Tag Archives: politics

Santorum’s Google Trouble a Warning to Conservatives in Internet Age

Here’s a delightful little story from the Sept./Oct. issue of Mother Jones, the far-left political magazine. It’s called “Rick Santorum’s Anal Sex Problem,” and, with its helpful creative artwork, it’s not something you want to read over lunch. Thanks to the efforts of a vindictive liberal writer, anyone Googling conservative former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is fairly likely to get an unpleasant surprise. Among the top three results will probably be a nauseatingly offensive website based on making “Santorum” a “sexual neologism,” according to Mother Jones’ Stephanie Mencimer. Back in 2003, Santorum expressed a traditional Catholic view on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Then talking in general about “orientations” always excluded from understandings of marriage, he included pedophilia and bestiality along with homosexuality. “The ensuing controversy,” wrote Mencimer, “prompted syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage, who’s gay, to start a contest, soliciting reader suggestions for slang terms to “memorialize the scandal.” Having selected the nastiest entry, “Savage launched a website, and a meme was born.” Once launched, the smear site “eventually it eclipsed Santorum’s own campaign site in search results; some observers even suggested it may have contributed to Santorum’s crushing 18-point defeat in his 2006 campaign against Bob Casey,” Mencimer wrote. Whether that’s the case or not, the damaging site remains, and remains a problem for Santorum’s future political aspirations. The site “hasn’t been updated for years,” but it still comes up high in the Google results. It’s been linked to over 13,000 times “compared with only 5,000 for Santorum’s own, real site, America’s Foundation,” according to the article. Mencimer talked to Internet PR and search engine experts who called the site “devastating” and said Santorum should “consider buying paid search results for his name.’ The article claims that Santorum “would very much like to be president.” If so, Savage, not content to let his website do its passive work, threatens to “‘sic my flying monkeys on him’ – in other words, mobilize bloggers to start posting and linking to his site again.” Mencimer explained that “Savage has not forgiven Santorum for his seven-year-old comments: ‘Rick would have prevented me and my partner from being able to adopt my son,’ he points out.” And that would be a shame, not to raise a child in an environment where differing opinions are met with vitriolic and gross scatological personal attacks. Why, he might not grow up to be a tolerant liberal.

Original post:
Santorum’s Google Trouble a Warning to Conservatives in Internet Age

The Pathetic Promo for CNN’s Pathetic ‘Parker Spitzer’ Program

Just what you’ve all been waiting for – the pathetic promo for CNN’s pathetic “Parker Spitzer” program premiering October 4 (video follows with commentary): Our dear friend Ace of Spades comically wrote Tuesday this reminded him of the sexual tension between Sam and Diane on the hit ’80s sitcom “Cheers.” Hot Air’s Allahpundit noted :  This feels exactly like a trailer for a Nora Ephron comedy about two TV journalists bantering their way through life. Even the whimsical jazzy soundtrack is Ephron-esque. Is that what they’re going for? The coveted “When Harry Met Sally” demographic? I could be down with that, but if they’re going to try it, I want other conceits from the movie too. Like, they could have Kyra Phillips and John King on occasionally in the Carrie Fisher/Bruno Kirby quirky best-friend roles. Even worse, I see more of a “Sleepless in Seattle” or “You’ve Got Mail” dynamic. After all, despite oozing with saccharin, “When Harry Met Sally” was a darned good film. As for the silly giggling noises Parker was making during this promo, I don’t want to have what she’s having. Exit question: Do you care what either of these people has to say about anything?

See the rest here:
The Pathetic Promo for CNN’s Pathetic ‘Parker Spitzer’ Program

Howard Dean: Limbaugh, Beck and Ingraham Part of ‘Hate Wing of GOP’

Howard Dean on Tuesday accused Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham of being part of a “significant hate wing of the Republican Party.” Chatting with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s “Countdown” about the Florida pastor that wants to burn Korans on the upcoming ninth anniversary of 9/11, Dean said, “I think the Republican Party has become the party, this really started back with Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy, that appeals to hatred.” He continued, “I don’t think the majority of Republicans are haters, but there is a significant hate wing of the Republican Party, including the talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh and people like that and they don’t dare cross them” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Governor, good evening. HOWARD DEAN: And the guy with the longest introduction on television. OLBERMANN: General Petraeus wants this Pastor Jones to cancel the Koran burning. Why aren’t people like Sarah Palin and John Boehner and McConnell and company helping to cut to the nut of this, General Petraeus protect our men and women in uniform? DEAN: Unfortunately, I think the Republican Party has become the party, this really started back with Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy, that appeals to hatred. And I don’t think the majority of Republicans are haters, but there is a significant hate wing of the Republican Party, including the talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh and people like that and they don’t dare cross them. For a long time we’ve thought that Fox worked for the Republican Party. Now we know that Fox really runs the Republican Party. Exit question: when people like Dean, Olbermann, and their ilk spew hate, do they have the slightest understanding of how hypocritical it is to accuse others of being haters, or does their seemingly limitless antipathy for their opponents make this impossible?

