About admin

admin has written 202 articles so far, you can find them below.

When Technology Meets Stupidity

By Bobby Eberle December 5, 2011 7:13 am

Every now and then we get reminders of just how far America has fallen for left wing complaining and knee-jerk, politically correct responses. Whether it’s the left complaining about Christmas and stores going out of their way to accommodate them with their “Happy Holidays” slogans, or the American language changing every few years, because the left finds more words that are suddenly “offensive,” things have certainly spiraled out of control. Now, it appears even technology is not immune to the left’s stupidity, as Apple’s voice recognition program Siri is being attacked for being “pro-life.”

First, I guess I should state that I am all things Apple. I’ve never owned a PC, although I had to use them for years when I worked at NASA. My first computer was an Apple, and I’m typing this column from my iMac right now. I use an iPhone 4s, and I even posted on Facebook about the silliness you can have by asking Siri (the phone’s voice assistant) questions. If you speak to it and say, “I love you,” it will respond by saying, “I bet you tell that to all your Apple products.” There are other questions you can ask which result in playful responses.

But now, let’s say you are a left wing radical, as in the author of 10 things the iPhone Siri will help you get instead of an abortion. It appears the writer, Megan Carpentier, believes there is something sinister beyond Siri’s programming and that the technology is… dare I say???…. pro-life!

Ask the Siri, the new iPhone 4 assistant, where to get an abortion, and, if you happen to be in Washington, D.C., she won’t direct you to the Planned Parenthood on 16th St, NW. Instead, she’ll suggest you pay a visit to the 1st Choice Women’s Health Center, an anti-abortion Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) in Landsdowne, Virginia, or Human Life Services, a CPC in York, Pennsylvania. Ask Google the same question, and you’ll get ads for no less than 7 metro-area abortion clinics, 2 CPCs and a nationwide abortion referral service.

Ask in New York City, and Siri will tell you “I didn’t find any abortion clinics.”

Can you believe it? Someone actually spent time testing this out and writing about it. But she is not alone. The Abortioneers (yes… there IS such a web site) asked it’s readers to conduct tests on Siri:

Do any of our readers have the new iPhone 4? If so, I’m curious if you could do us a favor, and ask Siri

-I am pregnant and do not want to be. Where can I go to get an abortion?
-I had unprotected sex. Where can I go for emergency contraception?
-I need birth control. Where can I go for birth control?
-What is an abortion?

I ask because I have heard from others in the women’s reproductive health community that Siri is noticeably silent on these issues.

On a side note, I can’t stand how the left and the media can classify killing an unborn child in the category of “reproductive health.” There’s nothing reproductive about it! But I digress.

So, from these examples, one can see the first part of my theme: the left going nuts about something ridiculous. But that’s not the end of the story. Of course, then comes the reaction. As noted in the New York Times blog Bits, Apple actually came out with a statement addressing these so-called “concerns.” Come on! If I were Apple, I too would have released a statement. Here’s what it would have read:


Pretty simple. But instead of simple and having common sense, Apple catered to the left by stating that the “problem” was due to “kinks in the product that were still being ironed out. Siri is officially still a beta or test product.”

“Our customers want to use Siri to find out all types of information, and while it can find a lot, it doesn’t always find what you want,” said Natalie Kerris, a spokeswoman for Apple, in a phone interview late Wednesday. “These are not intentional omissions meant to offend anyone. It simply means that as we bring Siri from beta to a final product, we find places where we can do better, and we will in the coming weeks.”

It’s interesting to note that this New York Times writer described Siri’s behavior as “odd.” As if Apple programers should have or could have thought of everything and that the inability to locate an abortion clinic is part of some right-wing conspiracy.

And so, yet again, we have a company or a government or some other kind of entity jumping through hoops to placate the angry left. When will it all end? I guess when there are no more manger scenes, Merry Christmas greetings, and Siri can point us to the nearest abortion clinic or drug dealer. Hmmmm… I guess we are almost there.

