Friday, May 17, 2013
It's both amazing and incredibly sad how so many people are so easily influenced by celebrities, who they don't know and will never meet, but read about or see on a screen and think they know all about. Take the case of renowned, Godless, bisexual, man-stealer and actress Angelina Jolie, a reclusive woman "raising" 6 kids while unmarried to fellow actor Brad Pitt.
This week Jolie suddenly came down from the heavens and blessed the unwashed masses with an announcement (in the form of a New York Times op-ed, of course) stating that she had recently undergone a double mastectomy and reconstructive surgery over a period of three months, after her doctor told her that if she didn't do so she could increase the risks of getting cancer.
Like night follows day, Jolie was quickly given the "hero" treatment for her "courage" by a mainstream, liberal press that worships Godless celebrities who promote their morally bankrupt agenda...nevermind the facts.
Like Jolie, a multimillionaire, failing to mention the huge costs (more than $50,000 and most health insurance plans don’t cover double mastectomies) of such an operation.
Or the fact that more than 99% of women do not have BRCA1, the type of gene discovered in Jolie that raises the risk of breast cancer which led to the actress making the "courageous" decision to have a preventive mastectomy in the first place.
Despite these facts, million of women everywhere are thankful that Jolie (who in the past has been given "sainthood" status by the press for her past humanitarian efforts) will get to live longer. Most of these naive women will also make the idiot choice to pursue unnecessary medical attention for something they don't need all because a rich celebrity (along with the mainstream press) gave them the thumbs up to do so.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
The last several days have been taxing for many members of the political press. The burst of scandals surrounding the conduct of the White House on a variety of fronts have forced the media to turn a critical eye towards the president. Some prominent conservative commentators have warned that this behavioral aberration by much of the establishment media cannot last. They have said that even the slightest overstep by Republicans in response to the White House’s scandals would give the press and excuse to revert to their familiar and satisfying focus on the GOP’s pathological mistrust of President Barack Obama and his policies. While the press does not yet have an overwhelming amount of material to support this effort, they have begun to settle back into that comfortable place.
“The IRS has admitted to targeting conservatives, even if the White House continues to be stuck on the word ‘if,’” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) at a Wednesday news conference. “Now my question isn’t about who’s going to resign. My question is: Who’s going to jail over this scandal?”
Sure, it’s not much to go on, but this undoubtedly a hyperbolic reaction – at least, at this stage — to the news that the Internal Revenue Service systematically targeted conservative groups with onerous and burdensome information requests which forced some to abandon their effort to secure tax-exempt status has given the press a reason to focus once again on Republicans.
With utter predictability, the media sprang into action with a righteous scolding.
“Now you’re hearing even further politicization of something that may not be so political,” declared CNN anchor Ashleigh Banfield. “When you start hearing the cry for potential jail terms — specifically when it comes to the IRS issue in targeting of conservative groups, do you see this as going that far?”
RELATED: Chris Matthews: “White supremacy” is a pretty big part of all of this opposition to Obama
The short answer to this question from George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley was “no.” Not because of the criminal misconduct of the IRS, but because “rarely do people go to jail for it.”
MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts followed suit. He began his segment on GOP overreach by playing a portion of Republican National Committee web video chastising the president for failing to abide by his own promise of transparency.
Salon columnist Irin Carmon was available to defuse the president’s multiple controversies for MSNBC’s anxious audience.
“With Benghazi, Republicans have not really found a smoking gun,” Carmon asserted. “I don’t even understand that they are accusing the president of doing.”
She added that the scandals surrounding the IRS and the Associated Press are slightly more complicated but, in her opinion, the GOP would be exhibiting extraordinary hypocrisy if they were to even acknowledge the existence of a scandal.
“For Republicans, it would be pretty hypocritical to pretend to care about it,” Carmon said of the Department of Justice’s acquisition of months of telephone records form the AP.
“Well, sure,” Roberts agreed. “It was last year, roughly about this time, that the right – that is – was asking a lot of questions of the White House.”
“They even accused the president of being the one in the administration of sending these leaks out into the public on their own,” he noted.