Continue reading here:
Howard Dean: Limbaugh, Beck and Ingraham Part of ‘Hate Wing of GOP’

Bozell Column: A Conservative Movie Initiative

The midterm elections this fall will feature young people born in 1992 – in other words, four years after Ronald Reagan left office. What do they know about this man? It’s quite likely that many of them have been told of Reagan’s firm resolve to win the Cold War. But it’s also likely they haven’t learned about the Reagan budget policies that led to a historic economic recovery. Instead, liberal revisionists are working overtime to assign to the Gipper’s tax cut policies the blame for deficits on his watch. Given the disastrous performance of Barack Obama, it’s time to give this man a serious look once again. Young Hollywood director and producer Ray Griggs has made a breezy and yet substantive documentary titled “I Want Your Money” that can educate young voters on the differences between Reaganomics and Obamanomics. Some might say that Griggs is trying to become the conservative Michael Moore, but that would be unfair, since Moore’s documentaries often depart from the classification of “nonfiction.” When Moore claims health care is better in Cuba than America, or that Iraq before the Iraq war was a placid kite-flying paradise under Saddam Hussein, serious filmmakers run from him. Griggs is talking about a real, gripping American disaster: our trillion-dollar deficits under Obama and the ever-increasing weight of the national debt. Conservatives in this film are appalled by the loose spending of George W. Bush and Congress over the last decade, and correctly so. But they know Obama is making those deficit years look like a nursery-school exercise in overspending. What’s emerging now is Tea Party anger, of conservatives who’ve been pushed too hard for too long. “I Want Your Money” is stuffed with weighty conservative experts – Steve Moore, Steve Forbes, Newt Gingrich, Ed Meese, Ken Blackwell, and more. But perhaps the most affecting visuals are the old clips of Ronald Reagan, speaking so clearly about the perils of liberal profligacy. There is Reagan at the convention in Dallas in 1984 joking “We could say they spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors…because the sailors are spending their own money.” It also has a “BS meter” which goes berserk when Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that the Democrats will pass the Obama agenda, including ObamaCare, with “no new deficit spending.” The film not only discusses green-eyeshade budgeting, but the larger philosophical debate between capitalism and socialism. In an animated segment, the Reagan character lectures “Obama” about what kind of productivity you would get in a classroom if everyone was awarded the same grade, no matter how serious the effort: a dramatically reduced work effort from the productive people, while the lazy students would forever be lazy. It exposes a real contrast between presidents. As experts point out in the film, Ronald Reagan used clarity to teach you about the real world. Barack Obama uses eloquence to hide what he’s doing, because if his real agenda became clear, as it did with ObamaCare, it would be opposed by the majority. Griggs found a very nice film clip of the late Nobel Prize-winning capitalist economist Milton Friedman speaking to a dark-haired Phil Donahue in 1979. Donahue proclaimed that capitalism was all about greed. Why, Friedman wondered, was it that political self-interest was so much nobler than economic self-interest? A voter born in 1992 has probably never witnessed Milton Friedman’s television work, especially his “Free to Choose” documentary series (also in those paper-stuffed things called books). This kind of exposure could cause a rediscovery, just like this year’s new interest in Friedrich Hayek’s book “Road to Serfdom.” So how will this film get into theaters, since it’s not one of those left-wing documentaries? A national effort is being organized by Motive Entertainment, the company that promoted the grassroots campaigns for “The Passion of the Christ” and the first “Chronicles of Narnia” movie. In mid-September, they’ll begin organizing private screenings to celebrate Constitution Day on September 17. From there, organizers will prepare for an October 15 theatrical launch in more than 500 theaters from coast to coast. But this campaign to show box-office appeal won’t be successful without the same grass-roots energy that mobilized the Tea Party protests. The movie trailer on YouTube has more than two million page views. If everyone who watched the trailer would turn out for the whole movie, then theater owners would have no choice but to take notice. Perhaps, then, Americans will laugh when news anchors (like CNN’s Rick Sanchez) try to describe Obama’s campaign speeches as “Reaganesque.” We can’t even find a Republican who has fully earned that grand adjective, and it certainly doesn’t fit the socialist blather of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

