Tag Archives: conservative

Feel Safe? This Little Boy Has Been Strip-Searched For Your Protection

This video has already gone around the world and back, but it is worth posting here to emphasize that this whole absurd TSA controversy has come about because of the government's refusal to admit the nature of the threat. If the TSA, and the DHS, and the State Department, and all the rest of them, acknowledged the reality of the Islamic jihad against the U.S. instead of ignoring and denying it, it would be possible to formulate some sensible screening policies. That is the easy solution to this problem, and one that will never be adopted. As I wrote here, the TSA wastes “huge amounts of time, money, and resources by pretending that everyone is an equal threat to launch a terror attack — Baptist grandmothers in wheelchairs just as much as young Pakistani Muslim males. The only answer at this point, and even it is not perfect, would be to institute Israeli-style profiling of air passengers. The Israelis have run an efficient and terror-attack-free air service for years, without all these invasive security measures. But to emulate them, of course, would mean to recognize in an official way that Muslims are a greater risk to commit terror attacks than Methodists or Mennonites. And in today's politically correct environment, the Obama Administration and the TSA would rather see another jihad mass-murder of American citizens on the scale of 9/11 or worse than do anything to suggest that.” added by: crystalman

The Two-Party Oligarchy Vs. The People

Watching Democrats complain about Republicans and Republicans complain about Democrats is like watching two Neanderthals throw rocks at each other while a pack of lions surround them. Dear Independent Media, Stop Contributing to Our Demise, It’s Time to Evolve! Independent news sites are excellent sources for in-depth information on many vital political issues. Most of them work hard to get the facts right and provide much needed context to move our national debate forward. However, they have a fatal flaw. There is a rule of war that many Independent media outlets are failing to understand: “Do not fight the last war.” In The 33 Strategies of War, Robert Greene calls this “The Guerrilla-War-Of-The-Mind Strategy.” “What most often weighs you down and brings you misery is the past, in the form of unnecessary attachments, repetitions of tired formulas, and the memory of old victories and defeats. You must consciously wage war against the past and force yourself to react to the present moment. Be ruthless on yourself; do not repeat the same tired methods.” When Progressive news sites complain about Republicans, or Conservative sites complain about Democrats, I can’t help but think that they are insuring their own demise, and the rest of the country’s for that matter. By buying into the Democrat versus Republican charade they have become the most important cog in suppressing any organized resistance. Based on personal experience, I understand how difficult it is for Independent news organizations to obtain funding. Unfortunately, most of the more popular “Independent” news sites survive by getting grants and donations from foundations and political organizations that will only fund them if they engage in partisan politics. However, they need to ask themselves a serious question: Are you doing this work to just collect a paycheck, and thereby maintain the very status quo that you appear to be against, or are you doing this to actually change the dire situation we find ourselves in? Given your deep understanding of current political issues, I find it incredibly hard to believe that you don’t see how global corporate interests have completely bought off both political parties. How betrayed do you have to be before you realize that both parties are against you? Our country has been robbed. Our future prospects are bleak. Trillions of dollars have been looted from the economy and no one in our government is holding the thieves accountable – Obama is not, the Democrats are not and the Republicans are not. They are all pivotal accomplices in the continued rape of our country. So stop deluding yourself into believing that only the opposing party is to blame. Focusing on one party as the source of our problems is journalistically lazy and intellectually na

WaPo Does It Right This Time: Hires Jennifer Rubin to Cover Conservatives

The Washington Post announced Tuesday that it has hired Commentary Magazine contributing editor Jennifer Rubin to write a blog on the conservative movement and the Republican Party. The move suggests that the Post has learned its lessons from the short run it gave blogger Dave Weigel, who resigned in June after emails surfaced showing him viciously attacking some prominent conservatives. The emails suggested that Weigel was hostile to large segments of the conservative movement, the beat he had been assigned to cover. read more

View original post here:
WaPo Does It Right This Time: Hires Jennifer Rubin to Cover Conservatives

