The mainstream press’ coverage of the gunman in the Pentagon shooting has been predictable. Every time some anarchist attacks someone or something they’re labeled as right-wing extremists. These so-called journalists don’t even bother to dig a little to get to the truth. For example, the IRS incident involved a deranged man who bashed Bush and quoted from the Communist Manifesto. Check out the Christian Science Monitor’s coverage of the Pentagon shooting.
John Patrick Bedell, whom authorities identified as the gunman in the Pentagon shooting on Thursday, appears to have been a right-wing extremist with virulent antigovernment feelings.
If so, that would make the Pentagon shooting the second violent extremist attack on a federal building within the past month. On Feb. 18, Joseph Stack flew a small aircraft into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. Mr. Stack left behind a disjointed screed in which, among other things, he expressed his hatred of the government.
“Appeared” is the key word because right-wing extremists aren’t registered Democrats. Right-wing extremists don’t post anti-Bush tirades all over the internet and they’re certainly not Truthers. Allahpundit over at Hot Air sums it up all very nicely.
Is it possible to be a “left-wing extremist” anymore or do nuts who embrace some lefty ideas before launching an attack automatically fall under the broader heading of “anti-government,” a term that’s conveniently also used to describe conservatives’ opposition to statism? That’s why CSM ended up labeling him a right-winger, I suspect. Righties want a smaller federal government and Bedell hated the military and the military’s part of the federal government. Voila!
It seems the mainstream press lives by the Dan Rather creed. It doesn’t matter what the truth is anymore. The news is fake but accurate.
I can hardly believe it’s been more than three months since we’ve posted about America’s favorite member of the Senate, Tom Harkin. As I’ve stated before the Senator from Iowa endorses loser presidential candidates, creates ironic campaign photo ops, introduces piss-poor legislation, panders to his constituency, eats pork, adds pork to aforementioned piss-poor legislation, and wants to take back the White House. Yeaahgahagaagharwaaa!
Harkin is never silent. There’s just not enough time in the day to keep up with all his ridiculous comments. Over at Hot Air they’ve been watching MSNBC so people like me won’t throw up. I wish someone did the same for Tom Harkin. I’d do it, but I’d probably throw up.
Harkin has a new theory on ObamaCare. The GOP doesn’t want it to pass because they know America will love it.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
This isn’t actually far from the truth. The 30 million or so citizens who get free health care on the backs of all the poor schmucks who have to actually pay for it will love it! The real truth is that the Democrat party wants these people sucking from the teet of the government forever so they’ll vote for the Telly Monster party for life.
Tom Harkin says that as Americans learn more about the bill between now and November they’ll love it. How will Americans learn to love a bill that doesn’t even kick in until 2013? Harkin has been sniffing too much pork.
I suppose this will be the Climate Change Project Manager's office. Nice six-figure BS job if you can get it.
With the economy still in the tank and unemployment continuing to hover around ten percent, a lot of people are starting to wonder, “Where’s my bailout?” Well, if you look at the salary and employment stats in the public sector (city, county, state and federal government) you’ll see exactly where your bailout went.
Your bailout – or at least your hard-earned tax dollars that are partially funding the corporate fat-cat bailouts (the other portion being financed by the Chinese, among others) – is also being used to create make-work six-figure nonsense jobs, such as Climate Change Program Manager at the National Park Service. This ridiculous job, with a pay scale between $103,000 and $155,000, is just the tip of the iceberg (pun intended). According to the Dec. 11, 2009 edition of USA Today:
Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted. Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector… When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.
Moreover, the New York Times reported in August of 2009 that while the private sector lost 6.9 million jobs, state and local governments added 110,000 new jobs. All of this data – and it goes on and on and on, if you care to look into it – strikes me as horribly backwards.
I’m no economist, but if deficits are skyrocketing and companies are looking for relief so they can begin hiring again, wouldn’t logic dictate that government cut jobs, siphoning those people into the private sector, while providing tax incentives to individuals and private sector companies?
In December of 2009, 382,758 federal employees were making $100,000 or more annually. That’s more than $38 billion in what is largely bureaucratic largesse. Last I checked it’s the private sector that actually produces our GDP, not government jobs that essentially produce nothing. That’s a lot of nothing we’re getting for our billions.
Why we’re headed down the same road as western Europe, California, Massachusetts, New York, etc., etc., which ultimately leads to economic crisis and bankruptcy, I’ll never know. Or, maybe I do know…
It’s all about power and payoffs. The more the private sector and citizens cede to the state, the more power and money that’s funneled to the state and its dependants. It’s simple mathematics with the additional wild card of human nature (it’s corrupt, by the way).
While some see this as a Utopian system, rational people recognize that an all-powerful, controlling state destroys liberty and freedom. The explosive growth of public sector payrolls and jobs is simply another data point in a trend line that shows America headed toward the abyss. If you’re not concerned about it, you should be.
They're coming to take Obama away...
