Those like Matt Taibbi, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Jack Cafferty, David Schuster, Dana Milbank, Chris Cilizza, to name a few, have long enjoyed deep cover because of their supposed stance on social issues. That does not nor never should have bought them a pass. These men purport to be journalists and serious commentators. Never was their vile behavior more evident than the sexist horror show of 2008 against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Their vile, sniggering behavior continues unabated. In fact the only half-hearted apologies ever elicited from any one of these men has only come after a hand slap, a loss of ratings or advertisers…Is that the level of political discourse in this country when discussing women: She devil, bitch, Nurse Ratched, bubblehead?

Rush was forced into the same kind of apology last week. Was he sincere? Doubtful. Will he do it again? Very Likely. Has Bill Maher ever apologized for his endless litany of demeaning statements about women?

Rush Limbaugh is entitled to like or dislike whomever he wants, but if the best way he has to discredit Hillary Clinton is by saying she has “a testicle lockbox” or by calling her a “Femi-Nazi” – I’d say he’s lost the argument. And if Bill Maher likewise has to insult Hillary by saying “They fined CBS a million dollars for showing Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s c*nt,” and calls Sarah Palin a “c*nt” and a “twat” – it is pretty obvious that the cheap shot is all he is good for. It doesn’t say much for his mental capacity otherwise.

Bill Maher just made a million dollar donation to a SuperPAC with the mission of re-electing President Obama. How does that sit with the party of women’s progress? So we don’t care if you treat women like garbage – as long as your check cashes?

Limbaugh and Maher are shock jocks. That’s how they make their money. However, they also both function as commentators on different news programs. But whether they do or not, these two, along with David Letterman and Jay Leno, have powerful bully pulpits. They cannot hide behind the safety net of “comedian” or “host” when what they are selling is hate-speech. Their jokes, satire, rants, whatever you call them, have a devastating effect night after night that is just as costly as that of the vile pundits on MSNBC or CNN.

Just imagine the equivalent comment being made by any one of these guys toward President Obama? What is the equivalent comment to calling a man a slut, a whore, a c*nt, a twat, a moron, a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick, saying that a particular woman “reads copy with a big set of hairy balls in her mouth” (that was from Taibbi)…What if you made a slur against a Jewish person? A Muslim? Juan Williams made a general comment voicing his nervousness about Muslims traveling in traditional garb on airplanes and NPR fired him.

I have no objection to anyone taking a female candidate or a woman making statements in the public sphere to task on the merits. But let’s stick to the issues, shall we?

Why is it necessary for these men (or the complicit women who egg them on) to call women by the most denigrating names possible – as if their very gender was at the root of their crime.

Moral relativism is not acceptable. The source of these comments does not matter, nor the target. This is hate speech, not free speech. If it were not hate speech, what else accounts for all the violence against women in this country and around the world? Clearly, there still exists some sort of sick need to put women in their place, either with words or by violent means. My fear is that men who control the air waves or use ink by the barrel influence society in negative ways when it comes to how we view women. They decide what a woman is worth and influence how they should be treated by speaking of them so disrespectfully.

If the Rush Limbaughs and Bill Mahers and Keith Olbermanns of the world cannot find a more intelligent way to take issue with a female subject than resorting to acting like bullying twelve year olds, then maybe they are not up to the job.

We are so busy in this country protecting every group under the sun from offense. Yet women are still graded and degraded on the basis of appearance, age, sexuality, vocal quality – anything that will allow them to be cleaved into body parts and then disempowered. It is up to women on both sides of the aisle to stop themselves from being used and manipulated in this debate and express a zero tolerance policy. It is up to men on both sides of the aisle to stop grading on a curve when it comes to their own transgressions or those of their brothers.

While it was only fitting that Rush Limbaugh apologize for his behavior, he should not be singled out or used politically as a distraction from the larger debate. If politicians are only coming to the defense of women when they need our votes, it is up to us to say ‘you can do better.’

President Obama called Ms. Fluke to express his support. But if he really wants to support her – then he must return Bill Maher’s million dollar donation to his re-election campaign, since Maher, like Limbaugh is a horrid culprit in this debate and a regular purveyor of sexist attacks upon women of both parties.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama have two beautiful daughters. I know they would never want Sasha and Malia to be on the receiving end of the sexist commentary made by the likes of a Limbaugh or a Maher. Given that a newscaster by the name of David Shuster referred to the Clintons as pimps and their daughter Chelsea a whore by inference, nothing is outside the realm of possibility any longer. Propriety is a thing of the past. No insult to any woman is off limits it seems.

The President has the most powerful bully pulpit in the world. Rejecting Mr. Maher’s money would go a long way toward proving that this zero tolerance policy starts at the top, and is not just about politics.

****************
Anita Finlay is the author of the soon to be released book, Dirty Words On Clean Skin: Sexism and Sabotage, a Hillary supporter’s rude awakening.

This is historic, and if anyone thinks for a second it isn’t, then they are simply fooling themselves. All of those people who screamed about indefinite detention of enemy combatants down at Gitmo, I sure as hell hope you are going to be screaming now. This is not just for those possible terrorists, this is for you, and me.

Now, I am no attorney, or Constitutional scholar, but I can read. The US Constitution, Amendment 6 says this: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

What is not clear about this?

I might add, I said from the very beginning that this alleged “Constitutional Scholar” probably became one so he could better dismantle the law. Sure is looking like it with this.

Glenn Greenwald’s article on this topic is outstanding, and I highly recommend you read the entire piece, but I do want to touch on some highlights here:

[snip] (Y)esterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I wrote aboutthe primary provisions and implications of this bill last week, and won’t repeat those points here.

The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

Both groups pointed out that this is the first time indefinite detention has been enshrined in law since the McCarthy era of the 1950s, when — as the ACLU put it — “President Truman had the courage to veto” the Internal Security Act of 1950 on the ground that it “would make a mockery of our Bill of Rights” and then watched Congress override the veto. That Act authorized the imprisonment of Communists and other “subversives” without the necessity of full trials or due process (many of the most egregious provisions of that bill were repealed by the 1971 Non-Detention Act, and are now being rejuvenated by these War on Terror policies of indefinite detention). President Obama, needless to say, is not Harry Truman. He’s not even the Candidate Obama of 2008 who repeatedly insisted that due process and security were not mutually exclusive and who condemned indefinite detention as “black hole” injustice.

A return to McCarthyism under the Obama Administration is what we now have. Wow, great. That is just jake. For all of those people who did not believe us when we said Obama was Bush III, something about which I wrote extensively, who ridiculed, attacked, and demeaned, not only were we right, and bite me, but NOW look what has happened to our nation.

