Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Juan Williams: Tea Party, Timothy McVeigh, 'Don't Tread on Me'

Hey! Juan Williams!

DON'T TREAD ON ME!




From Matthew Balan, the Media Research Center:

On Monday's O'Reilly Factor on Fox News, NPR news analyst Juan Williams furthered the left's talking point about the tea party's supposed connection to militias, and even went so far to claim that the Gadsden or "Don't Tread on Me" flags used by the conservative grassroots movement is "the same imagery that was on Timothy McVeigh."

Williams made this preposterous claim during a panel discussion with the Weekly Standard's Mary Katharine Ham 25 minutes into the 8 pm Eastern hour. O'Reilly asked the NPR analyst about a point made by Fox News's Brit Hume in an earlier segment, that there's double-standard in the mainstream media in the amount of coverage of extremist imagery and language found at tea party rallies has been given versus equivalent imagery and language used at left-wing protests: "There's no doubt that the media will seize upon any kind of misbehavior on the right...Whereas if it happens on the left, it will, as Mary Katharine [Ham] said, be de-emphasized or ignored entirely. So that's a corrupt media system, isn't it?"

The guest raised the militia issue at the end of his answer:
WILLIAMS: I think we're out of context here. If we're talking about- you know, somebody going after Ronald Reagan- you know, one guy who's in love with Jody Foster, okay- if we're talking about that. You know, people who have a lot of hatred- hateful attitudes towards President Bush, and then somebody who is extremist on the fringe, yes. And if that was also to be then the case with the tea party, yes, that's too much and unfair. But, when you start to see militia groups start to associate with the tea party, when you see the flag-

O'Reilly then interjected and replied, "Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let me stop you there. I haven't seen militia groups associating with the tea party." Williams continued with his bizarre flag point:
WILLIAMS: Oh, let me tell you something, the flag- the tea party flag is now- you know, for example, they use the same kind of imagery-

O'REILLY: The 'Don't Tread on Me' flag?

WILLIAMS: Yeah, the one with the snake- that's the same imagery-

O'REILLY: Well, that's from the Revolutionary War.

WILLIAMS: No, no, no. But it's taken away- it's taken away- obviously, it's not the same flag. It's not the flag that you see flying up in the New England states. It's a separate flag- it's a new flag that they have created. But it's the same imagery that was on Timothy McVeigh, you know? I mean, this is the kind of thing that's worrisome to me. I don't see how you can get away from it.

O'REILLY: Oh, come on, Juan. You are smarter than that. You can't possibly think the tea party is taking any cue from Timothy McVeigh. That's suicide.

Balan goes on to give Willliams a history lesson of the three "Don't Tread on Me" flags dating back to the American Revolutionary War. He provides instances of the use of the Gadsen Flag (seen above), including by our military following 9/11.
[T]wo branches of the U.S. military have used the "Don't Tread on Me" flags. The First Naval Jack has been flown on all U.S. naval vessels since the first anniversary of 9/11 in 2002. Marines flew the Gadsden Flag in over Kandahar, Afghanistan's airport shortly after its capture in 2001, and more recently in Helmand Province. But according to Juan Williams ludicrous reasoning, they must have been inspired by the Oklahoma City bomber.

Balan also notes that Nike uses "Don't Tread on Me" and the image of the coiled snake to promote the U.S. Soccer Team. Watch Nike's video here.

For a long time I had the Gadsen Flag on the sidebar of this blog. I used the image as a button linking to a post on the White House blog, "Facts are Stubborn Things." I used the red and white striped "Don't Tread on Me" flag in a 2006 post about the Muslim world protesting our liberties and those of the Western World, specifically free speech. In other posts, I've written "Don't Tread on Me" to exemplify how I cherish my rights as an American.

I used "Don't Tread on Me" years before there was a Tea Party movement and Barack Obama was in the White House.

I had no idea that utilizing historic American flags was a sign of association with fringe, violent militia groups. I certainly didn't use the flags as an endorsement of Timothy McVeigh or any anti-government organization. I abhor the use of violence.

I'm absolutely certain that the U.S. military didn't use the flag to signal its support for McVeigh. Nike isn't branding the U.S. Soccer Team as Timothy McVeigh wannabes.

Good grief. What is Williams thinking?

Now it's off limits to display a flag that symbolizes our freedoms as Americans, the founding of our nation, and the Revolutionary spirit?

Because Tea Party protesters display the flag, that's a sign of their solidarity with militia groups?

That is so offensive.

It degrades the patriots that created the United States and the patriots of today.

This incessant smearing of the Tea Partiers really has reached unacceptable levels.

It wasn't enough for the Left to call them part of an Astroturf movement. It wasn't enough to label them as racists and bigots of assorted varieties. Now, they're of the same mind as Timothy McVeigh. (You can tell by the flags.)

These assaults by Juan Williams and those of his ilk are totally out of line. It's wrong to belittle these Americans and use Saul Alinsky tactics in an attempt to stifle and destroy them.

DON'T TREAD ON ME!


DISCLAIMER: My use of the slogan "Don't Tread on Me" and the image of the Gadsen Flag is not an indication of my affiliation with anti-government militia groups nor is it a sign that I admire Timothy McVeigh.

I'll be sure to clarify from now on. I don't want to be mistaken for someone interested in the violent overthrow of the government. I'm not a Bill Ayers fan.

Video.

Joy Behar, Jay Leno, and Glenn Beck (Video)

I had the misfortune of seeing Joy Behar on Tuesday's Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

She delivered her usual shtick in that grating voice.




Transcript

JAY LENO: I heard Glenn Beck was talking about you on his show.

JOY BEHAR: Oh, yeah, Glenn Beck. I can't take a man who cries. I mean, it's enough on my wedding night I had to watch that, you know what I mean? Not again.

But um, he does, he talks about me. I'm on his list of 'I hate Glenn Beck.' It's like being on Nixon's enemies list. I loved it. But, I mean, I don't hate him. I don't hate him.

LENO: Let me ask you a question. Would you have him on your show if he said I would like to come on?

BEHAR: I would have him; first have him neutered and spayed, and then yes. But, you know, if I could take this moment...

LENO: No but see that's, you see this is the great thing, this is the great thing about when you have a show like this, you can't say, 'Oh, I don't like that bastard. He's a son of a bitch.' 'Should we book him?' 'Yes. See if you can get him on the show.'

BEHAR: Oh, yeah.

LENO: 'Cause you have to put it aside. Like a lot of times, I have people on I don't agree with but this is not a bully pulpit. You give everybody...

BEHAR: It's just show biz. It's show biz.

LENO: It's show biz.

BEHAR: But you know what? If I could take the opportunity to tell Glenn -- which is my camera? -- 'cause I'd like to say...

LENO: They're all your cameras.

BEHAR: I don't hate him and I want him to know that. Where is it?

LENO: Right there.

BEHAR: Over here? OK. Glenn, listen, I don't hate you. Sincerely, Glenn Beck, from the bottom of my heart, I don't hate you. I don't give a flying f--- about you.

That was so scripted, which makes it even worse. This was a total ratings/promotional ploy.

So many F-bombs have been flying lately.

Leno and Behar both know that the clip will get a lot of attention and they'll benefit from the publicity.

Beck will probably address it. Other talk show hosts may play the sound bite, and NBC obviously wants it circulating on the Internet.

All involved win.

But as for the coarsening of the culture, we lose.

Listecki: Pope Benedict, Clergy Sex Abuse, and the Media

At the end of the Chrism Mass on Tuesday evening at the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist, Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki delivered a statement defending Pope Benedict XVI, commenting on the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy, and addressing the victims of the clergy sex abuse scandal.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:


Listecki drew applause for a wide-ranging statement in which he apologized for the sex abuse scandal, reached out to victims and spread the blame for the mishandling of the Murphy case, citing Milwaukee church officials, civil authorities and the journalists who first brought victims' stories to light.

He said the church is indebted to "those brave victims" who have come forward to tell their stories, often "after decades of feeling ignored."