This trend is certain to accelerate. These are, for now, the political press’ opening bid to shift the focus of the story about the White House’s scandalous overreach into a story about Republican’s pathological desire to attack the president and his administration.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Bipartisanship: Keith Olbermann And Reince Priebus Both Agree That Eric Holder Should Resign Over Associated Press Scandal
Hey, remember when then-Senator Barack Obama and a legion of other Democrats demanded that Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for firing 8 U.S. attorneys? The liberal media sure doesn't. And yet, having miraculously survived the gross negligence and incompetency surrounding the “Fast and Furious” gun scandal, AG Eric Holder is once again making news for all the wrong reasons with the Associated Press-leak scandal and this time, even Obama stans can't defend him:
Who says there is no consensus anymore between hyper-partisan Democrats and Republicans? Well, just about everyone these days. But the usual Cassandras, often seen decrying the supposed lack of concord in Washington D.C., are unlikely to point to the developing consensus around the notion that Attorney General Eric Holder should resign as a welcome bit of political comity. Still, and in spite of the silence of the hollow, label-free political commentators who value unity for its own sake, anything that brings together former Current TV host Keith Olbermann and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has to be worth noting.RELATED: Eric Holder blasts IRS scandal, defends seizure of Associated Press phone records
“The First Amendment doesn’t request the federal government to respect it; it demands it,” declared RNC Chairman Priebus in a written statement released on Tuesday. “Attorney General Eric Holder, in permitting the Justice Department to issue secret subpoenas to spy on Associated Press reporters, has trampled on the First Amendment and failed in his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.”
Attorney General Holder has so egregiously violated the public trust, the president should ask for his immediate resignation. If President [Barack] Obama does not, the message will be unmistakable: The President of the United States believes his administration is above the Constitution and does not respect the role of a free press.Priebus found some unlikely allies in his call for action from the White House regarding the DoJ’s decision to unilaterally obtain two months of telephone records from the Associated Press.
Making up Priebus’ coalition of the willing in his crusade to force President Obama to jettison his friend and close political ally are Olbermann and progressive radio and television host David Schuster:
“If Mr. Holder continues to support this rogue action, he should resign,” Olbermann declared on his Twitter account Tuesday.
Given all this unity, it is a curiosity as to where the members of the perpetually chagrined third way crowd are hiding? Shouldn’t this be celebrated? Is this not a Kumbaya moment which merits shouting from the rooftops? Granted, Holder’s potential resignation is not so much a policy achievement as it is a long-overdue correction, but it is a place to start.
Perhaps, in coming days, we will point to bipartisanship and say that this regularly lip serviced phenomenon actually accomplished something.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Comedian Wayne Brady‘s animosity towards Bill Maher has not softened since he said last June he wanted to “slap the shit out of” the Real Time host for jokes he had made about him. Speaking to Marc Lamont Hill on HuffPost Live Monday, Brady reaffirmed his desire to “beat [Maher's] ass in public” for saying President Obama, like Wayne Brady, is not a “real black” man.RELATED: Maher To Greenwald & Reid: Would Kidnapped Ohio Women Been Found Earlier ‘If They Were In A Richer Neighborhood’?
Maher first explained his desire for Obama to be a “real black president” who “lifts up his shirt so they can see the gun in his pants” during a monologue in 2010. Subsequently, Maher referred to Obama as “your Wayne Brady,” a characterization that put into question the African-American credentials of both Obama and Brady.
“I’ve respected him as a comedian, and what he does on HBO is great,” Brady told Hill. “But when he starts to drag me in, to use me as the cultural linchpin of his not-black-enough argument, that’s bullshit.” Turning the argument around, Brady questioned Maher’s credentials to discuss the black experience. When he meets Maher again, Brady said, he’ll be that “stereotypical black dude” for him “and I will beat your ass in public.”
“Be careful when you make statements like that,” Brady warned Maher, because it will allow his viewers to make the same stereotypical assumptions about black people.
Bullets Fly At Mother's Day Parade
Benghazi Whistle-blower a Democrat, Voted for Hillary and Obama Twice
How the Mormons Ensured Victory for Gay Marriage
Obama Suffering the '2nd-term Curse'?
