My good friend and Match Game celeb regular, Tony Katz, is on a new mission. And I’m going to help as much as I can.
He is launching a new late-night talk show, from a conservative perspective. I LOVE the concept.
Tony Katz Tonight is what happens when Politically Incorrect meets Playboy After Dark. Upbeat interviews, honest discourse and huge laughs – without all the PC political garbage. Please, go to our IndieGogo campaign and donate. We have great swag to give away for all our contribution levels including customized videos, mugs, t-shirts, cigars and your ticket to attend a Tony Katz Tonight taping and be a part of the show!
I’ve donated, so please do the same. This is the ultimate in pop culture, conservative crowdsourcing fun!
[A] former employee of the gay establishment Sidetrack the Video Bar is suing owner Art Johnston (the self-styled “Chicago’s Harvey Milk” and inductee into the local “Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame”) for four counts of sexual harassment (and hostile work environment), religious discrimination (and hostile work environment), retaliation, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Sorry, I think this story is awesome. Man bites dog.
Last night on Powerline, caught this video of Angelenos protesting against the possibility of the Koch brothers’ purchasing the Los Angeles Times:
And it got me wondering (and not for the first time) about the origins of the anti-Koch hysteria. Wonder if a Mr. D. Axelrod might have been behind this. I mean the guy did think it significant that a former Massachusetts governor once transported the family dog on the roof of his car.
Take a gander at this screen capture from the Washington Post web=site (taken at 7:32 PM GayPatriot blog time on 05/30/13):
The editors of the left-of-center Washington Post and its readership are all abuzz about the retirement of a four-term Republican Congressman from Minnesota, a woman who withdrew from the only race for House leadership she entered and came in sixth place (with only 5% of the vote) in the one presidential caucus she contested. During her congressional tenure, Mrs. Bachmann neither moved a major piece of legislation nor spearheaded efforts to promote conservative legislative initiatives.
Like other charismatic former legislator from the Midwest, she won her prominence not based on her work product, but on her public appearances. She is an effective speaker who can move a partisan crowd.
Her departure should not generate this much media attention. Her charisma notwithstanding, she is not a leader of the GOP. Yet, despite the failure of her congressional colleagues to support her bid for leadership and of Republican voters to embrace her, manyliberal activists (just check your Facebook feed) as well as their allies in the media have tried to portray her as the face of the GOP.
And in so doing, they have unfairly maligned and otherwise mocked her — and have failed to fault crazy left-wing activists from publicly insulting her. With her outlandish claims, Mrs. Bachmann has a great deal in common with such Democrats as California’s Barbara Boxer, Iowa’s Tom Harkin and Florida’s Alan Grayson, the primary difference being that the media downplay rather than highlight those Democrats’ odd statements and don’t pretend they are the leaders of their party. (more…)
On Tuesday, Jeff posted a video with clips of the current President of the United States Barack Obama using almost identical language to that of Richard Nixon to describe how each learned about scandals taking place under his watch, with both politicians claiming they had learned about them from news reports.
Today, while tidying my desk, I came across a note I had scribbled over four months ago:
Dem[ocrat]s want to define GOP by Nixon now/fear party being defined by Reagan — hence the silly line that Gipper couldn’t win in today’s GOP.
They’ve even got Bob Dole repeating that Democratic talking point (without providing any evidence to back it up).
If the Democrats continue to stonewall on the various scandals percolating around this administration, the media will have a tougher and tougher time making the age-old Nixon comparisons stick to the GOP.
NB: I had scribbled the note on January 9, 2013, the one hundredth anniversary of Nixon’s birth.
UPDATE: Meant to include this screen capture from the Obama-friendly AOL: (more…)
Fox News will not attend a meeting with Attorney General Eric Holder on the Justice Department’s policy of targeting the media in national security leaks investigations if the session is off the record, the network said Thursday…
Fox is just the latest media organization to say it will boycott the meeting if it is off the record. Holder asked for the meetings in an attempt to ensure [sic; assure?] the press corps that its investigations of national security leaks are conducted in a way that respects the First Amendment.
The New York Times, The Associated Press, The Huffington Post and CNN have issued separate statements saying they will not attend because the DOJ is requiring the content of the meetings stay confidential…
Is saying “We will only meet with you on-the-record” the media’s way of saying “We don’t trust you, scumbag?”
By the way – not to change the subject, but: the Obama administration’s violations of press freedoms and privacy rights (far in excess of anything Bush did) has me wondering, did Obama supporters in 2008 and 2012 know what they were voting for? Are they honestly disappointed with his administration now, like “that’s not what we voted for”?
You see, I knew. I didn’t know what specific violations were coming, but already in 2008, I knew that Obama & Co. were worshippers of the State (or of Big Government) who only pretended to care about the U.S. constitution.
It followed that, once in office, the Obama administration would violate people’s rights to freedom and privacy in various ways. Now we have the growing list of scandal revelations, to prove it.
