Wisconsin Union Law Published Despite Court Order

ABCNews.com:

Wisconsin officials couldn't agree Friday about whether an explosive law taking away nearly all public worker collective bargaining rights was about to take effect after a nonpartisan legislative bureau published it despite a court order blocking implementation.


The head of the Legislative Reference Bureau that made the move, as well as a nonpartisan attorney for the Legislature, said the action was merely procedural. But Republican legislative leaders, who encouraged the bureau's action, insisted it meant law would take effect Saturday.


Gov. Scott Walker's office, meanwhile, would issue only a vague statement saying simply that the administration planned to carry out the law as required.


The move is just the latest in a series of parliamentary and legal maneuvers employed over the past six weeks to enact a bill that prompted Senate Democrats to flee the state to block a vote and brought on waves of Capitol protests that grew larger than 85,000 people as Wisconsin became the center of a national fight over union rights.


Ultimately, the law's fate likely will be up to the state Supreme Court to decide. A state appeals court earlier in the week asked the Supreme Court to take up one of several lawsuits challenging its approval.

Just like the lamestream media to portray these union protesters as peaceful despite the facts.

Sarah Palin Hits Back At ‘Annoying Little Mosquito’ Bill Maher

"He can’t do any harm, but buzzes around annoyingly until it’s time to give him the proverbial slap."...this is the side to Palin that I like. I mean there's nothing better than telling an a-hole like Bill Maher that he's less important than some people like to think he is:

While talking to Greta van Susteren the other day, Sarah Palin announced that she was going to stop “whining about a liberal press that holds conservative women to a different standard.” She continued that theme in a Facebook post in which she was explained that she was going to instead; fight back. First up on the docket, Bill Maher who called Palin a “dumb tw*t” on his show last week.

Now, Palin didn’t respond to the Maher by name. Instead she took the high road. Or, at least, the politics and media version of the high road where you do respond but just don’t name the other person so as to prove how you’re the bigger person by “not responding” (see also: Glenn Beck on Lawrence O’Donnell):

“Upon my return from an outstanding and productive trip to India and Israel, I’ve been inundated with requests to respond to petty comments made in the media the past few days, including one little fella’s comment which decent people would find degrading. (I won’t bother responding to it though, because it was made by he who reminds me of an annoying little mosquito found zipped up in your tent; he can’t do any harm, but buzzes around annoyingly until it’s time to give him the proverbial slap.)”

See? That’s totally different than responding. That’s just spending a paragraph talking about how you’re not responding while comparing your enemy to a bug.

No Lock-Out Coverage for Obama in NY Times, But Bush's Door Flub Was Front-Page News

Newsbusters.org:

President Obama arrived home to the White House on Wednesday from his five-day trip to Latin America and found himself locked out of the French doors to the Oval Office, as captured by several news organizations.


My Media Research Center colleague Tim Graham reminded me that back on Nov. 21, 2005, the New York Times published on its front page a photo of President George W. Bush making a face after trying to leave a press conference in Beijing through a locked door, accompanied by an article that mentioned the gaffe. Former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg wrote a letter to the editor at the time to complain:


The Times published a four-panel picture on Page 1 that extended over two columns and ran some 12 inches from the masthead more than halfway down the page showing President Bush trying to exit a meeting with reporters in Beijing -- through a locked door....Did it occur to anyone in charge -- and for that matter, does it occur to anyone at The Times even now -- that this is precisely what gives your critics ammunition?....on Page 1, whatever your editors' intentions, it sure looks like an editorial posing as news.


Yet not only has the Times not put an image of Obama’s flub on the front page, a nytimes.com search indicates that as of Friday afternoon Obama’s lock-out has neither been shown or even mentioned by the Times, either in print or online.

Bill O'Reilly, Code Pink Founder Agree: Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow Are Hypocrites

Newsbusters.org:

They won't agree on much, but Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and Medea Benjamin, founder of the far-left anti-war group Code Pink, found some common ground on one fact Tuesday night: MSNBC talkers Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz are hypocrites.


