a man convicted in a court of law to be responsible? ... Yeah right.
You know, the question I love to ask liberals when they bitch about the evil Republicans who caused the crisis by "deregulating" the economy is, "In your opinion, what particular piece of Republican legislation contributed the most to the financial crisis?" Of course almost every single person I ask that question has no response to it. Usually they just dance around the question and pretend that it's not important enough to answer. Oh, but there is an answer that does fit the liberal propaganda, only one answer; it's called the "Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act". The first person I remember pointing to it as a cause for the crisis was CNN's Anderson Cooper in a segment called "Culprits of the Collapse". I had some commentary on Cooper's take back when it first aired, you can read that here. Essentially the act allowed banks and insurance firms to merge. Before this a waiver was given on a renewable temporary basis to allow these sort of mergers. So far, I haven't had a single liberal come back at me with this fact, none of them know. It's only the left-wing pundits and academics who keep it in their back pocket for debates. But when the day comes that a liberal actually does throw it back at me, I can't wait to hear the answer to my next question, "Which merger that took place because of this act was the primary cause for the financial crisis and what evidence can you provide to back it up?" Of course, I have not heard a single person answer this question anywhere. Furthermore, Barack Obama's financial reform bill did not repeal the act! It remains in place today, ready to cause more financial disaster in the near future no doubt.
Better wise up folks. Liberals are about power and nothing else and they'll use whatever dirty trick they can use to get it.
Left-Wing Eco-Terrorist Assaults Discovery Channel HQ Wednesday, September 01 @ 16:43:36 UTC by default
Suspect, James Lee has taken hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland. He is believed to be holding what is being called a, "dead man switch"; a trigger that is set to detonate a bomb in the event of his death.
Lee had a published manifesto at savetheplanetprotest.com but you will probably find that the site is either overwhelmed by traffic or has been taken offline. You can still view the contents of Lee's manifesto via Google cache here. In the case that the Google cache is wiped, I have made a copy of it here.In 2008, Lee told a Maryland newspaper that his crusade began after losing his job in San Diego, reading "Ishmael," a novel by Daniel Quinn and after watching Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."
Here are some of the low-lights from Lee's manifesto:
The Discovery Channel and it's affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn's "My Ishmael" pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other's inventive ideas. (does this sound familiar to anyone else?) Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. ...Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed!
All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs' places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.
Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed.
Find ways so that people don't build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!
Saving the Planet means saving what's left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!
Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what's left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.
The humans? The planet does not need humans.
The suspect has been shot by police and is now in custody. All hostages survived, they are currently being checked for injuries.
Fox News has just confirmed that the suspect has died from a bullet wound he sustained from police while he was pointing his gun at one of the hostages and threatening to kill them.
Looks like Lee got his wish; 1 less human to pollute the planet. He was right about one thing, some humans are trash. Good riddance and good work Montgomery County P.D.
Times Joe Klein: Beck and Palin are Guilty of Sedition Monday, April 19 @ 03:51:20 UTC by default
OK folks, we've got the whole enchilada here. According to MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Time Magazine's Joe Klein and New York Magazine's John Heilemann, not only are right-wingers who speak out against the Obama regime enemies of the state but we're also racists and terrorists. One would be inclined to think that you'd be hard pressed to find a single person you'd be able to accuse of being guilty of all of these evils all at the same time - but these three are able to find it in over 50% of the U.S. population!
I think it's high time we started rounding up these wackos and put them into camps don't you?
By the way - Could you imagine what they'd do to Sarah Palin if she had written down the dictionary definition to a word on a napkin?
What ever happened to the idea that 'dissent is patriotic?' I guess that only applies if there's a Republican in office.
Do you remember how hard Matthews had to work to get Michelle Bachmann to say something about the Democrats surrounding Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress that even remotely resembles what the three on this panel are now so proudly and openly accusing non-elected pundits and citizenry of?