As I said, there is so much more to this article, I cannot begin to do it justice here, read it. But I do want to make sure you see this:

[snip] I need to say that again: long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. (Emphasis mine.)That’s what makes the apologias over Obama and GITMO so misleading: the controversy over Guantanamo was not that about its locale — that it was based in the Caribbean Sea — so that simply closing it and then re-locating it to a different venue would address the problem. The controversy over Guantanamo was that it was a prison camp where people were put in cages indefinitely, for decades or life, without being charged with any crime. And that policy is one that President Obama whole-heartedly embraced from the start. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

If you prefer, you can watch Mr. Greenwald discuss this issue with Cenk Ungar here:

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is historic, this is horrible, this is McCarthyism, this is an affront to the US Constitution, this is abhorrent in every way, shape, and form.

I have just one question for those who voted for Obama: How do you like him NOW??

Okay. Are you sitting down? Good. If you are drinking something, put it down. Alright. Here it is: Justice Dept. Proposes Lying, Hiding Existence Of Records Under New FOIA Rule.

Yes, you read that right. Can you believe that? They want to change FOIA so they can LIE to the American public. These people make me use colorful language, the jackwagons.

Here are the particulars:

A proposed revision to Freedom of Information Act rules would allow federal agencies to lie to citizens and reporters seeking certain records, telling them the records don’t exist.

The Justice Department has proposed the change as part of a large revision of FOIA rules for federal agencies. Specifically, the rule would direct government agencies who are denying a request under an established FOIA exemption to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist,” rather than citing the relevant exemption.

The proposed rule has alarmed government transparency advocates across the political spectrum, who’ve called it “Orwellian” and say it will “twist” public access to government.

In a public comment regarding the rule change, the ACLU, along with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and OpenTheGovernment.org, said the move “will dramatically undermine government integrity by allowing a law designed to provide public access to government information to be twisted to permit federal law enforcement agencies to actively lie to the American people.”

Well, gee, you think? This is just beyond imagination. Obama’s Administration is FAR from being the transparent one he promised during the 2008 Campaign, not even close, as the article makes clear:

The news is “not surprising, coming from the Obama administration,” said Christopher J. Farrell, director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch.

“The Obama administration is already doing it right now by actively misleading the public concerning White House visitor logs,” Farrell said. “Every day, the Obama administration misrepresents and conceals the true, complete record of who is going in and out of the White House — all the while proclaiming themselves champions of transparency. It’s truly Orwellian. The proposed rule change should be rejected.”

Well, hell yes, it should be rejected. It is obscene that the DOJ would even SUGGEST such a thing, but not surprising given their MO since Obama took office and appointed Eric Holder in charge.

It is especially egregious in light of the claims Obama made about this very act:

Upon taking office, President Obama released a memorandum declaring his administration was “committed to operating with an unprecedented level of openness. Specifically, he pledged to bolster the strength of the FOIA act, calling it “the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, there is only one thing to say here – Barack Obama is a liar. A big, huge liar, as he has demonstrated time after time. When even the Huffington Post has to acknowledge that this Administration is far from transparent, you know it is bad.

You know, whenever I see something like this, or Obama’s recent tripping around the country pronouncing loudly for all to hear that he has no intention of following the US Constitution, and that Congress is superfluous, or shoving Obamacare down our throats, or giving half a billion to a company in Finland to make “green cars that only get 10mpg, and cost $90,000 a PIECE, or Solyndra, or calling Tea Party people (or anyone who opposes his policies) racist, or any NUMBER of things, it really, really pisses me off. It pisses me off at all of those people who threw good judgment out the window and voted for a slogan rather than a qualified candidate, who threatened people who did not support Obama, who engaged in voter and caucus fraud, who stole votes from Hillary, and on and on and on it goes, to put this man into the White House. The damage he and his Administration are doing to this nation expands daily.

So, thanks, all you boneheads who voted for this man, who gave him the most important job in the world on the thinnest of resumes (when you would NEVER hire someone for your own company or school on such flimsy records), who bought into his race-baiting, and engaged in rampant misogyny to support him. Thanks a whole lot for nothing.

Now, what the hell are you going to do to make this right?

Anyway, my aunt sent me the following “Attack Watch” entries, and I just have to share them with you for my last post for a while. They had me cracking up:

“My neighbor removed his Obama bumper sticker. I think he’s a racist.”

“Bless me #AttackWatch for I have sinned. I have muttered naughty words about our Dear Leader 9 times & have doubted his divinity a few times.”

“Ate refried beans & chips for breakfast which is sort of racist foodist – Carbon emissions to follow.”

“#AttackWatch have you cried “uncle” yet? Because we can keep this up all f***in’ day.”

“I saw a kid eating fries with his happy meal yesterday.”

“I did see the price of arugula at the supermarket today.”

“I just parked my private jet in a handicap space, left it running & bought lemonade from little girls in yard w/o a permit!”

“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean a big majority of us isn’t out to get you…”

“Hey #attackwatch I heard the TSA was coming out with a similar website, it’s called AttackCrotch.”

“Rush Limbaugh said he’s reporting himself… so others don’t have to!”

“What a Twit we have as President.”

Ahahahaha. Funny, right? The TSA one is surely accurately named. I hope none of y’all have had to endure one of their pat downs, but I can tell you, just having gone through it again on Sunday, the Attack Watch entry is spot on. Wow. Don’t you feel safer? Ahem.

Here’s a “Top Ten” list of funny Attack Watch tweets:

10) @ScottSwett1 #AttackWatch: I, for one, am honored to be recruited as an informer by our new insect overlords.

9) @iowahawkblog: I’m grateful to live in a country where the totalitarians are so hilariously inept. #AttackWatch

@justkarl: .@Doc_0 #AttackWatch already has a bat-signal, but it’s solar, so it doesn’t work at night.

7) @secupp Watch out, monthly jobless report. @AttackWatch is onto you. #attackwatch

6) @freeulysses Hey #attackwatch my boss just said the purpose of a business is to make a profit for it’s shareholders. Can I like, citizens arrest?

5) @RachelWard301 @attackwatch I sneezed & some guy I don’t know said “God bless you”. I want him arrested for forcing his religion on me. #attackwatch

4) @madisonmom4 #attackwatch I have to turn my husband in, he told my son there’s only 50 states. What a commie

3) @CalebHowe Extra points if you turn in your parents. MT @AttackWatch See a new attack on the President or his record? Use #attackwatch to report it.

2) @johnhawkinsrwn Bush wanted people to say something if they suspected terrorism. Obama wants you to alert #AttackWatch if you think someone doesn’t like him

1) @mkhammer I prince of Nigeria. Please to unleash many riches I send you. Simple help by report @michellemalkin to #AttackWatch. Also, ur credit card.

Ohmygosh, those are hilarious! Feel free to add your own or anything else about which you want to talk.

Friends, this is it for me for a while. My surgery is Thursday (9/22), and I will be away from my computer for a bit. My partner will let y’all know how the surgery went, and what they found while they were in there. Thank you so much for all of the support, the love, and the prayers. It means a lot to me. I’ll miss our conversations, but I look forward to getting back here soon. Until then, take care, hang in there, and keep laughing – it helps to deal with the craziness in the world. Here’s a little tune until next time:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Amen to that. Blessings, friends.