Both Schultz and Maddow defended President Obama's decision to impose a no fly zone over Libya on their respective shows. Maddow trotted out the "reluctant warrior" line, while Schultz insisted that the president "deserves the benefit of the doubt and our support."


O'Reilly asserted - and Benjamin agreed - that neither MSNBC host would have been so generous had Obama's predecessor engaged in such a conflict. "The word 'hypocrisy' comes to mind," Benjamin quipped

Hypocrite Howard Dean: War Is Ok When There's A Democrat President

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What a lying, hypocritical prick:

To cleanse the palate, via RCP, skip ahead to 6:00 and see for yourself the depths to which this guy will sink to defend interventionism once there’s a Democrat giving the “go” order in the Middle East instead of a Republican. Remember, in 2003, Dean-o was the anti-war candidate, the guy who galvanized the nutroots by lashing Bush on Iraq. Fast-forward eight years, past a stint as party chairman, and now he’s mumbling about having to “take chances.” When Joe Klein calls him on the hypocrisy, he waves him away with leftist boilerplate about having been lied to about WMD. In fact, though, Dean opposed the Iraq war before we knew anything about the fate of Saddam’s weapons program; he was thinking about running for president and saw an opening among the anti-war crowd and he filled it. The whole reason progressives hold him in such esteem is that he questioned the war before the WMD issue came to the forefront — just as Obama did, long before his own metamorphosis into a humanitarian interventionist. Here’s a choice excerpt from a foreign policy speech Dean gave in February 2003, weeks before an American boot had set foot in Iraq:


I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations…


To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.


Nor has the Administration prepared sufficiently for the possible retaliatory attacks on our home front that even the President’s CIA Director has stated are likely to occur. It has always been important, before going to war, for our troops to be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-protected. In this new era, it is as important that our people on the home front also be well-protected.


The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.


And the Administration has approached the United Nations more as an afterthought than as the international institution created to deal with precisely such a situation as we face in Iraq. From the outset, the Administration has seemed oblivious to the simple fact that it clearly would be in our interests for any war with Iraq to occur with UN authorization and cooperation and not without it.


Replace the part about treating the UN as an afterthought with treating Congress as an afterthought and you’ve got a noninterventionist argument that’s easily adaptable to the present circumstances. Why didn’t Dean-o adapt it? You know why.

Victoria Jackson Denounces Glee, ‘Liberal Agenda,’ Muslims, & Oral Sex STDs On HLN

Mediaite.com:

Recently, former SNL cast member and Tea Party anthem singer Victoria Jackson was appalled that this week’s episode of Glee featured two gay characters locking lips. She took to the Internet, writing a blistering post on WorldNetDaily.com in which she called the kiss “sickening.” The folks at HLN read between the lines of that post and were able to translate it as “Someone please put me in front of television cameras right now!” and so Jackson appeared on Showbiz Tonight where she was asked about what she wrote. An great opportunity was missed, however, as the the question I’ve been wondering all day was never broached; Why the heck would someone who hates seeing gay stuff on TV be watching the latest episode of Glee?


While Brooke Anderson tried her hardest to keep the interview focused on Glee (this was Showbiz Tonight after all), Jackson had bigger fish to fry. She waved around and quoted from a Bible, talked about how the “Liberal agenda” was stealing the childhood innocence from our nation’s children, and wondered how the Left could support Muslims and gays when Muslims kill gays. Fortunately, she was able to answer her own question by pointing out that they both hate God. Oh, of course.


However, the most entertaining part of the segment came from the decision by the HLN producers to put Jackson in split screen and play the gay kiss over and over again right next to her, thus making her part of the gayest segment ever to air on television since Showtime’s last Queer as Folk marathon. Jackson, for her part, squeezed her eyes shut when Anderson said they were going to air the clip. That’s always a good sign that we’re about to see a super adult conversation.

Liberals will condemn and make fun of Jackson for her spiels, but remember these are the same people who take quacks like Rosie O'Donnell and Roseanne Barr seriously.