See more here:
Bozell Column: A Conservative Movie Initiative

AP Item on Judge’s Embryonic Stem Cell Action Mostly Avoids Naming Adult Cells, Dodges Efficacy Issues

In a Tuesday evening report , Associated Press Writer Jesse L. Holland engaged in a great deal of word massage which appears to have been designed to mislead relative newcomers to discussions about stem cell research. The news concerned Federal Judge Royce Lamberth’s refusal of the federal government’s request that he life his August 23 order blocking federal funding for embryonic stem cell research during the appeals process. Less-informed readers could be excused for believing, at least through first nine of the eleven tortured paragraphs in Holland’s report, that stem cells can only be obtained from human embryos. In Paragraph 10, Holland finally acknowledged the existence of adult stem cells, but then dubiously implied that the litigation was brought solely because the plaintiffs don’t want competition from embryonic research. The AP writer also ignored a fine piece written in early August by wire service colleague Malcolm Ritter (covered at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), who accurately reported that “Adult stem cell research (is) far ahead of embryonic.” What follows are several paragraphs from Holland’s horror, including a ridiculous title falsely implying that no federal funds are going into any kind of stem cell research (bolds are mine throughout this post): Judge won’t let stem cell money keep flowing A federal judge on Tuesday refused to lift his order blocking federal funding for some stem cell research, saying that a “parade of horribles” predicted by federal officials would not happen. Medical researchers value stem cells because they are master cells that can turn into any tissue of the body. Research eventually could lead to cures for spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s disease and other ailments. The Justice Department argued in court papers last week that stopping the research could cause “irrevocable harm to the millions of extremely sick or injured people who stand to benefit … as well as to the defendants, the scientific community and the taxpayers who have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on such research through public funding of projects which will now be forced to shut down and, in many cases, scrapped altogether.” U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth rejected that argument in refusing to lift the restraining order he signed after ruling that the argument in a pending lawsuit – that the research violates the intent of a 1996 law prohibiting use of taxpayer dollars in work that destroys a human embryo – was likely to succeed. … The scientists suing to stop the research “agree that this court’s order does not even address the Bush administration guidelines, or whether NIH could return to those guidelines,” Lamberth wrote in his latest order. “The prior guidelines, of course, allowed research only on existing stem cell lines, foreclosing additional destruction of embryos. Plaintiffs also agree that projects previously awarded and funded are not affected by this court’s order.” (Paragraph 10 — Ed.) … The lawsuit was filed by two scientists who argued that Obama’s expansion jeopardized their ability to win government funding for research using adult stem cells – ones that have already matured to create specific types of tissues – because it will mean extra competition. Here are a few paragraphs from the report by Malcolm Ritter that Holland ignored: For all the emotional debate that began about a decade ago on allowing the use of embryonic stem cells, it’s adult stem cells that are in human testing today. An extensive review of stem cell projects and interviews with two dozen experts reveal a wide range of potential treatments. … Adult stem cells are being studied in people who suffer from multiple sclerosis, heart attacks and diabetes. Some early results suggest stem cells can help some patients avoid leg amputation. Recently, researchers reported that they restored vision to patients whose eyes were damaged by chemicals. Apart from these efforts, transplants of adult stem cells have become a standard lifesaving therapy for perhaps hundreds of thousands of people with leukemia, lymphoma and other blood diseases. … in the near term, embryonic stem cells are more likely to pay off as lab tools, for learning about the roots of disease and screening potential drugs. The fact that so much is being accomplished with adult stem cells further buttresses the correctness of Lamberth’s ruling. It’s reasonable to contend that anything embryonic cells may someday in theory be able to do, adult cells are doing now, with the rest to follow in fairly short order. So why do researchthat involves killing embryos at all? Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Follow this link:
AP Item on Judge’s Embryonic Stem Cell Action Mostly Avoids Naming Adult Cells, Dodges Efficacy Issues

Left Wing Nation Magazine: Schoolteachers ‘Exclude Progressive Ideas and Viewpoints’

