Arianna Huffington's HuffPo Website Endorses Adultery

Never let it be said that social liberals don't embrace adultery, esp. since traditional marriage and monogamy mean nothing to them anyway:

Want to forsake your marriage vows and engage in a “discreet” affair? AshleyMadison.com, “the most recognized name in infidelity,” has you covered, or uncovered. Immorality is trending in America, and AshleyMadison.com and Huffington Post can’t wait to help you find a cheating partner. 

Ironically, liberal Huffington Post’s love affair with AshleyMadison.com is more committed than casual, since HuffPo regularly writes about and highlights the adultery website. A search for “AshleyMadison.com” on Huffington Post’s website yielded over 9,000 results. Of course, HuffPo added a "Divorce" section to its site before adding one for “Marriage.” (Never let it be said that HuffPo, house organ for the Hollywood left, doesn’t know its readers!) Given those priorities, it’s infatuation with the cheat site is understandable. 

Most recently, HuffPo shamelessly plugged Ashley Madison’s newest outrage: An offer of $1 million to anyone who can prove they took Christian quarterback Tim Tebow’s virginity. 

Other AshleyMadison.com stories promoted by Huffington Post include a full-length video of the infidelity website’s rejected SuperBowl ad, featuring porn star Savanna Simmons. HuffPo also hawked AshleyMadison’s slander of GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, when the pro-adultery site erected a billboard endorsing Gingrich for president. 

But don’t worry! AshleyMadison.com says it doesn’t encourage married partners to stray or even make it easier to have an affair. No, the purpose of the website is “so you can communicate with other like-minded adults who may be more sympathetic to your circumstances.” 

And when you’ve ruined your marriage by participating in an extra-marital affair (that AshleyMadison.com absolutely didn’t encourage you to have!) you can trot on over to Huffington Post’s “Divorce” section. With articles like “"Does Mother's Day Give Wives a Reason to Cheat?" and “'Why Do We Try So Hard To Save Floundering Marriages" the straying spouse can console him- or herself with the knowledge that everyone is doing it (at least everyone in Beverly Hills.)  

RELATED: Park Slope Is New York’s Second Most Adulterous Neighborhood, Says AshleyMadison.com

Paul Krugman Pompously Insults Ron Paul And His Supporters

Mediaite.com:

As you may recall, Monday afternoon on Bloomberg TV’s Street Smart, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman got into a heated debate with Congressman Ron Paul. This morning, after he presumably received a great deal of criticism from Paul fans and/or read the general web buzz that declared Paul the victor, Krugman took to his blog to insult the congressman and his fans:

…[P]eople react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinons may differ.

What pomposity. Mr. Krugman’s fans couldn’t possibly be as voracious as Paul’s because Krugman’s are high-minded New York Times subscribers.

Of course opinions will differ. Krugman’s followers can often be just as sycophantic. You have to be sorely out-of-touch to assume that your followers could never be fanatical like some of Ron Paul’s admirers.

But what’s even more unnerving about Krugman’s post is the way he describes Paul’s rhetoric as “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” This is how I imagine Nobel laureate Krugman hears all of his opponents. Dr. Paul, willing to engage a well-known popular economist, brings up serious points about monetary policy (points that have long been made by Nobel laureates like F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman), and Krugman behaves like the child with his fingers in his ears: “Nah, nah, nah, I can’t hear you!”

Krugman, nose firmly pointing upward, describes his debate with Paul as “the perfect illustration of a point I’ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.” But contrary to what Krugman may think, the general consensus about the “Paul vs Paul” segment was that it was a truly thoughtful discussion, a refreshing break from the usual talking-heads banter.

He continues on:

Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?).

No one will call Dr. Paul on it, because he was right about spending cuts after World War II. From 1944 through 1948, the federal government cut spending by roughly 75%. I don’t know how that could be at all ambiguous to Mr. Krugman.

But it seems as though Mr. Krugman feels he is above the shallow art of talking-head debates, and we should all be thankful he came down to our level for roughly 13 minutes of what us little people considered “thoughtful television.”

So if he has such disdain for the process, why did he bother participating?

So why did I do it? Because I’m trying to publicize my book, which does have lots of data and facts…

There we go.

