Tag Archives: military

So He Finally Came Out Of The Closet! A Brand New Look On Life!

My friend finally took the big leap! WOW, what a confession! Voluntarism and peaceful interaction for the win! Clint:”I guess the military won't take me with their Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.” Haha http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=3657 added by: shanklinmike

AP Equates Illegal Immigrants to Civil Rights-Era Minorities

The “struggle” illegal immigrants face as they seek the same benefits and services afforded to U.S. citizens is the same that faced civil right activists in the middle of the 20 th century, according to the Associated Press . “Students fighting laws that target illegal immigrants are taking a page from the civil rights era,” reporter Rusell Contreras wrote, “adopting tactics and gathering praise and momentum from the demonstrators who marched in the streets and sat at segregated lunch counters as they sought to turn the public tide against racial segregation.” Contreras cited several illegal immigrant activists comparing themselves to protestors of the civil rights era. He compared the fact that undocumented students “don’t qualify for federal financial aid and can’t get in-state tuition rates in some places” to the segregation of black and Mexican-American students in the 1950s. Contreras referred to the “fighting” methods illegal college students are using to promote the DREAM Act, a federal bill that would grant legal status to illegal immigrants who obtain a college degree or serve in the military and meet other conditions. College students in particular are using protest strategies which were championed in the civil rights era to further their cause. “Their struggle then is ours now. Like it was for them, this is about survival for us. We have no choice,” said Deivid Ribeiro, an illegal immigrant from Brazil.  Contreras also quoted University of Massachusetts professor Amilcar Shabazz, who called the strategy “genius” and said by attaching themselves to the civil rights movement, illegal immigrant students “can claim the moral high ground and underdog status of the debate.” Contreras didn’t offer any opposing viewpoint, which may have pointed out that civil right protestors sought equal treatment for minority Americans, whereas illegal immigrants are seeking the rights and privileges afforded to American citizens and those who immigrated through legal channels. 

Go here to read the rest:
AP Equates Illegal Immigrants to Civil Rights-Era Minorities

Networks Paint ‘Trailblazer’ Kagan as Hilarious Wit Who ‘Can Take a Punch’