And it is pissing me off. Seriously. I don’t know if it is the off-the-chart pain levels I am enduring, or what, but it is pissing me off that – all of a sudden – the people who were in a position to make clear how inept Obama was, is, and would be, failed to convey that message adequately. No, not Cheney – I mean the media and Democratic political pundits who should have known, and most likely did know, better, but went-along-to-get-along so they could keep blathering on CNN, MSNBC, or whatever channel would have them. They rode this wave of a created back story of who Obama was, one that did not match the REALITY of who he was, by his handlers and string pullers rather than DOING THEIR JOBS, and now, NOW, they are coming out saying, “oh, yeah – Hillary would have been SO much better” after calling her, her husband, and her supporters a bunch of racist gun and Bible toters who could barely get dressed in the morning. All I can say is, BITE ME.

Ahem. Sorry. I have no patience or tolerance for this crap right now. Clinton would have been the best, they knew it then, but sexism trumps all any day of the week, and they sure as hell were not going to support any old (!) woman over a biracial freshman senator. Nosirree bob. Even as I write that one sentence – a freshman senator beating out a woman who had a vastly superior resume was treated like crap by these people in her own party AND in the media. And now they come crying saying it should have been her? Please. They CHOSE him over her. (Photo credit: blackagendareport.com)

It is not like the information wasn’t out there for all the world to see. They chose to ignore it, they chose to cover it up (thank you, JournoListers and the LA Times to name just two more), they failed to vet, they failed to fact check, they failed to keep their emotions in check, they failed, failed, failed at their jobs, and now we are all paying the price. For instance, the NY Times, and other outlets, repeatedly have pushed the meme that Obama is even keeled, even tempered, and unshakeable. It is a pile of horse manure. They have just ignored his snippyness, arrogance, and short fuse because it did not fit the image they – the media – were crafting for him (no doubt at the insistance of the Davids, Plouffe and Axelrod).

The truth was out there, though. Consider the opening paragraphs of this story from a reporter who liked Obama, but was professional enough to be honest about him in his extensive piece, “Barack Obama And Me“:

It’s not quite eight in the morning and Barack Obama is on the phone screaming at me. He liked the story I wrote about him a couple weeks ago, but not this garbage.

Months earlier, a reporter friend told me she overheard Obama call me an asshole at a political fund-raiser. Now here he is blasting me from hundreds of miles away for a story that just went online but hasn’t yet hit local newsstands.

It’s the first time I ever heard him yell, and I’m trembling as I set down the phone. I sit frozen at my desk for several minutes, stunned.

This is an extensive, in-depth piece, which goes into Emil Jones, Obama’s “kingmaker,” and so, so much more. But one other piece I cannot resist putting in since I have mentioned is his fake Southern accent (grrrrr):

My view of Obama then wasn’t all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it.

My point, and as Ellen Degeneres would say, I do have one, is that the information was there, from this author, to John Kass, Lynn Sweet, and others in the Chicago area, but the MSM refused to upset the apple cart, supporting the myth of Obama, not the fact of Obama. All I can say is, thanks shitloads for that, you worthless hacks. Look where your complete and utter lack of professionalism got us. Told you I have no patience for this right now.

And for the love of all that is holy, stop pushing Hillary NOW. The time is long past,t he damage done. She is not going to run. She has made that abundantly clear. Party before country, she will not go up against her boss, and even if she did, it is too late. She has already been touting his policies all over the globe. If she now claimed she didn’t support any of them, but hawked them anyway, well, do I really need to finish that thought for you? I didn’t think so.

So, yeah – I have had it with the handwringing, coulda, woulda, shoulda crapola the MSM, and some political pundits, are now peddling. They should have done their homework before the last election instead of crying about it now that the damage is done. They have no one to blame but themselves, and believe you me, they deserve all the blame they get.

Here’s a thought – maybe it isn’t just those in DC who deserve to be liberated from their political positions, but the vast majority of “journalists,” too. I am sure there are a whole bunch of real journalists out there looking for jobs. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change? Journalists who did the groundwork, did their HOMEwork, and didn’t insert their opinion into their stories? Oh, yes – now THAT is some “change” for which we can “hope.”

Until then, just spare me the current MSM/pundit outrage at what should have been. Clinton was the best choice, bar none, and you backed the wrong horse in that race for the most superficial of reasons. Admit that, acknowledge that, and for heaven’s sake, DO YOUR JOBS already. And stop pissing me off.

How about you?

The world focused on the Northern areas of Pakistan to capture or kill the al-Qaeda or Taliban operatives. But the harsh reality is that even if these operatives are eliminated, there are other outfits in the rest of the southern part of Pakistan that have the same aims, will and training as that of al-Qaeda or Taliban.

After 2001 Pakistanis were spoon fed the propaganda that the violence in Pakistan is due to America’s presence in Afghanistan. As a result, many hate the U.S. intervention and see Islamists as the defenders of Pakistani sovereignty. Those who support the Islamists for their religious beliefs are relatively few in number, but they are better organized. The arrests of extremists depends on the willingness of Pakistan’s secret agencies and/or the influence of the Saudi government.

The dual policy of keeping the U.S. happy while supporting the terrorist outfits was charted out by the then-President of Pakistan Gen. Pervez Musharraf. He half-heartedly banned some 23 organizations but failed — deliberately — to bring their sponsors to justice.

The story of Southern part of Pakistan is much scarier than the Northern part. Just as the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approached, those “banned” outfits were on the rise, exploiting the anti-Americanism in the country and misusing the name of religion.

Jaish-e-Muhammad, the group blamed for an attack on the Indian parliament, is the second largest jihadi group in Southern Punjab. It carries out regular public gatherings and has strong influence in the U.K., Europe, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and even in the U.S. Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi was their financial patron-in-chief at one point. Another major financer is Saudi Arabia.

JeM changed its name a few times because of the “ban.” It went from Khudam-al-Islam to Al Rehmat Trust International to Usman Trust. Currently it is operating under the banner of Al Shafi Islamic Medical. Its publications were never out of print.

The failed Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, spent much of his time at a JeM madrassa in Karachi. He was transported to the North later by Laskhar-e-Jhangvi for further training.

LeJ’s parent organization — Sipah Sahaba Pakistan — changed its name from Millat-e-Islamia to International Quran Movement to Ehle Sunnat wa Jamaat. Its propaganda organ publications were available to the masses outside mosques and various market places.

The LeJ formed and operated its new wing, also known as Lashkar e Jhangvi al Almi (LeJ International). With its headquarters in Pakistan, it covers Europe and the U.K. The LeJ is organized into small cells of around eight cadres each, who operate independently of the others.

LeJ leader Malik Ishaq told an Urdu newspaper about his involvement in the killings of 102 people. He was allowed a stipend and provided a mobile phone in jail. Ishaq was released this year after the courts found no evidence against him.

Gen. Musharraf’s government carried out just one operation against the Islamic fundamentalists, under pressure from the Chinese government, when he ordered the Red Mosque Siege. Pakistani intelligence officials said they found letters from Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to the leaders of the mosque, directing them to conduct an armed revolt. One of the leaders was released by the courts later.