Obama Unlikely to Harness Political Credit From 8.6 Unemployment Rate

Dec 2, 2011 12:50 PM EST

The U.S. jobless rate fell to 8.6 percent in November. It’s a sizable reduction, but it’s still not low enough for the president to get some credit. Daniel Stone reports.

It’s the number that drives Washington, and on Friday, offered some welcome wind at the back of President Obama.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced on the traditional first Friday of the month that the unemployment rate in November had dropped to 8.6 percent from 9.0, a statistical blip that translates to about 120,000 Americans who have new jobs.

One unfortunate caveat in otherwise good news is that joblessness hasn’t just gone down. Half of Friday’s drop was because of new jobs added, and the other half because about 315,000 people stopped looking for work, which means they’re still unemployed, just no longer counted in the labor force.

But does the optic of a lower number help Obama make his argument that his policies are working?

“The president can take a little comfort in these numbers, but if I were in his shoes I wouldn’t go too far out on that limb,” says Nariman Behravesh, chief economist with IHS Inc. “If the number drops because people are discouraged, that’s not a good sign.”

It’s also unlikely to numb any of the criticism coming from Republican presidential candidates, who in past months have dinged Obama for a 9-percent rate—and during August, creating zero net jobs. Frontrunner Mitt Romney was nonplussed by Friday’s news, pointing out that unemployment has been above 8 percent for 34 months, almost exactly the length of Obama’s presidency.

“The Obama administration may have come to accept such a high level of joblessness as the new normal. I will never accept it,” Romney said in a statement released by his campaign before the White House could even release its prepared remarks.

There’s reason to believe the depressed unemployment rate could still go right back up in the months ahead–specifically after the holiday spending binge, when campaign 2012 heats up. One is the continued reluctance of many companies to hire, and the other is the spiraling European debt crisis, which is entirely out of U.S. control but still holding substantial influence over American markets.

“The president can take a little comfort in these numbers, but if I were in his shoes I wouldn’t go too far out on that limb.”

“This fragile growth now faces fierce headwinds, with austerity in Europe and Great Britain driving those economies into recession,” says Robert Borosage, director of the left-leaning advocacy group Campaign for America’s Future. “The financial crisis in Europe will impact zombie banks in the United States.”

The White House knows that one month’s numbers don’t necessarily make or break a political argument, especially considering that the BLS frequently revises data from past months to reflect economic dynamics that are hard to quickly measure.

Yet Alan Krueger, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, dusted off on Friday what’s been a frequent administration refrain—and likely to be Obama’s best argument for reelection next year.

“Today’s employment report provides further evidence that the economy is continuing to heal from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression,” Krueger said in a written statement. “But the pace of improvement is still not fast enough.”

Political translation: we’ve still got lots to do, but come on, give us some credit.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

Daniel Stone is Newsweek‘s White House correspondent. He also covers national energy and environmental policy.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast ateditorial@thedailybeast.com.


Pelosi Dismisses Catholic Bishops as ‘Lobbyists’

By Edwin Mora  … December 1, 2011   Subscribe to Edwin Mora’s posts

Pelosi Dismisses Catholic Bishops as ‘Lobbyists’—For Opposing Obamacare Reg

Forcing Catholics to Act Against Faith

(CNSNews.com) — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) on Thursday described America’s Roman Catholic bishops as “lobbyists in Washington, D.C.” in their efforts to persuade the Department of Health and Human Service to rescind a proposed regulation under the new health-care law that would force Catholics to act against the teachings of their church by compelling them to purchase health-care plans that cover sterilizations and all-FDA approved contraceptives, including abortifacients.

The proposed regulation, scheduled to take effect on Aug. 1, 2012, would require every health-insurance plan in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives (which include abortifacients) without charging any co-pay. The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong and that Catholics cannot be involved in them.

CNSNews.com asked Pelosi at her press briefing on Thursday: “In August, HHS issued a proposed regulation under the new health care law that would require that all health care plans cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives. The U.S. Catholic bishops have called the regulation an unprecedented attack on religious freedom and have asked HHS to drop it. Do you agree with the bishops?” 