Obama Set to do Something ... Good? Wednesday, March 31 @ 00:30:59 UTC by default
Now this is news. The press is leaking that the White House is considering lifting some of the bans along the Atlantic coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to allow drilling for oil and natural gas.
It's about time we had some good news around here.
Fox News Radio is reporting that the proposals for opening up drilling on the Alaskan coast have been rejected.
The Fight is ON! Tuesday, March 23 @ 23:38:26 UTC by default
TALLAHASSEE (AP) - Republican attorneys general from 13 states are suing the federal government to stop the massive health care overhaul, claiming it's unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was filed immediately after President Barack Obama signed the overhaul bill Tuesday. It names the U.S. departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is taking the lead in the lawsuit. Attorneys general from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Louisiana, Idaho, Washington and Colorado are joining in. Other GOP attorneys general may join the lawsuit later or sue separately.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Pensacola.
Now hold on a minute, Obama. I'd sure appreciate it if you'd be a little more polite to the American people.
Are we a socialist nation or are we a free nation? One of the key battles that will put an end to this question once and for all may be fought in Texas. I couldn't be prouder to be a resident of the Lone Star State than I am today.
I think they were wrong when they said that the health care bill would be Obama's Waterloo. Obamacare is the ALAMO. 2012 is Obama's Battle of San Jacinto.
For the First Time in My Life I am Ashamed of My Country Monday, March 22 @ 08:15:26 UTC by default
I wake up today in a different land. Not the land of the free and the home of the brave whose life, liberty and pursuit of happiness my grandfather, my father, myself and so many others swore and gave our lives to protect but in a land whose freedom rich elitist politicians sold away amidst shady deals in the heat of the night despite the valiant efforts of the vast majority of the American people who tried to stop it. The men and women of Congress who once sent me to war to defend my country have corrupted it from within. Today if I lay down my life for my country there is no honor in it. Today if I go to war for my country - it’s just a job.
As a Tricare recipient who provides for a family I must now consider my options. I have been told that Tricare is not an Obama approved health care plan even though it is the one given to me and my family by the military. But why should I play by the rules when the Democrats have just finished wiping their collective asses with my Constitution? There is no honor left. This administration and the leftists in this country have made it clear that they do not care what we think. They only need us for our money and then they’ll use it to rain a shit storm on us. There is no reason to continue to heed the government who refuses to follow its own laws and yet assumes to dictate to the people what products we must buy. It sorta reminds me of that old conspiracy flick, THEY LIVE!; We are now mandated consumers. Today I expect that health insurance stocks will skyrocket as the insurance companies begin considering rate hikes on their new captive customer base. They have yet to find out however that because the cost of purchasing health insurance is higher than the fine for avoiding it and because they can no longer deny us care under any circumstances - there is no reason for any sane person to purchase health insurance until the very second they get sick. Mark my words as millions of people choose to 'opt out' of this 'historic' new plan. But Our Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama isn't stupid after all. He knew this would happen and when it does he will step in with emergency fixes that will cement the left's claim to power in this country and will seal the deal with America to bring single payer to her powerless citizens.
But all is not lost. I am a citizen of the Great State of Texas who's Governor, last year announced staunch opposition to federal mandated socialized medicine; "I agree with Texas' 7th Governor - and I happen to think it's greatest governor; Sam Houston who once said, 'Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression come from what source it may. We didn't like oppression then, we don't like oppression now!" I was afraid this day would come and I remembered what my Governor said. That is why I voted for him in the Republican primaries. Now is the time to keep your word, Governor. While the rest of the Union
of the United States spends itself into oblivion, Texas has hardly been touched by the recession and the clear reason is because Texas maintains a competitive business friendly environment. My friends and neighbors in Texas believe in the right to bear arms and we believe that our government has no authority to force us to buy a damned thing. Last night following the vote on the health care abomination my Governor made this statement:
"Unfortunately, the health care vote had more to do with expanding socialism on American soil than it does fixing our health care finance and delivery systems. The Obama health care bill undermines patient choice, personal responsibility, medical innovation and fiscal responsibility in America."