“For the first time, Americans got to see the woman President Obama called a ‘trailblazer’ in action,” ABC anchor Diane Sawyer trumpeted Tuesday night before Jonathan Karl framed his story on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s hearing around how “a confirmation hearing isn’t usually a laughing matter, but if we learned one thing about Elena Kagan today, it’s that she has a sense of humor.” Like NBC, Karl featured Kagan joking about how she was probably at a Chinese restaurant on Christmas day. The three broadcast network evening newscasts, as well as CNN and FNC, highlighted Senator Jeff Sessions pressing Kagan on her treatment of military recruiters. Karl used the exchange to praise Kagan: “We also learned that Elena Kagan can take a punch. As when Republican Jeff Sessions slammed her decision as Harvard Law dean to ban military recruiters from the school’s career office….She made no apologies for taking a strong stand against the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.” CBS’s Jan Crawford declared Kagan “held her own, she was confident, showed flashes of wit, but she didn’t break a lot of new ground,” while NBC’s Pete Williams touted how “she displayed flashes of humor.” ( CNN expressed concern Kagan wasn’t liberal enough : “Some of her answers on hot-button issues may not please all of her fellow Democrats.” More below.) NBC’s Peter Williams raised her liberal position on one issue: “She was pressed about gun rights in light of a 1987 memo she wrote as a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. ‘I’m not sympathetic,’ she wrote about a Washington, D.C., man who said a law banning handguns violated his right to bear arms.” On FNC’s Special Report, however, Carl Cameron pointed out the previous court nominee flipped on guns from the position she presented to the Senate committee: CARL CAMERON: She urged a ban on assault weapons during the Clinton administration that many consider a threat to gun rights, but she was unequivocal about Monday’s Supreme Court decision upholding the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. KAGAN: That is binding precedent entitled to all the respect of binding precedent in any case, so that is settled law. CAMERON: …But President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, also said the 2nd amendment was an individual right in her confirmation hearings, then once on the court joined dissenting justices who said the right is not fundamental. CNN’s The Situation Room highlighted a controversy where in some notes Kagan seemed to equate the KKK and NRA, but the topic disappeared from CNN’s story reviewing the hearings. Setting up a panel discussion in the 5 PM EDT hour, fill-in anchor Suzanne Malveaux related: One of the things that they talked about was this 1996 hand-written note that conservative commentators went after, saying that they believe that she was against [for] gun control because of some comparisons she made between the NRA and the KKK. Senator Jon Kyl called her out on this, and here’s how she responded. But at the top of the 6 PM EDT hour, Dana Bash checked in with a rundown of the hearing and didn’t mention the NRA/KKK matter as she concluded by conveying liberal fears that Kagan may not be liberal enough: Some of her answers on hot-button issues may not please all of her fellow Democrats. For example, on gun rights she said that she considers recent cases before the Supreme Court, rulings upholding the 2nd amendment, a good precedent going forward. From Monday night, “ Kagan Hearings, Day 1: Evening Newscasts Downplay; NBC Offers Just 24 Seconds ” The MRC’s Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide these transcripts from Tuesday night, June 29: ABC’s World News: DIANE SAWYER: And next, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Senators began questioning her today – the former Harvard Law School dean – and, for the first time, Americans got to see the woman President Obama called a “trailblazer” in action. What did we learn about her? Jon Karl was in the hearing room. Jon? JONATHAN KARL: Diane, Kagan faced some tough questions. And while she may not have won over her critics, she certainly held her ground. A confirmation hearing isn’t usually a laughing matter, but if we learned one thing about Elena Kagan today, it’s that she has a sense of humor. This is what happened when Senator Lindsey Graham pressed her on where she was when the Christmas Day bomber was read his Miranda Rights. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Christmas Day bomber, where were you at on Christmas Day? ELENA KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) KARL: The humor was contagious. SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): We have to have a little back and forth every once in awhile or this place would be boring as hell, I’ll tell you. (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) KAGAN: And it gets the spotlight off me. KARL: We also learned that Elena Kagan can take a punch. As when Republican Jeff Sessions slammed her decision as Harvard Law dean to ban military recruiters from the school’s career office. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks because it’s unconnected to reality. I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy. I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy. KAGAN: I respect, and, indeed, I revere the military. My father was a veteran. KARL: She made no apologies for taking a strong stand against the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. KAGAN: I have repeatedly said that I believe that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is unwise and unjust. I believed it then and I believe it now. KARL: We also learned she favors televising Supreme Court proceedings. KAGAN: I think it would be a great thing for the institution, and, more important, I think it would be a great thing for the American people. KARL: But even that recommendation came with a joke. KAGAN: It means I’d have to get my hair done more often. KARL: As for Kagan’s now-famous criticism of previous nominees for turning hearings into a vapid and hollow charade, she acknowledged that things looked a lot differently now that she is the nominee. So when it came to specific questions of the law, Diane, she kept things just as vapid and hollow as her predecessors. SAWYER: All depends on where you sit – in her case, really sit. Thank you, Jon. Following Karl, Terry Moran reviewed what happened at Harvard with the military recruiters, noting Kagan’s passion in place of legal reasoning: “…but she kept fighting, joining several other law professors in a case against the military which the Supreme Court rejected eight to zero.” CBS Evening News: ERICA HILL: Things got a little tougher today for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. After mostly listening on day one of her confirmation hearing, today she answered sharp questions from Republican Senators. Jan Crawford is our chief legal correspondent. Jan, good evening. JAN CRAWFORD: Good evening, Erica. You know, the first questions were also some of the toughest, and they focused on her efforts when she was dean at Harvard Law School to limit military recruiting there on campus because of the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Now, Kagan tried to explain that today, but Republicans weren’t buying it. ELENA KAGAN: The military at all times during my deanship had full and good access. Military recruiting did not go down. Indeed, in a couple of years – including the year that you’re particularly referring to – it went up. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks because it’s unconnected to reality. I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy. KAGAN: Later sessions questioned her intellectual honesty during that part of her testimony, and that wasn’t the only issue Republicans hammered her on. They also focused on gun rights, coming off yesterday’s Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights nationwide. Now, Erica, Kagan said that she accepted that decision. She didn’t say, though, that she would have voted for it. And that’s that delicate dance these nominees try to do. So today she held her own, she was confident, showed flashes of wit, but she didn’t break a lot of new ground. NBC Nightly News: BRIAN WILLIAMS: On Capitol Hill, there were two critical events. We’ll begin with the first day of questions from the Senate for Elena Kagan, the woman nominated to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. As our Justice correspondent Pete Williams reports, she faced a range of questions, beginning with her position on one hot-button military issue. PETE WILLIAMS: Republicans accused Elena Kagan of treating the military unfairly when she was Harvard Law dean, enforcing an anti-discrimination policy that kept recruiters out of the school’s placement center because of the ban on gays in the military. But she said recruiters were never barred from campus. ELENA KAGAN: Military recruiting did not go down. Indeed, in a couple years – including the year that you’re particularly referring to – it went up. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy and deny those military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States government of loss of federal funds. PETE WILLIAMS: She was pressed about gun rights in light of a 1987 memo she wrote as a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. “I’m not sympathetic,” she wrote about a Washington, D.C., man who said a law banning handguns violated his right to bear arms. KAGAN: The state of the law was very different. No court – not the Supreme Court and no appellate court – had held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. PETE WILLIAMS: Her answers to some questions were, for Supreme Court hearings, unusually straightforward. Example, would she favor televising Supreme Court cases? KAGAN: I think it would be a terrific thing to have cameras in the courtroom. PETE WILLIAMS: And she displayed flashes of humor, especially in response to some unfocused questions. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Christmas Day bomber, where were you at on Christmas Day? KAGAN: I’m assuming that the question, you mean, is whether a person who was apprehended in the United States is- GRAHAM: No, I just asked you where you were at on Christmas? (AUDIENCE AND KAGAN LAUGH) KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) PETE WILLIAMS: The questions continue tomorrow and possibly Thursday. Pete Williams, NBC News, Washington.