Happy Mother's Day: Five Obamacare Taxes That Hurt Moms Most
Maureen Dowd: Obama's Benghazi Decisions 'Unworthy of Greatest Power on Earth'
George Will: If Bush Had IRS Going After Progressives 'We Would Have All Hell Breaking Loose'
Mark Sanford, Welcome Back to Washington
NBC Cancels 'The New Normal'
Melissa Harris Perry And Guests Translate Amanda Berry’s Decade Of Rape Into Agenda-Setting Narrative
Saturday, May 11, 2013
The IRS acknowledging that it targeted conservative political groups during the 2012 election season has sparked bipartisan calls for investigation -- with House Republicans already saying they will hold a hearing on the issue.RELATED: Sarah Palin: ‘Same Corrupt IRS’ That Targeted Conservatives ‘Will Be In Charge Of Enforcing Obamacare’
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Friday the Republican-led chamber would investigate the tax-collecting agency for flagging the groups for additional review to see whether they were violating their tax-exempt status.
“The IRS cannot target or intimidate any individual or organization based on their political beliefs,” the Virginia Republican said.
Cantor’s comments were followed within minutes by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp saying he would hold a hearing.
The IRS on Friday apologized for targeting groups, but Camp, R-Mich., argued the agency had “repeatedly denied” such activity.
“The admission by the agency that it targeted American taxpayers based on politics is both shocking and disappointing,” he said.
The committee has jurisdiction over the IRS, but it remains unclear whether other House committees also will investigate the issue, in which roughly 300 groups were flagged.
Republicans were joined by a leading Senate Democrat in the call for congressional investigations.
Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said members have already been looking into the IRS's failure to make sure tax-exempt groups engage only in social welfare activities -- not partisan politics.
Thursday, May 09, 2013
Minnesota is poised to become the second Midwestern state to legalize same-sex marriage after the state House of Representatives approved a bill Thursday that would allow the practice.RELATED: The Gay Takeover of America
The House had been considered the measure's toughest hurdle. The bill passed 75 to 59 and heads to the state's Democratic-majority Senate, which is expected to consider it Monday.
Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, has said he will sign the measure.
Eleven states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage -- including Delaware, which acted Tuesday. Minnesota would be the first Midwestern state to legalize it with legislation. Gay marriage is legal in Iowa because of a 2009 state Supreme Court decision.
Minnesota, like Iowa, harbors a Midwestern progressive streak. (The state's Democratic Party is formally known as the Democratic Farmer Labor Party.) But Thursday's vote marked a stark reversal from 2011, when -- after a wrenching and emotional debate -- state legislators voted to put a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on last November's ballot.
Voters rejected that amendment last year, and same-sex marriage supporters saw an opportunity.
State law bars Minnesota's government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. The current bill eliminates that provision and allows civil marriages between same-sex couples. In a nod to conservatives, churches could not be sued if they refused to perform such marriages.
While politicians on Capitol Hill ready their questions for Benghazi whistleblowers ahead of a hearing on the 9/11 attack Wednesday, Pat Smith, the mother of State Department Information Officer Sean Smith who was killed in the attack, is blaming former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the lack of security for the consulate.RELATED: O’Reilly And Kirsten Powers Bash Dems For Defending Obama, Clinton In Benghazi Hearings
"I'm just told lies," she said in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. "She is in charge. Why couldn't she do something about it? I blame her [Clinton]."
Smith also expressed frustration with charges from State Department officials, the Obama administration and Democrats of the Benghazi investigation turning "political."
"They didn't do their job and now they're hiding behind the word political," Smith said.
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
The idea that George W. Bush "stole" the 2000 election, while having died down over the years due to the total ineptitude of the Obama administration, is still pushed by some far-Left zealots who will go down to their dying breath hating and blaming Bush for everything wrong with the world. But as the far-Leftist News rag, the NYTimes, even admitted to (albeit reluctantly), Bush did get the most votes in Florida that year. Then too, the idea that somehow the Supreme Court's decision to stop Al Gore from finding enough votes to win in 2000 was biased and filled with errors, is again being debunked:
Last week I wrote that "count all the votes" emerged comparatively late in the game of the Bush v. Gore saga. A number of people have pushed back, here and elsewhere, have pushed back. Gore, they say, offered to do a hand recount of all 67 Florida counties on November 15th; if Bush would support it, and withdraw his lawsuits, Gore said he would withdraw his lawsuits too. Bush turned him down. This is supposed to prove that Democrats always had a committment to counting all the votes.