"As passed by the U.S. House, the bill will cost Texas taxpayers billions more, and drive our nation much deeper into debt. Congress's backroom deals and parliamentary maneuvers undermined the public trust and increased cynicism in our political process."
"Texas leaders will continue to do everything in our power to fight this federal excess and find ways to protect our families, taxpayers and medical providers from this gross federal overreach."
Today, several other state governments who still believe in liberty are filing lawsuits against the Federal Government of the oppressive United States of America. I stand in solidarity with those in other states who hold liberty dear and plan to fight, with my forefathers who fought and died for it, the founding fathers who never intended this to happen, my friends, my neighbors and my Governor in Texas when I say:
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he planned to file the complaint "the moment Obama signs the bill."
Abbott pledged to pursue the case "to protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government."
March 23, 2010 - Update:
A friend of mine told me about this link at Tricare that says that Obama has deemed Tricare hopey-changey enough to keep the health care police from paying you a visit if you don't get additional coverage. The assurance is on this is coming primarily from the White House so personally I'll believe it when I see it in concrete, but for those interested: How does the National Health Care Reform affect TRICARE?
Eric Massa Wednesday, March 10 @ 18:42:01 UTC by default
I only have one thing to say about Eric Massa (D - NY).
The Democrats are in the process of destroying this person because of some sort of inappropriate touching that went on between him and a member of his male staff. No sex, no discrimination - just inappropriate touching. We are to believe that the fact that he was going to be a 'NAY' vote on Obamacare is a completely unrelated issue.
The same people who are in the process of crucifying Massa also went to the mat defending a married president who had sex with a college intern in the Oval Office of the White House and then lied about it repeatedly under oath.
It is only too clear that the Democrats' true concern in both cases is politics - not ethics.
HuffPo: Scrap Nuclear Arsenal to Fund Obamacare Sunday, March 07 @ 02:28:07 UTC by default
In response to an article the Washington Post put out yesterday outlining decisions the Obama administration is facing regarding the future of missile defense, the HuffPo - ever the giants of analytical intellect, offer the following:
"... A reader would also search in vain for any talk of a "fiscal crisis" or a need to balance nuclear weapons priorities with available revenues. That same reader, of course, rarely has to venture past the first sentence of a health care reform story to find that the subject is a "trillion dollar overhaul." (Oh hold on, it gets better.)
They go on to note a proposal from Representative Blarney Frank (D Mass.) regarding what is being called the triad (Sends shivers down your spine doesn't it?) of warhead deployment systems; ground launched ICBMs, submarines equipped with nuclear missiles and nuclear bombs/missiles designed for deployment by stealth bombers:
Frank told HuffPost. "My radical proposal is that we say to the Pentagon that they can pick two of the three, and let us abolish one."
The article closes with this pearl:
"The amount that could be saved by cutting any of the three is likely much higher than the two largest ways Obama has identified to pay for health care reform..."
At the end of the HuffPo article is a poll: "Which one of the "triad" nuclear delivery systems should the U.S. eliminate?" So far, 27% of HuffPo's readers have chosen "All of them."
Aside from the vast differences in the costs of the two programs - around 29 billion dollars a year spent on nuclear weapons and Obamacare expected to cost upwards of 1 trillion dollars over 10 years (that's 100 billion per year for those of you from Rio Linda) - what could possibly go wrong?
Repo Men Wednesday, March 03 @ 22:18:19 UTC by default
Looks like a pretty good flick doesn't it? I think I might go see it. Every once-in-awhile I like seeing a good action flick. Good special effects, a little ass-kicking, witty one-liners - it'll get me all pumped up.