Noting that she is “a devout Catholic,” Pelosi said she sometimes disagrees with the Catholic bishops when they act as “lobbyists.”

“I don’t know if I agree with your characterization of what the HHS put forth,” Pelosi said, “but as a mother of five children in six years, as a devout Catholic, I have great respect for our bishops when they are my pastor. As lobbyists in Washington D.C., we have some areas of disagreement.

“Again,” she continued, “I don’t understand the proposal as you described it. So, I won’t be able to answer it. But I do think that it’s important for women to have the opportunity to have full reproductive health options available to them and their insurance wherever they receive it. I support the waiver that is there for the churches now. I don’t know the exception as expanded by what you’re saying there.”

The regulation HHS has proposed includes a “religious exemption” that does not apply to individuals who, under Obamacare, will be mandated to buy health insurance. To qualify as a “religious employer” that will get an exemption an organization must meet all of four criteria: their purpose must be the “inculcation of religious values,” they must “primarily employ persons who share the same religious tenets,” they must “primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets,” and they must be organized under the specific section of the Internal Revenue Code used by churches per se.

As drawn, the exemption from the sterilization-and-contraception mandate would not apply to Catholic individuals, Catholic hospitals, Catholic universities and Catholic charitable organizations. Thus, Catholic individuals would be forced to purchase health insurance plans that pay for sterilizations, contraception and abortifacients, in violation of the the teachings of their church, and Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations would be forced to choose between dropping health insurance for their employees or paying for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients in violation of the teachings of the church. 

In September, the Catholics bishops issued a rare “call to action” that was distributed in church bulletins around the country. The bulletin insert stated that the regulation “poses an unprecedented threat to individual and institutional religious freedom” [italics in original] and called on Catholics to contact HHS and urge that the proposed regulation be rescinded.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also sent its own comments to HHS in which the bishops said: “Indeed, such nationwide government coercion of religious people and groups to sell, broker, or purchase ‘services’ to which they have a moral or religious objection represents an unprecedented attack on religious liberty.”

The bishops’ comments noted that ulipristal (or “Ella”), which is an abortifacient, is one of the FDA-approved contraceptives that every health care plan would be required to provide under the proposed regulation.

In addressing the very narrowly drawn religious exemption in the proposed regulation, the bishops told HHS that Jesus Christ would not even qualify for it.

“Under such inexplicably narrow criteria—criteria bearing no reasonable relation to any legitimate (let alone compelling) government purpose—even the ministry of Jesus and the early Christian Church would not qualify as ‘religious,’ because they did not confine their ministry to their co-religionists or engage only in a preaching ministry,” the bishops said. “In effect, the exemption is directly at odds with the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Jesus teaches concern and assistance for those in need, regardless of faith differences.”

At the White House press briefing on Tuesday, Jake Tapper of ABC News asked White House Spokesman Jay Carney what was going to govern the president’s “decision-making” on whether to impose this proposed regulation on Catholics.

“I’ve heard from a lot of Democrats in the last few weeks who are concerned about President Obama possibly granting an exemption to Catholic churches, hospitals and universities from the requirement that all insurance plans cover contraception,” said Tapper. “I’m wondering if you could shed any light on this decision. I know the President has not yet made a decision, but I think these Democrats, a lot of them in the abortion rights community, are concerned that this is even being discussed.  Could you explain why the President is considering an exemption, and what’s going into his decision-making?”

Carney said the president was undecided on what he was going to do.

“Well, part of the process, Jake, as you know, was seeking and receiving public input before the guidelines that were announced by the Secretary of Health and Human Services would go into effect,” said Carney. “That process did result in public input, as well as resulted in numerous comments from various folks who have concerns about this issue. 

“The President has–this decision has not yet been made,” said Carney. “You can be sure that we want to strike the right balance between expanding coverage of preventive services and respecting religious beliefs.  And that’s the balance that will be sought as this decision is made.”


Accusing Obama of Putting Politics Above Jobs, GOP Senators Introduce Keystone Bill

By Penny Starr

November 30, 2011

(Update: Adds State Department statement.)