"Because of their persistence and perseverance, we know the church has changed," Listecki said. "We owe these victims-survivors our deep gratitude, and we acknowledge our own actions have not always expressed that gratitude adequately."

Benedict has been widely criticized in recent weeks for his handling of clergy sex abuse cases in Europe and Wisconsin in what's been described as the most serious crisis of his papacy.

Documents made public last week as part of a Wisconsin lawsuit show that the Vatican's top doctrinal office, led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, declined to defrock Murphy after being asked by then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland to do so in 1996. The decision was first reported by the Journal Sentinel in 2008 but drew international attention last week when lawyers in the case released the latest records to The New York Times.

...Church and civil authorities have known of the allegations against Murphy at least since the 1970s, though he never was charged. Authorities said no charges were filed because the statute of limitations had lapsed, though victims dispute this in some cases.

Read the full text of Archbishop Listecki's remarks.

He's very clear in his apology to the victims of clergy sex abuse.

He doesn't offer a weak non-apology apology. He acknowledges that the Church, not just the abusive priests, was in the wrong. He identifies the extreme suffering of the victims.


He also shows his support for Pope Benedict.

Listecki said:


As a bishop, a priest, and as a man of faith, I apologize to anyone who has been a victim of clergy sexual abuse. This crime, this sin, this horror, should never occur, especially by a priest. Those who committed these crimes and those, including some bishops, who didn’t do everything in their power to stop it, go against everything the Church and the priesthood represent. For those actions, I offer my sincere apology.

So many people have suffered – first and foremost victims and their families. Because of the actions of the few priests who committed these crimes, all of us continue to suffer today.

This past week our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has come under criticism for the way he has handled past cases of clergy sexual abuse of minors, including a case here involving Lawrence Murphy. The allegations against him, as well as the facts supporting him, are widely available.

The Holy Father does not need me to defend him or his decisions. I believe, and history will confirm that his actions in responding to this crisis, swiftly and decisively and his compassionate response to victims/survivors, speak for themselves. The Holy Father has been firm in his commitment to combat clergy sexual abuse; root it out of the Church; reach out to those who have been harmed; and hold perpetrators accountable.

...Mistakes were made in the Lawrence Murphy case. The mistakes were not made in Rome in the 1996, 1997 and 1998. The mistakes were made here, in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, by the Church, by civil authorities, by Church officials, and by bishops. And for that, I beg your forgiveness in the name of the Church and in the name of this Archdiocese of Milwaukee.

...Even though some do not want to hear it or accept it as truth, mistakes were made by law enforcement, medical professionals -- even reporters who helped bring initial stories to light and grappled with how to deal with perpetrators. We have ALL learned so much.

Some people find fault with Listecki's apology. It's still not enough.

I really think no apology, no financial settlement, no punishment will ever be enough to satisfy some.

It's not enough for the Journal Sentinel.


...In Tuesday's remarks, Listecki did not elaborate on how reporters who covered the story were to blame. And he appeared to extend an olive branch to victims, who complained Monday that they were being vilified by the pope and Catholic hierarchy. It was unclear, however, whether he had softened his stance against meeting with SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, which has been seeking an audience with him. Listecki has said he would meet with individual victims but not the organization, which he sees as having a political agenda.

I think the JS is offended.

Listecki didn't blame reporters for the scandal. He pointed out that mistakes were made by many people.

The scandal wasn't adequately addressed by Church and civil authorities. The stories of abuse weren't always handled well by the media. Obviously, the scandal wasn't fully exposed and stopped.

I think he's right. Lots of mistakes were made along the way.

The language used in this article, by Annysa Johnson, questions Listecki's sincerity. She writes that "he appeared to extend an olive branch to victims."

"Appeared"?

"APPEARED"??

No. He did extend an olive branch to victims -- again.

Johnson notes that "it was unclear, however, whether he had softened his stance against meeting with SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests."

"Softened his stance"?


So unless Listecki meets with SNAP as a group, then he's not reaching out to victims?

That's an unfair charge.

SNAP does have an agenda -- revenge. It's not justice. It's not healing. It's not reconciliation. It's revenge.

Listecki will meet with victims, but not SNAP, the political organization.

I think that's reasonable. Why must he have a meeting with SNAP? If activists really care about victims, then they should be satisfied that the Archbishop is offering to talk with the victims.

SNAP doesn't speak for all the people who have suffered because of the scandal.

SNAP is assuming an Al Sharpton type of role in this matter.

Just as Sharpton appoints himself the spokesman for African Americans, SNAP is the self-appointed representative of abuse victims and the self-appointed judge and jury over the Church.


Mary Guentner of Wauwatosa, who was abused by a Catholic nun in the 1970s, said Listecki was sending a mixed message, first that victims are politicizing the issue, and now they're brave and courageous.

"They're very kind words, but we hope they result in some action," said Guentner, who waited in the receiving line to ask Listecki if he would meet with SNAP as a group.

I don't think Listecki is sending a mixed message. The fact is some victims are politicizing the issue. That doesn't mean that victims haven't been brave and courageous. Moreover, not all victims are of the same mindset.

I don't know what "action" Guenter is hoping to see from Listecki.

The Church has taken action. It continues to apologize. The Church, meaning all its members, is already paying enormous sums of money for the horrible crimes of a very few. We'll be paying out much more to victims.

In short, the Church has responded, and will continue to respond, in word and deed.


The few worshippers willing to speak after Mass said they were pleased that Listecki addressed the issue and maintained their faith in the church and Benedict XVI.

Johnson goes on to take a swipe at the worshippers. She sounds as if she's disturbed that most didn't want to be interviewed.

I can understand that. It's Holy Week. They just attended the Chrism Mass. I wouldn't want to talk to a reporter.

I don't think their silence should be interpreted as a lack of concern about the issue. I don't think it's an indication of hostility toward the victims or the Church leadership or the media.

Maybe they just want to focus on Holy Week.

Terri Schiavo: Five Years Later


Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo
December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005


Today marks the fifth anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death.

She died after her family lost a prolonged, contentious battle for her right to live. Terri's parents, Mary and Bob Schindler, lost their precious daughter, and her siblings, Suzanne and Bobby, lost their beloved sister.

What haunts me about Terri's death is that she was not terminally ill. She was not dying. Michael Schiavo successfully fought in court to have his wife starved and dehydrated to death. She was sentenced to die.

On
Nightline, March 15, 2005, while Michael Schiavo was on his media blitz to win over public opinion, he said:

"Terri will not be starved to death. Her nutrition and hydration will be taken away."


Unbelievable.


For me, that statement sums up the twisted lies of the Culture of Death proponents and the brutality of Terri's court-sanctioned murder.

There was so much disinformation disseminated about Terri's condition, before and after her death.

The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, a group dedicated to "Helping Families Fight for Those Who Cannot Fight for Themselves," provides straightforward answers to
frequently asked questions about Terri, her life and death.

These facts are important in understanding the wider social ramifications of Terri's death:

Was Terri dying?

No. Terri suffered from no terminal disease or condition and her cognitive disability did not jeopardize her life in any way. She was simply a physically healthy woman with a brain injury.

Was Terri brain dead or in a coma?

No. Brain death is not a catch phrase used to describe a persons condition but rather an authentic medical diagnosis determined when respiration and other reflexes are absent. Coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment. Terri was neither brain dead, nor was she in a coma.

Were there any machines keeping Terri alive?

Absolutely not. Contrary to media reports, Terri did not require life sustaining equipment such as a ventilator. The only thing keeping Terri alive was the same thing that keeps every one of us alive – food and water.

Was this an “end-of-life” issue?

No. Terri’s case should not be confused with legitimate end-of-life cases in which patients are terminally ill and imminently dying. As already stated, Terri was neither ill nor dying.

Was Terri in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. Despite Judge Greer’s ruling, and in keeping with the 40 medical affidavits submitted to the court, all evidence proves that Terri was not in a PVS. Terri’s behavior and ability to interact with her surroundings did not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state.