Well, not so fast. For starters, when Bush turned him down, Gore didn't go and start asking for recounts in all 67 Florida counties. His committment to "counting all the votes" was conditional on Bush withdrawing all of his lawsuits. It was a second-best alternative to just counting some of the votes, one which he offered when it looked like he might be losing. When it was turned down, he went on with his partial recount strategy.
And because of this, the voices raised in favor of counting all the votes were somewhat muted. A Nexis search for the phrase "Count all the votes" in major newspapers turns up just 26 uses in the week after the Florida election--before Gore had made his offer. In the first 17 days of the recount, it occurs just 57 times.
Then, on November 24th, the Supreme Court accepted cert for the Florida recount, with a hearing to be held on December 1st.
Observers knew that this meant the Florida Supreme Court ruling allowing partial recounts was likely going to be overturned (if they weren't likely to overturn, they would have just dodged the case on a technicality).
Suddenly, folks get very interested in counting all the votes: there are almost 100 mentions between November 24th and November 30th, with most of those seeming to come in the few days before the hearing. Then things quite down for the three days until the court decides: just 25 mentions.
Then on December 4th, the Supreme Court vacates the Florida Supreme Court's order allowing the partial recounts to be included in the total, and interest in counting all the votes explodes: 121 mentions in the 8 days that follow. And almost all of that was clustered in the three days immediately surrounding the court's stay of the recounts, and its decision in Bush v. Gore.
Overall, there are 73 mentions of the phrase "count all the votes" in major newspapers between November 7th, 2000 and November 27th, 2000 . . . more than halfway through the recount process. Over the next 20 days, it occurs more than 250 times.
In other words, people didn't get interested in counting all the votes when Al Gore offered a statewide manual recount as an alternative to lawsuits. They got interested in counting all the votes when the partial recounts suffered legal setbacks. People are retroactively remembering something that emerged several weeks into the recounts as having been more central to the Democratic case than it actually was. "Count all the Votes" became the central argument only after the Supreme Court had squelched the preferred "count some of the votes".
People remember having been outraged when the Supreme Court declined to "count all the votes". But partisan fervor was already running very, very high by late November.
Odds are that anyone who is old enough to remember that election was very probably just as angry and passionate before "count all the votes" emerged as the unifying rallying cry for Democrats. Indeed, most of those very people were probably in favor of counting some of the votes before they were against it.
They remember this particular issue as having been more salient than it was for two reasons: first, because all of us tend to remember the end of an experience better than the middle, and second, because "count all the votes" is a much easier grudge to nurse than "I wanted my guy to win, and he didn't".
I don't mean to suggest that Democrats are somehow specially hypocritical here; I am personally skeptical, for example, that Katherine Harris' maneuvers to cut off vote counts were motivated by her fervent committment to administrative efficiency and strict deadline discipline. Both sides had reasonable points, and reasonable grievances. But Al Gore was running for president, not Santa. The procedure he chose--and stuck with, until a court told him to knock it off--was not fair. And by the time the case hit the Supreme Court, his supporters (and the Florida Supreme Court) had already invested a huge amount of credibility in coming up with creative reasons that it should happen anyway.RELATED: Gore Is Romney-Rich With $200 Million After Bush Defeat
Ironically, I suspect that if Gore had simply unilaterally requested a statewide manual recount, or the Florida Supreme Court had forced one upon him, the United States Supreme Court would have probably stayed out of it. But they didn't, and as they say, the rest is history.
Monday, May 06, 2013
Emergence of Whistleblowers Proves That Charges Of A Benghazi Cover-Up No Longer ‘Fox-Induced Hysteria’
The emergence of a number of whistleblowers who have come forward to refute the claims made by some members of President Barack Obama’s administration relating to the September 11, 2012, attack on an American consulate in Benghazi does not directly implicate the White House in a cover-up. They do, however, demolish the politically-motivated allegations by a slew of commentators on the left who asserted that those reporters doggedly investigating the American response to the attack were onto something. Those left-of-center commentators who dismissed the investigation into the Benghazi attack as a right-wing delusion animated by a personal hatred of the president have never looked more vacuous.RELATED: Benghazi witness: US military response could have ‘scared’ off attackers, prevented mortar strike
An interim report from the House investigation into the administration’s response to Benghazi released in April is particularly damning. The report found that the decision to withdraw security assets from the region is likely to have come from the highest levels of the State Department. The report also found State’s talking points relating to the attack were altered to remove references to Al Qaeda’s involvement. These edits are unlikely to have been made to protect classified information, and may have been made to support the White House’s election year claim that the terror group had been effectively neutralized.