The LeJ, JeM and Harkat ul Jihad-e-Islami (HuJI) formed a common front called Lashkar-e-Umer with countrywide branches for close cooperation and pooled resources. These groups still support each other in one form or another.

The Karachi-based Al Rasheed Trust, was “banned” and listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department on September 22, 2001. The group is still operating and its chief was one of the few who had direct access to bin Laden.

Similarly, another group, the Falah-e-Isnaniyat Foundation (FIF) is linked with Lashkar and Jamat-al-Dawa and protected by the security establishment. These groups are also supported and funded by the Saudis.

The freehand operations of these groups have radicalized Pakistani society. Anti-Americanism spreads while Arabization has taken hold.

There are more and more mosques in each city, many run by such outfits. In some places three separate mosques of different sects are built next to each other. The sermons delivered there go unchecked and ultimately fuel the hatred and twisted ideology of dividing Muslims and bringing ‘sharia’ of their liking to the world. Public Billboards promoting jihad and hatred of America are everywhere cloaked as appeals for “charity.”

Pakistan’s internal crises include a deep cynicism that has seeped into every nook and cranny of everyday life. Politically, the army continues to run the popular narrative. Socially, if liberals talk about rapprochement with India, they’re accused of being controlled by RAW, the C.I.A. or the Zionists — or all three. The radical view that it’s acceptable to kill Shi’a, Ahmadis, Hindus and Christians and destroy their places of worship is widespread.

Because of this chaos, ordinary Pakistanis who want to travel, work and study abroad are finding it harder to do so. In the eyes of many immigration officials around the world, to be Pakistani is synonymous with being a criminal.

It’s been said many times that 9/11 changed the world. After the attacks, Afghanistan and Pakistan felt the heat.

Ten years later, the diseases that had been contained in Pakistan metastasize more rapidly than ever. Pakistan’s militants, all of them, are a threat to international peace. If the West’s strategy for combating radicalism continues on its present parochial course, the world will feel the heat.

Does Holder care that Obama continues to by-pass Congress with his numerous Executive Orders, skirting US law? Nah. Does he care that Labor Secretary Solis declares that the US will extend all the same labor rights and benefits to illegal immigrants that citizens enjoy? Nuh uh. Does he think it is the least bit suspicious that the head of the AFL/CIO, Richard Trumka, has made, on average, a visit to the White House every 16 days, or that Trumka talks to the White House EVERY DAY, which might imply an extraordinary influence on policy? Yawn. Nope.

So what DOES Holder and the DOJ see as critical? Upholding India’s law – even though India did not ask them to do so.

Huh?

Yes, the DOJ is going after Gibson Guitars for using a particular type of wood from India for their fret boards that the DOJ claims violates INDIA’S laws. WTH? Are you kidding me?? The answer would be no – this is not a joke. The DOJ has raided Gibson Guitars. I am just shaking my head in disbelief. I saw something about this while on vacation, and thought it must have been the (virgin) Pina Coladas by the pool, but no – it is real. The US DOJ is going after them for what they perceive as Gibson violating another country’s laws :

Juszkiewiz said the government suggested that the company’s use of unfinished wood from India is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because of the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. The Holder Justice Department raided at least two Gibson manufacturing plants this week forcing hundreds of workers off their jobs. Juszkiewiz says the company lost a million dollars this week.

Finally, Henry Juszkiewicz told Dana, “The Obama Justice Department wants us to just shut our doors and go away.” He says he will continue to fight for the Gibson company and its workers.

To say that the CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, is hot under the collar about this is both an understatement, and understandable:

“What it does is it shuts down production because we use that as raw material. If they take our raw material we can’t produce the product. So it’s been extremely disruptive beyond the value content,” said Juszkiewicz, according to a story from Nashville’s NewsChannel 5 WTVF-TV.

According to a press release from Gibson, the heart of the issue comes down to the Department of Justice’s interpretation of a law in India.

Federal agencies have “suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. (If the same wood from the same tree was finished by Indian workers, the material would be legal.),” the Gibson press release said.

This is not Gibson’s first brush with federal agents. In 2009, agents seized guitars and ebony fingerboard blanks from Madagascar, according to the Gibson press release and other stories.

Holy cow. Are they KIDDING with this? Really? This is where we are? Holding companies to account for laws in OTHER countries, which it appears they are not violating anyway? It is disturbing to the extreme that the same agency that gave us “Fast and Furious” is going after a guitar maker for wood legally imported from another country based on its interpretation of the other country’s laws.

This is insanity. The DOJ is failing across the board to ensure compliance in this country on a host of laws, but they are raiding a small manufacturing company that is in compliance with US laws? Wow. I tell you, 2012 cannot come soon enough for me. No telling how much more damage Obama and his Administration will do to the country in the time remaining to his destructive stint in the White House, but good grief, this is just beyond the pale. What’s next, going after any number of companies because they might not support The One with their donations (better watch out, Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz – you could be next), or because their companies are not unionized? Holder claims this is not political in nature. And I think he is full of crap.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Obama realized the CEO of Gibson Guitars will be in attendance at his big Jobs speech tonight (which sounds like it will be more of the same o’, same o’ from him – I expected nothing less). Yep, Henry Juszkiewicz will be the guest of Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), sitting there looking at Obama while he blathers on. Rich, ain’t it?

Something is seriously, seriously wrong at the DOJ when they start trying to impose the laws of other countries on a select company, select because its CEO belongs to the wrong party, it would seem. Hmm. This reminds me of something. What could it be? Oh, yes – now I remember. Revenge. And that has no place in our government.

Here is the story, as detailed in Saunders’ piece, In This Brave New World, Girls Disappear:

The world is becoming unbalanced. In pockets across the globe, women are giving birth to too many boys. In China, the sex ratio is 121 boys to 100 girls. In India, it’s 112 to 100. Sex selection also is a force in the Balkans, Armenia and Georgia. In her eye-opening book, “Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men,” journalist Mara Hvistendahl estimates that ultrasound and abortion have “claimed over 160 million potential women and girls – in Asia alone.” That’s more than the entire female population of the United States.

If you think that scarcity makes women more valuable, you are right – but that does not mean females benefit. As “surplus men” have trouble finding mates, young girls are forced into prostitution. Others are forced into arranged marriages. On Taiwan’s eBay, Hvistendahl finds three Vietnamese women for sale for $5,400.

Those women who do well economically in the new order sadly are more likely to abort daughters in favor of sons.

Is this not disconcerting? Not only are girls being aborted in greater numbers by choice, but the decreased numbers of girls does not translate to girls being treated better. Not even close, unfortunately. Most disturbing is that women are buying into this mindset, and how that is made manifest.

Saunders points out, though, that this isn’t just bad for women:

The results are equally bleak for men. Many boys grow up knowing they are unlikely to marry and start a family. In two years, 1 in 10 Chinese men will lack a female counterpart. The Chinese have a term – fenquing for “angry youth” – to describe the legions of young men likely to grow old alone. They find release in places like the Rising Sun Anger Release Bar, “where for the price of a few drinks, customers can pummel one of the bar’s hired hands.” In that equation, both men are losers.