Did the autopsy prove that Terri was in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. The autopsy was unable to determine whether or not Terri was actually in a persistent vegetative state. In fact, on three separate occasions, the report stated that an autopsy is unable to determine if a person is in a persistent vegetative state because the person must be alive in order to make such a diagnosis. The autopsy did prove that that, prior to Terri's death, she was physically healthy and would have lived a long life had she not been dehydrated over a period of two weeks.

Were Terri’s parents able to make any decisions regarding her medical care or well being?

No. From 1993 until her death, Terri’s parents were not allowed to participate in her care. As guardian, Michael Schiavo had 100% control over Terri. He refused to allow her parents to help their daughter in any way. In fact, during the final weeks of her life, Terri’s parents were informed that if they so much as tried to give her a drop of water, or provide comfort care in any way, they would be arrested by the armed police officers who guarded her room 24 hours a day.

Was Terri receiving any rehabilitation in the years prior to her death?

No. Terri was essentially warehoused and abandoned from 1992, when Michael Schiavo ordered all rehabilitation and therapy stopped, until her dehydration death in March of 2005. This was in spite of the fact that countless doctors said Terri’s condition could have improved with continued rehabilitation and therapy – and that her condition had been improving while she was receiving therapy.

Why did the court allow Terri to be killed?

Permission to starve and dehydrate Terri to death was granted based on hearsay evidence that surfaced almost eight years after her collapse, alleging that she wanted to die.

Did Terri have an advance directive?

No. Terri had no written advance directive that indicated her wishes. The court allowed her to be killed based only upon hearsay evidence provided by Michael Schiavo, his brother and his sister-in-law – ignoring testimony by Terri’s biological family and lifelong friends to the contrary.

Was there money involved?

Yes. A trust fund of nearly $800,000 was established and earmarked for Terri’s rehabilitation and therapy, with Michael as the inheritor in the case of Terri’s death. Tragically, the bulk of this money was instead used to pay Michael Schiavo’s attorney fees in his quest to end her life.

Did the court recognize the money Michael Schiavo stood to inherit as a conflict of interest?

No. In fact the court failed to acknowledge that not only was Schiavo’s monetary interest a conflict, but that he had moved on with his life, was engaged to be married to another woman, and already had children with the other woman. In short, his role as guardian was rife with conflicts of interest.

Did Terri have her own attorney?

No, she did not. In fact, the judge in this case defaulted as her guardian/attorney.

Was it appropriate for Congress to step in to assist in Terri’s case?

Absolutely. Congress has every right to pass laws that prevent the deaths of innocent persons.

Was this a private family matter?

No. Michael Schiavo chose to take the matter out of the realm of privacy by introducing it to the courts in 1998. It was Terri’s family who reached out to Congress for help in saving her life. Michael had essentially already started a new family with his fiancĂ© and children.

What did the law passed by Congress actually do?

It gave Terri the right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due process rights had not been denied. This is the same right given to all prisoners on death row.

After Terri died of dehydration on March 31, 2005, President George W. Bush remarked:
I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life.

In Terri's case, there were serious doubts and questions. Nonetheless, she was sentenced to death, an agonizingly slow-motion execution. That atrocity happened even though we had a pro-life president in the White House.

Now, of course, we have Obama in the White House, the most radical anti-life president to ever occupy the Oval Office.

On February 26, 2008, in Cleveland during a Democrat primary debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, candidate Obama invoked Terri Schiavo.

Nat Hentoff wrote a piece about that for Jewish World Review.

In none of the endless presidential candidates' debates has there been a meaningful discussion of the rights of disabled Americans. However, in the Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, Barack Obama casually and ignorantly revealed his misunderstanding of the basic issue in the highly visible and still-resonating official death sentence of a disabled woman, Terri Schiavo. I have repeatedly called her death the result of "the longest public execution in American history."

When moderator Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton and Obama if "there are any words or votes that you'd like to take back ... in your careers in public service," Obama answered that in his first year in the Senate, he joined an agreement "that allowed Congress to interject itself (in the Schiavo case) into the decision-making process of the families."

Obama added: 'I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."

When he was a professor of constitutional law, Obama probably instructed his students to research and know all the facts of a case. The reason Congress asked the federal courts to review the Schiavo case was that the 41-year-old woman about to be dehydrated and starved to death was breathing normally on her own, was not terminal, and there was medical evidence that she was responsive, not in a persistent vegetative state.

So if Obama had the opportunity to take back a vote he cast in his years in public service, it would be the one he cast to offer a disabled woman the right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due process rights had not been denied, the same right given to all prisoners on death row.

Obama said, "I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."

Clearly, Obama is on the wrong side when it comes to promoting a Culture of Life and safeguarding the civil liberties of the weak and vulnerable.

Obama actually regrets voting to grant Terri the right to a federal review before being sentenced to death. He regrets having voted to support Terri's right to due process. I find that extremely troubling.

Obama's regrets about granting Terri Schiavo due process and his attitude about the value of her life are even more disturbing given the passage of government-run health care.

Ezekiel Emanuel, one of Obama's top advisers on health care and brother of Rahm Emanuel, takes this stance:

[Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

People like Terri won't stand a chance of receiving treatment or being treated with dignity when health care becomes rationed by the government. They will be denied services because funds are limited. The disabled and the elderly lose under ObamaCare.

Terri's dramatic experience deeply touched so many people, even though nearly all of us were witnesses from afar. For me, her story helped clarify the value of life and what I consider to be our moral obligation to protect the weak and disabled. Her devoted family's desire to care for her and their efforts to save her life were truly inspiring.

Terri's story is a lesson in love.

The struggle for life to prevail, when engulfed in a Culture of Death, is a challenging but morally imperative endeavor.

When speaking of his sister's plight, Bobby Schindler recalls the words of Thomas Jefferson: "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

Obvioulsy, Obama is no Thomas Jefferson. We've already seen the energy Obama puts into his assault on the dignity of human life. Our work to counter his extremist agenda will be more difficult but more important now than ever.

Although today is a sad day, we can honor Terri's memory by continuing to work to build a lasting Culture of Life; keeping in mind the words of Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, that "an attack against life is an attack against God."

On this fifth anniversary of Terri's death, I pray that her parents, her siblings, her other family members and her friends find comfort and peace.

_________________


Prayer in Remembrance of Terri Schiavo

Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life,
And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.

I know that life is always a good,
and that it never loses its value
when it is beset by weakness or injury.

Lord, thank you for the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo.
Even in her suffering and death
She revealed Your glory
and truth that life is always sacred.

As I remember Terri, I also commit myself
to be active in the pro-life movement,
And never to stop defending life
Until all my brothers and sisters are protected,

And our nation once again becomes
A nation with liberty and justice
Not just for some, but for all,
Through Christ our Lord. Amen!


_________________

Observe Terri's Day, March 31, 2010.
_________________

Here's a statement from Wisconsin Right to Life:
"We remember it as if it was yesterday," said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "For weeks, we mobilized thousands of Wisconsinites on behalf of federal legislation to prevent Terri's death. Right-to-life organizations throughout the nation were doing the same. As a result, the U.S. Congress and President George W. Bush courageously saw to it that federal legislation was enacted to allow the Schindler family access to the federal courts to plead for the life of their daughter."

In a series of acts of raw judicial power, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ignored the mandate of Congress to take into consideration Terri's rights in a federal court proceeding. Also ignored was the Schindler family's desire to care for their beloved daughter in their home. The Court seemed determined to end the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo regardless of the rule of law or the norms of justice. From that point on, Terri was denied food and water and after thirteen excruciating days, her body succumbed to the horrific effects of starvation and dehydration.

Armacost continued, "When Terri died, we remembered all of those who stepped forward to advocate for her - Governor Jeb Bush, Florida legislators, the U.S. Congress, President Bush and the one lone voice on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit who understood what was happening and dared to dissent with this colleagues. We gave thanks for those who traveled to the hospice where Terri lay to keep vigil as the starvation progressed and those who came forward to champion her cause."