Continue reading here:
Networks Paint ‘Trailblazer’ Kagan as Hilarious Wit Who ‘Can Take a Punch’

From "Mogadishu Madness" to "American Jihadi"

After reading about an American youth who converted to Islam and joined an extremist insurgency in Africa, I realized he and I had unwittingly crossed paths a few years before. In Current TV’s “American Jihadi,” a new episode of the Vanguard documentary series airing Wednesday, I go looking for the young man pictured above. I wanted to find him, if not in the flesh, at least to trace his route from small-town high school boy to anti-American warrior. I was in the war-ravaged city of Mogadishu in 2006, one of the first American TV correspondents to see the place in years. An Islamic coalition calling itself the Islamic Court Union had seized control of the Somali capital and imposed an uneasy peace that at least possible to get inside the chaotic “failed state.” To me and many other Americans, Mogadishu was best known as the site of the military tragedy and movie “Black Hawk Down.” Twenty-six years old and no stranger to hot spots around the world, I was drawn by the spirit of adventure and a journalist’s curiosity, despite warnings from others—including my father, a seasoned war correspondent, that the story wasn’t worth the risk. It was. My colleague, Kaj Larsen, and I found Somali expatriates streaming back to their homeland by the thousands to pick up their lives in a spirit of hope and renewal, despite the ruins and hair-trigger tempers that were the legacy of a 15-year civil war. I interviewed Islamist leaders who had captured the city and listened to their pleas for peace and a chance to re-establish a nation. Accusing the Islamic Courts of having ties to Al Qaida, the U.S. government branded them as terrorists. Shortly after my return to the United States to put together my piece, “Mogadishu Madness,” Ethiopian troops invaded Somalia with U.S. military support and drove the Islamists into hiding. Somalia plunged back into war. As it turned out, in the flow of people arriving at the reopened international airport in Mogadishu during that brief period of peace was another twentysomething American. Drawn by a passion to help establish an Islamic state in Somalia, Omar Hammami had left his wife and family in Egypt and arrived in Mogadishu shortly after I did. Like many Somali Muslims who answered a call for jihad to fight off the Christian invaders from Ethiopia, Omar joined Al Shabaab, one of the most ruthless and determined factions that had previously fought each other but were now united against the foreigners. After rising to become a top field commander, Omar is now a prominent Internet propagandist for the Somali allies of Al Qaida who helps recruit other young Muslims from the West to enlist in the cause. In the past three years, at least 30 American and Canadian citizens have turned up fighting in Somalia with Al Shabaab, more than have joined any other extremist group affiliated with Al Qaida. In “American Jihadi,” I retrace Omar’s path from Bible Belt Christian to Islamic extremist. I flew to Daphne, Alabama with practically no leads and spent three days cruising bars and restaurants—local hangouts where I thought people Omar’s age might hang out. At a Hooters, I met a patron who vaguely remembered playing soccer with Omar as a kid, then another who believed her fianc