(CNSNews.com) – Senate Republicans have introduced legislation that would direct the State Department to issue permits to begin construction of the 1,700-mile Keystone XL crude oil pipeline from Canada to U.S. refineries – a project they say will create 20,000 jobs, increase domestic energy security and generate revenue.

“Jobs will be created right away and billions of dollars in investment will be unleashed through legislation introduced to permit the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline, the largest infrastructure project ready in the United States, to commence construction,” Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) told a press conference on Wednesday.

Lugar, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is lead sponsor of the new North American Energy Security Act.

In a jab to President Obama’s promotion of creating jobs through new or improved infrastructure and “shovel-ready” projects, the GOP senators said the pipeline qualifies as both. Obama’s decision to delay the approval process until after the 2012 election is putting politics above job creation, they charged.

“There is absolutely no reason to delay a permit decision on the Keystone pipeline – and the jobs that come with it – for another year in a blatant attempt to appease the president’s political base,” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at the conference.

Because the project involves a foreign country, the State Department has jurisdiction over the permitting process.

Following a three-year federal review of the final Environmental Impact Statement a decision had been expected by the end of the year, but the administration last month delayed the decision until after next year’s election. The senators attributed the decision to pressure from environmentalist groups opposed to the pipeline.

Sen. Mike Johanns Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) said the bill addresses a change in the pipeline path through a sensitive environmental area in his state while continuing construction of the pipeline elsewhere. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

The newly-introduced bill does address environmental concerns in Nebraska, whose state legislature recently approved a plan to amend some of the project’s route while not delaying construction elsewhere.

“This bill respects the Nebraska process to protect the Sand Hills while providing a commonsense approach to bring friendly oil and jobs to the U.S. without unnecessary delay,” said Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.).

The lawmakers said the pipeline could reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil by bringing as much as 700,000 barrels of oil a day into the country from Canada.

Aside from jobs directly created in construction and pipeline operation, the private sector project is expected also to boost economic growth for the more than 1,400 U.S. companies that sell products and services for oil sands production and transport.

So far, the bill has 37 Republicans sponsors, but it faces an uncertain future in a Democrat-controlled Senate.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner did not have an immediate response Wednesday to the Keystone bill, but told a press briefing, “we continue to work closely and consult closely with Congress as we move forward in conducting our study and our assessment.”

Toner later issued the following statement: “The Department remains committed to ensuring a transparent, thorough and rigorous review of whether the proposed pipeline project is in the national interest. Consistent with Executive Order 13337, after consultations with a broad range of stakeholders, we determined it is necessary to specifically assess alternative routes around the environmentally sensitive Nebraska Sand Hills. Based on past experience and possible total mileage of alternative routes that would need to be reviewed, we anticipate the evaluation could conclude as early as the first quarter of 2013. We look forward to continuing to consult with Congress as this process moves forward.”

Limbaugh: Obama Pleads for 4 More

By David Limbaugh December 2, 2011 7:30 am

Instead of trying to govern, a matter about which I suppose we should be grateful, President Obama is once again galloping from fundraiser to fundraiser, straining to make the implausible case that the country needs his second term.

In New York for three events — in which he raked in $2 million from the very type of fat cats he daily condemns — he pleaded with voters (Reuters’ terminology, not mine) to be patient with him and to give him more time to fulfill his 2008 “hope and change” campaign promise.

He told supporters: “After all that is happening in Washington, it may be tempting to believe that change may not be as possible as we thought. It has been three wrenching years for this country.” I’ll say.

Well, I, for one, fault him not for failing to honor that promise, but for keeping it. We’ve had change, all right, and precisely the kind he had in mind. One can only imagine how much more change he would have effected if he’d had his way — if democracy, as he has complained, weren’t so “slow” and so “messy.” Worse still, let’s imagine how much more change he’d attempt if, God forbid, he were to purloin a second term.

His words to the friendly audiences confirm what attentive observers already understand about his remaining ambitions. He said: “Every single thing that we care about is at stake in this next election. It’s going to take more than a few years to meet the challenges that have been decades in the making.”