But we could easily replace the cliche 'evil corporation' in this story for an evil government. A government that says that you have the right to health care and gives you everything for free - that is until your life depends on it. Then they take you to stand before the board of the "Health Care Fairness Assurance Commission" and they decide your fate by a majority vote. How old are you? The time you have left might not be worth the investment. Some politicians on the board would rather give an old guy a pill rather than allow them into an already overburdened system. Are you disabled? You may have a long life ahead but you might not have the ability to contribute much to the greater good of society. If you've already served out your 8 years in the Citizen Corps there's even less incentive to give you the thumbs up. Are you a supporter of 'The Party'? A Party man might be given leniency. Yeah, you used to be able to go across the border and pay to get your treatment if the board gave you the thumbs down, but when droves of people began pouring out of the country to avoid the long wait just to stand in front the the Fairness Committee they outlawed that. These days if you're on the waiting list and they catch you trying to cross the border the Federal Bureau of Population Retention tracks you down and volunteers you for the organ donor program.
Naaa, that wouldn't make a good movie. It's not historically accurate. Historically it has always been the businesses that become corrupt, tyrannical and end up exploiting the people. Like in North Korea, China, the U.S.S.R., Cuba, Iran, North Vietnam, WWII Germany and Japan, the European dark ages...
Huh? Of course we all know there is no historical context for this whatsoever! It has always been the government that fills this role and throughout history never once has business had this kind of totalitarian power! As a matter of fact the truth is the complete opposite of the common narrative! It is impossible for a business to have this amount of power without the blessing and the legal enforcement of the government. And in a free market system that welcomes competition a competitor with a customer friendly business model would quickly run any such abusive 'corporation' out of business. In this case again, only the government that has the power to reinforce a monopoly and perpetuate a business that would otherwise fail (like Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, AIG, General Motors, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs...) could make the existence of such a business even possible.
But isn't the fact that this film is coming out right now, right as the Democrats are about to Rahm through health care legislation that will pave the way to total government control of health care industry just a little convenient? Could it be that Hollywood is in bed with the government and is putting out propaganda pieces just at the right time in order to promote a system that is more than a little controversial?
Naaa, couldn't be.
March 4, 2010 - Update:
Wired magazine has also taken notice of this curious coincidence and tends to agree with my assessment of the timing of this film's release. As a matter of fact, they say that Universal Pictures sped up the release date for the film because of the worsening economic circumstances. They refer to Universal's move as 'good capitalism' which I guess I can buy as long as you are including crony-capitalism in the general use of the term. Wired of course being a mainstream zine written by mainstream elitists also appears to buy the baseless narrative of the film and signs on to the idea that 'corporate greed' is the cause of all ills. It is one of life's common grotesqueries, isn't it, that often times the people pushing the notion of 'corporate greed' belong to a corporation of some sort.
The Obligatory Atheist Agenda Article Tuesday, March 02 @ 17:35:49 UTC by default
So I was walking around on campus today and I came across this huge gathering that looked like a political protest. This is my school - of course I want to know what is going on so I walk up and engage one of the bystanders. We quickly pieced together that this is the local infamous “Atheist Agenda” student organization performing their regular claim to fame, “porn for bibles – smut for smut” in which they trade any sort of religious text for a piece of pornography. Much controversy has surrounded this group and I have engaged them before.
Those of you who know me or know anything about who I am, know that I am an atheist but I find these people to be extremely irritating. My argument goes like this, “An atheist believes in nothing. There is nothing to preach and no reason to preach it unlike the religious person whose purpose is to save someone’s soul.” In other words, an atheist has no higher purpose to “evangelize” as a religious people do. Aside from that, it’s counterproductive; if your goal is to win support for your cause, you don’t begin your presentation by spitting in the faces of your audience. Regardless of what your argument is, if you begin in this manner it is very likely that your audience will write you off before it is even heard. The display of disrespect is evidence that the argument is disingenuous. If they are promoting atheism for the betterment of mankind, they would be better salesmen. If on the other hand, their goal is only to make a spectacle and belittle the opposition – well who cares how many people you actually convert? Say anything you want.