Some of the claims made by the Benghazi whistleblowers support the interim House report’s assertions.
According to a report in Fox News, one anonymous source and deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, Mark I. Thompson, both allege that Sec. Hillary Clinton tried to get the anti-terror agency “out of the chain of reporting and decision-making” on the night of the Benghazi attack. This claim directly contradicts the testimony Sec. Clinton delivered before the House in January of this year.
“What happens when a lie goes astray?” Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman asked on November 5, 2012. “You may recall the right wing’s hysteria last week over the way that events had supposedly played out in Benghazi, Libya. Stoked by inflammatory, deeply irresponsible misreporting on Fox News, they insisted that this scandal was bigger than Watergate, and that for his cowardice President Obama would be disgraced as commander in chief and impeached and removed from office should he win a second term.”
On November 27, Bookman continued to celebrate the “utter collapse of the Fox narrative” regarding the Benghazi attack. “For more than two months, the network and those in Washington who follow its lead tried to create a firestorm of controversy regarding Benghazi, but time and again, as facts came to light, each right-wing claim about Benghazi was exposed as false and inflammatory,” Bookman wrote.
“Benghazi has entered the realm of churning, right-wing myth making,” declared Media Matters for America Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert in The Huffington Post on November 2, 2012. “The story has become completely detached from reality, and the twisted narrative feeds off itself with constant misinformation that’s repeatedly presented as ‘fact.’ This process is powered by Fox News and the burning desire within the GOP Noise Machine to portray Obama as a monster who is at war with the United States.”
Obama’s supposedly shameful role in the Benghazi story only confirms everything right-wing voices have hated, and warned followers, about Obama for the last four years: He’s foreign. He’s an other. He’s not like the rest of us.In this way, Boehlert, and much of the MMFA apparatus, linked the ultimately credible claims about inaction on Benghazi with fevered and baseless attacks on Obama’s heritage levied by fringe and unserious actors on the periphery of legitimate political discourse.
“[T]he latest right-wing allegations about Benghazi have reached the realm of lurid conservative conspiracy porn,” wrote Salon’s Joan Walsh on October 15, 2012, in reaction to an Examiner.com story which noted that Sec. Clinton had and suggested that the White House, not the State Department, were the source of the confused blaming of the attack on an anti-Islamic YouTube video.
Of course, those invested in the narrative that charges of a cover-up relating to the response to the Benghazi attack are meritless are not backing off that insistence just yet. Mother Jones columnist Kevin Drum charges that the Benghazi whistleblowers may not be honest brokers because Obama himself has said he is not aware of their charges. Furthermore, the fact that the whistleblowers are represented by known conservatives is reason to be suspicious of their claims.
One of the State Department whistleblowers is represented by Victoria Toensing, a longtime Republican operative whose name you might recall from both the Monica Lewinsky and Valerie Plame affairs. Ed Henry of Fox News asked Obama about all this at his press conference on Tuesday, but apparently even the vast apparatus of the West Wing can’t keep up with the latest Republican conspiracy theories on Benghazi. Obama had no idea what he was talking about.Drum cites author Tom Ricks, who made waves after accusing Fox News of hyping the Benghazi story on a Fox News program, who has taken to the pages of his Foreign Policy Magazine column to refute one whistleblower who insists that American air assets could have responded to the second attack on a Benghazi safe house on the night of the attack. Ricks also insisted in his infamous Fox News appearance that the claims of a cover-up in the Benghazi story “aren’t going to stop [U.N. Ambassador] Susan Rice from being Secretary of State.” While Toensing conflict of interest raises red flags for Drum, Ricks’ political allegiances and obvious motive to save face do not appear to serve as reason for Drum to be skeptical of him.
Beyond Ricks’ own conflict of interest, CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson‘s reporting has indicated that “The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.”
Make no mistake, the narrative that clears the Obama administration from culpability in the failure to save American lives in Benghazi is collapsing.