If some Obama supporter claims they didn’t know, then either: (1 – seems less likely) I am smarter than them, or (2 – seems more likely) they aren’t being honest: they saw much of what I saw *and just didn’t care*. Which means they shouldn’t look at the Obama administration now and try to say, “That’s not what we voted for.”
Can you imagine an article like this appearing when Bush was president? No, back then it was considered “patriotic” for the press to disclose classified information, even when the information was incorrect or false, so the idea of the press reflecting on the Bush administration’s “struggles” with issues of free expression was unthinkable. But when Obama wants to stomp on press freedoms for any reason, the press decides to be “reflective” and “philosophical” about the issue. Craven rationalizations for restricting press freedoms under Obama are to be expected. I particularly like this reader’s comment which I saw when I originally read the article: “You are surprised Obama is stepping on the 1st Amendment? He tried to stomp on the 2nd Amendment for over a year now! The only Amendment this Administration seems to think is important is the 5th Amendment so they can hide behind it.”
Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Senator Dick Durbin whether Barack Obama’s promise to have Eric Holder look into cases of abuse that he personally approved represents a conflict of interest, but Durbin dodges that question and talks instead about the shield law proposed repeatedly over the last few years as the appropriate Congressional response to the scandal. However, Durbin asks what exactly “freedom of the press” means in 2013, and wonders aloud whether it would include bloggers, Twitter users, and the rest of the Internet media [Video at the link].
Facebook on Tuesday acknowledged that its systems to identify and remove hate speech had not worked effectively, as it faced pressure from feminist groups that want the site to ban pages that glorify violence against women.
The activists, who sent more than 5,000 e-mails to Facebook’s advertisers and elicited more than 60,000 posts on Twitter, also prompted Nissan and more than a dozen smaller companies to say that they would withdraw advertising from the site.
In a blog post, Facebook said its “systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate.” The company said it would review how it dealt with such content, update training for its employees, increase accountability — including requiring that users use their real identities when creating content — and establish more direct lines of communication with women’s groups and other entities.
Never fear, though, misandry and hatred of conservatives will still remain in fashion.
The House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on the Justice Department’s (DOJ) surveillance of reporters…
“In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” Holder said during the hearing.
However, NBC News reported last week that Holder personally approved a search warrant that labeled Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen a co-conspirator in a national security leaks case…
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the second-ranking Judiciary Committee Republican, told The Hill that Holder should resign. He accused Holder of misleading the panel during the investigation of the Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation, and again when he claimed to not know about the AP probe…
The House voted to find Holder in contempt over his refusal to turn over documents to lawmakers on Fast and Furious…
I feel two ways about this. Part of me says, the AG should not get away with lying to Congress (if he has, in fact, done so). Another part says: what’s the big deal? Holder has a technicality here (he can say that he didn’t lie, because approving a warrant on Rosen with intent to see if he should be prosecuted is not actually prosecuting him). Anyway, the whole thing is the kind of (low) standard that we expect from the Obama administration, by now.
Brit Hume makes what may be a better point, that Obama putting Holder in charge of investigating the DOJ’s spying on the media is a giant conflict of interest.
UPDATE: Showing what sane people are up against in today’s world, Yahoo!’s current lead headline is “Obama, Christie rekindle their bromance”. Really, media machine? You couldn’t find something better to report on?
Even as I read about the stock market making new highs, I keep reading about more Americans on food stamps than ever before, more Americans quitting the workforce, old people who can’t get a decent income from their savings anymore, business people who can’t start businesses or who are cutting back or even shutting down, and Americans struggling under their debt loads and unable to make ends meet.
This is in Obama’s fifth year. Whom is Obama’s economic recovery (such as it is) for? Cui bono?
My answer is: Obama’s policies benefit the Big Government – Big Banking – Big Labor elites, in that order of seniority. My next question is: how did the world get to the point where the people who support Obama’s elitist policies are supposedly friends of the little guy?
Why isn’t Big Government recognized as the ultimate ‘special interest’? Why aren’t we all laughing in Obama supporters’ faces, when they pretend to stand for the People? And what will it take to get the average person to understand that she would find life much more feasible and affordable, if only America would return to a system of (genuine) free enterprise under sound money and small government?
Happy Memorial Day, er, weekend! And a big Thank You to GP commenter heliotrope for the following, which he posted as part of a longer comment, some ten days ago. I must warn that it’s not exactly cheery; but neither is the state of America these days.
In an environment of enabling corruption, these words are tested:
“Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
― Thomas Jefferson
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome
“A man who has never gone to school may steal a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
“Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist.”
― Edmund Burke
“Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”
― George Bernard Shaw
“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
“Look at the orators in our republics; as long as they are poor, both state and people can only praise their uprightness; but once they are fattened on the public funds, they conceive a hatred for justice, plan intrigues against the people and attack the democracy.”
― Aristophanes, Plutus
“Might and wrong combined, like iron magnetized, are endowed with irresistible attraction.”