"And we prayed for a country that had lost its moral compass and allowed a helpless woman to die of starvation and dehydration while her worth as a human being was being debated. We also prayed for Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, that he would one day recognize what he had done and ask forgiveness for the death of his wife. Those prayers continue to this day."

"We will never forget you, Terri! The joy of eternal life is yours as you rest in the loving arms of your Lord and Maker."

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Obama, Lauer, and Tea Party Movement (Video, Transcript)

In what was billed as an EXCLUSIVE interview with Matt Lauer, Obama lied about the Tea Party movement.

Maybe he didn't intentionally set out to deceive, so technically he didn't lie. Maybe he's just ignorant. It's hard to say.

Obama has knowingly and repeatedly lied to the American people. Of course, he's also displayed his ignorance on plenty of occasions.

So I'm not sure how to label his statements about the Tea Partiers.

Is Obama lying again, using the Leftist propaganda NBC/MSNBC news outlet and mouthpiece Lauer as tools?

Is Obama clueless about the roots of the Tea Party movement?

It started on the morning of February 19, 2009, on CNBC. Rick Santelli delivered a rant that resonated with the public. He used the term "tea party."

Obama told Lauer that part of the Tea Party movement existed before he was elected. Obviously, people opposing Obama's radical Leftist agenda did exist before he took office. Birthers and Reagan Democrats would be examples. But it's wrong for Obama to suggest that the Tea Party movement sprang from those cores.

Liar or ignorant.


Video.


Transcript

MATT LAUER: Let me ask you about the Tea Party. This is a movement, this is an organization that didn't exist before you were president, and now they're in the headlines almost every day.

Some say they are a legitimate movement. Others think they're a fringe group. Where do you fall?

OBAMA: You, you know, I think that it is a still loose amalgam of forces. There's a part of the Tea Party movement that actually did exist before I was elected. Um, we saw some of it leading up to my election. Uh, there's some folks who just weren't sure whether I was born in the United States, whether I was a socialist, right? So, so there, there's that segment of it, which I think is just dug in ideologically, and that strain has existed in American politics for a long time.

Then I think that there's a, a broader, uh, circle, uh, around that core group of people who are legitimately concerned about the deficit, who are, uh, legitimately concerned that the federal government, uh, may be taking on too much. And last year, a bunch of the emergency measures we had to take in terms of, uh, dealing with the bank crisis, uh, you know, bailing out the auto industry, uh, fed that sense that things were out of control.

And I think that those are folks who have legitimate concerns. And so I wouldn't paint in broad brush and say that, you know, everybody who's involved or, or have gone to a Tea Party rally or a meeting, uh, are somehow, uh, on the fringe. Some of them, I think, uh, have some, uh, mainstream legitimate concerns. And, you know, my hope is is that as we move forward and we're tackling things like the deficit, and imposing a freeze on domestic spending, and taking steps, uh, that show we're sincere about dealing with our long-term problems, that some of that group will dissipate.

There's still gonna be a group, at their core, that, um, question my legitimacy, uh, or question the Democratic Party generally, or question, uh, people who they consider, uh, to be against them in some way. And, and that group we're probably not gonna convince.

In short, Obama is a victim. Although he gives lip service to the "mainstream legitimate concerns" of some protesters, he suggests there's racism involved in the movement.

He blatantly points to a segment of wackos as the core of the Tea Party movement, a group of Birthers and "dug in" militia types.

Note to Obama: The Tea Party movement was not built around questions of his legitimacy as president or a desire to overthrow the government. It's not a Bill Ayers, Weather Underground, Prairie Fire, violent sort of thing at all.

At least I'm not aware that Rick Santelli was questioning Obama's legitimacy when he stirred the nation on the morning of February 19, 2009. I don't think Santelli wants to bomb the Pentagon or kill police officers.

Chris Matthews and Dana Loesch (Video)

Chris Matthews refuses to let go of his belief that the Tea Party movement is grounded in racism and sexism.

On Monday's Hardball, Matthews continued the drumbeat -- Tea Partiers are angry and unruly. They're racist and sexist. According to Matthews, at the root of their protests is the fact that they are mad about having a black president.

With all due respect, Matthews is loony and so is Melissa Harris Lacewell, a Princeton professor who was Matthews' guest on Monday. She was there to validate Matthews' theories about intolerance, racism, and the Tea Parties.

Dana Loesch, a conservative talk radio host and Tea Party organizer, was also on Matthews' show. She shredded the arguments of Matthews and Lacewell.

Video.



Geoffrey Dickens, NewsBusters, provides the transcript.

CHRIS MATTHEWS AT TOP OF SHOW: Plus what are the tea partiers really angry about? Health care reform or the fact that it was an African-American president and a woman Speaker of the House who pushed through major change?

...

MATTHEWS: The passage of health care reform last week unleashed a rage on the right but New York Times columnist Frank Rich says that it wasn't health care reform itself that stoked the anger but instead a shift, in this country, toward more diversity that has left some in the diminishing majority anxious. Melissa Harris Lacewell is a professor of Politics and African-American Studies at Princeton. And Dana Loesch is a radio talk show host and tea party organizer. Let's take a look at the New York Times column that's caused all this conversation. Frank Rich wrote this, quote: "If Obama's first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. This same conjunction of a black president and a female Speaker of the House, topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay congressional committee chairman - it would have sown seeds of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country, no matter what the policies were in play." Professor, your thoughts. Is this fight, from the tea party side, aimed at the, or ignited by the health care defeat last week they suffered, about ethnicity and gender and orientation, sexual orientation or is it about the substance of the issue? The fiscal policy, the social policy involved. Which is it?

MELISSA HARRIS LACEWELL: Well I don't know that we can be quite so dichotomist as to suggest which is it. But certainly what we can see is that the tone, or the strategies, the language used about the policy has ended up having overtones around all of these anxieties about diversity that Rich suggests in that New York Times column. You know we know from, pretty much decades of social scientific research at this point, including some really terrific work by Karen Stenner, in a book called the Authoritarian Dynamic, that there are individuals that have sort of a pre-disposition towards intolerance. And when those individuals are in a society where things start changing very rapidly, particularly if things start feeling like, you know political leaders are fighting or if there's a lot of racial diversity or change, then that kind of ignites this anxiety and it creates precisely the kind of intolerance that we're seeing. So my bet is that, certainly part of it is about policy but also part of it is about the anxieties of this particular group and that's why we're seeing these expressions around racial and, and homophobic, sort of discourse.

MATTHEWS: So just to stay with you, for a minute, if Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic nomination last year and had won the general election against John McCain, and that's iffy but it's possible, we can imagine that happened, would the anger be as extreme as it's been with these placards, the people's faces, the contortion of anger that you see, not in every face but a lot of faces out there. Would it still be there? Had that been the case? Right now? Hillary not Barack.

...

MATTHEWS: What do you make of the, what do you make of the signage? Some of it's pretty nasty and why don't people walk away from those signs? Why are they comfortable standing there when people have nasty signs up? Hitler mustaches, etc, etc.?

DANA LOESCH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Like they did with Bush and Hitler? Because they had that on the left as well. I mean I specifically, I specifically remember the RNC protests from the Republican National Convention that happened just a year, just a couple of years ago. There were Bush/Hitler signs. I, myself, have been at a protest in St. Louis where they've burned Bush in effigy. So, I mean, to kind of like portray it as just being on one side or and not the other isn't, isn't exactly fair because - I mean google Bush/Hitler and you'll get pages and pages of the same thing. But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate.

MATTHEWS: Okay did just see that sign? "Don't blame me I voted for an American." There's a big number of people out there led by Neugebauer of Texas and other congress people who challenge this president's birth right. They challenge that he's an American. If you look at a poll I saw, it shows they were largely bunched in the South. Those people who believed that he wasn't an American and you say that's not racial. Why would it be bunched in the South so heavily these people that believe he's not an American. What's that about?