Joy Behar Lectures Pastor About Homosexuality on ‘The View’, Insists Biblical View Leads to Bullying

ABC's “The View” hosted pastor Joel Osteen Tuesday, author of the book The Christmas Spirit – but the conversation took a controversial turn and went from Christmas to homosexuality. Co-host Joy Behar belittled Osteen about his conservative Christian beliefs on the matter. ABC's Barbara Walters first popped the question in the middle of the interview, flagging it was a “controversial” topic. She referenced a previous quote made by Osteen on the show about homosexuality not being “God's best” for a person's life. Walters asked him how he felt about a Georgia pastor who recently came out and said he was gay. After Osteen's tepid response, Behar interrupted him and flatly lectured him that homosexuality is natural. “It's not a choice, Pastor,” she asserted. “It's not a choice, and therefore I don't think that God would look askance at homosexuality in that way, because it's not a choice. They're born this way, people are born this way.”

George Stephanopoulos Chides Michele Bachmann: Why Is It ‘Okay’ to Extend Tax Cuts?

For the second time in two days, Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday lobbied for tax increases, wondering why it's “okay” for the “wealthiest Americans” to continue to receive a tax cut. The GMA host pushed Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to accept a deal in exchange for extending the Bush tax cuts. After the conservative leader expressed skepticism about extending unemployment benefits, Stephanopoulos complained, ” But, why is it okay for the wealthiest Americans, earning over $250,000 a year– And remember, the President has called for extending all tax cuts for those under $250,000.” He continued, worrying about why it's acceptable for the wealthy to get “tax cuts extended, but for people who are out of a job and needing unemployment benefits not to have their benefits extended?” read more

See the original post here:
George Stephanopoulos Chides Michele Bachmann: Why Is It ‘Okay’ to Extend Tax Cuts?