It would be one thing if Obama had been referring to the entitlement structure that the liberal establishment has imposed on Americans over the past half-century or more. But if entitlements were his concern, he wouldn’t be single-handedly obstructing their structural reform. No, he’s talking about the sluggish state of the economy, which absolutely wouldn’t take even two years — much less a decade — to turn around if he would remove his socialist boot from its gasping throat.

But we should note that Obama cleverly gets double mileage out of conveniently shifting the goal posts. Back in his messianic era, he wasn’t fecklessly cautioning that it would take a generation to bring about real change or to turn the economy around. He said that with his “stimulus” bill, unemployment would top out at 8 percent and that if he didn’t turn things around within his first term, the voters wouldn’t give him another chance.

But by rewriting history to erase those statements, he hopes to get a pass on his failure to produce in the time period he proposed, and he shiftily bolsters his case that his policies haven’t failed at all, that they only need more time to work, which they will unless reversed by hyper-partisan Republicans.

This may be doubly good for Obama, but it’s doubly bad for America. For if such sophistry abets his re-election, we will have lost any real chance to save the nation from financial bankruptcy, and he will have a mandate to make matters even worse — on a wide range of fronts.

What would Obama do in a second term? He told his fawning benefactors that he considers his achievements to be overhauling health care, ending the war in Iraq and fighting al-Qaida but that he needs another term to fully address the economy, the environment and other issues.

So he considers imposing cost-prohibitive, freedom-suppressing and quality-destroying nationalized health care against the people’s will his major achievement? His awkward withdrawal from Iraq and increasingly deteriorating relations there a close second? And “fighting al-Qaida” with most of the tools, save enhanced interrogation techniques, he slandered President George W. Bush for using?

But now he wants more time to “address the economy” and “the environment” — as if his approaches to those aren’t mutually exclusive and as if he has earned any good will or credibility on either.

As for the economy, the only thing Obama knows are the failed practices of spending yet more borrowed money, establishing incestuous government-business partnerships and raising taxes, all of which would accelerate our appointment with financial Armageddon. He insists on more Solyndras, just as the world is beginning to wise up to the horrors attendant to worshipping false green gods. (Europe is starting to bail on Kyoto.) He will not allow the private sector and the producers likeliest to resurrect it the freedom to breathe. If the economy were to rebound on his watch — first or second term — it would be despite his agenda.

Amazingly, Obama told his contributors that he tries not to pat himself “too much on the back” but that his “administration has done more for the security of … Israel than any previous administration.”

This is outright surreal, and so would be his second term.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, “Crimes Against Liberty,” was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com.

Gingrich Blasts Obama Administration Over Immigration Litigation

By Fred Lucas  November 29, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – GOP presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich, campaigning in the early primary state of South Carolina, criticized the Obama administration for challenging state laws that combat illegal immigration.

“After years of failure on the part of the federal government to achieve border security, it is an outrage that the Obama administration would seek to block South Carolina and other states who choose to pick up the slack,” Gingrich said in Charleston after meeting with state Sen. Larry Groom, the author of the South Carolina immigration law.

“If the Obama Administration put as much energy and resources into controlling the border as it does into attacking our own states, we would have 100 percent border security by now,” said Gingrich.

The Georgia Republican and former House Speaker has been fending off criticism from other Republican primary opponents for arguing in a recent debate that certain illegal aliens should be allowed to stay in the country, if they have been in the country for 25 years and broke no other laws.

In South Carolina, the first in the south primary state, Gingrich took a firmer line in touting the South Carolina law that requires law enforcement officers who make traffic stops to call federal immigration officials, if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The measure bars officers from holding someone solely on that suspicion. Opponents claim the measure encourages racial profiling. The law is set to take effect in January.

Obama SupercommitteePresident Barack Obama. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File)

As was the case when Arizona and Alabama passed similar laws, the Department of Justice (DOJ) brought suit to stop the South Carolina law from being enforced. In this most recent case, 16 Latin American and Caribbean countries asked to join the Justice Department’s suit, the Associated Press reported in early November.

The countries involved in the case are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.