The folks at the far-left Nation Magazine have finally figured out the problem that continues to plague the American education system: it’s dominated by right-wingers! Seriously. That’s what they think. Or at least what they’re claiming. A spokesman for the Nation whined to the Daily Caller’s Chris Moody about a supposed “tendency for classes to exclude progressive ideas and viewpoints.” Most people who have ever set foot in a classroom are now scratching their heads in confusion. Moody reported: “The real idea behind it is to bring the left perspective to issues to make sure students have both left and right available to them,” the Nation’s Vice President of Circulation Art Stupar told TheDC. “This is an opportunity for students to view what the progressive left thinks about a particular issue.” The liberal magazine sends online curriculum guides each week to teachers that include experts from the magazine, talking points about current events and suggested discussion topics for the classroom. The guides are a part of the magazine’s “learning packs,” which offer educators access to its archives dating back to shortly after the Civil War. “In this year of economic uncertainty and critical mid-term elections, the corporate-owned media will not be offering lessons about: our rigged political system; the conservative crusade against Muslims; the phony ‘panic’ over debt; vets abandoned by the VA; taxes and the Tea Party and much, much more,” read the magazine’s announcement for the new school year, which begins today for many students around the country. Let’s see. College professors give money to Democrats over Republicans by a greater than 7-1 margin . Ninety-six percent of teachers’ unions political contributions since 1990 have gone to Democrats. And this is the industry the Nation claims is suffering from a tragic deficit of leftist thought. Of course those numbers are not surprising to anyone who is, you know, paying attention. And those willing to acknowledge reality will not need to look at the NEA’s balance sheet to recognize the sheer absurdity of the premises underlying the Nation’s campaign. National Review publisher Jack Fowler, who called the Nation’s effort “laughable,” clearly has a firm grasp on reality. “We have no outreach to the three conservative professors that there are,” he told the DC.

Read more from the original source:
Left Wing Nation Magazine: Schoolteachers ‘Exclude Progressive Ideas and Viewpoints’

Sanchez Admits He’s Wrong: White House Did Say Unemployment Wouldn’t Exceed 8% If Stimulus Passed

CNN’s Rick Sanchez took a very strong position about a White House promise on Monday only to have to backtrack and admit he was wrong 45 minutes later. During Monday’s “Rick’s List,” Sanchez challenged Republican National Committee communications director Doug Heye about his claim that the Obama administration said the unemployment rate wouldn’t exceed eight percent if Congress enacted the President’s stimulus bill. “Doug, who made that promise?” asked a defiant Sanchez. “I never recall hearing the President of the United — in fact, I recall the very first speech the President of the United States made after being sworn in and the very first thing he said to Americans was, expect unemployment to go into double digits.” The CNN host arrogantly continued, “I don’t think you’re right. Prove me wrong.” About 45 minutes later, Sanchez marvelously proved himself wrong (videos follow with transcripts and commentary): RICK SANCHEZ, HOST: Doug — Doug, let me bring you into that conversation. What’s your take on what Lindsey Graham said yesterday that seems to be getting a lot of attention? DOUG HEYE, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Well, he’s absolutely right. You look at what we were promised from the stimulus bill — and now, apparently, we have another $50 billion stimulus package coming at us — we were promised that unemployment would be under 8 percent. And it just isn’t the case nationally. And, certainly, in a lot of states — take Nevada, for instance. SANCHEZ: Who — who made — who made — Doug, Doug, who — who — Doug, who made — Doug, who made that promise? I — I never recall hearing the President of the United — in fact, I recall the very first speech the President of the United States made after being sworn in and the very first thing he said to Americans was, expect unemployment to go into double digits. Those were his exact words. So, now you’re saying that the president promised Americans that unemployment would be below 8 percent? I just — I’m not — I don’t think you’re right. Prove me wrong. About 45 minutes later, just after the President finished his Labor Day speech in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Sanchez proved himself wrong: SANCHEZ: Doug Heye is joining us once again, as is our own Jessica Yellin, who are going to be joining us on the other side of this. As we watch the president, by the way, it’s important to point out, and I mentioned a little while ago that he has his work cut out for him. I also mentioned before the president’s speech that — because Doug had mentioned, well, the White House had promised an unemployment rate of below eight percent. I asked him, had the president ever said that? Because the president had said you can almost guarantee double digits, though I’m not sure we got that as a nation, although a lot of states have seen double digit unemployment. You know what, Doug? I got the chart that you were referring to. It wasn’t the president. It wasn’t the vice president. It was Christina Romer. Come on over. Let’s show this to our viewers before we go to break. Put it in a box there if you want so we can continue to see the president. We’ll leave the president on one side, and I’ll show you this chart. See it right there? See the bold line? That’s the line that Christina Romer said — and there is eight percent — this is with the stimulus plan. She said we’d stay under eight percent. She said without stimulus we’d get up to nine percent. Obviously she was wrong. So, Doug, you were right, man. We’re going to come right back. This is “RICK’S LIST.” We’ll continue our conversations. Go ahead Doug. I’ll let you finish it out. Don’t brag now! DOUG HEYE, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, RNC: Barney Frank, Representative Barney Frank from Massachusetts said such a prediction, last month he said that was dumb. I tell you, it’s not often a Republican like myself agree with Barney Frank, but Barney Frank was right. SANCHEZ: That’s exactly what he said. You’re right. I read the quote while we were listening to the president, by the way. For the record, the chart Sanchez shared with his viewers comes from a January 9, 2009, report entitled “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan” created by Romer and Jared Bernstein who is Vice President Biden’s chief economic adviser: As is clearly visible, this report graphically claimed that if stimulus was enacted, the White House believed unemployment would not exceed eight percent. As such, it is certainly noble that Sanchez discovered his own error and admitted it both to Heye and his viewers. However, it’s now twenty months since this projection was made, and it indeed has been an issue since the moment unemployment passed the eight percent mark. That Sanchez is just now discovering the administration made this claim is quite disturbing albeit not at all surprising.