As an atheist, I have no desire to convert anyone to atheism. There is no heavenly reward for me if I do so and regardless of what people may want you to believe, we are not a persecuted group who deserve unequal protections. As a matter of fact we have a vast amount of societal and legal defense considering the minority of our numbers.
Once I realized who these guys were, I dismissed them as the sideshow they are and began to walk away passing a much smaller and much less attention-getting group of religious students there to rebut the atheist students.
Now this is the other side of the argument. The way I react to these people goes like this; “I take it as a compliment. It’s like being hit on by a gay guy. Of course I’m not gay but you have to appreciate it when someone tells you that they're attracted to you.” The compliment in this case being that they are taking the time to try to save you from eternal damnation.
So the guy starts talking to me, starting off with the usual arguments about the complicated nature of the world and the historical evidence for Christianity. I let him give his spiel, answer his questions and then give him my spiel. It was relatively peaceful, as it usually is and we ended having a respectful disagreement, as we usually do. As I am about to walk away, another Christian guy walks up and engages me much more aggressively; challenging my philosophical beliefs (he was attacking my belief in an objective reality) and attempting to put me on the defensive. Meanwhile the leader of the “Atheist Agenda” guys walks up and engages the aggressive Christian guy that was talking to me. This put me in the hilarious position of being the neutral voice between opposing ideological factions.
The atheist guy starts off with the usual scientific and historical evidence against religion as well as a bit of religious nonsense like the story of Adam and Eve. The two get into it and I inject that they are both setting up straw man arguments; the atheist has inconclusive science and objectivity on his side (you can never disprove religion as you can never prove a negative) and the Christian has faith and some historical evidence on his side and neither one of them has any willingness to accept the other side of the debate. I then proceeded to accurately predict what the next argument of both sides of the debate would be (and angrily, they both proceeded to use the points I predicted) and they both castigated me and made known that my opinion was no longer wanted. The Christian actually stated that I was “making him angry”. At this point I gracefully dismissed myself.
Despite the rather mundane nature of the event I actually learned something. I always say that one of the reasons I decided that I did not believe in god was because my belief would have been selfish; I would have been following a religion out of a fear of damnation, rather than taking a leap of faith as an honest believer. I deemed this selfish and completely contradictory to an honest relationship with a deity who says that we must commit ourselves with the faith of a child.
The people who do honestly follow with the faith of a child; something I call, “true faith” are very rare and when I meet them, I am overcome with respect for their honest commitment. These are the people who don’t go around looking for debates and if somehow end up in one, simply state, “I follow God because he tells me to.” Period. A person who has real faith needs no justification and needs no answer to the controversial questions surrounding his religion. That is why it is called faith! But this Christian, angrily threw me out of the discussion in order to make a much-made point to a militant atheist whose only purpose is to get in his face! I quickly realized that this particular christian’s goal was not any sort of higher purpose, his goal was to make himself feel superior by attempting to defeat the argument of the opposition, which was exactly the same purpose as the belligerent atheist! A person with true faith would not need to bolster their beliefs by engaging in such activities. Why waste time with militant opposition when you have friendly bystanders and others to engage that you could actually score points with?
After exchanging pleasantries and walking away, I saw the two as opposing sides both of whose stated purposes were false! This sort of behavior comes as expected from self-righteous, militant, adolescent atheists who believe in the populist and stereotypical image of the persecuted atheist but I expect more from the self-proclaimed “man of god”.
