Archives for May 2013
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!
Gay community leader in Chicago is sued for doing to a Christian what this gays are always claiming Christians do to gays.
[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.
After all… #NOH8 !!! “Equality” !!!!
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. [Read 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: [Read more…]
From The Hill:
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.”
And don’t think for a moment that it’s just the Obama administration. No, it’s pretty widespread throughout the Democrat party. Consider Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) thoughts about whether or not free speech ought to apply to bloggers:
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.
From The Hill:
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.
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?