Read more here:
Sanchez Admits He’s Wrong: White House Did Say Unemployment Wouldn’t Exceed 8% If Stimulus Passed

Dobbs to Obama: ‘Quit Whining and Start Leading’

It is crunch time for President Barack Obama and Democrats. The writing on the wall suggests the president and his party will suffer severe losses and will ultimately lose control of one, if not two chambers of Congress in November. And this was something Obama addressed in a Labor Day speech in Milwaukee on Sept. 6 , but he also complained about how he has been personally treated by his critics, suggesting he has been talked about “like a dog.” That was something former CNN anchor and syndicated radio host Lou Dobbs said it was time for Obama to get past. On the Fox News Channel’s Sept. 7 broadcast of “America Live,” host Megyn Kelly asked Dobbs about Obama’s hypersensitivity and comments about how he is treated by his detractors. According to Dobbs, the president needs to man up and be less concerned about his critics. “Megyn when you talk about the lies that are told – that happens in any political arena at anytime as you well know,” Dobbs said. “But the lies aren’t what are hurting this president. What is hurting this president is the truth. And it is – it’s critically important to this administration, this White House, I believe, for this president to quit whining and start leading all of the people – not just groups, not just certain identities but all of the American people.” Dobbs also noted the president’s last-ditch effort to make another push at saving the economy, which includes a a $50-billion proposal to repair the nation’s infrastructure, and various incentives for companies in the private sector, which Dobbs called  “born of desperation.” “This political death-bed conversion to free enterprise with less than two months to the election, this is a president who said he would be transparent,” Dobbs said. “Well, his politics are so transparent now it’s embarrassing because they are born of desperation. This newly discovered affection for free enterprise by this president – where has he been for the previous 17 months of his administration?” A recent Gallup poll had the president’s favorability at an all-time low of 43 percent – still higher than his predecessor at the end of his presidency, but a sign he is fading and needs to do something to stem this tide.

Continue reading here:
Dobbs to Obama: ‘Quit Whining and Start Leading’

Cincy Media Mostly Nix Ohio Gov. Strickland’s Reference to GOP as ‘Overrun by Extremist Elements’ at Labor Picnic