When I arrived at my destination I noticed the student newspaper whose headlining article covered the event and provided me with another piece of information, “Inside this no-man’s-land, a third party began to form, composed of proclaimed agnostics asking for peace. ‘Well, we don’t really believe in either side. We believe both foster hate,’” (Note the key use of the word “hate”. One would only use the word, “hate” in this way in order to cast those the word is directed at as evil, thus is a act of taking sides [Yes, you can create a side and proclaim it to be neutral, although, a true neutral party would not take a side would they? The true purpose of this stance is to oppose the other two factions and proclaim superiority. 3 groups all asserting superiority over the other – which to choose?] – or to use a descriptive word, a display of partisanship.)
Yet another organization devoid of higher purpose getting involved and claiming to be above the fray. Like myself I suppose, but I am not protesting (nor protesting the protest). All parties have the right to be there, the right to speak and believe whatever they want to believe. My purpose is to share my experience with you so that you might have more information to dump into your decision making process, regardless of what you believe, as you would like or you would not be reading this. Your religion or lack of religion is not my concern.
Keep on Trollin' Atheist Agenda
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
College is a place where young people solidify their personal beliefs and one of the best ways to accelerate that process is by means of the competition of ideas; butting heads with those of opposing viewpoints. Overall, that is what went down here. But the problem I have is not with the challenging of ideas but with the with fact that many of the people involved did so with malicious intent. If I am a religious person and I am challenging my own personal beliefs through debate with others, my motivation is to refine my understanding of religion or spirituality, and that is a positive, constructive motivation. If on the other hand, I proclaim myself to have arrived at the ultimate conclusion that there is no god and then I proceed to slander religion as a whole and personally attack those who believe in it, my motivation is not the refinement of my own personal values, nor is it for the benefit of others, as mentioned previously, atheism, regardless of what your beliefs are will save the soul of no one. So the motivation is negative; to attack those with opposing viewpoints. By the same token if I proclaim to be a faithful follower of a god and that my purpose is to spread his word or to save other people from eternal damnation, then that is a positive motivation. But if I neglect those who are there seeking a constructive discussion on religion or spirituality in favor of a spiteful argument with a partisan critic, I bypass that positive purpose in exchange for the same purpose as the militant atheist, as stated earlier; personal gratification through the rhetorical destruction of one's political enemies.
But not everything is as it seems here. The kids with the "Atheist Agenda" would probably say that they are countering persecution by religious people and that (ridiculously) they are trying to gain acceptance by society. But if they are so firmly set in their beliefs and feel so persecuted that they must go out and commit outrageous religious blasphemies and slander religion and religious people in an attempt to gain acceptance in the world, why would they only do it in such a proper setting; a college campus? If I were a member of a group that was being persecuted, I would be protesting city hall, the state capitol and the White House. Peaceful college demonstrations are for young people who are trying to refine their own personal beliefs and not for those who have a real beef with the world. Maybe these self-proclaimed atheists aren't as certain of their beliefs as they claim to be.
On an academic note - because this is a college after all, are these people not classic examples of the attention-starved child who will do anything - including outrageously bad behavior in order to garner some attention? What do you bet most of them come from dysfunctional families?
My takeaway here is this; Don't go around challenging the personal beliefs of strangers (especially religious beliefs) if you aren't absolutely certain of your own beliefs and if you must do so, try to do it without insulting them. What business is it of yours what other people's religious beliefs are anyway? There is no better place in the world to be for freedom of religion. Let's keep it that way.
Perhaps the true meaning of the latest bumper-sticker phrase, "coexistence" lies not in the denigration of those who we perceive as hindering our peaceful "coexistence" (by having opposing opinions) but rather in those of us who go about our duties every day without feeling the obligation to butt into other people's personal lives.
March 5, 2010 - Update:
This is how the kids with the 'Atheist Agenda' student organization summed up their last day trading religious text for porn:
"The last day proved to be the most productive out of any of the days. Most people finally learned that we were there to be civil and actually discuss things and the porn was a mere ice breaker."
"Ice breaker?" Yeah, right. I've got another great idea for y'all to use to engage passers by in meaningful dialogue; hurl dog shit at them. It's sure to attract some attention. As I noted before, the whole thing was nothing more than a childish ploy for attention.