“It is inconceivable that these foreign countries would have joined a lawsuit that deals exclusively with the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, if President Obama had made it clear that their participation was not welcome,” Gingrich said.

Adding that other nations were involved in the Arizona lawsuits as well, Gingrich said, “It makes you wonder what country does President Obama think he is president of?”

“Welcoming foreign governments to participate in constitutional disputes between our federal government and the government of several of the states touches upon American sovereignty,” Gingrich continued. “Sovereignty means our right to self-government, that is to say, our right and ability to rule ourselves rather than following the dictates of others.”

“In weakening our sovereignty by such actions as welcoming the participation of foreign governments in a judicial determination of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution – a question foreign governments have zero competence in – President Obama ignores the core fundamentals of our Constitution and Bill of Rights,” said Gingrich. “The Obama administration should defend American sovereignty from foreign encroachment, not abet such encroachment.”

In its filing in the South Carolina case, the Mexican government said it “has an interest in protecting its citizens and ensuring that their ethnicity is not used as the basis for state-sanctioned acts of bias and discrimination,” the Associated Press reported.

Titus Howard of Birmingham, Ala., pulls plastic from fields as he tries his hand at field work in Steele, Ala., Thursday, Oct. 20, 2011. Howard took on the job after migrant workers fled the area because of the stiff new Alabama immigration law, leaving many farmers without enough help to harvest their crops. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)

Gingrich’s campaign plan, the “21stCentury Contract with America,” says that his administration will “waive every obstacle to controlling the border and would shift resources to achieve virtually 100 percent control by January 1, 2014. If necessary, we would move one-half of the 23,000 Washington-area Department of Homeland Security bureaucrats to the Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona borders.”

In South Carolina, Gingrich leads the previous frontrunner, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 38 percent to 15 percent, according to a Nov. 28 Insider Advantage poll.

Nationally, Gingrich has a more narrow lead, with a 2.5 percent lead over Romney according to the Real Clear Politics average of all polls.

But in Iowa, which holds a caucus on Jan. 3, 2012, Gingrich leads Romney 32 percent to 19 percent, according to a Rasmussen poll on Nov. 15. Romney’s stronghold is in New Hampshire, where he holds a 17 point lead over Gingrich according to a Polling Company poll.

On Nov. 27, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the largest newspaper in the state and very influential among conservatives, endorsed Gingrich for the Republican presidential nomination.

Let’s Kill Cain’s Campaign

By L. Brent Bozell III  November 30, 2011

From the breaking news, one might think that with a woman who claims she had a 13-year affair with presidential candidate Herman Cain, someone is being seriously exposed as a hypocrite. That would be the press. The media can’t deny they continue to display a lousy double standard. For Republican candidates, scandalous news is instant. For Democrats, it’s eventual, if at all!

Ginger White’s charges sound a lot like Gennifer Flowers in 1992, when she said she had a 12-year affair with Bill Clinton. So many in the press pounce on Flowers as unequivocal evidence of the media’s sense of balance. After all, they will remind us, just look how we covered that scandal!

Yes, look. It’s a wonderful exercise in media disinformation. Political junkies will recall that Flowers held a press conference carried live on CNN on Thursday afternoon, Jan. 23, 1992. It had all the elements for snappy news. She played audiotapes of phone conversations with Clinton. Despite all this, the first network mention was a short story by NBCs Lisa Myers, more than 24 hours later. Other than that, the three broadcast network morning and evening newscasts waited to breathe the name “Flowers” for four days.

And then they dismissed the scandal as a non-scandal. On ABC, anchorman Peter Jennings (who was married four times) set the tone: “At several stops today, talking about Gennifer Flowers, Gov. Clinton denounced what he called ‘trash for cash’. And there appear to be quite a few people who agree.” Jennings declared a quick ABC poll found only 26 percent wouldn’t vote for an adulterous candidate. “But our polling unit points out that at least half of those people who said no are Republicans and unlikely to vote for Gov. Clinton anyway.”