Chris Matthews Disgracefully Uses Sen. Byrd’s Death To Bash Bush

It goes without saying that Monday’s media coverage of Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-W.V.) death was predictably sycophantic on a disturbing number of levels. However, the award for most disgraceful use of a politician’s passing to further one’s agenda has to go to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews who ended last night’s “Hardball” memorializing a senator he had great esteem for by attacking former President George W. Bush. “Let me finish tonight with a tribute to a U.S. senator who shared my deep American objection to the Iraq War,” he began. Readers are cautioned that where Matthews went from here was offensive in the extreme (video follows with transcript and commentary):  CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with a tribute to a U.S. senator who shared my deep American objection to the Iraq War. I love this country and believe in its historic greatness. I don`t know how those Founding Fathers found themselves in Philadelphia in the late 18th century but they did. And we are incredibly fortunate for that. And I love the symbol of the Gadsden flag that, coiled rattlesnake against a field of yellow. “Don`t Tread on Me` — it warned our enemies, and that included especially the British government and London. This morning, a man died who treasure this country and that flag. For those reasons, Senator Robert Byrd opposed both wars — both wars with Iraq. Here`s what he said in the fall of 2002: “For the first time in the history of the republic, the nation is considering a preemptive strike against a sovereign state. And I will not be silent.” And on the eve of that second Iraq War, he said, quote, “We proclaim a doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We saw that the United States — or we say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. There is no credible evidence to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11.” I was personally stunned and remain in awe that a president of George W. Bush`s abilities was able to take the attack on us of 9/11 and upturn two-plus centuries of American doctrine “Don`t Tread on Me.” We don`t attack but if you attack, we attack back. We oppose aggression. We are not the aggressors. Stop the tape! A president of George W. Bush`s abilities? What kind of nonsense is that? A man you admire dies, and that’s the occasion to mock a former President? How utterly disgraceful. But it got worse:  President Bush and his cohorts in and out of the government were able to construct a new doctrine: If we don`t like you or your policies we attack. If you cause trouble in your region, we attack. If we think you have WMD, we attack. Well, couldn’t that therefore apply to Woodrow Wilson and World War I? America was never attacked. And maybe Franklin Delano Roosevelt should be similarly excoriated for getting involved in Europe during World War II, for Germany never attacked us. Neither did Italy.  As such, using the Matthews Doctrine, we should only have attacked Japan after Pearl Harbor. And we never should have gone into Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq in 1991 for none of those countries attacked us either. Taking this further, Clinton never should have sent troops to Somalia in 1993, or Bosnia in 1995, or Kosovo in 1999. And he certainly shouldn’t have bombed Iraq in 1998. Add it all up, and in the past almost 100 years, Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton have all gone against the Matthews Doctrine. Yet, on the occasion of Sen. Byrd’s death, this so-called journalist chose to once again attack George W. Bush. And he wasn’t finished:  And millions went for it, hook, line and sinker. Senator Byrd did not. That he was so alone out there makes the swooning of America generally Bush`s war so frightening. If someone of Bush`s ability can make America forget its most basic, most time-honored standards, then imagine what a gifted demagogue could do. It`s one thing to send us off to Afghanistan, the base of those who hit us. Bush was able to then drive the entire country off to an altogether different direction. That`s what Bush did. Bush’s war?  Didn’t the Founding Fathers give Congress the sole responsibility to declare war? Why is it that shameless liberals like Matthews forget that in October 2002, both chambers of Congress debated giving Bush the authorization to invade Iraq if Saddam Hussein didn’t accede to various United Nations demands? And why is it that shameless liberals like Matthews forget that on October 10, 2002, the House approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution by a vote of 296 to 133? 81 Democrats voted “Yea” including Dick Gephardt, Jane Harmon, Steny Hoyer, John Murtha, and Henry Waxman.   And why is it that shameless liberals like Matthews forget that on October 11, 2002, the Senate approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution by a vote of 77 to 23? 29 Democrats voted “Yea” including Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, John Breaux, Maria Cantwell, Max Cleland, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, John Edwards, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson (Neb.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, and Chuck Schumer.  As such, quite frankly, Americans like me are SICK AND TIRED of people like Matthews calling this Bush’s war!!!  And to use the occasion of a Senator’s death to do so is disgusting to say the least. The folks at General Electric must be so proud to not only have an employee like this, but a television network that encourages and celebrates such un-American behavior. Yes, I said un-American, because the Iraq War Resolution was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, and 75 percent of this nation approved of the invasion five months later. As such, WE THE PEOPLE went into this fight TOGETHER no matter how liberal media members like Matthews continue to shamefully depict it now. Will it ever stop? 