RELATED: Ron Paul Battles Paul Krugman On Bloomberg TV

Confirmed: Nancy Pelosi Lied About CIA Briefing On Waterboarding

If you're still out there looking for a reason as to why Nancy Pelosi was unceremoniously bounced as House Speaker a couple of years ago during the 2010 midterm elections, here's another...she's just a liar of epic proportions:

Three years ago, I wrote a satirical column "defending" Nancy Pelosi against accusations that she had lied publicly about being briefed by the CIA about the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) -- including waterboarding -- on enemy detainees as far back as 2002.  Here's her infamous denial:


The evidence against Pelosi was so strong that her tale could only be explained one of two ways: Either (a) she was lying, or (b) a vast conspiracy had constructed a web of deceit to ensnare her.  Occam's Razor revealed the truth, of course, but my column was premised on describing just how implausible the 'anti-Pelosi witch hunt' theory really was.  As of that writing, we knew that two separate members of the House Intelligence Committee had personally attested to her presence at a private 2002 briefing, at which EITs were thoroughly described.  A contemporaneous CIA report also confirmed Pelosi's presence at the briefing, specifying that members were informed about the existence and use of these EITs.  A 2007 Washington Post account corroborated these facts.  And yet, Pelosi stuck to her story.  She claimed that she was not -- repeat: was not -- told about any of this, further asserting that the CIA had lied by explicitly assuring her that waterboarding had not been used.  In case any shadow of doubt remained, a final piece of this puzzle has fallen into place.  The former CIA counterterrorism chief who conducted the briefing in question has at last spoken out:

In his new book, “Hard Measures,” Jose Rodriguez reveals that he led a CIA briefing of Pelosi, where the techniques being used in the interrogation of senior al-Qaeda facilitator Abu Zubaida were described in detail. Her claim that she was not told about waterboarding at that briefing, he writes, “is untrue.” “We explained that as a result of the techniques, Abu Zubaydah was compliant and providing good intelligence. We made crystal clear that authorized techniques, including waterboarding, had by then been used on Zubaydah.” Rodriguez writes that he told Pelosi everything, adding, “We held back nothing.” How did she respond when presented with this information? Rodriguez writes that neither Pelosi nor anyone else in the briefing objected to the techniques being used.

That's not merely Rodriguez's personal recollection; his memory is affirmed by yet another document:

Six days after the meeting took place, Rodriguez reveals, “a cable went out from headquarters to the black site informing them that the briefing for the House leadership had taken place.” He explains that “[t]he cable to the field made clear that Goss and Pelosi had been briefed on the state of AZ’s interrogation, specifically including the use of the waterboard and other enhanced interrogation techniques.”

To recap: Roughly one year after 9/11, Nancy Pelosi and other select members of Congress were told in great detail about a program of EITs that US interrogators were employing to wring actionable intelligence out of captured terrorists.  No one objected.  Years later, when Democrats were indignantly denouncing "torture" as an inexpiable sin of Bush and the Republicans, Pelosi disavowed any knowledge of the meeting she had attended.  She deliberately lied about a sensitive national security question in order to score the cheapest of political points, tossing the American intelligence community under the bus in the process.  This is absolutely shameful.  House Democrats' code of Congressional conduct features the following passage, describing the grounds on which a member may be censured:

The authority to discipline by way of censure, reprimand or other such rebuke, however, has come to be recognized and accepted in congressional practice as extending to cases of “misconduct,” even outside of Congress, which the House finds to be reprehensible, and/or to reflect discredit on the institution, and which is, therefore, worthy of condemnation or rebuke.

If lying -- knowingly and repeatedly -- about a matter of national security in pursuit of a purely partisan end doesn't fit the bill for "reprehensible" behavior that "reflects discredit on the institution, I don't know what does.  Her mendacity in this case is far more damaging to Congress and the nation than anything for which Anthony Weiner, for instance, was responsible.  Pelosi remains the highest ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives.  Disgraceful.

RELATED: Ex-CIA counterterror chief says Pelosi ‘reinventing the truth’ about waterboarding

Bill O’Reilly And Bernie Goldberg Take On Dan Rather: First Paragraph Of Obit Will Contain ‘Memo-Gate’

Mediaite.com:

Former CBS anchor Dan Rather was supposed to make an appearance on The O’Reilly Factor tomorrow, but it turns out he cancelled. On his show Monday, Bill O’Reilly chatted with Bernie Goldberg and pondered why that might be.


On Monday, Rather doubled down on his controversial report about President George W. Bush Texas Air National Guard service — the story that led to his leaving the network. “You lost in the court of law,” O’Reilly said. “Your assertion was not deemed credible.” How you do squared that? Rather would have to answer those questions, O’Reilly said, and that’s probably why he canceled.


Goldberg chimed in with his take. “I think Dan would rather be interviewed by an ideological soulmate — whether it’s George Stephanopoulos or Chris Matthews or somebody like that — rather than sit down and be grilled by you. [...] I don’t think he’d want to sit down and be grilled by you, so I don’t think it’s really that complicated.”


Rather made his reputation being confrontational, O’Reilly observed, so one would think he’d take the opportunity to go to come on the show. He added that, if he kicked O’Reilly’s butt, Rather would look like a hero, so “it’s a win-win.”