Thomas Friedman Bashes Tea Party, Wants Better More ‘Centrist’ Movement

New York Times correspondent Thomas Friedman is clearly unhappy about the Tea Party, so much so that he considers the movement “not that important.” Instead, he envisions another group, “which stretches from centrist Republicans to independents right through to centrist Democrats,” sitting silently out there in America waiting for the right leader to emerge. So wrote Friedman Wednesday in his ” The Tea Kettle Movement “: The Tea Party that has gotten all the attention, the amorphous, self-generated protest against the growth in government and the deficit, is what I’d actually call the “Tea Kettle movement” – because all it’s doing is letting off steam. That is not to say that the energy behind it is not authentic (it clearly is) or that it won’t be electorally impactful (it clearly might be). But affecting elections and affecting America’s future are two different things. Based on all I’ve heard from this movement, it feels to me like it’s all steam and no engine. It has no plan to restore America to greatness. The Tea Kettle movement can’t have a positive impact on the country because it has both misdiagnosed America’s main problem and hasn’t even offered a credible solution for the problem it has identified. How can you take a movement seriously that says it wants to cut government spending by billions of dollars but won’t identify the specific defense programs, Social Security, Medicare or other services it’s ready to cut – let alone explain how this will make us more competitive and grow the economy? Friedman like so many on the left seems ignorant of history, not just the American version but also the world’s. Important political movements on this planet since the dawn of time begin with protest. A small group decides it’s being treated unfairly and begins expressing such sentiments. As it grows, those in power become fearful and either implement changes to assuage the anger developing in their population or are eventually overthrown. If the latter occurs, those doing the conquering don’t initially have a clear platform to enact once they attain power. That comes later. Did our Founding Fathers know what form of government the United States would be when colonists first began protesting the edicts of the King of England? Of course not. That didn’t come until years later. That Friedman and so many media members complaining about the lack of specific ideas in the Tea Party don’t understand this is either the height of stupidity or dishonesty. But Friedman wasn’t done, for he next threw out the same tired line about this movement not being credible because it wasn’t complaining about out of control spending when George W. Bush was president. Once again, this is either ignorant or an intentional misrepresentation, as one of the reasons Democrats did so well at the polls in 2006 was because so many of today’s Tea Party members refused to vote for Republicans that year.  The anger on the Right was first manifested in an election boycott that continued in 2008 when many conservatives couldn’t bring themselves to vote for John McCain. As such, there was plenty of anger being expressed towards establishment Republicans prior to Barack Obama’s inauguration, but it was taking forms that weren’t apparent to liberal media elites like Friedman. That said, having discredited the movement that is currently having more impact on America than the two major parties are, Friedman spoke about another: The issues that upset the Tea Kettle movement – debt and bloated government – are actually symptoms of our real problem, not causes. They are symptoms of a country in a state of incremental decline and losing its competitive edge, because our politics has become just another form of sports entertainment, our Congress a forum for legalized bribery and our main lawmaking institutions divided by toxic partisanship to the point of paralysis. The important Tea Party movement, which stretches from centrist Republicans to independents right through to centrist Democrats, understands this at a gut level and is looking for a leader with three characteristics. Leadership today is about how the U.S. government attracts and educates more of that talent and then enacts the laws, regulations and budgets that empower that talent to take its products and services to scale, sell them around the world – and create good jobs here in the process. Without that, we can’t afford the health care or defense we need. Here’s what Friedman believes “the real Tea Party” wants: To implement it would require us to actually raise some taxes – on, say, gasoline – and cut others – like payroll taxes and corporate taxes. It would require us to overhaul our immigration laws so we can better control our borders, let in more knowledge workers and retain those skilled foreigners going to college here. And it would require us to reduce some services – like Social Security – while expanding others, like education and research for a 21st-century economy. I’m not kidding. Friedman actually thinks that despite the current economic malaise strangling this nation – 9.6 percent unemployment occurring at the same time the government has exploded in size – there is a groundswell of support for raising some taxes and expanding some services. Yes, history has certainly shown homo sapiens willing to die for higher taxes! Methinks Mr. Friedman needs to spend less time in Greenwich Village and Berkeley to test his liberal theory in what know-it-all elites like him call “Flyover Country.” Unfortunately, that will never happen for these folk only care about the opinions of those residing in a handful of places on the coasts. Maybe they’ll broaden their horizons on November 3.

See the rest here:
Thomas Friedman Bashes Tea Party, Wants Better More ‘Centrist’ Movement

LA Times: Liberal Embrace of ‘Waiting for Superman’ Proves Conservatives Are Intolerant