― Nathaniel Hawthorne, The House of the Seven Gables
“Why should he watch the hideous corruption of his soul?”
― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
“I will not let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder have made “not knowing” an art form. They learn of bad things by an occasional glance at the TV where the news is reporting it. That is the modus operandi of corruption. Unlike Ghandi, their minds are open to walking through by all manner of dirty feet, so long as there is no record kept or chain of evidence linking to them.
That old corny 80s PSA* came to mind today as I noticed that one of the two gentlemen Tim Gill my state sent to the Senate is suddenly in high dudgeon over the IRS criminal activity scandal that everybody seems to be recognizing as exactly what happens when too much authority is given to the Leviathan state find so fascinating these days.
Among Senator Bennet’s questions: “I don’t know how we get to the bottom of it, but I think somebody needs to be able to answer that. It doesn’t seem like it’s asking too much.” The “that” he’s referring to is who directed the illegal and unconstitutional decision to target Tea Party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny.
Oh, but he didn’t stop there. While dislocating his arm patting himself on the back, Senator Bennet made perfectly clear just which sort of 501(c)(4) organizations had his hackles up. From the press release posted back then on his official Senate (yes, the one we as federal taxpayers fund) website:
For instance, long-time partisan operative Karl Rove is a senior official behind a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” charity, yet it’s common knowledge that his organization exists to elect and defeat specific political candidates. Elections operations such as Mr. Rove’s should not be allowed to masquerade as charities to take advantage of their tax exempt status and hide their donors from the public. It’s the IRS’s job to enforce the tax code and make sure that “social welfare” organizations are what they say they are.
Funny he couldn’t think of any leftist, statist 501(c)(4) organizations. Considering the circles in which he travels (he’s now the DSCC chairman), that seems pretty unlikely. That he chose Karl Rove to target isn’t surprising whatsoever. That he is now feigning offense that the IRS followed his lead and did his bidding is also not surprising (he’s a politician, after all).
What would be much more sad than surprising would be if he gets away with it. I suppose that’s up to my fellow Coloradans.
*Perhaps someone who’s much more savvy with video/etc. than I am can reshoot this with the tagline changed from “Parents who use drugs have children who use drugs.” to something like “Senators who direct Federal employees to use their authority to target their political opponents have Federal employees who use their authority to target their political opponents.”
Those who have read my posts and considered my basic political philosophy can probably figure out my views on whether or not the Boy Scouts should admit openly gay youths — and scoutmasters.
As a private organization, they have the right to determine the qualifications for membership and leadership. The state should stay out of it. That said, I believe they should allow gay people to participate.
Now, to be sure, given the scandals in the Catholic Church (where most of the victims have been teenage boys), I can understand why they might be wary of having gay (male) scoutmasters. But, there are ways to screen their leaders to make sure they don’t bring on men who would abuse boys. Most (but alas not all) gay men would never even consider taking advantage of teenagers, particularly those in their charge.
That said, I just don’t get why they would bar lesbians from being scoutmasters. Lesbians tend not to be interested in boys and would not definitely molest them. Thus, I was struck earlier today when HotAir linked this New York Times story, featuring a picture of a mother ousted as a “scout leader because she is a lesbian.”
The leadership of the Boy Scouts should make the decision on allowing openly gay members and scoutmasters. And I would like to see them change their policy.
And Mr. Bloomberg has grandstanded repeatedly on limiting the ability of all citizens, including gay men and lesbians, to defend themselves against attack.
Perhaps if New York made it easier for law-abiding citizens to get concealed carry permits, bashers would be warier of confronting gay people knowing they could be armed.
NICK ADDS: As I’ve often said, the best way to fight “hate crimes” is for people to arm themselves. And as my buddies over at Reason.com have noted, for some in Seattle, “[i]t’s clearly inconceivable that anybody could actually hold in his or her mind, simultaneously, a regard for the right of people to love who they want and respect for the right of self-defense”
Jeff adds: Nick, good one! Following your link, I surfed on through Oleg Volk’s website to www.a-human-right.com, which has some of the best pro-gun posters I’ve seen, starting here.
Here’s a sample of their wares, with more below the fold:
It’s official: A plurality of Democrat voters are hypocrites, as they support the Obama DOJ spying on the Associated Press “after Democrats spent the entirety of Bush’s second term loudly despairing over civil liberties and freedom of the press being trod upon” in Allahpundit’s words.
It’s starting to look like the Obama crew won the 2012 election by hiding crucial information (sometimes known as lying). Had Americans known the truth about the IRS and about Benghazi, 2% (which is all it would have taken) could well have gone the other way.
As we have all seen following a destructive natural disaster, victims’ pets are also impacted. Whether the pets have lost owners, or vice versa… my heart always goes out to pet owners after a disaster like Katrina, Sandy or the tornados in Oklahoma City the past two days.
Sometimes God answers a pet owner’s prayers…
But for those in the affected region who aren’t as blessed, please help reunite pets with their owners and help take care of the four-legged friends that are displaced.