Goldberg agreed, and added:

You would think so. I mean, he took on in what turned out to be a disaster. He took on George Bush the elder on the CBS Evening News. He sat down face-to-face with Saddam Hussein who could have had him killed before he left the country. But, I know it doesn’t sound logical, but I think he is more comfortable with sitting down with a murderer, like Saddam Hussein, than he is — I know, you know what i’m going to say — than sitting down with you. I mean, look. The only reason people cancel, the only reason people cancel is because they have a conflict of scheduling and that wasn’t it.

O’Reilly said, “I think he is painfully aware of the fact that some day down the road when somebody writes the obit for Dan Rather, in the first paragraph it’s going to contain the words either Memo-Gate or Rather-Gate or something like that. I think that hurts him terribly.”


Goldberg added that Rather is “like Captain Ahab, who became obsessed with the whale, who did him in, he can’t let this go.”

 RELATED:  Dan Rather Outspoken: Still Battling CBS News

Arianna Huffington Says Obama's bin Laden Ad Is "Despicable"

CBSNews.com:

Arianna Huffington, founder and editor-in-chief of the The Huffington Post, called the Obama campaign's decision to tout the assassination of Osama bin Laden in a campaign advertisement "despicable." The ad questions whether presidential candidate Mitt Romney would have ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.


"I don't think there should be an ad about that," Huffington said Monday on "CBS This Morning." "I think it's one thing to celebrate the fact that they did such a great job (with television specials). All that is perfectly legitimate. But to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do."


She added, "It's the same thing Hillary Clinton did with the 3 a.m. call. 'You're not ready to be commander-in-chief.' It's also what makes politicians and political leaders act irrationally when it comes to matters of war because they're so afraid to be called wimps, that they make decisions, which are incredible destructive for the country. I'm sure the president would not have escalated in Afghanistan if he was not as concerned, as Democrats are, that Republicans are going to use not escalating against him in a campaign."  

RELATED: Obama’s bin Laden ad “despicable,” says … Arianna Huffington

Politiks As Usual: 4/30/12

Gingrich Expected To Leave GOP Presidential Race Wednesday, Sources Say 

What 'Gutsy Call'?: CIA Memo Reveals Admiral Controlled bin Laden Mission

The Audacity Of Cynicism

Korean Christians Aim To Stop Lady Gaga's "Pornographic" Show

'Crucify Them': The Obama Way

Those Cheapened Pulitzer 'Prizes'

Obama Economy Driving Youth Vote To Romney

Jonah Goldberg Tackles Liberal Cliches... In The WashPost 

L.A. Riots: Twenty Years Later, Many Changes but Same Rhetoric

How To Keep The Poor Poor

Great News: Secret Service To Get Chaperones For Foreign Trips

No Luck for Bradley Manning: More Motions Denied in WikiLeaks Case

MasonCountyDailyNews.com:

The judge in the case of accused WikiLeaker PFC Bradley Manning has denied a defense motion to dismiss the charge of aiding the enemy, the most serious charge Manning will face during his court martial.

On the third and final day of pre-trial hearings in Manning’s case, presiding judge Col. Denise Lind on Thursday denied two other defense motions.  They included an assertion that prosecutors unreasonably multiplied charges against Manning, and a motion to dismiss a charge dealing with publishing information on the Internet knowing the enemy has access to the Web.

Manning’s civilian defense counsel, David Coombs, argued on Wednesday that the charge of aiding the enemy was too vague.

Outlining specific instructions in her decision to deny the motion, Lind told the government that it must prove Manning knew that by putting information on the WikiLeaks site the enemy would access it.

If, at the end of the trial, currently set for late September, the government does not prove Manning had that knowledge, the defense can then submit another motion to dismiss the charge.

Manning faces 22 charges, including aiding the enemy, wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy, theft of public property or records, and transmitting defense information.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Coombs criticized the government for allegedly piling “on offenses to increase the sentence.”  He requested four charges be dismissed because the specifications were unreasonable and a duplication of other charges against Manning.

Lind denied that motion during Thursday’s hearing at Ft. Meade, Md., based on the fact that given the amount of information involved it was not an unreasonable duplication.

“The number of charges does not misrepresent or exaggerate the accused theft of government property,” Lind said.

Although Lind denied the motion submitted by the defense, she said it can readdress the motion again at sentencing, if it is relevant.

The judge also disagreed with the defense’s argument that the charge Manning faces for “wrongfully and wantonly caus[ing] [information] to be published on the Internet” knowing it would be accessed by the enemy is redundant, saying it is not preempted by the charge of “aiding the enemy.”  She said that the alleged crimes were distinct and separate criminal acts.

It's just like a weasel, immoral gay activist and traitor like Bradley Manning to attempt to get out of committing one of the most egregious acts in U.S. history. What an ass.

RELATED: Another bad day for Bradley Manning