See the original post:
Chris Matthews Disgracefully Uses Sen. Byrd’s Death To Bash Bush

Chris Matthews Thinks Sen. Sessions’ Criticism of Kagan Was a ‘Brutal Assault’

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews framed Sen. Jeff Sessions’ criticism of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a “brutal assault,” during MSNBC’s live coverage of the Senate hearing Monday afternoon. “It’s a brutal assault on this nomination,” Matthews complained about the Alabama Republican’s remarks. Matthews also seemed to cast Sessions as an unsophisticated country bumpkin challenging Kagan’s prestigious Ivy League background. “It’s a strong cultural shot at her, and she does represent, if you will, academic excellence of the highest degree, coming from the best schools, dean of Harvard Law,” Matthews crooned. “It’s hard to get above that, to a person out in the country, from Alabama, like Jeff Sessions represents. That is probably a pretty rich target.” He accused Sessions of describing Kagan as pro-terrorist and tried to get liberal Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) to say that Sessions’ “assault” would whip up a storm. “You know, back not too many years ago, some Republicans paid a heavy price for being tough with Anita Hill when she came to testify in the Clarence Thomas hearings,” Matthews insisted. Have we gotten past that era of sensitivity about a bunch of guys going after a single woman here, just bashing her?” “Can these guys like Jeff Sessions just go at her like this without any fear of rebuke?” Matthews later asked. Durbin tempered the debate by saying that, although he might not agree with Sessions, his colleague was doing his job in raising issues with Kagan. “I think it’s fine,” Durbin replied. “Jeff has raised issues, and that’s important. I may disagree with the issues. But it is not personal. I don’t see it reaching the level that would cause that kind of a backlash.” The transcript of the two segments, which aired at 12:53 p.m. and 1:07 p.m. EDT, respectively, are as follows: MSNBC June 28, 2010 12:53 p.m. EDT CHRIS MATTHEWS: Andrea Mitchell, I’ve got to get your reaction. Very tough opening statement by Jeff Sessions. ANDREA MITCHELL: Well, he has laid out the Republican line against her. And it was tough, and he is the ranking Republican. He said earlier today that he would not even rule out a filibuster, which has never happened, as Ron Brownstein pointed out earlier, when the same party controlled the Senate in a Supreme Court case. So this is a very tough – particularly on the issue of the military, on the terror law – he went through all of the top talking points from the Republicans. And she’s going to have a tough time defending that. MATTHEWS: (Garbled) …she’s anti-military, pro-terrorist, pro-illegal immigrant, and a socialist. It’s pretty tough. And by the way, I’ll go back to it – maybe an infelicitous reference, but it is a voodoo doll – she is being used as Barack Obama in that chair- EUGENE ROBINSON, Washington POst: This is throwing stuff against the wall, seeing – (Crosstalk) – trying to create an atmosphere and an image that goes beyond her that also envelops the President and the whole administration. She’s trying to say this is an elite, Ivy League, out-of-touch – MATTHEWS: Well, it’s a strong cultural shot at her, and she does represent, if you will, academic excellence of the highest degree, coming from the best schools, dean of Harvard Law, it’s hard to get above that. To a person out in the country, from Alabama, like Jeff Sessions represents, that is probably a pretty rich target. # # # MSNBC ANDREA MITCHELL REPORTS June 28, 2010 1:07 p.m. EDT CHRIS MATTHEWS: Now take a look at, what I think so far has been the toughest attack on this nomination. This is Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican. He is from Alabama. He was especially tough, as I said, in his opening statements. Let’s look at a montage of his toughest shots at the nominee. (Clip) Sen. JEFF SESSIONS (R-Ala.): Ms. Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years, and it’s not just that the nominee has not been a judge. She has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration from which I think a real legal understanding occurs. Her actions punished the military, and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting for our country in two wars overseas. Ms. Kagan has associated herself with well-known activist judges who have used their power to re-define the meaning of words of our Constitution and laws in ways that, not surprisingly, have the result of advancing that judge’s preferred social policies and agendas. (End Clip) MATTHEWS: Joining us right now is Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. He’s the Senate Majority Whip. Senator Durbin, if you listen to Jeff Sessions, your colleague, it’s a brutal assault on this nomination. She’s pro-terrorist in a sense, she’s anti-military, she’s a socialist, she’s for expansion of the government. He just about hit her on every cultural, political, ideological issue you can, and basically said he is definitely voting against her. He may lead a filibuster, based on his tone. Sen. DICK DURBIN (D-Ill.): I can just tell you, my Alabama colleague did not surprise me. He dismissed Elena Kagan out of hand and didn’t really get into the whole question of her role in Supreme Court. And then came the bill of particulars for the election in November. This was the Republican National committee bill of particulars, all of the things they want to accuse the Obama administration of. Socialism, secular humanism, you name it, went through the long litany. You get an idea of what this hearing is going to be all about. MATTHEWS: Well, do you think it’s really a hearing or is it something else? Is this going to be like a political convention on the right? Sen. DURBIN: Well I’m afraid it looks, from Senator Session’s statement, that there are going to be political overtones. And it’s not surprising, Chris, let’s be honest. If the shoe were on the other foot, and a nominee came along, we would be making points on our side of the aisle, too. But in fairness to Elena Kagan, At the end of the day, you have to look at what she has done, how she’s been cleared by this committee to be Solicitor General of the United States, her own achievements, and where she stands.  MATTHEWS: You know, back not too many years ago, some Republicans paid a heavy price for being tough with Anita Hill when she came to testify in the Clarence Thomas hearings. Have we gotten past that era of sensitivity about a bunch of guys going after a single woman here just bashing her? Sen. DURBIN: Well I think so. But I tell you, the record shows – MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. You think we have gotten past we’re that insensitive? Can these guys like Jeff Sessions just go at her like this without any fear of rebuke? Sem. DURBIN: I think it’s fine. Jeff has raised issues, and that’s important. I may disagree with the issues. But it is not personal. I don’t see it reaching the level that would cause that kind of a backlash. And I think we’re learning. Just remember, this is our fourth time in history to entertain a woman as a Supreme Court justice – four times, out of 111, this is the fourth. And I think there were lessons learned in the past. We do know that women nominees tend to get tougher questions. Think of what Sonia Sotomayor went through over one phrase, “Wise Latina.” You would think that the woman had declared that she was a traitor, treason on the United States. And instead they made that one phrase the focal point, they just went overboard on it.

Go here to see the original:
Chris Matthews Thinks Sen. Sessions’ Criticism of Kagan Was a ‘Brutal Assault’

Bill Murray Unimpressed by Josh Harnett, Finds Possible Soulmate in Christopher Doyle

The cottage industry of quirky Bill Murray stories — the ones that have him attending a Halloween party in Williamsburg or sneaking up behind an unsuspecting man in Union Square and covering his eyes — seem almost too perfect to be true. It’s like Murray and Wes Anderson sat around on the set of Rushmore and decided to carefully curate the “Bill Murray” that exists today, forever flummoxing publicists, journalists and fans alike. But then, every once in a while, Murray says something in the press that makes you think that he is as legitimate as they come — that all the stories are probably true. For instance: Remember that time when Bill Murray completely blew off Josh Hartnett?

Excerpt from:
Bill Murray Unimpressed by Josh Harnett, Finds Possible Soulmate in Christopher Doyle

Essential Killing Trailer: What Do Vincent Gallo, the Taliban and a Chainsaw Have in Common?