LOESCH: Well do you mean the same way that the left tried to say that John McCain wasn't an American because he was born on a base in Panama?

MATTHEWS: No, no, no. Nobody made an issue, nobody made an issue about-

LOESCH: Because you could say that's racial too.

MATTHEWS: No, no, no Dana. No, don't chuckle about this. It isn't funny. And nobody-

LOESCH: It is funny!

MATTHEWS: Nobody made an issue of John McCain being born in another country, in the canal zone.

LOESCH: Well if you're asking me, whether or not, I'm a Birther the answer is no.

MATTHEWS: Nobody made an issue.

LOESCH: Oh yeah there was. There was headlines about that.

MATTHEWS: Why are there so many Birthers out there? Why are there so many Birthers out there?

LOESCH: I'm not a Birther so I'm not quite sure.

MATTHEWS: But why are they out there and why, and why are people comfortable having them in the-

LOESCH: Why are there so many people who deny 9/11 on the left? I mean, you know, I mean we could sit here and do this all day.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

LOESCH: But no there was that issue made about McCain too.

MATTHEWS: Well I don't think, I don't think the Truthers are a part of the Obama coalition. Do you think? Whereas the Birthers are a part of the tea party crowd.

LOESCH: Well let's see who was it?

MATTHEWS: Why are they comfortable in that group?

LOESCH: Who was it? John, maybe not John Cusack or Sean Penn. There was a celebrity who is a Truther that's, you know, talked about those.

MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, that's odd. Let me, let me bring the professor back and I want you to go at each other.

LOESCH: But I mean why can't we talk about the substance of this? Why do we have to constantly invalidate people who are for smaller government by saying that they're a racist. That is, I mean, I think it's actually an insult to the civil rights movement. And to say that people who oppose Nancy Pelosi are sexist.

MATTHEWS: Okay Professor you get in here. I have my reasons, they're based upon all these Birthers out there that I do think are challenging his Americanism.

LOESCH: This isn't about Birtherism! This is about big government.

LACEWELL: Well, well let me just suggest this. That the tea partiers by using the language of tea party have asked us to draw a parallel between their movement and the Revolutionary War movement. But I think if we look more carefully we'll see that in many ways the tea party movement resembles more closely the kind of secessionist feelings that were both part of the Confederacy before the Civil War and then also remained in the post-civil war Reconstruction era. So in other words-

LOESCH: It's about state sovereignty not secessionism. It's about 10th Amendment principles.

Loesch did a terrific job of refuting Matthews' points.

Matthews and those of his ilk continue to make fools of themselves by trying to paint the Tea Party movement as a fringe, radical group. They continue to make baseless charges about the participants and accuse them of despicable things.

It's just not true.

What's interesting about the Left's efforts to demonize and discredit this grassroots movement is that Americans are not buying into that Leftist propaganda. Tea Partiers are being called racists and nutjobs for simply voicing their opposition. It's clearly an attempt by the Left to stifle dissent, to get people to abandon the movement.

The Leftists are failing. Their plan isn't working.

If anything, it's backfiring on the Leftists. I don't see any signs that the Tea Party movement is fizzling out.

I think the attacks on its participants actually serve to energize them and ultimately grow the opposition, encouraging more and more people to become politically active.

This is about "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

It's about freedom.

It's not about Obama's skin color or Pelosi's gender.

Good grief.

I am really sick of Obama and the Democrats, as well as their big mouth-pieces in the lib media, like Matthews, bashing these Americans and trying to intimidate them.


The Left is overtly trying to shut the movement down and shut the people up.

Talk about a chill wind!

Jimmy Fallon: Sarah Palin and Joe Biden

JIMMY FALLON: At a rally for John McCain on Friday, Sarah Palin said that the Republican Party is the party of 'Hell, no.' In response, Joe Biden is claiming Democrats are the party of 'F--- yeah!'

Jimmy Fallon: Lady Gaga's Birthday

JIMMY FALLON: Happy Birthday to Lady Gaga, everybody. This weekend she turned 24 years old. Her friends planned to jump out and yell, 'Surprise!' But it turns out the plant they were hiding behind was actually Lady Gaga.

Leno: Osama bin Laden Tape

JAY LENO: And Osama bin Laden has released a new audiotape in which he threatens to kill Americans; you know, as opposed to his earlier New Age motivational tapes he put out. He wants to kill us in every tape! What is so...? Oh, I'm stunned. He wants to kill us. Oh, I'm shocked!

Leno: 'The People Have Spoken'

JAY LENO: And as you know, the people have spoken; but health care passed anyway.

Ricky Martin: Gay

I'm shocked, shocked to find that Ricky Martin is gay!

Ricky Martin is no longer denying the rumors: He's gay.

In a statement posted via Twitter in both Spanish and English, and later confirmed with his representative, Martin said: "I am proud to say that I am a fortunate homosexual man. I am very blessed to be who I am."

For many, Monday's announcement will come as no surprise; the "Livin' La Vida Loca" singer's sexuality has been speculated about for years. But the Puerto Rican star, who got his start as a child in the teen group Menudo, never directly addressed it and was usually seen at events with beautiful women on his arm.

Martin, 38, said he decided to reveal the truth after working on his memoirs helped him realize that he had to be free with himself, and not keep any more secrets.

"From the moment I wrote the first phrase I was sure the book was the tool that was going to help me free myself from things I was carrying within me for a long time. Things that were too heavy for me to keep inside," he said. "Writing this account of my life, I got very close to my truth. And this is something worth celebrating."

So Ricky Martin is officially out and he says it's something worth celebrating.

Woo hoo!

Let's celebrate!

I haven't wanted to celebrate like this since Rembert Weakland made it official in his memoir and announced that he was gay!

Monday, March 29, 2010

Harry Reid Supporters, Andrew Breitbart, and Eggs

At Saturday's Tea Party event in Searchlight, Nevada, Harry Reid supporters get violent, taunting Andrew Breitbart and throwing eggs at Tea Party buses.

Founding Bloggers has video.

The AP calls this a hospitality tent. We call it destruction of property and assault. Either way, this is Harry Reid’s Democrat Party. So tolerant. So enlightened. So Progressive.



I wouldn't be surprised if some of Reid's supporters allowed their saliva to hit Breitbart's face as they were shouting at him.

In Emanuel Cleaver's world, that would mean Breitbart was spat upon by the out of control Reid supporters.

Are the mainstream media freaking out about this?

Of course not.

BarrettBypass.com

Scott Walker has launched a new website, BarrettBypass.com.

It highlights Tom Barrett's disastrous decisions and judgment.

For some, the morning commute in Milwaukee was a nightmare.

Way to go, Tom! Thanks a lot!


Wauwatosa – While thousands of commuters are waiting in traffic along the Barrett Bypass today, new electronic billboards will be greeting them at I94/Hwy 100 and on Hwy 45/Silver Spring just north of the Zoo interchange. Sponsored by the Scott Walker campaign for Governor, the signs read, “Tired of Traffic? Blame Barrett” and includes the address of a new website also released today by the Walker campaign, http://www.barrettbypass.com/.

“Thousands of Wisconsin commuters will be stuck in traffic on the Barrett Bypass today because of the failed leadership of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Governor Jim Doyle who put off work on the zoo interchange to the point it was too dangerous to even drive over,” said Scott Walker, Milwaukee County executive and candidate for governor. “In 2005, Mayor Barrett worked to delay work on the zoo interchange because '…the Zoo Interchange will stand long enough to resolve these issues’ and as a direct result of Barrett’s actions, Wisconsin taxpayers will foot the bill for $15 million in brand new bridges that will be torn down in a few years.”

Walker also that “years of raiding the Transportation Fund of over $1.2 billion to balance Doyle’s budgets and years of Milwaukee politicians like the Mayor fighting work on the East-West corridor have now led to a crisis that will have a negative impact on jobs across Wisconsin when we need them the most.”