The networks rewarded Clinton with all this tolerance because, as liberal journalist Hendrik Hertzberg explained, at the time, reporters loved Clinton’s potential: “(T)hey think he would make a very good, perhaps a great, president. Several told me they were convinced that Clinton is the most talented presidential candidate they have ever encountered, JFK included.”

Herman Cain is the polar opposite of Bill Clinton to these people. Political reporters consider him an under-educated buffoon and, as a black conservative, possibly self-loathing to boot. So there are no reasons to delay adultery charges. In fact, they should be rushed on the air, followed by sneering political death notices.

“NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams was the first network anchor on the scene. This is the same anchorman that just expressed great joy and delight that NBC will be blessed by a woman with zero journalistic experience named Chelsea Clinton. Williams oozed on CNN that Chelsea was “super smart and worldly and curious,” an “impressive, impressive woman” with a “very, very unique viewpoint.” Grovel, grovel, grovel.

But here’s what’s sick. Ginger White makes an adultery charge against Cain and she’s on NBC within hours. But when Juanita Broaddick accused Chelsea’s father of raping her in a 1999 Dateline NBC interview, then-anchor Tom Brokaw never allowed one second of her voice to break into the NBC Nightly News.

By morning, Cain was dismissed as a political corpse, or a ghost. On ABC, anchor Robin Roberts suggestively asked, “Do (White’s) shocking revelations spell doom for his troubled campaign?” On CBS, political analyst John Dickerson proclaimed, “It’s hard to see how he comes back from this…At the worst, it’s a death blow to the campaign.”

But NBC’s Chuck Todd was the most colorful, citing movies: “Now we’re in sort of ‘The Sixth Sense’ mode. Everybody knows this candidacy is basically dead except the campaign.” Todd then suggested he wasn’t so much a ghost as an object: “I think that Cain is not necessarily hurting the field anymore. He’s become a sideshow. It’s almost a shiny, metal object at this point.”

These death notices may be entirely accurate, but that’s not the point. What is salient here is that Cain’s scandals have been covered aggressively from day one by the same media that summarily refused — and to this day refuse — to cover allegations against Bill Clinton that are a hundred-fold more serious.

To my knowledge, the only TV reporter to ask Clinton directly about the rape charge (twice) was Sam Donaldson. Did it not send red flags skyward when both times instead of denying the charge, Clinton referred the matter to his attorney?

Night after night and morning after morning, the broadcast TV “news” makers demonstrate their “journalism” is carefully managed and manipulated into tidy packages designed to provide the maximum political benefit to liberals and the maximum political damage to conservatives.

Why am I not the slightest bit surprised that a Washington Post employee is tweeting over the Internet: “Hey Tweeps: Looking for outlandish/incorrect predictions and quotes from Newt Gingrich’s past. Any ideas for me?”

Gingrich, it’s your turn.

DNC may have to respect N.C. right to work for convention


When the DNC announced that it would be bringing it’s convention to North Carolina, the locals were understandably enthusiastic. While it’s really only a temporary sugar rush for the economy, any event of that size represents a valuable injection of cash and jobs into the local economy. But as the plans moved forward, the conversation began to turn to the question of what sort of jobs would be created? Who would get the lucrative contracts associated with the convention?

As the Charlotte Observer reports, local legislators became concerned over whether Tar Heel State workers would have the first crack at these opportunities and – more to the point – if the state’s right to work status would be respected.

North Carolina lawmakers approved a nonbinding resolution Tuesday asking the Democratic National Convention to change its rules and “respect North Carolina’s right-to-work laws.”

It comes after Republicans raised concerns about North Carolina firms not getting contracts for the September convention because they are not unionized shops.

The resolution asks the DNC to refrain from hiring workers and companies from outside North Carolina when qualified businesses or workers are available within the state…

“It may astonish you – it’s not about politics, it’s about jobs,” said state Rep. David Lewis, the Republican sponsor.

Lewis said he supported the convention in Charlotte, but he wanted to make sure local workers are hired.

“I think it’s only fitting that Tar Heel workers at least have the opportunity to benefit from (the convention),” he said.