The internet is abuzz with praise for the new documentary that points out the many faults of public education,  Waiting for Superman . With positive reviews from both the  Huffington Post  on the Left as well as the  New York Post   on the Right, it makes one wonder, how could this be? It appears that this film has single-handedly done what  President Obama  could not do to save his own life: bring the Left and Right together on a single issue. It is refreshing that the film’s director, Davis Guggenheim (who directed  An Inconvenient Truth ), is able to put politics aside to see the destructive nature of teachers unions. Guggenheim put his own kids through private school but realizes that not everyone can afford such a luxury. Here, he sets out to tackle the real problems that have long plagued public school systems: teachers unions. Though, he is  careful to say that he isn’t bashing unions  in general. Guggenheim sees that not everything has to be a political football, which is why we should applaud him for taking a bipartisan approach. However, some feel that the response to the film shows the true, negative colors of conservatives. Liberal Patrick Goldstein comments in the  Los Angeles Times : If you’re a documentary filmmaker, you’re happy to get rave reviews from any source, since you need all the good PR you can get. But I find it revealing, when it comes to the liberal vs. conservative partisan divide, that whenever Michael Moore releases a new documentary promoting a liberal cause, conservatives are quick to bash him for being a left-wing propagandist. But when Guggenheim makes a film offering wholehearted support for a conservative cause, liberal critics have written just as many glowing reviews as conservative ones. (The film has a sky-high 93 fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes.) What does that tell you about who’s got the most open mind here? First of all, only looking at  Michael Moore  and Davis Guggenheim as leftists is a bit single minded (even though they are). Sure, they both have done their partisan films, but one is far worse than the other.  Big Hollywood ‘s editor-in-chief John Nolte has even gone as far as to  defend Moore  when he was appointed to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Board of Governors: Yes, Michael Moore is a liar, a shameless propagandist and an anti-American leftist of the highest order. But he’s also one helluva talented filmmaker and it would be wildly hypocritical for me to believe or argue that anyone should be blacklisted from AMPAS due to their political beliefs. And that’s the only reason I could possibly use to argue against this appointment. It doesn’t get any fairer than a conservative defending Moore because not doing so would support a blacklist mindset. Even still,  Moore  has dedicated his career to leftist causes.  Look at his films:  Bowling for Columbine  (a good film that ends up ruining itself with a weak plea for gun control),  Fahrenheit 9/11 (a horribly partisan and dishonest portrayal of Bush enabling conspiracy theorists), and  Sicko  (a disgusting defense of socialism). Everything Moore directs (and writes and says) is to further a far Left agenda. Therefore, he is so painfully predictable, which is why it is so easy for the Right to go after him. On the other hand, Guggenheim has directed the paranoid global warming holy film  An Inconvenient Truth  as well as a short for the 2008 Obama campaign. Yet Guggenheim differs from Moore in that he has also done a lot more work outside of political documentaries. If you look at his profile from imdb.com  you will see he has directed episodes of  Deadwood ,  Numbers ,  Alias,  and even the conservative loved  24 , a show Moore wouldn’t touch in fear of losing his leftist cred. Sure,  An Inconvenient Truth  is praised by leftists and hated by conservatives (generally speaking), but by creating a wide variety of content, Guggenheim gives an opportunity for both conservatives and liberals to appreciate his work. So it isn’t fair to assert that liberals are better than conservatives because critics on the Left show balls by embracing a leftist filmmaker who makes a conservative argument (when the Right won’t respect Moore). The day that Moore steps outside of his self-loathing, socialist-loving fog bubble is when conservatives can respect him. Anyone who is honest about their politics will find good and bad on both sides. Guggenheim has apparently done this with  Waiting for Superman . Until Moore decides to transform some of his propaganda films into useful documentaries, we will continue to wait, but I wouldn’t recommend holding your breath. Crossposted at Big Hollywood  

Read more from the original source:
LA Times: Liberal Embrace of ‘Waiting for Superman’ Proves Conservatives Are Intolerant

Bozell Denounces O’Keefe’s ‘Ugly, Dishonest and Filthy’ Stunt

The following is NewsBusters publisher and Media Research Center (MRC) founder Brent Bozell’s statement regarding news of James O’Keefe’s sting operation attempt to embarrass CNN. The MRC unequivocally denounces James O’Keefe for his attempted assault on CNN. It isn’t just childish and immature; it’s ugly, dishonest and filthy. There is no place in the conservative movement for this type of behavior and that’s exactly what I warned about in a commentary piece I submitted to CNN.com just two days ago. “Could the Citizen Journalist abuse the public trust?” I wrote in this piece that should run in the next few days. “Hypothetically, of course. Conservatives must all guard against this. Let there be scrutiny, by all means.” And I repeat: there must be scrutiny. Bottom line: We want nothing to do with O’Keefe or his dirty antics.

See more here:
Bozell Denounces O’Keefe’s ‘Ugly, Dishonest and Filthy’ Stunt

Ann Coulter To Gay Conservatives: Marriage ‘Is Not A Civil Right — You’re Not Black’