Naturally, Barrett and his supporters are struggling to do damage control.

It's a losing battle.

Myths put out by Team Barrett are refuted by the Walker campaign.

Myth 1: Barrett campaign claims the Mayor only opposed plan to move graves at Wood National Cemetery the disruption to neighborhoods.

Fact: Barrett's 2005 letter made NO mention of the graves issue - because it has no bearing on the reconstruction of the Zoo Interchange.

Furthermore, an alternative to moving any graves for the entire freeway expansion was given in 2003 and so there was no elected official who was
going to support any plan that involved moving graves.

Myth 2: Barrett's campaign statement notes that the city spent "four times" as much as the county on roads.

Fact: According to the city, there are about 7,000 lane miles in Milwaukee that it is responsible for. In contrast, Milwaukee County has 350 lane miles that it is responsible for maintaining.

Myth 3: Barrett's campaign states "Walker supports Cutting Road Funding" citing a vote against increasing the gas tax almost 15 years ago. Typical democrat rhetoric - a vote against a tax increase is a vote, in their minds, against funding government programs.

Fact: Unlike Tom Barrett's letter opposing the start of work on the Zoo Interchange in 2005, the fifteen year old vote had nothing to do with the current issues with the Zoo Interchange.

The vote in 1995 was for a transportation budget that included NO gas tax increase. Scott was one of a handful of Republicans who blocked a large gas tax increase because our part of the state was getting nailed by the high costs of reformulated gas.

Furthermore, Scott spoke out time and time again against the $1.2 billion raids on the state Transportation Fund pushed through by Governor Jim Doyle during his four state budgets. Mayor Barrett was silent about these raids.

Myth 4: Barrett's campaign contends that the time-line for work on the Zoo Interchange remained the same.

Fact: If the Governor Doyle had not vetoed out funding for the start of engineering work in 2005 - after Mayor Barrett's opposition - initial construction on the Interchange could have been started and temporary bridges could have been constructed during the normal reconstruction process
- instead taxpayers will pay $15 million to build brand new bridges that will be tore down in a few years. Commuters will get to experience the delays again in a few years as well.

Remember, the DOT was asking for nearly $200 million for this budget because of their concerns about the structure. Governor Doyle denied all but $7 million per year - presumably because of opposition from local leaders like Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Myth 5: Barrett's campaign is trying to sell people on the idea that he was a strong supporter of work on the Zoo Interchange.

Fact: Other than his 2005 letter and efforts opposing early work on the Zoo Interchange, the Mayor's efforts on transportation are largely focused on rail.

While the Zoo Interchange project languished for almost five years, Mayor Barrett and Governor Doyle have focused on pushing an $810 million "high-speed" rail line when the state can't keep one of it's busiest interchanges open for travel and commerce.

Myth 6: Barrett's campaign says the Mayor is all about jobs.

Fact: The Zoo Interchange is one of the most important economic links in the state. Mayor Barrett opposed early work on it and this closure has an impact on commerce throughout the state of Wisconsin.

In contrast, Scott Walker as County Executive advocated for years that Wisconsin needs a strong transportation infrastructure because of the impact on jobs.

This Zoo Interchange debacle is sure to be trouble for Barrett.

On so many fronts, it shows that Wisconsin needs Scott Walker as governor.

Bill Maher and Tiger Woods, Democrats and Republicans

There are no limits to how low Bill Maher will go.

From Brent Baker, the Media Research Center:

In the midst of liberals condemning the tone of anti-Obama conservatives, Bill Maher on Friday pointed to a vulgar and sexually-explicit text message Tiger Woods reportedly sent, which promised aggressive sexual behavior, as representing the attitude Democrats should adopt from the “lying bullies of the right.”

Maher quoted from Woods: “I want to treat you rough, throw you around, spank and slap you and make you sore....I'm going to tell you to shut the f**k up while I slap your face and pull your hair for making noise.” Maher declared that “perfectly represents the attitude the Democrats should now have in their dealings with the Republican Party.” He prefaced his “New Rules” tirade:
Here's a word President Obama should take out of his Teleprompter: Bipartisanship. People only care about that in theory, not in practice. The best thing that happened this year is when Obama finally realized that and said: “Kiss my black ass, we're going it alone George W. Bush style.”

Maher descriptively contended “Democrats need to push the rest of their agenda while their boot is on the neck of the greedy, poisonous old reptile,” arguing: “We need to regulate the banks, we need to overhaul immigration, we need to end corporate welfare including at the Pentagon, we need to bring troops home from everywhere, we need to end the drug war...”

Video.

WARNING: Explicit language.




Where's the outrage from the Left about this crude, inflammatory, violent rhetoric?

Why isn't Maher accused of inciting hate and violence?

The liberals -- elected officials, media hacks, and the minions -- are hypocrites.

Obama: First Pitch Opening Day in Washington

Oh no.

Obama is going to try to throw out another first pitch at a Major League Baseball game.

His performance at the All-Star Game last July was not good.

The White House is touting the historic nature of Obama's Opening Day feat.

It's the 100th anniversary of presidential participation in throwing out the first pitch on Opening Day. William Howard Taft began the tradition on April 14, 1910.

Here's more, from Andrew Johnson, FanHouse's MLB Editor:

President Barack Obama will throw out the ceremonial first pitch next Monday when the Nationals open the regular season against the Phillies.

It will be Obama's first visit to Nationals Park since he was elected president and it will mark the 100th anniversary of a sitting U.S. president throwing out the first pitch on Opening Day. William Howard Taft was the first to do so on April 14, 1910. The president has thrown out the first pitch in Washington 48 times, a total held down, ostensibly, by the absence of a baseball team in the nation's capital from 1971-2005.

The last, and only, president to throw out the first pitch at Nationals Park was George W. Bush, who appeared on the night the stadium opened, and was lustily booed by a number of D.C. fans. It seems unlikely Obama will get the same reaction, but you never know.

What? Obama is not immune from being booed at a baseball game.

Why bring up President Bush and booing?

Andrew Johnson is obviously an Obama fan and a Bush detractor.

Let's not forget the All-Star Game and the boos that greeted Obama as he took the field.

From Politico:

It was low, and didn't quite reach home plate. But President Barack Obama checked a signature presidential tradition off his list Tuesday night when he threw out the first pitch at the All-Star Game.

Wearing jeans and his black White Sox jacket, Obama entered Busch Stadium to cheers – and a surprising number of boos – from the sell-out crowd.

The booing wasn't Obama's only problem.

It wasn't a good pitch; and then there was the matter of his attire. Obama wore baggy "dad jeans."

Jimmy Fallon mocked Obama for his "flowing jean pants."

Read more about Obama's pitch here.

Obama has had other embarrassing moments with baseball.

Remember when the self-proclaimed diehard White Sox fan Obama was talking about "COMINSKEY FIELD"?

That was not good. Joe Biden isn't the only one with a hilarious blooper reel.

Back to Andrew Johnson's article:

...The president threw out the first pitch at last year's All-Star Game in St. Louis, and he received a fair amount of criticism, surely none of it partisan in nature, for 1.) wearing a White Sox jacket on a day when the Cardinals were being celebrated (he's a fan, if nothing else) and 2.) for barely getting the ball to Albert Pujols at home plate.

(In this respect, Obama is no W. Say what you want about the Texan, but he could bring the heat from the pitcher's mound.)

Hopefully he's been practicing his throws since last July. Surely a perfect strike on Opening Day would do wonders to dispel the memory of his completely busted bracket.

Johnson gives a very kind account of Obama's All-Star Game performance.

At least the Obama-biased Johnson gives President Bush his props when it comes to pitching.

As far as Obama throwing a perfect strike on Opening Day, I wouldn't bet on it. When he's on the mound alone, all the slimy, corrupt backroom deals in the world won't help him. Rahm Emanuel can't intimidate the ball into the strike zone. The Dems can't buy a strike.