In three decades, Vietnam – a poor country that provides brides and kidnapped prostitutes to affluent overly male nations – will have 4.3 million surplus men.

Holy cow. The difference the shortage of women will make in such a brief period of time is astonishing.

Saunders touches on the path of good intentions, whose result seem to fulfill the old adage paves the path to hell:

Hvistendahl finds no shortage of villains in this story. There’s China’s one-child policy, which resulted in untold forced abortions. Western governments and charities threw money at family-planning efforts to stem population growth in Asia, with little concern to the methods – forced sterilizations and abortions – employed. Then there are the willing participants – doctors, nurses and parents – who choose to engage in female feticide. French demographer Christophe Guilmoto recalls an Indian woman who was livid because she had aborted a boy after a doctor misdiagnosed the gender of her fetus.

I was struck at the distortion of good intentions. Family planning does promote prosperity, while overpopulation is unhealthy and destabilizing. Researchers develop technologies to help families. But in a world where technology moves faster than ethical thinking, giving would-be parents the gender they prefer is good business. So you get fertility clinics like the Los Angeles outfit that advertises, “Be certain your next child will be the gender you’re hoping for.”

Of course, sex-selection abortions happen in America, often among immigrant families. Hvistendahl reports that 35 percent of Asian American pregnancies result in abortion. [snip]

Oh, yes – definitely “good intentions” paved the way to this hell, which affects girls on a massive scale. And the numbers are just staggering.

Saunders concludes with the following:

[snip] Canadian sociologist Sharada Srinivasan has another suggestion. As she told Hvistendahl, at some point, feminists have to define sex selection as a human rights abuse. That would be a good start. (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, it would be a good place to start – it is a human rights abuse, and the sooner we start dealing with it as such, the better.

I will leave you as Saunders did in her piece, with the following quotes. These should get your blood a-pumping: Thoughts On Parenthood

“You can choose whether to be a parent, but once you choose to be a parent, you cannot choose whether it’s a boy or girl, black or white, tall or short.”

- Delhi gynecologist Puneet Bedi

“Better 500 rupees now than 500,000 later.”

- Mumbai ultrasound ad

“Less than $5 invested in population control is worth $100 invested in economic growth.”

- President Lyndon B. Johnson, in a 1965 speech in San Francisco

I, for one, am very glad this law will no longer be on the books. It is about time our LGB Americans are able to serve openly without fear of reprisal should their private life be found out. No one should have to hide who they are for fear of being stripped of their position, of their vocation (for some), of their income, simply because of who it is they love. This is long, long overdue.

But for some in the community, this change comes to late. One such person is Lt. Dan Choi, a decorated war veteran, and graduate of West Point. Lt. Choi was dismissed because of his sexuality. It was a tremendous loss for our Army, and for Lt. Choi, who was willing to serve his nation, and did, with great distinction.

And now, Lt. Choi is considering throwing his support not to Barack Obama, but to former governor, Gary Johnson:

Choi, who in 2010 was arrested for chaining himself to the fence of the White House in protest, told The Daily Caller in an email, “I lost significant trust in Obama and his fawning gay elites in the wake of recent homophobic court appeals and election-induced double-talk.”

Choi’s frustration with the president’s apparent lack of interest in the policy’s repeal during the lame duck session of Congress has been compounded by administration appeals of court decisions that have ordered an immediate end to the policy’s enforcement.

[...]

Choi has ruled out supporting Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, who he said “foolishly aids the Obama camp in making a cartoonish parody” of Republicans.[snip]

Interesting. I admit, I do not know much about Gary Johnson, but I certainly share Choi’s frustration with Obama. I am pretty tired of people acting like he is all that for the LGBT community when his DOJ has repeatedly upheld DOMA, for instance, not as a matter of law, but by characterizing gay people as perverts. For Obama to now say he supports a bill by Sen. Feinstein to repeal DOMA is just laughable. That’s an easy thing for him to say – costs him nothing. But those of us who have been paying attention know what his Administration has done to keep it in place.

In much the same way, Obama has done NOTHING to abolish DADT. He didn’t push for it, others did. He merely paid some lip service when it was politically expedient for him to do so. Like all of a sudden having the Certification to end DADT coming as his numbers continue to decline. What a coincidence, huh? Yeah, I didn’t think so, either.

But Lt. Choi didn’t stop there:

[snip]“There are some very appealing candidates such as Governor Gary Johnson and others who are much better than Obama on civil rights,” Choi said. “Our community is too often manipulated by homophobic Democrats; I see very little difference when being manipulated by homophobic Republicans,” Choi said. “One group is openly vile while the other remains closeted towards the same objective: political exploitation.” (Gary Johnson assails conservative Iowa group’s marriage pact.)

[...]

“Our community is too often manipulated by homophobic Democrats; I see very little difference when being manipulated by homophobic Republicans,” Choi said. “One group is openly vile while the other remains closeted towards the same objective: political exploitation.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Ain’t that the truth. We are the newest political football – whee!

I never expected Obama to do anything for this community anyway. As I have written numerous times, the people whom he has counted as close friends, like IL Senator, the Reverend James Meeks, or campaigned with, like Donnie McClurkin, are not exactly gay-friendly (that is a massive understatement – they are both unbelievably homophobic). Quite the opposite, in fact. Still, it is nice to see people like Lt. Choi realizing Obama is no friend to us – unless it helps his poll numbers, that is…

In any event, at long, long last, in 60 days, all Americans will be able to serve equally, without fear of reprisal. This is no small thing. Having to hide something so fundamental, so integral, is soul-sucking stuff. It is a horrible thing to do to another human being, and it sure shouldn’t have been institutionalized in our military.

It will be a good day, indeed, when this is behind us…

[snip] With his position still undeclared, Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.” [snip]

What a powerful comment, and I am glad he was able to come to that position.

But now there are starting to be some consequences in those states that sanction same-sex marriage. The New York Times reported that several major companies are now asserting that those who currently have domestic partner benefits need to get married in order to keep those benefits:

[snip] Corning, I.B.M. and Raytheon all provide domestic partner benefits to employees with same-sex partners in states where they cannot marry. But now that they can legally wed in New York, five other states and the District of Columbia, they will be required to do so if they want their partner to be covered for a routine checkup or a root canal.

On the surface, this appears to put the couples on an even footing with heterosexual married couples. After all, this is precisely what they have been fighting for: being treated as a spouse. But some gay and lesbian advocates are arguing that the change may have come too soon: some couples may face complications, since their unions are not recognized by the federal government.

“Even with the complications, many people will want to get married for the reasons people want to get married,” said Ross D. Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. “But from our perspective, to hinge something as important as insurance for your family to what is still a complicated legal matter for same-sex couples doesn’t seem to be a fair thing to do.” [snip]

The issue with same sex marriage and the federal government is that those of us who have domestic partner benefits are taxed on them as income, as opposed to heterosexual couples, who are not. That is the difference to which Mr. Levi is referring.