Nobody ever said Ann Coulter was going to play nice during her time at Homocon, a summit held by the gay conservative group GOProud over the weekend, not even the organizers who insisted that she be there. Perhaps it came as little surprise to them, then, when the conservative pundit stood before the group of 150 attendees and aggressively railed against gay marriage. Marriage “is not a civil right — you're not black,” Coulter told the crowd, building upon an argument that claimed the equal protections provided by the Fourteenth Amendment — and potentially used to build a case for marriage equality — were only applicable to black people. Coulter, who was dropped from a recent event by conservative publication WorldNetDaily for her supposed traitorous behavior in headlining the gay event, wasn't done taking social issues to the heart of perhaps the most socially liberal faction within the GOP. Talking Points Memo's Megan Carpentier on Coulter's speech: In fact, despite opening her speech with a joke about the difficulty of “coming out” as a fiscal conservative to one's parents — something she congratulated the attendees on — Coulter's speech to GOProud mystifyingly focused on social issues and not the fiscal and foreign policy issues that brought most of the attendees there. For instance, she told GOProud that the conservative gay rights movement ought to make common cause with the anti-abortion movement because, she said, “as soon as they find the gay gene, you know who's getting aborted.” Coulter also made a forceful case against sex education in schools, accusing liberals of attempting to teach kindergartners about “fisting” (which garnered her a heckler, who shouted out “What's wrong with fisting?”) and told the crowd that most parents didn't want their children learning about the “homosexual lifestyle” instead of reading and writing. But the attendees of Homocon can't say she didn't warn them — literally. “I should warn you: I've never failed to talk gays out of gay marriage,” Coulter said at the beginning of the speech. And the organizers of the event didn't seem surprised. “We didn't invite her here because we agree on everything,” GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia told the Daily Caller. “We invited her here because we know she gives a great speech and we had a great dialogue on that subject tonight.” As for Coulter, she told the Daily Caller that the gay crowd was actually more receptive to her anti-gay marriage message than they were willing to concede. “The truth is…they're already against gay marriage, they just wont admit it publicly,” said Coulter. “I'm trying to get these gays to come out of the closet.” added by: emarston

Susan Estrich Suddenly ‘Concerned’ Over Paladino Qualifications to Become NY Governor

Remember when liberals brushed aside any criticism of candidate Barack Obama being unqualified to become president because of his lack of executive experience? Well, that was then and this is now because Susan Estrich has suddenly developed “concern” over the qualifications of the Tea Party backed Republican gubernatorial candidate in New York, Carl Paladino. A skeptic might rightly believe this recent Estrich infatuation with qualifications could be inspired by the fact that Paladino is closing the gap in the polls with the Democrat candidate, Andrew Cuomo. Here is Estrich with her newly developed qualifications concern : The Republican nominee for governor of New York doesn’t spend a lot of time talking about himself, which is both good and bad. It’s good because, in truth, his surprise victory over the “establishment” favorite (and Conservative Party candidate) Rick Lazio had very little to do with his qualifications and agenda, and everything to do with his tea party-infused attacks on Albany, government and the powers that are. It’s bad, of course, for precisely the same reason. Is Carl Paladino actually qualified to be governor of New York? The question left unasked by Estrich is whether Andrew Cuomo is actually qualified to be governor of New York. Based on Cuomo’s disastrous tenure as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the answer would have to be no: Andrew Cuomo promised to “transform the lives of millions of families across our country” when as HUD secretary he announced his historic plan to increase home ownership. Eleven years later, many experts think that much-heralded transformation played a role in the devastating subprime mortgage meltdown and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Estrich doesn’t hide the fact that fear of Democrats losing is the real reason behind her recent concern over qualifications: Christine O’Donnell could win. Cuomo could lose. California could elect a Republican to replace stalwart Democrat Barbara Boxer. I’m not predicting a Democratic demise — yet — but if the most popular politician in New York (and that is Cuomo) is in trouble in a race against a guy who is all but unheard of, whose stump speech consists of off-the-cuff remarks without a hint of an agenda for governing, then it’s about time for some honest-to-goodness high-test fear to match the real anger on the other side. And thank you, Susan, for being honest over what really motivates your concern over candidate qualifications. “High-test fear” over Democrats losing big this year.

Read the original:
Susan Estrich Suddenly ‘Concerned’ Over Paladino Qualifications to Become NY Governor