So far the report only identifies one contract which went to a union shop at the expense of a local, non-union outfit. It involved printing services, which is unlikely to be such a rare skill set that it couldn’t be accommodated by the local talent. But we’re still early in the process, with many more contracts yet to be awarded, so the legislature is probably wise to nip this in the bud.

It’s important to note that this isn’t an effort to legislate the hiring process. The measure is a non-binding resolution which simply calls upon the DNC to do the right thing by the state’s workers and to respect their local labor laws. But it brings the issue very much into the public eye, and since it involves Jobs, Jobs, Jobs it’s obviously an embarrassment that the DNC won’t want to have hanging over their heads – or those of their candidates – just as we get into the hottest part of the campaign cycle.

Wow… There really IS someone worse than Jimmy Carter


When asked to choose the worst president in the history of America, a familiar name comes to mind. Even Democrats will remember the years of gas lines, energy shortages, inflation, unemployment, and hostages. I’m talking about the 39th president of the United States: Jimmy Carter. But now, a new report by Gallup reveals that Barack Obama has journeyed into Carter-like territory. In the history of their polling, no one has had a lower approval rating at this point in a presidential term than Obama.

As noted in the U.S. News blog Washington Whispers, “President Obama’s slow ride down Gallup’s daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history.” Here’s how Obama compares with other presidents:

— Obama: 43 percent.

— Harry S. Truman: 54 percent.

— Dwight Eisenhower: 78 percent.

— Lyndon B. Johnson: 44 percent.

— Richard M. Nixon: 50 percent.

— Ronald Reagan: 54 percent.

— George H.W. Bush: 52 percent.

— Bill Clinton: 51 percent.

— George W. Bush: 55 percent.

So how do things stand for our current president? According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll, confidence in short-term economic growth remains at a record low.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of U.S. adults shows that just 27% believe the economy will be stronger in one year, showing no change from September and the lowest finding in regular tracking since early 2009. Prior to September, the number of adults expecting a stronger economy in a year’s time ranged from 31% to 45%.

Forty-eight percent (48%) expect the U.S. economy to be weaker a year from now, down slightly from September’s high of 52%. This finding remained in the 30s throughout 2009 and rose to the low 40s for much of 2010. Just 16% expect the economy to be about the same in a year’s time, while 10% more aren’t sure.

Remember the slogan “It’s the economy, stupid!”? Well… it IS the economy. And Obama has failed at it. In another Rasmussen Reports poll, 84% of likely voters “regard economic issues as Very Important.”

The number of voters who feel this way about the economy has remained fairly consistent since January 2008. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Eighty percent (80%) say it’s not a good time to sell a home in their area. That’s a new high. This comes on top of data showing that only 16% of homeowners believe the value of their home will go up this year. Additionally, barely more than half believe their home is worth more than their mortgage.

As another sign of how people view the job Obama is doing, a generic Republican presidential candidate leads Obama in the race for the White House — 48% to 42%.

There is a lot of time between now and Election Day, but the economy is going no where fast. The key will be if voters actually think about what’s going on or simply react to some “hope and change” sound bite. Obama certainly does not deserve a second term. But will he get it?

Stocks open sharply higher after joint action by central banks eases banks’ access to dollars

By Associated Press, Updated: Wednesday, November 30, 8:47 AM

Stocks are soaring in early trading after major central banks acted to avert a credit crunch.The central banks of Europe, the U.S., Britain, Canada, Japan and Switzerland eased banks’ access to dollars by reducing their borrowing rates. The move responds to fears that a European country would default, touching off a credit crunch similar to what followed the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Banks need dollars to fund their daily operations. Their access dried up as U.S. money market funds reduced their lending to European banks.

The Dow Jones industrial average is up 319, or 2.8 percent, at 11,874 in early trading Wednesday. The S&P 500 is up 32, or 2.7 percent, at 1,227. The Nasdaq is up 70, or 2.8 percent, at 2,586.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Page 4 of 21« First...«234567»1020...Last »

Faith In The Word

118 Brushy Lane
Arley, Alabama 35541

plugin by DynamicWP