I may be missing something, and feel free to tell me if I am, but I am not sure why he is characterizing the push by these companies for people to get married in states where they live work in order to secure these benefits is unfair. Or maybe I just don’t accept his argument.

Like the following argument for how this change could affect adoption:

[snip] When it comes to adopting a child, couples may run into trouble if they are trying to adopt from a place that restricts same-sex married couples from adopting. Having one parent adopt while still single may be easier. “If you want to be able to answer honestly in paperwork, multiple interviews and background checks, then you won’t want to get married,” Ms. Taylor said, adding that many foreign countries ban adoptions to same-sex couples. [snip]

Wait – this seems like a red herring to me. If someone is single when they are adopting – as in, not in a relationship – what difference would it make if they found someone after the fact? I think what she is saying, though, is that the person can CLAIM to be single if they aren’t legally married, so they can adopt. But that is not being honest anyway, so I am not sure why this changes things.

And then there is the immigration issue:

[snip] He said that there were a variety of reasons — legal, financial and personal — that companies should keep the domestic partnership option at least until gay marriage was recognized at the federal level. Legally speaking, getting married could create immigration issues or it could potentially muddy the process of adopting a child. In some instances, he added, an employee may work in a gay marriage state but live in a neighboring state that does not recognize the marriage. The couple may want to wait to marry until they can be legally wed in their home state.

“There are certainly reasons why a couple may not wish to marry,” added Camilla Taylor, marriage project director at Lambda Legal. “People with certain immigration statuses might want to think very carefully before getting married. There are some types of visas that are meant to be temporary, and if you get married to someone who is a citizen, it could flag your renewal application and reflect your more permanent decision to stay.” [snip]

But doesn’t that apply to ANYONE? If someone is here on a temporary visa, finds an American with whom they fall in love, won’t the outcome be similar?

Here’s the thing – my partner and I had hoops through which we had to jump in order for me to be on her insurance. We have to pay more in taxes as a result. And there are some changes that occurred when she changed companies in our insurance, like that the only way I could have dental insurance was if I saw a dentist in California where her company is based. It is unfortunate for obvious reasons, and obviously heterosexual couples don’t have that issue, but there you are. Still, even though it was not legal, we did have a commitment ceremony 14 years ago, and would gladly go to a Justice of the Peace to get legally hitched if we had the opportunity (which is likely to be some time for SC).

All of that is to say, I cannot shake the feeling that some of these folks want their cake and to be able to eat it, too. They pushed for this in these states, they got it, and now when some major companies are saying they have to play by the same rules, they are balking. It isn’t like the companies aren’t giving them time, or making concessions for issues like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but still, there are concerns:

[snip] At least for now, these companies seem to be in the minority, though it is unclear whether more employers will follow their lead. Eastman Kodak, based in Rochester, said it would continue to offer domestic partner coverage to both same-sex and opposite-sex partners.

“My impression is that there has been lots of discussion about dropping domestic partner coverage when marriage is first opened up to same-sex couples, but very few employers actually end up taking this step,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, legal director at the Williams Institute, which studies sexual orientation law and policy issues. “Some employers initially believe that it is fairer of them to impose the same marriage requirements on all employees, regardless of sexual orientation. But then employees and others explain that employees with a same-sex life partner remain in difficult circumstances due to the continuing federal discrimination.”

Whether same-sex couples marry, they will still be responsible for paying federal income taxes on the value of their partner or spouse’s benefits since they are not recognized by the federal government as an economic unit, unless the person covered is considered a dependent. Couples will not owe those taxes at the state level in places like New York that recognize gay marriage. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And that is a difference – if the companies offer partner benefits regardless of sexual orientation, then sure, keep it that way. But if the benefits are offered because same sex people were unable to get married at that time, but can now, it only seems fair.

And along these lines of same sex marriage, my sister sent me the following video yesterday. I thought there were some pretty good signs. Cracked me up. I hope you find the humor in them, too:

I may be too black/white about this, but if companies are already progressive enough to offer these benefits out of a sense of fairness, are giving people a year to get married, I am not sure what the difference is. But that’s just me.

What do you think? Should the companies that already provide partner benefits for their same sex employees require that they get married if they are able to be eligible for these benefits if that is the requirement for their heterosexual employees? What about the immigration and adoption issues? I’d love to hear what you think.

It’s an open secret that hundreds of Saudi families and nationals were flown out of the States during the days after the attacks. The exodus was organized by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sulan bin Abdul Aziz, also known as “Bandar Bush” due to his closeness to the Bush family. The ambassador expedited the departures of two families: The Saudi royals and the bin Ladens. But not even the notoriously charming prince could adequately explain why or how 15 out of the 19 hijackers came from a country the U.S. had always claimed as a close ally.

It should, then, be safe to call the Saudi-U.S. relationship a “secret” marriage. Not many Americans know how strong or weak this marriage is, mostly because the Saudis spent billions — and more billions — to spruce up their image or stay hidden from the general public.

The Saudis’ initial attempts at post-9/11 damage control backfired — badly. Exhibit A: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s public show of contributing $10 million to New York for disaster relief. Unfortunately for the Kingdom, the prince had the poor judgment to use the opportunity to lecture the U.S. about its foreign policy at the same time. Then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani made it clear that New York had no need for his money.

Realizing that their image needed bolstering, the Saudis did what troubled totalitarian regimes the world over do: They hired a PR firm and a gang of high-powered Washington lobbyists. The PR blitz was a flop.

But this did not stop the Saudis, and now, in an ironic twist, the prince is the second-largest shareholder in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corps, the parent company of Fox News Channel, a notorious source of anti-Muslim rhetoric.

The Kingdom’s ongoing image woes have long been exacerbated by reports of a barbaric judicial system, beheadings, the second class citizen status of women and the complete absence of human rights and religious freedom. The flow of Saudi petrodollars into the coffers of terrorist groups around the world has been reported on, analyzed and criticized for years, to little effect.

It is no secret either that Saudis have also been instrumental in bankrolling and backing discrimination and violence against the Shias, as described by Khaled Ahmed in his book Sectarian War: Pakistan’s Sunni-Shia Violence and Its Links to the Middle East:

According to Barnett Rubin, in 1989, the Afghan mujahideen government-in-exile came into being in Peshawar after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. At the behest of Saudi Arabia, the exiled Shia mujahideen of Iran were not included in this government. The Saudis paid over $26 million a week to the 519-member session of the mujahideen shura (council) as a bribe for it. Each member of the shura received $25,000 for the deal which was facilitated, according to Rubin, by the ISI Chief Hamid Gul.

But as the world is watching the developments in the war on terror, the Saudis are out to burnish their image as humanitarians. They know that the someone somewhere might mention the fact that Afghanistan was the training ground and Pakistan was the facilitator, but the majority of the hijackers were the nationals of the Kingdom. Over the last ten years, the situation is Pakistan and Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse, while a major player of this ‘great game’ has kept itself at a distance with its petrodollars.