When Christians Become A 'Hated Minority'
Clinton Sought End-Run Around Counter-Terrorism Bureau on Night of Benghazi Attack, Witness Will Say
NBA's Jason Collins: 'Gay' Superhero!
Obama's Commerce Pick Funded Fox News Enemy
Obama: Americans 'Are Root Cause of Violence That's Been Happening Here in Mexico'
Obama's Deficit Promises Never Added Up
So. Carolina Dem Chair: Send Nikki Haley ‘Back To Wherever The Hell She Came From’
Planned Parenthood Targets Black Women
Israeli Raids in Syria Highlight Arab Conundrum
Referee Punched in Face by Teen Player Dies
Lawrence O’Donnell: Obama’s Tax Rate ‘In the High Twenties’; Nope! Try 18.4%
Friday, May 03, 2013
NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg Correctly Claims New York Times Fakes Interest In Plight Of African Americans
I'd agree and go so far to say that 99% of so-called "liberals" have zero interest in the real plight of Blacks in this country. Now getting their votes? Well, that's a whole different matter entirely:
On Tuesday, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg fired back at the New York Times for accusing his administration of embracing a racially discriminatory law enforcement policy with his own accusations of racism. After being accused of embracing a the controversial “stop-and-frisk” policy which critics have said unfairly targets minority youth, Bloomberg leveled his own accusations of racial discrimination back at the Times claiming they are feigning interest in the plight of African-Americans.RELATED: Mother of slain Bronx 17-year-old Alphonza Bryant says 'stop-and-frisks are terrorizing our kids' but some kids need it
Bloomberg spoke Tuesday about a March editorial in the New York Times which accuses his administration of unfairly singling out black youth with the “stop-and-frisk program.”
“Last week Bronx resident Alphonza Bryant was shot and killed while standing with friends near his home. He was 17,” Bloomberg said in response. “Like most murder victims, he was a minority.”
“It does not appear that he was even the intended target of the shooters. He was just a victim of too many guns on our streets,” the mayor continued. “But after his murder there was no outrage from the Center for Constitutional Rights or the NYCLU.”
“There was not even a mention of his murder in our paper of record, the New York Times,” Bloomberg noted pointedly. “’All the news that’s fit to print’ did not include the murder of 17-year-old Alphonza Bryant.
Do you think that if a white, 17-year-old prep student from Manhattan had been murdered, the Times would have ignored it? Me neither.”
Thursday, May 02, 2013
Politico’s Dylan Byers reported “The Daily Beast is dropping Howard Kurtz, the veteran media critic who made headlines this week for his erroneous report about NBA star Jason Collins.” Kurtz erred in suggesting Collins hadn’t been forthcoming about his fiancee, even though he discussed her on both ABC and in the Sports Illustrated cover story that made “history.” Kurtz’s story was retracted on Thursday.
On top of Kurtz losing his $300,000-a-year Beast gig (which started in October of 2010), TV Newser reported “A source at CNN tells TVNewser that Kurtz’s current deal with the cable channel will likely be his last.” The New York Times had a source claiming it wasn't just a Collins thing:
“This is not a reaction to the Jason Collins story or the Daily Download situation,” said a staff member at The Daily Beast, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the organization wanted Ms. Brown’s statement to be its only public comment.Kurtz is also active at the Daily Download website, and he and his regular partner in video productions there, the site's executive editor Lauren Ashburn, appear together on the PBS NewsHour. Erik Wemple at The Washington Post had a longer version of that line:
A source at The Daily Beast suggested Thursday that the parting of ways was a matter of accrual, saying, "It definitely wasn't a reaction to what happened yesterday with the Sports Illustrated post. It's been something that for quite some time - there've been some errors like this."
The anonymous source claimed, “Howie’s been quite distracted with other ventures. We were at the point where it was interfering with the quality of The Daily Beast...It kind of lets those people [at the Beast] down...when you have the feeling that someone in a senior position in the organization isn’t as focused.”Beast boss Tina Brown announced “The Daily Beast and Howard Kurtz have parted company,” then lauded the excellence of her Washington operation “Under the direction of our newly named political director John Avlon.” Avlon likes to pose as the opponent of ideological “wingnuts” -- unless he has to fend off his colleagues at the Beast joking Dick Cheney didn’t deserve a new heart.