Win or lose the President has lost face during the health care debate. In a year of economic woe the President has been on a crusade to strengthen the grip of government on the citizens through a health care takeover. With an approving nod he has sat and watched his party make backroom deals and shut out the minority. This is the President and party that promised transparency. This is the president that opposed a “50-plus-one approach to governance.” Wow, how whatever happened to Hope and Change? Now with health care in its eleventh hour President Obama has supposedly made his last ditch pitch to pass a bill, a bill that everyone agrees is terrible.
President Barack Obama urged Congress Wednesday to vote “up or down” on sweeping health care legislation in the next few weeks, endorsing a plan that denies Senate Republicans the right to kill the bill by stalling with a filibuster. “I don’t see how another year of negotiations would help. Moreover, the insurance companies aren’t starting over,” Obama said, rejecting Republican calls to begin anew on an effort to remake the health care system.
There’s a real chance a bipartisan reform could pass, but the President is too “progressive” and too partisan for it to ever happen. Obama loves to remind everyone the “he won” the election and “his time doesn’t count.” People used to called this type of behavior by Bush as arrogant. What is it when Obama does it? Obama’s idea of bipartisanship is to shut up and agree with the White House. If Obama doesn’t change his attitude the American people won’t forget come 2012. Americans are growing tired of the arrogant faux intellectual who promised to be president of the United States, not only the progressive left.
It’s fascinating to me that people are so concerned about cell phones being linked to brain cancer. Cell phones have been around now for 20 years and have been even more common in the past decade. I’m not trying to downplay the risk, but there are certainly things Americans do every day that cause cancer. The state of Maine wants to put warning labels on phones, kind of like cigarettes.
Ignoring the health risks of heavy cell phone use invites a cancer epidemic, supporters of a bill requiring manufacturers to put labels on mobile phones and packaging said Tuesday.”We can do nothing and wait for the body count. That’s what happened with smoking” before warnings on cigarette packs were mandated, David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and Environment at the University of Albany, told Maine lawmakers.
There has been no study that definitively links cell phone use to brain tumors. These lawmakers are basically cherry picking studies. Cancer is a major problem and there are many common cancers that are caused by diet and lifestyle choices. Obviously, lawmakers in Maine do not have anything better to do with their time than chase imaginary problems (seems like the perfect case for the Butter Police). David Carpenter should be ashamed of himself and his statement above. To compare cell phones to cigarettes is not only intellectually dishonest it’s a repugnant form of scaremongering. Carpenter is another fine example of academia gone wild.
I have been against the balanced budget amendment since I learned about it in economics. The reason to oppose it is simple. It hamstrings what the government can do during a recession. In 2001, when the economy was slowing Bush cut taxes (the wrong way) to help jumpstart the economy. Under the balanced budget amendment Congress would have to remove some kind of program to be able do that. But now I’m beginning to change my mind about the balanced budget amendment. Not because the arguments I just listed are incorrect, but because it appears Washington is unable to restrain spending even in the face of a fiscal catastrophe.
My only fear about passing the amendment now is that it might be too late already. Even if the government was in balance this year there would still be long-term problems with debt the U.S. has accrued over the past three decades. However, a balance budget amendment would force Congress to either raise taxes or reduce the size of government. Supporting a balanced budget amendment isn’t the best choice, but the only one that will force Congress to confront the problem. It is also an attainable goal. Congress was only a few votes short of passing the bill during the Clinton administration.
The GOP would be wise to make this part of their platform for the upcoming elections. The balanced budget amendment enjoys a lot of populist support and Americans are clamoring for fiscal restraint in Washington. The amendment would change the tone in D.C. for the next 20 years. It’s time politicians start figuring out how we pay for all these entitlements we’ve dreamed up over the past 60 years and stop worrying about adding more
I caught this video over at Hot Air. It’s good old Leo LaPorte from the Tech Guy Show trying to help a woman who doesn’t want to pay for internet.
My favorite quote is from the caller who says “Yeah, they should bring that cost down” in regards to paying for her own internet. Or maybe she should quit stealing internet. I guess free internet will be a basic human right before we know it.
I haven’t been paying close attention to the Akaka bill in the House because I didn’t think that something so stupid could pass. However, I often underestimate the stupidity of the Democratic Party. In 1959, 94.3% of Hawaiian voters cast ballots in favor of statehood. Now, 50 years later, this bill basically creates two states based on race. The governor of Hawaii is opposed to the bill that basically adds up to a 1.4 million-acre land grab. Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow have an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that explains how dangerous the bill is for the rest of the United States.
First, the Akaka bill privileges what is in fact a race, not a tribe. The very act of transforming a racial group into a tribal group confers a privilege on one race and not others and is thus unconstitutional. Second, while the Constitution implicitly gives the federal government the power to recognize tribes with a long and continuous history of separate self-governance, it does not give the power to confer sovereignty on new tribes, or to reconstitute a tribe whose members have long since become part of the mainstream culture.
The ideas behind the bill could end up in a slippery slope where new tribes are declared all over the country. What’s to stop this from happening? People always follow the money. What I don’t understand is why the Democrats are supporting this bill.
Recent Comments