Maria Conchita Alonso: Open Letter to Sean Penn

Native Venezuelan-born actress Maria Conchita Alonso is setting the record straight about Hugo Chavez. She wrote an open letter to Sean Penn, a staunch defender of anti-American Chavez, to enlighten him on the truth.

On Bill Maher's Real Time, Penn recently said:

Every day, this elected leader (Chavez) is called a dictator here, and we just accept it and accept it. And this is mainstream media who should... truly, there should be a, a bar by which they, one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.

Really?

Penn wants people going to prison for spouting lies?

He might want to reconsider that position, especially since he is out spreading lies via the mainstream media.


Read Maria Conchita Alonso's open letter to Penn.

I am thankful that someone from Penn's own Hollywood community has come out against his promotion of Chavez.


Video.

John Paul II, 5th Anniversary of Death - Pope Benedict

Pope John Paul II died five years ago on April 2.

Because April 2, falls on Good Friday this year, Pope Benedict commemorated the death of John Paul today.

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI is commemorating the fifth anniversary of John Paul II with a Mass in St. Peter's Basilica.

Many pilgrims from Poland, the late pontiff's homeland, joined Benedict in prayer Monday evening.

...Immediately after John Paul's death, faithful were clamoring for his sainthood. But this anniversary comes amid some doubts that a miracle needed for his saint-making will stand up to scrutiny. And there have been questions about John Paul's record in combatting pedophile priests.

How nice of the Associated Press to report on the fifth anniversary of John Paul's death by taking swipes at him!

About those roadblocks to sainthood--

AP contradicts its own reporting.

Immediately after John Paul's death, faithful were clamoring for his sainthood. But this anniversary comes amid some doubts that a miracle needed for his saint-making will stand up to scrutiny. And there have been questions about John Paul's record in combatting pedophile priests.

As far as the Church examining an alleged miracle, one that doesn't meet scrutiny isn't a problem. There have been several claims of John Paul's intervention made. ONE needs to be verified and that verification doesn't come lightly.

Also, the question of John Paul's role in the sex abuse scandal is not standing in his way of becoming a saint.

An AP article by Nicole Winfield begins:

The Vatican this week marks the fifth anniversary of Pope John Paul II's death amid some doubts that the miracle needed for his saint-making cause will stand up to scrutiny and questions about his record combatting pedophile priests.

Well into her article, Winfield writes:
[N]ew questions have been raised about John Paul's record in combatting pedophile priests. John Paul presided over the church when the sex abuse scandal exploded in the United States in 2002 and the Vatican was swamped with complaints and lawsuits under his leadership. Yet during most of his 26-year papacy, individual dioceses and not the Vatican took sole responsibility for investigating misbehavior.

But John Paul himself had long championed the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, the conservative order that fell into scandal after it revealed that its founder had fathered a child and had molested seminarians.

The Vatican began investigating allegations against the Rev. Marcial Maciel of Mexico in the 1950s, but it wasn't until 2006, a year into Benedict's pontificate, that the Vatican instructed Maciel to lead a "reserved life of prayer and penance" in response to the abuse allegations — effectively removing him from power.

Subsequently, Benedict ordered a full-on investigation of the order since its entire existence was so closely intertwined with that of its discredited founder.

[The emeritus head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Cardinal Jose] Saraiva Martins said historians who studied the pope's life as part of the sainthood process didn't find anything problematic in John Paul's handling of abuse scandals.

"According to them there was nothing that was a true obstacle to his cause of beatification," he said.

The OK from historians led to Benedict's decree last December that John Paul had led a virtuous life. As a result, all that's needed for him to be beatified is for the miracle to be confirmed.

Why would Winfield begin her article with the suggestion that the sainthood of John Paul was in doubt because of the sex abuse scandal in the Church?

And why would that bogus claim be repeated in another AP article 13 or 14 hours later?

Catholic bashing is a favorite sport of the lib media.

Moscow Subway Explosions: 'Black Widows' Terrorism

Dozens were killed in Moscow Monday morning when two blasts hit the subway system.

It was terrorism, or what Janet Napolitano would call a "man-caused disaster."


From Napolitano's interview with Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

JANET NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

By all means, let's move away from the politics of fear.

Read about the "man-caused disaster" in Moscow.

MOSCOW (AP) -- Two female suicide bombers blew themselves up on Moscow's subway system as it was jam-packed with rush-hour passengers Monday, killing at least 35 people and wounding 38, the city's mayor and other officials said.

Emergency Ministry spokeswoman Svetlana Chumikova said 23 people were killed in an explosion shortly before 8 a.m. at the Lubyanka station in central Moscow. The station is underneath the building that houses the main offices of the Federal Security Service, or FSB, the KGB's main successor agency.

A second explosion hit the Park Kultury station about 45 minutes later. Chumikova said at least 12 were dead there. The ministry later said 38 people were injured.

"I heard a bang, turned my head and smoke was everywhere. People ran for the exits screaming," said 24-year-old Alexander Vakulov, who said he was waiting on the platform opposite the targeted train at Park Kultury.

...Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov said both explosions were believed to have been set off on the trains.

"The first data that the FSB has given us is that there were two female suicide bombers," Luzhkov told reporters at the Park Kultury site.

The blasts practically paralyzed movement in the city center as emergency vehicles sped to the stations.

In the Park Kultury blast, the bomber was wearing a belt packed with plastic explosive and set it off as the train's doors opened, said Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for Russia's top investigative body. The woman has not been identified, he told reporters.

A woman who sells newspapers outside the Lubyanka station, Ludmila Famokatova, said there appeared to be no panic, but that many of the people who streamed out were distraught.

"One man was weeping, crossing himself, saying 'thank God I survived'," she said.

...Russian police have killed several Islamic militant leaders in the North Caucasus recently, including one last week in the Kabardino-Balkariya region. The killing of Anzor Astemirov was mourned by contributors to two al-Qaida-affiliated Web sites.

More:
The head of Russia's main security agency says Caucasus rebels are believed to have carried out two sucide bombings on Moscow's subway system that killed 36 people.

Officials say two female suicide bombers blew themselves up on trains as the subway was packed with rush-hour passengers Monday morning.

In a televised meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev, the head of the Federal Security Service said preliminary investigation points to terrorists connected to the restive Caucasus region that includes Chechnya.

Alexander Bortnikov said the assessment was based on fragments of the bombers' bodies. He did not elaborate.

In this case, it was a "woman-caused disaster."
__________________

Video.

More video.

'See You in November'



Lyrics:

SEE YOU IN NOVEMBER

You always ran as a moderate
But we learned a lesson and we won't forget


Bye-bye, so long, farewell
Bye-bye, so long


See you in November
See you when campaigning's through
Yes we are concerned for the fate of our nation
Our new motivation is sending you away


You talked a good game but we'll remember
How you voted when push came to shove
Damn right we'll see you in November
Until then we'll be taking off the gloves
(Nancy and Harry replaced your spine
Next stop is the unemployment line)


Bye, baby, good bye
Bye, baby, good bye
Bye, baby, good bye
Bye, baby, good bye


You had a good run but remember
There is danger in the harvest moon above
Yes, we'll see you in November
And you'll see that we've had enough
(We'll work the phone banks
and knock on doors
Come this November you'll get yours)


We'll see you in November
See you in November...

Sunday, March 28, 2010

'Terri Schiavo: The Musical' - Family Guy (Video)

Seth MacFarlane makes a living out of going too far. Last Sunday's Family Guy went way too far.

The March 21 episode began with the Griffin family watching Stewie perform in his preschool's production, "Terri Schiavo: The Musical."



It was truly disgusting.

Here are some lyrics from the musical number:

This (machine) dispenses gravy for her mashed potato brains
Terri Schiavo is kind of alive-o
What a lively little bugger
Maybe we should just unplug her
Terri Schiavo is kind of alive-o
The most expensive plant you'll ever see

There's only one solution
It's in the Constitution
We've got to pull the plug!

This is supposed to be entertaining?

Watch the full episode here. The Terri Schiavo scene is at the very beginning.