Given the Saudis’ penchant for funding and exporting extremism and meddling throughout the Muslim world, how would you react if you heard a Saudi prince had bankrolled an expensive research project to create a genetically modified strain of corn that could eliminate world hunger?

The prince does this not for financial gain, but as a gesture of goodwill. The prince also speaks perfect English, appreciates female arm candy and is a target for Islamic extremists at home.

Apparently, the Saudis have found a way to uplift their image.

This prince is a hero, not in a real life of course — but in a Hollywood movie, Unknown. As America prepares to mark the ten year anniversary of 9/11, this pop culture moment is nothing short of extraordinary. The Saudis have achieved a PR coup: Positive product placement. The Kingdom is re-branding.

There’s nothing particularly original about the plot, which consists of a series of predictable spy scenarios — a foreign city, inclement weather, amnesia, car chases, the Cold War, evil multinationals. It’s been done a million times.

But what is totally unexpected is the depiction of a Saudi royal as a generous benefactor, a plot point that is so rare it captures the attention. Even more remarkable is that there have been no debates, no protests, no boycotts, no outrage. The movie came and went without a peep.

Even more intriguing: The film Unknown is based on the novel Out of My Head by Didier van Cauwelaert. There is no benevolent Saudi prince in the original version of the story. So how did this plot twist come about?

Since no one in the press or the world of politics seems to care, it may be a while before we find out.

Just from the title of this Sheila Marikar ABC report, you get a hint of a bias. The article doesn’t help to dispel that sensation, rather it escalates it:

There’s the stereotype of the Sarah Palin supporter, and then there’s Sonnie Johnson.

The 30-year-old African-American mother and wife is featured in “The Undefeated” as one of the many people Palin captivated when John McCain thrust her onto the national stage as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. In Pella, Iowa today for the premiere of the film, Johnson said she latched on to Palin when the former Alaska governor took the stage at the Republican National Convention.

“We were watching it on TV and my daughter was like, ‘A girl can be president?,’” Johnson recalled. “And I said, ‘Yes, baby, girls can do anything.’ That was the moment — I saw that look in my daughter’s eye, that anything in possible. The next week, I went to my very first political event, and that was to see Sarah Palin. John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Johnson has become increasingly involved in the tea party since then, speaking at tea party events around her native Virginia. She’ll give the keynote address at an event held by the Charlottesville, VA. tea party on the Fourth of July with her young daughter by her side. [snip]

Obviously, the elephant in the room is that Hillary Clinton had run to be president, but she was not the party’s pick (and I use those words deliberately). So that Johnson’s daughter saw Palin as a potential president if McCain won is a difference. Palin was on the ticket, Clinton (unfortunately) was not.

That being said, there are so many glaring issues wrong with the entire way Marikar framed this piece that I barely know where to start. First, there is the whole “stereotype” assumption made by this “reporter.” One of the comments summed it up pretty succinctly:

VG; “stereotype” Who put the stereotype on Palin?? All you Obama loving scumbags in the corrupt MSM. You people make me sick.

I think many of us can appreciate this person’s sentiment about the circular practice of the MSM – castigate and attack, then stand back and “report” people regurgitating back the attacks launched, then explain that as the reality of the situation.

There were a few more comments I must share with you, beginning with the issue of women:

John; Unfortunately, women can’t be president. Just watching the vitriol that has been thrown at Sarah Palin makes that clear. The attacks on her family have been disgraceful. The attempts to dig through 24,000 pages of her email to try to find any dirt also makes it clear that America is not ready for a female leader. Best to tell our daughters to become teachers or mothers so they don’t become the next woman to be Palinized….

Jim (in response to Katherine); “There was a woman running in the Dem Primary, and she was pilloried by the misogynistic media… Palin got it X2, and she is still standing, and appears to be stronger than ever. Just sayin’.”

@Katherine: Couldn’t have said it better. I am an ex-Democrat and have had it with the way the democratic party takes the women constituency for granted. I am sick of how they treated Hillary. This was a woman that was many times more accomplished than Obama and after Obama’s presidency we can safely say she would have been many times more effective as a president. Now they are doing the same thing to Palin. I am just sick of the venom that has been thrown at her – just sick of it. [snip]

Amen, amen, and amen – I could not agree more. Many of you know that this has been my refrain about the Democratic Party, Obama, and the blatant, virulent misogyny they have been spewing our way.

But there is another piece to all of this:

[snip] “She’ll be on stage with me,” Johnson said. “I want to get her involved, little by little. I like to say that for the black community, nothing will change until we learn to love our children more than we love the Democratic party.”

After Stephen K. Bannon cast her in his 2010 documentary about conservative women leaders, “Fire From the Heartland,” he asked Johnson to speak about Palin’s influence on her for “The Undefeated.” Other tea party personalities have failed to capture Johnson’s attention as Palin has.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley – calling out the black community for its allegiance to the Democrats is a mighty interesting turn. No doubt, that will raise some eyebrows, along with charges of being an “Uncle Tom.” I don’t know about you, but it does seem that whenever a black person does not subscribe to a particular point of view they are, by necessity, an “Uncle Tom.” I thought this comment by Colint summer it up:

Black woman as “unlikely” supporter…. funny…. imagine that, a black who isn’t brainwashed into loving the useless Democrats. Wow… what a revelation.

Could she have figured out the lie… figured out that the Democrats are race baiters?

Good question. Of course, Ms. Johnson would not have to look far. Heck, she need look no farther than my representative, Jim Clyburn, to see numerous instances of race baiting.

I don’t know about you, but I found this to be a pretty interesting glimpse into both how the MSM tries to package information, and how more people are not buying what they are selling. Maybe there really is hope yet.

UPDATE: Speaking of the media, The Hollywood Reporter has a glimpse into the new movie, “The Undefeated”. Hold onto your hats, this is not for the faint of heart:

[snip] The movie begins with Sen. John McCain introducing his running mate, then quickly cuts to the Hollywood sign, and the music turns ominous. A TV news anchor says, “Hollywood has a new favorite pastime: taking aim at Sarah Palin.”

Then the celebrity montage begins: Damon likens Palin to a “really bad Disney movie” and says she’s “really scary”; Letterman attacks her, and the discourse descends in to the filthy from there. Maher insults her on his TV show, Madonna screams obscenities about her while on stage, and comedians use graphic, severely bleeped language to describe Palin and the intensity with which they “hate her.”

When the montage is through, the screen goes dark and a Bible verse comes into focus: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, indeed we will. And the fruits being sown by these people against a woman they have never met, using the vilest of language to describe her, and even attacking her special needs child, says it all.

David Brock, the conservative turned liberal advocate, has recently garnered a considerable amount of press coverage for his attacks on Fox News for, among many other things, allegedly taking over leadership of the Republican Party. What the news coverage has ignored is his use of tax-free funds for his organization, Media Matters for America (MMA), for these attacks — a form of government support for activities that clearly do not merit tax-exempt status and that as a result infringe on Fox News’ First Amendment rights.