It’s interesting, and more than a little frustrating, to see how inflammatory words in speeches delivered by liberal and leftist politicians that might cast them in a bad light don’t seem to make much news. One such example occurred in a speech yesterday at Cincinnati’s Coney Island, on the occasion of the AFL-CIO’s huge annual picnic there. At that event, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland lashed out at the party of gubernatorial opponent John Kasich as, according to one local reporter, “overrun by extremist elements.” I don’t know that this is exactly what Strickland said, but it seems highly unlikely that veteran WLWT reporter John London would have strung those words together on his own.  Strickland’s characterization of his opposition as relayed by London, which you will find at this Bing video and also at WLWT’s own web site , “somehow” didn’t make it into the the station’s accompanying text report on the event, which, contrary to what I believe is the norm at the station, doesn’t in any way follow the script of the London’s coverage. The “overrun by extremist elements” reference also was not noted at either of the city’s two other news-following TV stations which covered the event ( here and here ), nor in Howard Wilkinson’s coverage at Gannett’s Cincinnati Enquirer. Imagine that. Here is the first 70% or so of the verbiage in the WLWT broadcast: Strickland (during speech): What we are fighting for is the middle class of Ohio and America! Jack Atherton (in-studio co-host): Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio. Labor Day usually means you get a day off from work. But too many Tri-Staters are out of work altogether, and the governor was reminded today campaigning at Coney Island. Sheree Paolello (the other co-host): Now with the poor economy and President Obama calling for another $50 billion program to improve roads and runways, people had a lot to say today, and News 5’s is John London is live with reaction to the Governor’s visit today. John? John London: Well, Sheree, he gave them matches for the bonfire. He blamed Wall Street greed for the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in Ohio, declared the Republican Party has been overrun by extremist elements, shouted “Hell no, we won’t give the state over to them!” This was Governor Ted Strickland, gloves off, some three weeks before the start of early voting. (begin newsreel with John London voiceover) Ohio’s Governor arrived with a four-letter word on his lips: Jobs. Candidates of every political stripe can’t say it or promise it enough. Strickland (during speech): What we are fighting for is the middle class of Ohio — London: But can any of them deliver it? Erin Kramer, Director, SEIU Local 1: Our members do well when cities do well. And cities do well when people are working. London: As if to hammer home the point, many of these union workers and their families are suffering: laid-off, worried, discouraged. Here’s what Governor Strickland told us after blasting what he termed “Wall Street greed.” Strickland: This recovery is starting to take hold, but this is not a guarantee that, that we will not have a double-dip recession. London: The mood lightens out here if you let it. Pete Wagner’s orchestra sprinkled a little Dixieland into what is a combination event: one part picnic, two parts politics. Doug Sizemore, AFL-CIO labor leader: The economy that we’re in right now is due to the failed policies of the Bush administration. London: The Democrat candidates mine this turf each Labor Day — Thousands of union families within campaign reach, perhaps a little fewer this time as mid-term elections approach. As one worker put it: “There have been so many layoffs.” Strickland: Quite frankly, Ohio is starting to see signs of growth. London: And what the Governor means by that is that tax revenue in the state is exceeding projections, not by much, but by a little bit. He continues to acknowledge that unemployment remains a huge problem. … Anyone who knows anything about the hidebound Ohio Republican Party would double over in laughter at any description of them as “extremists.” The ORP was so hostile to and felt so threatened by Tea Party insurgent candidates for statewide office and its Central Committee — candidates who would only be considered unwanted “extremists” by people who also believe this country’s Founders were — that it spent large sums of money on misleading Tea Party-pretentious campaign literature and on Election Day poll watchers who handed out slate cards to defeat them in the May primary. Much of the rest of London’s report unfortunately segues to what I would describe as a “long hot summer” riff, even though summer is over, the message being that crime won’t come down until employment goes up. Going back to Strickland — It must be nice to be able to fire up the base mostly without having to worry about whether your inflammatory language will escape the confines of the venue where your speech is taking place. It’s highly unlikely that a Republican or conservative at an open event covered by the press would be that lucky. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Visit link:
Cincy Media Mostly Nix Ohio Gov. Strickland’s Reference to GOP as ‘Overrun by Extremist Elements’ at Labor Picnic