On Twitter, talk was sharp. McKay Coppins suggested the bad blood wasn’t new: “As someone who worked at the Beast for a while, I can say that rumors of Howard Kurtz's departure have been flying for at least 2 years.”
Sean Quinn joked in light of all the Collins goo, “Jason Collins is the Jackie Robinson of getting rid of Howard Kurtz”.RELATED: Let's all stop taking swings at Howard Kurtz
ESPN's Chris Broussard Provides Christians With The Perfect Response To The Sin That Is Homosexuality
If you're a Christian afraid to speak up in a politically-correct world served up by ignorant, Godless liberals, ESPN's Chris Broussard provides you with the perfect response to the Gay Mafia and other liberal terrorists out there (it should be noted too that co-host DJ Envy, who lamely renounces Broussard's remarks at the end of this interview, recently admitted to cheating on his wife of 18 years with a D-list reality-TV star) who defend and endorse homosexuality and a host of other sins. Remember folks, no Christian claims to be perfect and "tolerance" is a two-way street.
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
For Hip Hop News & Entertainment at DimeWars.Com
It's all about destroying all tenets of Christianity.
RELATED: Has The Gay Marriage Slippery Slope Started? Slate Writer Calls for Legalizing Polygamy
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
In their attempt to indoctrinate the 4 most popular professional sport (baseball, football, basketball and hockey) organizations with the anti-God, alternative lifestyle that is homosexuality, the Godless Left has been attempting for months now to get any pro athlete to "come out" and admit that they're involved in same-sex, intimate relationships in their personal life. This has not only been done to normalize homosexuality, but to spread it to environments that have long been associated with heterosexuality and machismo--thus, lies the true purpose of the Gay Mafia as their attempts to destroy all tenets of Christianity continue to evolve and foster.
So after recently failing, for months, to pressure the "first gay" professional football player to "come out", the Godless Left lucked out and found their perfect tool in Jason Collins, a 12-year NBA veteran and backup center who recently announced (and made it on the cover of Sports Illustrated for the first time for no other reason but that he likes to engage in sex with other men) that he is "gay". Collins announcement has resonated around the sports world, with Godless Leftist advocates, hypocrites, race baiters and other trolls like Spike Lee and Barack Obama praising his "bravery" while denigrating anyone who dares to speak on Christian views towards homosexuality and/or anyone who doesn't stand up and praise Collins sexual choice.
Of course, it doesn't hurt the "race equals homosexuality" clause in radical liberal dogma that a movie is currently out celebrating the life story of a true hero like Jackie Robinson (the first Black player to make the major leagues). And if you're the mainstream media salivating over this kind of thing, it can't hurt to lie and mislead an ignorant public about Collins status as an "active player" (he's really a free agent) or that he's actually been with women (guess that fuax "gay gene" splits in half to cause bisexuality) sexually in the past (including a fiancee that he was recently involved with for 8 years) or that even his own twin brother didn't know that he was "gay". But hey, since when does a good indoctrination story have to include something like facts? Carry on:
The woman who was once engaged to NBA star Jason Collins tells TMZ, she had NO CLUE he was gay at the time of their relationship ... in fact, she only found out last weekend ... and she was floored.RELATED: ESPN Apologizes for Commentator's Christian Worldview on Homosexuality
Carolyn Moos (who played a few seasons in the WNBA) dated Collins for seven years and was engaged to him until they broke up in 2009 ... after Collins pulled the plug on their wedding.
Carolyn tells TMZ, she never once suspected he was gay, so the news is shocking. She says Collins eventually revealed everything last weekend -- just days before his big announcement -- and said that his homosexuality was the real reason he ended things with her.
At the time of their breakup, Carolyn says Jason gave a bunch of BS reasons for calling it quits ... and she could never understand what went wrong, until now.
Carolyn -- who's back on the hunt for Mr. Right -- tells us, "It's very emotional for me as a woman to have invested 8 years in my dream to have a husband, soul mate, and best friend in him. So this is all hard to understand."
She adds, "I care about [Jason] tremendously and only want the best for him. I want Jason to be happy for a lifetime and stay true to who he really is, inside and out."
"If you're openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits. It says that that's a sin. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and Jesus Christ."