Debra Medina, 9/11 Truther Thursday, February 11 @ 19:19:30 UTC by default
Glenn Beck interviewed Miss Medina this morning and following mass allegations by critics, decided to ask her the question on the air to give her the chance to vindicate herself.
She chose the wrong answer.
Beck:Do you believe the government was in any way involved with the bringing down of the world trade centers on 9/11?
Medina:I don't have all of the evidence there Glenn so I'm not in a place - I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There's some very good arguments - and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there so I'm not taking a position on that.
This is Miss Medina's response following the Beck interview:
I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.
The question surprised me because it's not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans. This campaign has always been about private property rights and state sovereignty. It is focused on the issues facing Texans. It is not a vehicle for the 9-11 truth movement or any other group.
The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government. I think the fact that people are even asking questions on this level gets to the incredible distrust career politicians have fostered by so clearly taking their direction from special interests instead of the people, whether it's Rick Perry and his HPV mandate or Kay Hutchison and voting for the bank bailout. It is absolutely the right and duty of a free people to question their government. Texas does not need another politician who tells you what you want to hear, then violates your liberties and steals your property anyway. I fully expect to be questioned and to be held accountable as Governor, and that's the underlying issue here: should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be.
Regarding the response, I must agree with Ed Morrissey from Hot Air, "No, the question wasn’t whether people “have the right to question our government.” No one is locking up Truthers for asking foolish questions and spinning conspiracy theories." I doubt you will find anyone, especially on our side of the isle who believes that the people should not have the right to openly disagree with their government. But believing that they are responsible for the mass murder of 3000 citizens is an entirely different thing indeed.
Now I have a lot of things I could say about Debra Medina. I actually met and briefly interviewed her in person. As followers of this blog may be aware, I am involved with the Tea Party movement and many of us have been on the fence about Medina; some people quickly embraced her and others like myself have been more reluctant. I will tell you what I told them.
I met Debra following a Tea Party event that basically gave her a forum to speak followed by a Q&A session. I did like her, she shares most of my values but something about her just didn't sit right with me. She seemed not to want to take a position on illegal immigration and the tone of her speech had the flavor of what I like to call a "Ron Paul Republican."
Don't get me wrong, I support Ron Paul but he has denied allegations that the U.S. government had anything to do with 9/11. He is sympathetic to his supporters, many of whom are 9/11 truthers but he himself is not a 9/11 truther. So as for Paul let me just say that while I wouldn't support him for President, I am a staunch supporter of having him in Congress.
When I get the chance to speak to a politician I'll ask them one or two controversial questions to find out if they will give it to me straight or if they are going to play politics. If they dodge the questions I can be reasonably certain that most controversial topics will be dodged and that I'll have to be more creative to get my answers. I've found that while most politicians stick to the safe issues and usually only give canned answers, often the campaign crews they travel with are less prepared and will be more open and so if my questions are dodged I will try to speak with the campaign team. Debra answered my questions like a seasoned politician.
Alex Jones Interviewing Debra Medina
After speaking with some of Medina's people I was able to substantiate the fact that her strongest supporters come from the Ron Paul, 9/11 truther side of the Republican and Libertarian camps. Some of them were very active prior to the Obama administration and were strong critics of George W. Bush, the War on Terror and involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, the de facto leader of the 9/11 truther movement and "New World Order" conspiracy pusher, Alex Jones, has endorsed Debra Medina as his candidate. Miss Medina apparently believed that Jones was credible enough to grant an interview to.
To my friends, I sum up the situation like this: The U.S. is in a recession, the Democrats are gobbling up freedoms and raising our taxes and in this world of instability and uncertainty I think we need tried and true leadership. I appreciate Medina and what she says but I didn't know who she was, she has no record, no experience and like Barack Obama only had a lot of flowery rhetoric to back her up. I don't think now is the time to experiment.