From WTSP:

With the five-year anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death just a week away, her family is taking on the FOX Broadcast Company after "Family Guy" lampooned the controversial saga in its Mar. 21 episode.

The popular animated show opened Sunday night's episode with "Terri Schiavo: The Musical." It mocked Schiavo's diagnosed "persistent vegetative state" as well as the legal battles that plagued the final 15 years of her life.

"We have ignored these types of things before," said Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, of other parodies. "But we felt this time, we just could not ignore just because how highly offensive and how much it denigrated my sister."

Schindler and his family's Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation are calling upon FOX to stop supporting a show that "display(s) prejudice towards people with cognitive disabilities."

"I wish the general public wasn't watching this show, because if they weren't watching it, it wouldn't be aired," said Schindler. "So ultimately, the responsibility falls upon us to not tolerate these types of programs that do nothing but hurt and offend."

...Schindler said regardless of whether someone thought Schiavo's feeding tube should have been removed back in March 2005, he or she should still find The Family Guy episode offensive.

"In my opinion," he continued, "this is a form of hate speech. There's other ways to make people laugh. This certainly isn't one of them."

More:
Terri's brother, Bobby Schindler stated: "My family was astonished at the cruelty and bigotry towards our beloved sister, and all disabled people that we witnessed in this show. My first thought was how this attempt at satire must have been enormously difficult and painful for my mother.

"After further thought, I realized that using my deceased sister as fodder for satire also validates what our family has been saying for many years. There is growing, deep-rooted prejudice against people with brain injuries and other cognitive disabilities. This sort of bare-faced bigotry is dehumanizing to those with disabilities and cruel to those who work tirelessly to ensure that people with disabilities are provided the proper care, protection and respect. People are not vegetables."

Terri Schiavo was not kept alive on mechanical life support. She made use of a feeding tube after some doctors determined it safer for her than swallowing food and fluids on her own.

"The depiction of Terri in The Family Guy episode on March 21 is not only inaccurate," states Schindler, "it seems to take the position that certain people are simply not worthy of receiving medical care because they are viewed as burdens on the health care system."

Schindler also believes it is not a coincidence that this terrible prime time skit took place 10 days prior to the five year anniversary of Terri's death (3/31/05), and just weeks before the foundation's first ever Terri's Life and Hope Concert featuring Randy Travis and Collin Raye, slated for April 11th in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The Foundation is calling on all disability rights organizations and pro-life organizations to join us in admonishing the producers and writers of The Family Guy. It will also begin pursuing the sponsors and advertisers of The Family Guy, urging them to stop advertising in this program.

Talk about ugly, offensive stuff!

Where's the outrage?

What complete and utter lack of respect for a human being!



___________________

MEDIA ALERT! Contact FOX Regarding 'The Family Guy' Episode!

Earth Hour

Oops!

Earth Hour was last night.

Earth Hour 2010 inspired an estimated one billion people, organizations, corporations and governments to come together and take a strong stance against climate change. Starting in New Zealand and following the sun around the globe, Earth Hour asked everyone to do something quite simple—turn off the lights at 8:30 p.m. local time. Just one hour for an individual, and 24 hours for the whole world.

In the U.S., where the effects of climate change are increasingly apparent, it felt good to vote for action with a light switch, dimming lights at home and watching iconic landmarks from the Las Vegas Strip to the Empire State Building go dark. Here, Earth Hour’s message hit home: We care about this country and want to turn off the lights on dirty air, dangerous dependence on foreign oil and costly climate change impacts; and make a switch to a cleaner, safer and more secure world.

I missed it.

What was I doing at exactly 8:30 last night?

I was on the road or in a store shopping between 8:30 and 9:30 PM.

The lights were on.

Sorry, world.

I didn't mean to cause the climate to change.

Craig T. Nelson: Tax Revolt

Craig T. Nelson has been speaking out about the government's fiscal irresponsibility and high taxes for quite a while now, close to a year.

Friday, on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Nelson again was talking about his disgust with the government's mismanagement. He wondered if the American people might be thinking about a tax revolt.

JAY LENO: How would you see the revolt going? How would the revolt go?

CRAIG T. NELSON: The revolt would go something like this: I think maybe 3 or 4 of us would sign up, and we say, 'You know, until we get this fiscally straight, until we have some fiscal responsibility' -- because the government doesn't run anything very well, to me. It doesn't seem like they run, you know....

LENO: And you know something? You're right because for example, here in California they're saying, 'Oh, we're not going to give you your state refund for a while. We're going to hold off for a couple of months.'

NELSON: IOU.

LENO: They're giving us IOUs. Now, imagine if you went to pay your taxes, you know, 'I don't have it on April 15th, I'm gonna wait.' Exactly.

NELSON: No, no, no. I mean, it is a recourse that you have. And to me it's like saying, well here we are in the state of California -- are we bankrupt? I keep... we are, aren't we?

LENO: I think we're bankrupt, but we keep... yeah, yeah.

NELSON: I think we're bankrupt because I keep hearing about, but everybody's going around like we're not bankrupt.

LENO: Yeah.

NELSON: But I think we're bankrupt. But people are... but the thing is...

LENO: We're too big to fail.

NELSON: Yeah. It's like an illusion. We're Hollywood. But the point is, is that it seems to me like there's all these people out of work and they're being asked to support institutions and people that are literally, I think, stealing some of our money, Jay. I think some of these guys up there, the sharp guys in the banks and stuff like that, you know the big joints, those corporations, and I think they're stealing. But like I say, I could be wrong.

LENO: Yeah. So are you going to pay your taxes? What are you going to do?

NELSON: I'm thinking about it. I'm seeing how... I'm seeing what people think, and I'm thinking... You know, the mood in the country...

LENO: Oh, they'd love to see you go to jail.

NELSON: The mood in the country... Well, we'd all go together. And then they couldn't afford us, so they'd let us go.


Video.


Of course, this is a lighthearted conversation but the anger with the government is no joke.

On the federal level, if there's one thing that Obama and company are going to enforce, it's the collection of taxes. Taking more of our money is key to the plan.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Searchlight Tea Party - Eggs Thrown at Buses

Harry Reid's hometown is the site of a massive Tea Party rally today.

From the Associated Press:

Thousands of tea party activists streamed into Sen. Harry Reid's hometown in Nevada Saturday morning, bringing American flags, "Don't Tread on Me" signs and outspoken anger toward President Barack Obama and his health care overhaul.

The activists' star, Sarah Palin, will rally the crowds later Saturday from a makeshift stage in a patch of dusty desert about 60 miles south of Las Vegas.

Organizers predict as many as 10,000 people could come to tiny Searchlight, the hardscrabble former mining town where the Senate Democratic leader grew up and owns a home. By midmorning, cars and RVs filled the area as people set up lawn chairs and braced against a stiff wind whipping up dust clouds and blowing dozens of flags straight out.

The rally that's been called a conservative Woodstock takes place just days after the historic health care vote that ushered in near-universal medical coverage and divided Congress and the nation. The vote was followed by reports of threats and vandalism aimed at some Washington lawmakers, mostly Democrats who supported the new law.

Police don't expect problems at Saturday's rally, but the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is sending dozens of uniformed and plainclothes officers to patrol the crowd.

Regarding "problems," here's a report from the scene:
Harry Reid Supporters Egg Tea Party Express Buses in Route

Supporters of Senator Harry Reid have just thrown eggs at the Tea Party Express bus caravan - striking at least one of the three buses (the red Tea Party Express bus) with multiple eggs.

About 35 Reid supporters had lined Highway 95 in front of the Nugget Casino in Searchlight where they were attempting a counter-demonstration the tens of thousands of tea party supporters who are gathering for the "Showdown in Searchlight."

_________________

UPDATE: Video of Reid supporters throwing eggs at the Tea Party Express buses and harassing Andrew Breitbart.



These protesters brought eggs for a reason. I don't think they were planning on scrambling them and eating them.