Friday, June 03, 2011
Thursday, June 02, 2011
We all know that liberal Democrats could care less about the sanctity of marriage, but considering that she just exchanged vows with the man less than a year ago and the embarrassment she must be dealing with all this brouhaha going in, wouldn't be nice if Anthony Weiner's wife said 'enough's enough', stood up for herself (and women everywhere) and left her creepy husband? I'm just saying:
New York Congressman Anthony Weiner finds himself in a growing pickle --- a porn star has now inserted herself into his sex scandal.RELATED: Cantor To Weiner: Clean Up Twitter Photo Mess
A scan of the Twitter timeline of porn starlet Ginger Lee -- whose resume includes such titles as Monster Meat 12, Swallow My Pride 9 and Stuffin' Young Muffins 5 -- suggests a connection to the embattled politician.
On March 1, Lee tweeted, "I want to have sexual relations with Anthony Weiner."
Less than two weeks later, on March 13, she tweeted that "you know it's a good day when you wake up to a [direct message] from @RepWeiner."
Last month, the porn starlet tweeted she'd come down with a case of "Weinermania!" and drew a heart on a picture of the politician with the funny caption, "You're the only Weiner I need."
Then, on May 27, she tweeted "Whoa. I get a dose of Anthony Weiner live before I go to work tonight. Weiner before work, me likey."
As RadarOnline.com previously reported, the online drama began last Friday when a lewd crotch shot image of a man in tight fitting briefs appeared in Weiner’s Twitter stream addressed to 21-year-old college student Gennette Cordova, but visible to all 40,000 of his Twitter followers.
The 46-year-old Weiner, who is married to Hilary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin, was incensed when questioned by reporters about the scandal, and is claiming that his Twitter account was hacked into.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
As if you didn't already know:
Ben Shapiro plans to release audio from interviews he conducted for his just-released book, Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV, a little at a time in a strategy learned from Andrew Breitbart’s ACORN exposes. The strategy seems to be working pretty well; after debuting with Hot Air and Townhall yesterday, Ben gets the Hollywood Reporter to release a couple of juicy quotes on tape today from television producer Susan Harris (Golden Girls, Soap), legendary TV executive Fred Silverman, and even COPS creator John Langley, who says he prefers to choose segments based on skin color:
Other upcoming videos include: Family Ties creator Gary David Goldberg explaining how he tried to make Republican character Alex Keaton the bad guy but that actor Michael J. Fox was too darn lovable; and president of MTV Networks Entertainment Group Doug Herzog talking about his network having “superpowers” when it comes to its influence over young people.
The advancement of a gay and lesbian political agenda is mentioned by multiple executives, including Marcy Carsey, a producer of Soap and Roseanne, and Desperate Housewivesproducer Marc Cherry, who is a rarity in Hollywood: a gay Republican.
In her video, Carsey also says she insisted on portraying characters smoking marijuana inThat ‘70s Show. “If this is a problem for you, we certainly understand, and we just won’t do the show,” she told executives at Fox.
Shapiro released two videos Tuesday, one featuring COPS creator John Langley saying he’s partial to segments where white people are the criminals, and the other has Fred Silverman, the former head of ABC and later NBC, saying “there’s only one perspective, and it’s a very progressive perspective” in TV comedy today.
Let’s offer a couple of the clips here at Hot Air, starting with Harris, who warns Shapiro that conservatives are “medieval” and that “we got Obama elected”:
Wonder what the secret message of MacGyver was? Gun control, according to creator Vin DiBona:
Producer Leonard Goldberg (Blue Bloods, Charlie’s Angels) says that the one-sided political agenda for television is “100% dominant,” and that this is “absolutely” a barrier to entry for conservatives. He uses the late Ron Silver as an example (whom I had the good fortune of interviewing not long before he passed away):
Perhaps using a preemptive strike to help combat the May jobs report to be released on Friday, MSNBC has already found an excuse for lost jobs, and an increased unemployment rate – storms, tornadoes and flooding. According to a business report:
“…homes or places of business have been destroyed in this year's wave of storms, tornadoes and flooding. That means thousands of workers in the South and Midwest could be out of work for some time, potentially pushing up the nation's jobless rate and further taxing financially strapped state unemployment funds.”