Confusion in Libya Assault Plan: NATO, Obama, UN Asking ‘Who’s in Charge?’

Newsmax.com:

Confusion reigned Monday among U.N. and NATO nations about who’s in charge of the multi-country attack against Libya, even as an international coalition continued air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi's forces.


President Barack Obama’s White House hasn’t definitively addressed that essential issue about an operation that has cost the United States well more than $100 million, and is increasingly rapidly. Other questions looming:


* Are the United States and its allies attacking Libya to save the country’s citizens from slaughter at the hands of their leader Gadhafi, as the U.N. resolution endorsing the enforcement of the no-fly zone called for, or are they ultimately trying to push him out of power? That oust-Gadhafi question resonates with echoes of previous statements from both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the ruthless dictator must go. And how do those messages mesh with a top admiral’s statement that Gadhafi could remain in power?
* How, and when, will the United States hand off leadership of the military attack to other countries?
* What is the potential for this to become a U.S. police action and/or extended involvement like that in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the United States anticipates giving control of the military campaign soon to a coalition, probably headed by either the French and the British or NATO. That campaign, which the U.N. resolution approved Thursday night, opened on Saturday with U.S. and British naval vessels launching 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which cost an at least a half-million dollars apiece (some estimates range as high as $1.2 million), at Libyan military installations. The allied attack, dubbed “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” also including French jets, continued Sunday and today with more missiles and U.S. jets involved.

Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill Failed To Pay $200,000 In Taxes On Plane

Oops, she...um forgot or something like that. Six figures in back taxes, we all can imagine how that can happen:

Sen. Claire McCaskill said Monday that she owes nearly $300,000 for four years' worth of back taxes on a private airplane that has become a political headache.


McCaskill said she'd pay the bill immediately and has told her husband to "sell the damn plane."


"I will never set foot on the plane again," McCaskill said.


McCaskill, a first-term Missouri Democrat, narrowly defeated incumbent GOP Sen. Jim Talent in 2006, and she faced an already uphill re-election fight next year. Democrats control 53 seats in the Senate, and with a slew of retirements, McCaskill's problems cast yet more uncertainty on the party's efforts to retain its thin majority.


The airplane foul-up has handed Republicans a tailor-made issue to attack the image that McCaskill has so carefully built as an opponent of government excess and secrecy.


McCaskill has already had to face questions about why she used the plane for a political trip that her office mistakenly billed to the taxpayers. Using public funds for political travel is prohibited by Senate rules.


"This is the third time in less than two weeks that she's had to change her story about her private plane, and she only admitted any of her wrongdoing once she got caught by the media," Rob Jesmer, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said in a statement.

Media Ignore Anti-Obama Protests In Brazil, Report Him Playing Soccer With Kids In Rio

BigJournalism.com:

A U.S. President beset by angry mobs screaming “Yankee Imperialist Go Home”, exploding Molotov cocktails, rubber bullets, tear gas, riot police.


In 2007 the MSNBC headline screamed “Protests greet Bush upon arrival in Brazil” and The Guardian one-upped it with “Angry crowds hunt Bush as protests mark start of Latin America tour”. Fast forward to 2011 as another U.S. President faces identical protests and riots. Funny thing, though, this time there is absolute stone cold silence on these protests and riots from the New York Times, CNN, AP, YahooNews, MSNBC, The Guardian, etc. (Politico to its credit reports it).


Sporting Che Guevera T-Shirts, radical leftist protestors “associated with the Socialist Workers Party, PSTU,” launched Molotov cocktails in front of the U.S. consulate to protest President Obama’s arrival in Rio. Military police fired rubber bullets at the crowd, using tear gas and billy clubs to chase away the violent, socialist and oh-so-intolerant protesters. It seems the Left is never satisfied. What’s a radical left-wing president to do?