CNN’s Chetry to Koran Burning Pastor: You’ll Have Blood on Your Hands

On Tuesday’s American Morning, CNN’s Kiran Chetry used General David Petraeus’s denunciation of a planned Koran burning by a church to blast the church’s pastor for any subsequent deaths of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan: ” Are you willing to have the blood of soldiers on your hands by this demonstration? ” Chetry also lectured Pastor Terry Jones over his apparent lack of “refined” Christianity. Chetry interviewed Pastor Jones 41 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour. After asking him why he and his church were planning to burn Korans, the anchor launched into her critique of the minister: “I wanted to let you say your piece, because when I first read this story, I thought there’s no way that this could be as bad as it sounds. It appears that it is . You’re saying that you’re going to burn the holy book of another religion to send a message to the radical elements of that religion, with no thought to the fact that you’d obviously be highly offending everyone in that religion. How do you justify that?” Later in the segment, Chetry turned theologian and quoted Scripture to Pastor Jones as she continued to question his planned action: ” What about turn thy cheek? I mean, this is- you know, Christianity at its most- you know, refined. It’s that you just don’t act out in violence. You don’t act out in any manner of hate, that you turn thy cheek, that you don’t rise to the nastiness or the level of payback that your perceived enemies do. I mean, isn’t this the exact opposite of what Christ taught all of us to be and to do? ” The CNN anchor’s “blood on your hands” remark came moments later: CHETRY: I just want to ask you this: does it bother you that the military and the military leaders believe that by doing this, you are very likely putting the risk- the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk in Muslim countries? David Petraeus, the general- this is what he said: ‘Their actions will in fact jeopardize the safety of young men and women who are serving in uniform over here, and also undermine the very mission that they’re trying to accomplish.’ Are you willing to have the blood of soldiers on your hands by this demonstration? As she wrapped up the interview, Chetry again questioned Pastor Jones’s Christianity. After the minister emphasized that Islamists “must be shown a certain amount of force, a certain amount of determination,” the anchor replied, ” That doesn’t sound like the Christianity most of us were taught .” Earlier in the segment, Chetry stated how “freedom of religion is…one aspect of what makes our country so great and different from many countries around the world,” in the context of Muslims’ right to worship and build mosques, such as the Ground Zero mosque, but didn’t once raise how Pastor Jones and his church have the First Amendment right to burn Korans. This isn’t surprising, given how CNN has been using their coverage to press how “Islamophobia” is apparently sweeping the nation. The full transcript of Kiran Chetry’s interview of Pastor Terry Jones on Tuesday’s American Morning: CHETRY: This morning, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan says that a Florida church’s plan to burn the Koran on 9/11 could put the U.S. mission there and our troops at risk. Hundreds of Muslims in Afghanistan are protesting the decision, chanting, ‘Long Live Islam;’ ‘Death to America,’ we saw. That’s the latest video of the Kabul protests. There’s been others in Indonesia, as well as other places. Joining us now from the Dove Outreach World Center in Gainesville, Florida, is Terry Jones, a reverend of the church, senior pastor and the man behind the event. Thanks for joining us this morning to talk more about this, Terry. One of the things I’m wondering is- PASTOR TERRY JONES: Thank you. CHETRY: This rally is set to take place Saturday- of course, that’s September 11th. It’s also the last day of the Ramadan fast, the holiest day known as Eid in the Muslim religion. Why are you going to burn Korans? JONES: Yeah, we first declared September 11th, ‘International Burn a Koran Day’- actually, for two reasons. Number one, we wanted to remember those who were brutally murdered on September 11th. And actually, we wanted to send a very clear message to the radical element of Islam. We wanted to send a very clear message to them that we are not interested in their Sharia law. We do not tolerate their threats, their fear, their radicalness. We live in the United States of America. We want to send a clear message to the peaceful Muslims. We have freedom of speech. We have freedom of religion. They are more than welcome to be here- more than welcome to worship- more than welcome to build mosques. But our 9/11 demonstration- our 9/11 protest is to send a clear message to the radical element of Islam that we will not tolerate that in America. CHETRY: Well, I wanted to let you say your piece, because when I first read this story, I thought there’s no way that this could be as bad as it sounds. It appears that it is. You’re saying that you’re going to burn the holy book of another religion to send a message to the radical elements of that religion, with no thought to the fact that you’d obviously be highly offending everyone in that religion. How do you justify that? JONES: Well, we realized that this action would indeed offend people- offend the Muslims. I am offended when they burn the flag. I am offended when they burn the Bible. But we feel that the message that we are trying to send is much more important than people being offended. We believe that we cannot back off of the truth of the dangers of Islam- of the dangers of radical Islam just because people are going to be offended. Overseas, we see they have no problem burning our flag. They have no problem calling for the death of America- the death of our president- CHETRY: Right, but this isn’t overseas, this is America. I mean, part of- JONES: So we feel it’s time to stand up. CHETRY: But this isn’t overseas, I mean, this is America, and you just said that you welcome peaceful Muslims and you welcome people who build Korans [sic]. I mean- you know, freedom of religion is what- is one aspect of what makes our country so great and