Not content just to bow down to King Obama the press misses no opportunity to bash Republicans who dare to take a any kind of stand against the federal government. Such is the fate of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. Jill Lawrence is the author of the headline hit piece Heartlessness Won’t Help Republicans Win the White House. Oh really; neither will endorsing racism or punching babies in the face.
Simply being against the porkulus bill doesn’t make one “heartless;” however, writing a hit piece article on a Republican governor and citing “empathy” is truly brainless. There’s nothing about this article that is objective or even analytical. To Lawrence, simply “doing something,” even if it’s a terrible waste of money is better than fiscal responsibilty.
If Lawrence really wants to educate Americans why not write an article about North Carolina’s former governor Mike Easley? I guess Democrat governors who are corrupt aren’t worth covering.
Myth: Conservatives are ignorant, mind numbed robots who only listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News.
Reality: Conservatives are more likely to read articles with opposing views.
People with stronger party affiliation, conservative political views, and greater interest in politics proved more likely to click on articles with opposing views, according to the Ohio State study. “It appears that people with these characteristics are more confident in their views and so they’re more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments,” Knobloch-Westerwick noted.
I wouldn’t read too much into this study. The fact conservatives are willing to read “opposing views” is probably due to the fact they’re inundated with liberal viewpoints. Mainstream news sources like the New York Times, NBC, Time, Newsweek, and the Washington Post are left leaning. It’s difficult to live in a bubble when NBC is working for the DNC.
As far as liberals are concerned, if you “feel” like you’re right about something what’s the point in researching it?
I still remember the first time I used Google to search. It was a refreshing way to search. Google was uncluttered and it actually provided good search results. The competition at the time was so poor that Google has gone on to dominate the Internet search space. I use the Google toolbar, and I have to admit it’s very difficult for me to try to use another search engine. Microsoft has been trying (I’ll give them that), but Live Search never really gained much traction.
The Internet needs a better search engine to push Google. It’s not good to have one behemoth running searches. Microsoft debuted Bing last week as its new “decision engine.” Bing is great. I’ve been using it for a week and it does everything I would expect from a search engine; however, there are some issues. At home I use Google Chrome as my browser. I like Chrome because it’s so much faster than Firefox, and Internet Explorer is just terrible. I’m hoping Firefox gets better because I like the plug-ins and I like the fact that I’m able to control searches. With Google Chrome you’re basically stuck with their search. It’s funny, because isn’t that exactly why Microsoft got in trouble? I should mention that Chrome allows the user to change the default search, but you’re still stuck with just one option.
Google also has an edge with its blog search. Bing will likely add that feature at some point, but I really like that about Google. With Bing I’ll likely switch back to Firefox, keep the Google toolbar, and make Bing my default search engine. I’ll find some kind of Wikipedia plug-in to work with Firefox. I’ll have no problem using Bing, especially when Google contributes so heavily to the Democrat party.
“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom… The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
-Barack Obama
Go ahead and rip off Lady Justice’s blindfold. And, while you’re at it, tip those balanced scales as you see fit. Apparently it’s no longer okay to apply the rule of law equally, regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, age, and so on and so forth.
Such is the problem with attaching a relativistic worldview to the law, particularly U.S. Constitutional law. The Constitution is a binding and objective contract between the federal government, the states, and the people, but if that contract is continually violated to bring a particular version of utopian “social justice” to certain groups of people, then it’s no longer a valid contract.
The philosophy that the Constitution is a “living document” subject to whimsical interpretation perverts the founders’ intent, effectively whittling away at our liberties and freedoms. And how, exactly, does treating the Constitution as a “living document” do this?
First, by side-stepping the stringent parameters of the Constitution you are, in effect, giving the government powers beyond the limited powers originally delegated to it. According to the Constitution, these powers are very specific and limited in scope, and for good reason.
The founders, however, provided a means to make the Constitution “live” and breathe as the nation progressed and evolved. It’s called the “amendment process” and has been quite effective at changing the scope of government and defining aspects of its relationship to the states and the people.
But it’s not easy to amend the Constitution, and certainly not as easy as setting policy by judicial fiat. The reason for a difficult amendment process is simple: it ensures that a powerful minority does not exert its will over the majority. The look and feel of the aristocracy has changed over the years – yesterday’s aristocracy may have worn powdered wigs and run giant plantations while today’s is busily denouncing the majority for their backwoods backwardness from the stage at the Academy Awards – but its dangers are just as real now as they were in the 18th Century.