What is most ironic about the Brazil protests is that the PSTU is a hard core socialist party in Brazil. While anti-Obama protests in the US consider Obama a socialist, the socialists in Brazil consider him a yankee capitalist, the bane of the Latin American left … PSTU says the protest is to bring “American imperialism” to the attention of the millions of Brazilians …


Hmmm. Could this be why the President “cancelled a public speech he was scheduled to deliver Sunday” in an “historic plaza” in the “heart of Rio de Janeiro?” Well, we may never know from most in the Make-Believe Media. Yahoo News and New York Times are too busy breathlessly praising Obama as the guru of Hoops citing his so-far superb basketball bracket noting that even women’s hoopsters have attracted Obama’s laser-like focus, promoting my new moniker for our Bookie-In-Chief: “Bracket Hoops” Obama.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 3/21/11

Japan's Disaster Toll Rises With 18,000 Deaths

Coalition Targets Gadhafi Compound, Gadhafi Vows 'Long War'

Donald Trump Doubts Obama's Eligibility

Are Charter Schools The Education Solution?

Obama Vs. Obama On War Justification

Top Dem Strategist: Soaring Prices Will Sink Obama In 20E12

Lefty Blogger Exposes How Lefty Bloggers Lie

Emotional Interview With 'The Boy Who Stood Up To A Bully' Casey Heynes

Networks Ignore Faith-Based Groups In Japan Disaster Aid Coverage

Board Approves Internet Domain For Pornography

Black Leaders Know Obama's Color Boxes Him In

As U.S. Strikes Libya Michael Moore Says Obama Should Return Nobel Peace Prize

That's 3 for 3 for ya folks:

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner has: raised troop levels in Afghanistan; increased the number of drone attacks in Pakistan; kept the terrorist detention center in Guantanamo Bay fully intact, and; now bombed Libya.


Noticing the absurd irony was schlockumentary filmmaker Michael Moore who took to Twitter Saturday with a series of tweets aimed at the Obama administration:



As the Hill reported Saturday, that was just one of many:


It's only cause we're defending the Libyan people from a tyrant! That's why we bombed the Saudis last wk! Hahaha. Pentagon=comedy


And we always follow the French's lead! Next thing you know, we'll have free health care & free college! Yay war!


We've had a "no-fly zone" over Afghanistan for over 9 yrs. How's that going? #WINNING !


Khadaffy must've planned 9/11! #excuses


Khadaffy must've had WMD! #excusesthatwork


Khadaffy must've threatened to kill somebody's daddy! #daddywantedjeb


If liberals are disappointed with their president, maybe they should consider adding to their list of qualifications for the position which in 2008 apparently only included the color of the candidate's skin and his ability to read from a teleprompter.


As we've all sadly learned in the past 26 months, that's clearly not enough.

Andrew Sullivan: Why Did Anyone Vote For Obama, Libya Is A ‘Hillary-McCain’ Strategy

Boy they're really coming at Barry the Warmonger, aren't they. How "racist" of them:

Chris Matthews hosted a discussion on how any action in Libya seems difficult and unpopular for President Obama. Most critical of Obama was commentator Andrew Sullivan who doubted President Obama was the transformational politician that was promised, if he is willing to cave-in and follow the ideas of Hillary Clinton and John McCain.


Others on the panel contributed interesting points as well, with Michael Duffy warning that no fly zones can last for a very long time, and Katty Kay suggesting that Obama’s delay in acting too aggressively was for a fear of resembling President Bush’s cowboy image in the Arab region. Most passionate though was Sullivan who argued “I don’t know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries – this initiative, this no fly zone, this war – is a Hillary/McCain concept.”


Sullivan also doubted the wisdom of entering another Middle Eastern country where we don’t know the consequences. Between some complaining he’s not aggressive enough, and with others like Sullivan complaining he’s too aggressive, it seems like sometimes President Obama’s middle-of-the-road approach can often leave some upset on both sides.

Liberal Democrats Seek To Impeach Obama Over Libya Action

Hey, give them some credit for being consistent:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.


Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.


Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.


Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.


And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.