Yet in 2004, when reporting on an October jobs report in which hiring had increased at the fastest pace in seven months, MSNBC somehow managed to find analysts who said the jump in hiring was due mainly to another form of natural disaster – hurricanes. The business report at that time read:
“Some analysts were skeptical about the latest surge of hiring, pointing out that much of the unusually large jump in October stemmed from cleanup and rebuilding in Florida and other states that were ravaged by four hurricanes…”
That assessment is buoyed by an accompanying CNBC video (seen below) in which Senior Economics Reporter, Steve Liesman, asks President Bush’s economic advisor, Gregory Mankiw, about the ‘Hurricane Effect’ on a jobs report.
Liesman: The concern here is that there was a lot of hurricane related with bounce back from September and a lot of construction related activity that added to jobs in October. Greg, take a step back from the number, the 339,000, where is the trend as far as you can tell?
Considering the devastation and destruction wrought by the recent spate of tornadoes, would there not be an uptick in construction related activity as well?
MSNBC followed that report with another forecast on job growth in November of 2004, which anticipated glowing numbers due to a ‘post-hurricane rebound’. That report read:
“Economists, who have been burned over the past few months by reports that fell short of expectations, are once again looking for a solid report, partly because of an expected rebound after four hurricanes tore through Florida and other southern states in August and September.”
That said, the biggest contradiction to the aforementioned ‘tornadoes wipe out jobs’ report may have come from an AP article run on the MSNBC site itself just four days ago. The headline?
Natural disasters probably won't bruise US economy
That piece stated:
The tornadoes and floods that have devastated parts of the South and Midwest have also hammered the local economies — flooding farmlands, suspending factory work and disrupting energy production.
Yet for the U.S. economy overall, the damage will likely be scant. At most, the disasters might knock one-tenth of 1 percentage point off national economic growth in the April-June quarter, Wells Fargo economist Mark Vitner estimates.
"It's so small, you aren't going to notice it," said Patrick Newport, an economist at IHS Global Insight.
Also of interest is the next sentence which reads:
Others caution, though, that the tornado season hasn't ended yet, and the hurricane season has yet to arrive. Further major disasters could begin to weigh on the U.S. economy.
So in the view of MSNBC, hurricanes and natural disasters in 2004 actually helped to create jobs, while in 2011 they will likely eliminate jobs. What’s the biggest difference leading to two very contradicting conclusions in these jobs reports?
Who was running for re-election in October of 2004, and who is running for re-election now?
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Of course, as Bill O'Reilly always notes, it's about next year's presidential election. But it's worth noting how even conservative journalists are still seemingly unable to connect the dots between Rolling Stone's bitter hatred for conservatives and its slimeball owner Jann Wenner:
I know this is like noting that the pope was seen praying, but Rolling Stone magazine just trashed Fox News and its chairman, Roger Ailes. Still, the piece, “The Fox News fear factory,” which was written by Tom Dickinson, is worth examining, if only for what it reveals about its author. It is a textbook example of projection — the phenomenon of a disturbed patient accusing someone of all the things that the patient himself is guilty of.
Reading Dickerson’s piece reminded me of G.K. Chesterton’s observation that “the maniac is not the man who has lost his reason — it is the man who has lost everything except his reason.” Many of the folks in asylums actually have very precise, circular, and reasonable — to them — ideas of how the universe works. Of course they are the reincarnation of the Marquis de Sade, and the CIA is piping messages into their cerebrum through the microwave. It’s what makes everything make sense.
And to the left, Fox News is an all-encompassing toxic cloud over America, a chimera that will destroy the nation, a Grendel. This belief is in fact a religious faith more than anything else. This explains how Tom Dickinson can write such a sloppy piece in Rolling Stone, and how he can be praised for it. Nobody on the left is going to criticize one of their own for attacking the devil.