Monday, April 29, 2013
New York Officials Seek Human Remains Amid Debris from Boeing JetObama Becomes First Sitting President to Address Planned Parenthood
Why Is Atheism So Appealing?
Is The US Ready For A Third President Called Bush?
Liberals Suck at Math and Eyeballs
Obama's Borrowed More Per Household ($53,616) Than Median Household Earns ($50,502)
Huffington Post Journalist Admits ‘Gay Marriage Opens the Door’ for Polygamy ‘and Other Things’
Liberals: ‘We Do Want to Change Marriage’
ABC's Lobbying Failed: NFL Teams Failed to Draft the Openly Gay Kicker They Promoted
Holder Defends Mirandizing Boston Bombing Suspect
Judge: Firing Teacher Who Called Homosexuality A Sin Reflects ‘Modern British Values Of Tolerance’
McCain, GOP Lawmakers: Syrian Chemical Weapons Threaten U.S.
Biden Says McCain Would’ve Won 2008 If Not For Economic Collapse, Senator Responds On Meet The Press
Friday, April 26, 2013
Eric Holder Ignores Black America And Says Citizenship For Illegal Immigrants Is A ‘Matter Of Civil And Human Rights’
Illegal immigration hurts Blacks esp. due to the high unemployment rate and minorities being on the lower end of the skill spectrum due to lack of education, the breakdown of the family and poverty. But sadly naive and ignorant black Americans will still support a half-black president (and his Stepin Fetchit attorney general Eric Holder) who openly supports illegal immigrants because their Godless, white, liberal massahs tell them to:
During an April 24 address to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Attorney General Eric Holder told the crowd that “creating a pathway to earned citizenship” is a critical element of any comprehensive immigration reform plan. He said that establishing legal status for the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants is a “matter of civil and human rights.”RELATED: How Illegal Immigration Hurts Black America
“Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential,” Holder said to applause. “The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows transcends the issue of immigration status.”
“This is a matter of civil and human rights,” Holder continued. “It is about who we are as a nation. And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity.”
Holder said that the reform proposals under consideration in the Congress are “consistent with these basic principles.”
Thursday, April 25, 2013
When he left the White House in January 2009 after two tumultuous terms, President George W. Bush -- the only man to attain the presidency by virtue of a Supreme Court ruling and only the second son of a president to also serve as president -- was nursing an approval rating around 30 percent.
Four years later, however, public opinion has turned slowly but steadily in the former president’s direction. A nationwide Fox News poll conducted earlier this week now finds registered voters evenly split in their assessments of the 43rd president -- a verdict roughly equal to the esteem in which they hold his successor, President Obama.
As Bush prepares to attend the dedication of his presidential library in Austin, Texas, on Thursday, his increasing approval generally mirrors the trend for other former presidents, but Bush's turnaround is remarkable, given how low the numbers were when he left office. At his lowest, amid the dark days of the financial collapse in October 2008, only 23 percent rated Bush positively.
Throughout President Obama’s first term -- when the incumbent relentlessly blamed his predecessor for the state of the economy and a host of national security problems -- Bush, aside from promoting his 2010 memoir and giving a small number of paid speeches, mostly remained silent. This was in keeping with the practice of his father, George H.W. Bush, of never criticizing his successor, and it may partially explain the rise in esteem for the younger Bush.
“People are perhaps beginning to appreciate that President Bush, for all his Texas swagger, is a gentleman,” Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume said.
“I wish that some of my fellow scholars, particularly historians and law professors and political scientists, would do what academics are supposed to do, which is to bide their time, do the actual research before proclaiming a presidency a failure,” said Stephen Knott, a U.S. Naval War College professor and author of a book about Bush. He described the Bush legacy as "unfinished."
“It takes a long time for documents, for oral history interviews, particularly classified documents, to emerge," Knott said. "And then you get a fuller, more complete picture of a presidency.”
Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said he wasn't surprised by Bush's rising approval rating.
“We pummel presidents when they’re in the White House," said Brinkley, who's 2007 book "The Great Deluge" was critical of Bush's handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. "We give them a hard time. Then they leave and they write a memoir that becomes an instant bestseller. Journalists ask softball questions, and then they open up a presidential library. And people forgive a lot of the mistakes and say, ‘Hey, he brought our country through some tough times.'"