different from many countries around the world. So why would you want to play into that? JONES: We’re not playing into it at all. I just made a very clear statement. Muslims are welcome here. They are welcome to worship, as long as they submit to- obey the Constitution of the United States- do not, sooner or later, try to institute Sharia law in America. Our message is very clear- it is not to the moderate Muslim. Our message is not a message of hate. Our message is a message of warning to the radical element of Islam, and I think what we see right now, around the globe, proves exactly what we’re talking about. CHETRY: What about turn thy cheek? I mean, this is- you know, Christianity at its most- you know, refined. It’s that you just don’t act out in violence. You don’t act out in any manner of hate, that you turn thy cheek, that you don’t rise to the nastiness or the level of payback that your perceived enemies do. I mean, isn’t this the exact opposite of what Christ taught all of us to be and to do? JONES: I agree with you exactly. I think, most of the time, we as Christians are indeed called to turn the other cheek. I believe that, most of the time, talk and diplomacy is the correct way. But I also think that once in a while- I think you see that in the Bible- there are incidents where enough is enough and you stand up. Jesus went into the temple and he threw all of the money-changers out. He did not ask them to leave. He was not peaceful. He was at that time very, very upset. Even when this very close friend and disciple, Peter- even when he tried to stop Jesus from fulfilling his will- from fulfilling the father’s will, Jesus called him the devil. Jesus called the religious leaders of that time serpents and snakes. So I agree that, most of the time, diplomacy and turning the other cheek is the proper way, but sometimes not. CHETRY: Are you- you don’t care- I mean, yes or no- you don’t really care if you’re offending Muslims by burning the Koran, right? That doesn’t bother you if they’re offended? JONES: We realize that we are definitely offending them, yes. CHETRY: Okay. So I want to ask you this: does it bother you though- JONES: But we actually think that Muslims should- CHETRY: I just want to ask you this: does it bother you that the military and the military leaders believe that by doing this, you are very likely putting the risk- the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk in Muslim countries? David Petraeus, the general- this is what he said: ‘Their actions will in fact jeopardize the safety of young men and women who are serving in uniform over here, and also undermine the very mission that they’re trying to accomplish.’ Are you willing to have the blood of soldiers on your hands by this demonstration? JONES: Yeah, we are actually very, very concerned, of course, and we are taking the general’s words very serious. We are continuing to pray about the action on September 11th. We are indeed very concerned about it. It’s just that we don’t know- I mean, how long do we back down? When do we stop backing down? CHETRY: So you’re saying that you very might- you’re saying that you might well go through with this? You’re saying that you’re praying about it, you may not burn the Koran on September 11th? JONES: I’m saying that we are definitely praying about it. We have firmly made up our mind, but at the same time, we are definitely praying about it. But like I said, I mean, how long- I mean, when does America stand for truth? I mean, instead of us being blamed for what other people will do or might do, why don’t we send a warning to them? Why don’t we send a warning to radical Islam and say- look, don’t do it. CHETRY: Well, I’m not questioning- JONES: If you attack us- if you attack us, we will attack you. CHETRY: I am not questioning your intelligence, but I am wondering if you thought through the consequences of doing this, of what may happen, and whether or not you’ll end up doing far more harm than good? JONES: We are definitely doing that. We are definitely weighing the situation. We are weighing the thing that we’re about to do, what it possibly could cause, what is our actual message, what are we trying to get across, how important is that to us right now- that is very, very important that America wakes up. It’s very important that our president wakes up. It’s very important that we see the real danger of radical Islam. That’s what we’re talking about. Actually, everyone should be in agreement with us. CHETRY: All right. We have to go. JONES: There should be no disagreement there. We are not against Muslims. We’re not against the mosque. We’re against the radical element of Islam. Even moderate Muslims should be on our side. CHETRY: No moderate Muslim is going to be on your side when you’re burning their holy book. I mean, that just sounds silly. JONES: Of course, it’s not silly. You can separate yourself from that- CHETRY: You’re burning their holy book. They’re supposed to be on their side. I don’t get that part. Listen- JONES: You can say- we are not for the burning of the book, but we are for what this man is saying. What he is doing, we’re not for that. We don’t believe in burning our holy book, we don’t believe in burning the Koran- CHETRY: Just reasoning this through, don’t you think you could possibly reach out to more people by not burning the Koran on September 11th? JONES: But what he is saying- we are actually for that. We are against radical Islam. Excuse me? CHETRY: I said, don’t you think you could possibly do more good about bringing attention to your concerns about radical Islam by not burning the Koran on September 11th, by saying, you know what? We’re going to take the higher road here- we’re not going to do this? JONES: At this time, no. CHETRY: All right. JONES: I believe that we are dealing with an element that you cannot talk to. We are dealing with an element- they must be shown a certain amount of force, a certain amount of determination, and putting a stop to it. CHETRY: That doesn’t sound like the Christianity most of us were taught, but, you know what? I thank you for your time and your perspective this morning. Dr. Terry Jones, thanks for being with us. JONES: Thank you.

See the rest here:
CNN’s Chetry to Koran Burning Pastor: You’ll Have Blood on Your Hands