MMA was originally established as an Internal Revenue Service Section 501(c)(3) organization, that is, an organization that can receive tax-deductible contributions to engage in educational activities. The more precise purpose was to counter alleged media bias and so to “identify occurrences of excessive bias in the American media, educate the public as to their existence, and to work with members of the media to reduce them.”

What MMA actually is doing, however, moves far afield from identifying possible bias to mounting a campaign to undermine a major media outlet and to promote the Democratic Party and progressive causes associated with it. Mr. Brock himself has described this new strategy as “a war on Fox,” an effort “to disrupt [Rupert Murdoch‘s] commercial interests” and look for ways to turn regulators against News Corp.’s media outlets. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

It does not matter if you like Fox, or hate it, but for taxpayer dollars to go to support an alleged non-profit that has a clear political agenda is unacceptable, regardless of whose political agenda it is. There are laws in this country against that sort of thing, after all. And there is that pesky matter of the US Constitution and the First Amendment. Taxpayers should NOT be funding this organization. If George Soros wants to fund it, that’s his decision, but Media Matters sure should not receive our money as a “non-profit.” That is just ridiculous.

And speaking of money, Obama was in New York Thursday night at a few fundraisers, trying to fill his coffers. I just have to ask – who is it that can afford a $35,800 a plate dinner?? That is not a typo – there are five numbers there on purpose. Just wondering.

While Obama was at it, he did a little pandering to the LGBT community, claiming he thinks we should have the same rights in this country as everyone else. I agree with that, but what CNN was not so great about reporting was that Obama also said he thought it should be a state matter. Huh – that’s the same thing Michelle Bachmann said in the recent debate (to give you a comparison).

Meanwhile, DADT is STILL the law of the land over 6 months later after the big hoopla in December. Yep, the government has not finished what it needs to do to change that. Big surprise, huh? Yeah, I didn’t think so…

Add to that Obama misspeaking about a Medal of Honor recipient while pandering at Fort Drum:

[snip] “Throughout my service, first as a senator and then as a presidential candidate and then as a President, I’ve always run into you guys. And for some reason it’s always in some rough spots.

First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”[snip]

Except it was. Oops…

There is more going on, and feel free to discuss whatever you wish!

Don’t you feel safer now? I’m sure I do – not.

Of course, that is not all these expanded powers allow them to do:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.

The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.

[...]

Under current rules, agents must open such an inquiry before they can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search such databases without making a record about their decision.

Mr. German said the change would make it harder to detect and deter inappropriate use of databases for personal purposes. But Ms. Caproni said it was too cumbersome to require agents to open formal inquiries before running quick checks. She also said agents could not put information uncovered from such searches into F.B.I. files unless they later opened an assessment.

The new rules will also relax a restriction on administering lie-detector tests and searching people’s trash. Under current rules, agents cannot use such techniques until they open a “preliminary investigation,” which — unlike an assessment — requires a factual basis for suspecting someone of wrongdoing. But soon agents will be allowed to use those techniques for one kind of assessment, too: when they are evaluating a target as a potential informant. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I’m all for fighting crime, and stopping terrorism in its tracks, but to not even have to open a “preliminary investigation” first before searching people’s trash or lie detector tests is a bit disconcerting, don’t you think?

And speaking of terrorists, Janet Napolitano has an interesting take on “profiling” a certain group:

Good grief. She is incredibly painful to listen to, isn’t she? And THIS is the head of Homeland Security? No wonder the FBI needs expanded powers. Ahem.

In other news, Obama plays golf again on Sunday for the ELEVENTH week in a row. So glad he has his priorities in order…

Feel free to add your own “news we do not want to lose”!!

To celebrate Women in Sports, especially with the Women’s World Cup (soccer) coming up this summer, Secretary Clinton delivered the following remarks:

Now you know, I am a HUGE soccer fan. And I was able to attend the semifinals in DC of the World Cup of which Sec. Clinton spoke. In fact, President Clinton was at the stadium at the same time I was, watching the match. There was even a flyover with fighter jets – cool! Oh, and the US obviously won, since they went on to win the World Cup in the dramatic fashion Sec. Clinton mentioned.

This is a great time, this celebration. But wow, do we still have a long way to go.

While Secretary Clinton is reflecting on Women and Sports, a “Gay Girl in Damascus” was allegedly kidnapped in Syria. In Egypt, another woman journalist was almost killed in Tahrir Square last week, saved by a police officer, who was then beaten himself for rescuing her.

A Libyan student in Australia received only THREE YEARS in jail for sexually assaulting four women, and two girls, one of whom was only 13. Why? Well, you know, it is a whole cultural thing. The way these women dress, oh, my, it just upset him SO much, and made him excited, all at the same time. So he did what any man would do – he attacked them. Oh, wait – most men do NOT do that:

Libyan Almahde Ahmad Atagore, 28, was sentenced to three years behind bars yesterday for sexual assaulting a number of young women in Melbourne in August and September last year, the Herald Sun reports.

Atagore was shocked by the cultural differences and felt isolated and depressed, particularly as he did not have a mosque nearby, said County Court Judge Margaret Rizkalla.

He told a psychiatrist he did not like how Australian women dressed, leaving him angry but also aroused. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Women, and girls, participating in sports is important, there is no doubt about it. And it is very cool that the US does sports exchanges with other countries. The benefits to girls and women who participate in sports are numerous, with higher self esteem and better overall health at the fore.

But it is not enough when men still think they can overpower women, see women purely as sexual objects, or violate them in a sexual manner as a show of power (though it really highlights the man’s weakness, IMHO). It is not enough when they are seeing a very different message coming from the media, and from our political parties. When the Democratic elite are still supporting a complete sleazebag like Anthony Weiner, what kind of message does THAT send to our young women and girls? When judges in countries like Australia grant a short amount of jail time for a man who assaulted several women, and two girls, as a nod to his neanderthalic view of women based on his religion, how do the girls and women in Australia feel? What is the message being sent to them?

I am glad we still have Title IX in this country, and am happy to celebrate its 40th anniversary. Our girls and women deserve it. But all girls and women, here and around the world, deserve to be treated better than we are. We deserve to not have some slimeball US Representative texting a college woman with a photo of his private parts. We deserve for men to serve the time for the crimes committed against us, not some slap on the wrist. We deserve to be able to do our jobs without threat of DEATH because gangs of men descend upon us.

We deserve better. We deserve better from men, we deserve better from the women who support these sleazeballs, we deserve better from our elected officials.

To follow up on Sec. Clinton’s suggestion, and while I can still post videos from YouTube (our illustrious US Senators are threatening to make it a felony to embed videos), I want to honor the US Women’s Soccer Team. Below is look back at the ’99 World Cup win, and the iconic moment of Brandi Chastain scoring the winning goal for the US Women over China for the Gold:

May the US Women play hard, play clean, have no injuries, and bring back the Gold from Germany.