Dickinson is reciting liberal catechism, not hunting for facts. In the entire 10,000 words, he doesn’t quote a single supporter of Fox News. He claims that Fox leader Roger Ailes “is deeply paranoid,” citing as evidence the fact that Ailes has a security detail and carries a gun. According to Dickinson’s logic, Fox under Ailes is a propaganda machine that stirs fear of Muslims and bangs the drums for war, yet Ailes is paranoid for thinking that Al Qaeda may target him. Then there is this passage:
To watch even a day of Fox News — the anger, the bombast, the virulent paranoid streak, the unending appeals to white resentment, the reporting that’s held to the same standard of evidence as a late October attack ad — is to see a refraction of its founder, one of the most skilled and fearsome operatives in the history of the Republican Party.
I’m sorry, but it is simply not possible to take seriously the “journalist” who wrote that sentence. If you’re going to accuse a network of being angry, bombastic, virulently paranoid and racist, you need to cite some hard examples. For instance, if I was to claim that suspended MSNBC host Ed Schultz is a misogynist and a fat angry bastard, I would offer a few examples: his calling conservative Laura Ingraham a slut, his jowly face, his hysterical meltdowns when taking about conservatives. If I was to call NBC’s Michael Isikoff a shrimp, it would be based on the fact that I am only 5’ 7” and I once stood next to Isikoff and looked down on him. In short, Dickinson needs to define paranoia, racism and white resentment, and give hard examples of exactly when this happened. He needs to give us some facts.
Instead, Dickinson offers a bio of Ailes garnished with the usual liberal paranoia. He accuses Ailes of “blurring the line between journalism and politics,” and astonishingly has nothing to say about how liberals do the same thing — has Dickinson never heard of George Stephanopoulos? Jay Carney and the platoon of journalists who now work for Obama? MSNBC? NBC? Dickinson brings up Willie Horton, never acknowledging that Horton was first the creation of Al Gore.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Hypocrite DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Bashes GOP For Supporting Foreign Car Companies, Owns Foreign Car
What a stupid, stupid, stupid woman, but it's sadder watching how the MSM let's her get away with this stuff:
It’s a general rule of thumb that whenever a politician says something negative about their opposition, they better not be guilty of the same thing, otherwise they would end up looking incredibly foolish.RELATED: DNC Chair: Republicans Think Illegal Immigration Should Be Illegal, or Something
The latest pol to suffer from this is Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Since she began her tenure as head of the DNC, Wasserman Schultz has gone on the offensive against the Republicans. She accused the GOP of “waging war on the unemployed” and slammed their budget proposal as a “path to poverty.” But her latest attack on the opposition backfired in a major way.
Wasserman Schultz appeared at a breakfast for reporters and called out the Republican candidates for president who were very critical of the 2009 auto bailouts:
If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars; they would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes.
So we can infer that if Wasserman Schultz had her way, we would not be driving foreign cars. We would be driving automobiles made right here in America!
Well, what an error that would be. Luckily, her garage was on hand to clarify her position.
[A]ccording to Florida motor vehicle records, the Wasserman Schultz household owns a 2010 Infiniti FX35, a Japanese car whose parent company is Nissan, another Japanese company. The car appears to be hers, since its license plate includes her initials.
Obviously, it’s not entirely fair to base her position on domestic car manufacturers by what she drives to work. Her voting record would be a more accurate way of measuring it. However, if you’re going to throw stones, make sure your house is not made of glass first.
NATO Apologizes For 9 Civilian Deaths In Afghanistan
Obama Calls Joplin, Missouri Tornado Disaster 'A National Tragedy'
A Win For Arizona, And The Rule Of Law
Tea Party - A Movement In Search Of A Leader
Planned Parenthood Challenges New South Dakota Abortion Law
Married Couples Represent Minority Of U.S. Households For First Time In History
Judge: Corporate Donations Ban Unconstitutional
Sarah Palin Rolls Into Washington On A Harley
The Worst Of Oprah: Daytime Talk Queen Ends Biased Reign
Rep. Anthony Weiner: I Did Not Send Twitter Crotch Pic
Blacks And The Arab-Israeli Conflict
Andrew Sullivan: Palin Can Win As 'Principled' Tea Party Candidate