Beyond changing the law through the amendment process, the Constitution is quite clear: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Despite the clear intent of the founders in framing the Constitution, leftist relativists insist on re-defining it by other means, namely the courts. The job of the courts is to apply the law as it stands, not as they want it to be or think it should be.
It is true that each Justice will bring his or her own perspective and prejudices to the Court. However, there is a code of ethics which requires each Justice to provide an unbiased analysis of the issue at hand subject to the framework of the Constitution, a.k.a., blind justice.
But when justice is no longer blind, and we begin to pick and choose how the law will be applied unequally based on some minority status or perceived injustice or inequality, then the law becomes, by definition, unfair and unjust. But this is how the so-called progressive dispenses justice, and how the progressive dispenses all political power.
The progressive’s dispensation of power and justice is not based on law, equality, liberty, and freedom, but on how to expand his control over others, either by turning them into dependents or dictating the parameters of each person’s life – what they can think, say, and do.
So, when you hear the term “empathy” used to define one of the primary qualifications a potential Supreme Court nominee should have, prepare to lose another chunk of your liberty in the process. The last thing you want as you face the federal government is Pontius Pilate washing his hands and rhetorically asking, “What is truth?”
Club Soda and I were having our normal Daily Plunge debriefing (“normal” being used here as a relative term), and we came to a startling realization. In a few short months, Obama’s turn in the White House has significantly lowered the stature of the office itself. The man is all over TV, mostly in a less-than-official capacity. He had his own segment on ESPN and I’m sure his wife will soon become a member of The View. Yes, I jest to a certain degree, but what must other presidents be thinking? President Clinton must be regretting that he didn’t get his own show on Showtime or at least become a judge for the Miss America pageant.
This is the dream job Clinton always wanted
I bring all of this up because of the president’s work for NBC this week. NBC news has become the Mouth of Obama. It’s difficult to decipher where the administration ends and the leg tingle begins. Over two nights the White House let NBC news anchor (and self-tanning expert/connoisseur/aficionado/enthusiast) Brian Williams spend time with the President. In turn, Obama talked about Conan O’Brien and SNL. It has to be awesome when the sitting president plugs NBC shows at the behest of NBC. Let’s not forget that the president was just on the Tonight Show just a few weeks ago. Does Obama secretly own stock in GE?
This got me thinking… why not bring back The West Wing as a reality show? The show was a hit with sophisticated audiences, and now that NBC is part of the Obama administration it’s a match made in Heaven, or at least in the joint policy meetings Obama’s team holds with NBC and GE. NBC is currently the last-placed network. They’re totally desperate and Obama is desperate for good press, but simply turning the West Wing into a reality show isn’t going to be good for ratings. I have an idea for the first season that will ensure the show’s success…
The main story arc would be the appointment of Martin Sheen as a special advisor. Sheen would officially change his name to Jed Bartlet. I can’t imagine Sheen would have much of a problem with this; he’s already changed his name before. Bartlet’s appointment would cause immediate tension with the cast, since everyone’s favorite everyman, Joe Biden, is a loose cannon. In order for this show to be perceived as reality it has to have some basis in truth. The fact that Biden is a loudmouth moron is already established. Obama would soon be forced to ask for Biden’s resignation and would then appoint Bartlet as Vice President. This would cause a Constitutional crisis because Bartlet has been twice elected president on TV and may be Constitutionally ineligible. Other plot points would include Obama’s appointment of Tom Brokaw to the Supreme Court and NBC’s peacock replacing the Bald Eagle as the national symbol.
I can see it already. It’s coming this fall; The Real West Wing. See what happens when politicians stop being polite and start getting real!
The View from 5A posted this picture of Senator Harkin and President Obama. The author of the blog comes up with some interesting theories about what is actually happening…
It’s unclear exactly what is going on here. One of three possible scenarios seem plausible:
1) Sen. Harkin is getting ready to smack the President.
2) Sen. Harkin is preventing the President from attaining the object by playing keep-away.
3) President Obama just handed off a large white baton to the Senator during the annual White House to Capitol Hill relay.
This is a worthy effort; however, there are only a few true Harkin aficionados on the planet, and of course The Daily Plunge is the Tom Harkin source. It seems very clear to me what is really going on in this photograph…
It’s obvious that Harkin is holding Howard Dean’s map to the White House. You know, the one which details how Dean was not only going to New Hampshire, Tom Harkin, but then to South Carolina, and Oklahoma, etc., etc… Yeahahghaahgaah. Frankly I’m surprised the president has waited so long to secure this vital map. I’m sure Senator Harkin drove a hard bargain; there’s no telling how much more pork the state of Iowa will receive. The larger question is this: Did Howard Dean make a copy of the map?
Recent Comments