Now that her views have been exposed, I doubt Medina will have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican primaries. I'm certainly an anti-government guy but believing that the U.S. government played any role in 9/11 is over-the-top to me. As far as I'm concerned its no different than believing in the global warming religion or in any other emotionally formed, baseless belief. The world isn't a dramatic soap opera and everyone isn't out to get you - even the Democrats. But there are serious issues at hand and we need a serious leader to deal with them.
Robert Gibbs Needs Crib Notes to give Press Briefing Tuesday, February 09 @ 15:14:04 UTC by default
White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs apparently needed a little help performing his duties today and so like some of the racist, redneck simpletons we all know - decided to write down what he needed to say on his hand.
The notes most likely weren't used for the Obama followup, for which he used prepared remarks, but for the Q&A session that followed, during which he glanced at the hand in question.
But in my opinion that's even worse.
The takeaway is that this press secretary apparently can't remember his supposed core principles or even his daily duties and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about his opinion.
Crib Notes? This Obama White House press secretary and spokesman for "hope and change", and "the one we've all been waiting for" was using crib notes to answer basic questions?
This would mean:
A) That he knew the questions beforehand and the whole thing was a farce. (Likely.)
B) That he still couldn't answer the previously agreed-upon questions without a little extra help.
You can bet that Tony Snow wasn't reading scribbles off his extremities while he sparred with Republicans and Democrats in an unscripted format during his press briefings.
Gibbs, on the other hand, seems to need a cheat-sheet just to get through a contrived lovefest with smitten liberal journalists.
I'm no fan of the progressive movement - if it can be called such - but if this is their leader's spokesman I actually sympathize with them.
Click here for the large resolution uncut image of Gibbs & his crib notes.
Fox News caught on to this and blew up the picture. Notice the "hope" and "change" scribbled on his hand. This is likely a joke aimed at Sarah Palin.
Fox News had to steal my thunder :) No worries. Looks like a funny, yet partisan and somewhat unprofessional joke from the spokesman. Huff&Puff hypocrisy still withstanding :)
It finally all comes together. Gibbs mockingly read the notes off of his hand during the press briefing to make a point of making fun of Palin. These are the guys who are ready to negotiate on health care. Yeah, I believe it.
The HuffPo said the following about Palin and her notes, "this presidential contender apparently can't remember her supposed core principles and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about her beliefs", "was using crib notes to answer basic questions" and "seems to need a cheat-sheet just to get through a contrived lovefest." Our actual President on the other hand, Mr. Obama who apparently can't speak to 6 year-olds without using a teleprompter, is the most articulate and intelligent man ever to set foot in the White House.
Palin was participating in a speech / discussion event with her supporters. One can hardly condemn a person engaged in such an event for writing 6 words on on her hand, President Obama on the other hand, rarely engages in any public discussion without his teleprompter. To condemn Palin for 6 words and defend the President for reading his every word is boundless hypocrisy.
The HuffPo also accuses Palin of engaging in a prepared Q&A session onstage, condemns her for it and says that it is even worse than using notes for a speech. Lest we forget...
It was none other than the Huffington Post who engaged in a prepared question and answer session with President Obama during a White House press event! So for the Huffington Puffington Post to be condemning anyone for engaging in answering prepared questions is absolutely incredible.
Honestly though, this comes as no surprise from the bigots at the Huff Post who couldn't see the forest through the trees if you air lifted them above it to show it to them. One of the things I find interesting about the HuffPo is that every time any article is written about Sarah Palin, whether it be this one or about her daughter's ex-fiance or about her latest pair of shoes, it is immediately overrun with comments. Sarah Palin is not a public official at this time. Why all the anger? But of course, you and I already know the answer to that...
I hate to have to agree with a guy like Rahm Emanuel, but some of the liberal activists who come up with of these blatant smear attempts are just "F-ing retarded."