Honestly, Essential Killing sounds so insane on paper that it doesn’t even need a trailer to compel your viewing. “The film follows the story of Mohammed, who is captured by the US military in Afghanistan and transported to a secret military black site,” explain the preliminary production notes . “When the army convoy he is riding in plummets off a steep hill, Mohammed finds himself suddenly free and on the run behind enemy lines. A hostile, snow-blanketed forest, gradually reveals to be somewhere in the wilds of Eastern Europe. Relentlessly pursued by the military, Mohammed must constantly confront the need to kill in order to survive.” Oh, and it’s directed by the Polish great Jerzy Skolimowski. And Vincent Gallo plays Mohammed. Click through for a look.

View original post here:
Essential Killing Trailer: What Do Vincent Gallo, the Taliban and a Chainsaw Have in Common?

Daily Kos on Gen. McChrystal: ‘Ruthless, Bullying Criminal’ Like a ’13-Year-Old Skateboarder’

If the bloggers at Daily Kos can imply that Keith Olbermann isn’t pro-Obama enough for them, you can only imagine what they think of Gen. Stanley McChrystal. The Kosmonaut known simply as “Overlander” relayed that the general has written short stories with plots about presidential assassination, so clearly it’s a “fantasy” of his: I hope the Secret Service strip searches this monstrous thug before his meeting with Obama in the White House Wednesday. For the humiliation, mainly. But you can’t be too careful with this devil. Hastings’ article reveals that sometimes, America’s military is not made up of our best and brightest, but of our sickest and most pathological criminals. Half frat boy, half eighth-grader, half murderer and all evil, McChrystal is a sad remnant of Donald Rumsfeld’s dysfunctional Pentagon who should have been kicked out of the military in West Point rather than be allowed to slouch his way through a brutal career and find his way into the White House. Armed only with an article in Rolling Stone, a magazine that’s been infatuated with every powerful Democrat from Clinton to Gore to Obama, this oracle of Kos knows this immature Bushie must be stripped of responsibility: Obama has allowed McChrystal to write his Afghanistan policy. But McChrystal still whimpers and whines and tosses off junior high insults when talking about the minimal constraints our weak civilian government places on our runaway military. Obama should sack McChrystal because McChrystal is a ruthless, bullying criminal with the emotional development of a 13-year-old skateboarder. This blogger can upbraid a general as an emotionally stunted criminal, but he or she doesn’t even have the guts to sign their name to it. It’s appropriate that Keith Olbermann would rejoin this screed-writing band of self-righteous leftists.

Read the original post:
Daily Kos on Gen. McChrystal: ‘Ruthless, Bullying Criminal’ Like a ’13-Year-Old Skateboarder’

Scarborough Calls on Petraeus and Gates to Fire McChrystal to ‘Keep the President’s Hands Clean’

During Tuesday’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough called for the firing of General Stanley McChrystal. He boldly exclaimed that this discharge should not come from the Commander-in-Chief because “Democrats have to treat generals differently from Republicans.” He goes even further and states, “Were this a Republican, were it George W. Bush, McChrystal would have been fired yesterday,” and “the press would have understood it.” Of course, because during the last administration, the media was noted for giving former President George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt, especially with military decisions. Interestingly enough, a flashback to January 31, 2006, tells a different tale. During MSNBC’s three-hour post State of the Union coverage, Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough, denounced President Bush’s message about Iraq. Matthews thought that President Bush “cashiered” General Shinseki’s remarks about wanting more troops and believed the “idea that these guys are free to think out loud, I thought, has been yet to be proven.” Scarborough echoed Matthews and cited that, “For the most part, the Generals and the Admirals, 99 percent of them parrot what the Pentagon and what the President wants.” [Full article available here ] However, it is now 2010, and it is no longer cool to have the courage to stand up or to think out loud against this administration. There is a new president, so Scarborough insisted, because he is a Democrat, “Gates and Petraeus both have to come out, they need to fire McChrystal, and keep the president’s hands clean.” Since, Scarborough served on the Armed Services Committee he should be aware that the President is the top link in the chain of command and therefore is the ultimate authority, but he wants to make it easier for this Democrat to not do his duty as Commander-in-Chief. Apparently, Scarborough’s conservative viewpoint is synonymous with other MSNBC hosts who parrots White House talking points.