Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Democrat’

FOX News is reporting on the other media outlets’ coverage of the Tax Day TEA Parties.  Showing their true colors and maturity level, MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the leftist media hosts show how they are in the pocket for Obama by their immature sexual references to “teabagging”, and the like, in reference to Government protests on taxation and spending as opposed to their glowing coverage of the anti-prop 8 crowd.

Cable Anchors, Guests Use Tea Parties as Platform for Frat House Humor

Cable anchors and guests covered the anti-tax tea party protests by cracking a litany of barely concealed sexual references.

FOXNews.com

Thursday, April 16, 2009

For CNN, MSNBC and other media outlets, it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to use the word “teabagging” in a sentence.

Teabagging, for those who don’t live in a frat house, refers to a sexual act involving part of the male genitalia and a second person’s face or mouth.

So when the anti-tax “tea party” protests were held Wednesday across the country, cable anchors and guests — who for weeks had all but ignored the story — covered the protests by cracking a litany of barely concealed sexual references.

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper interspersed “teabagging” references with analyst David Gergen’s more staid commentary on how Republicans are still “searching for their voice.”

“It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging,” Cooper explained. Gergen laughed, but Cooper kept a straight face.

MSNBC’s David Shuster weaved a tapestry of “Animal House” humor Monday as he filled in for Countdown host Keith Olbermann.

The protests, he explained, amount to “Teabagging day for the right wing and they are going nuts for it.”

He described the parties as simultaneously “full-throated” and “toothless,” and continued: “They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending.” Shuster also noted how the protesters “whipped out” the demonstrations this past weekend.

Tea Party participants were not amused. The events were held in dozens of cities across the country, and while some demonstrators were criticized for wielding off-topic and sometimes insensitive protest signs, most took to the streets to speak out against government spending.

Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, said the media coverage was “insulting,” reacting specifically to CNN reporter Susan Roesgen’s combative interviews with Illinois demonstrators in which she declared that the protests were “anti-CNN” and supported by FOX News. She left the teabagging jokes to her colleagues, though.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” Bozell said. “The oral sex jokes on (CNN) and particularly MSNBC on teabagging … they had them by the dozens. That’s how insulting they were toward people who believe they’re being taxed too highly.”

Max Pappas, public policy vice president at FreedomWorks — a small-government group which promoted the tea parties — said it’s a “shame” media outlets cracked jokes at a genuine “grassroots uprising.”

“I think what that reveals is how worried they are that this might actually be something serious. You make fun of things you’re afraid of, I’d say,” Pappas said.

If anyone thinks the orally charged remarks on mainstream cable were just a coincidence, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s segments over the past week with guest, Air America’s Ana Marie Cox, would dissolve all doubt. Their on-air gymnastics, dancing around the double entendre of the week, looked like live-action Beavis and Butthead.

By one count, the two of them used the word “teabag” more than 50 times on one show. And on Monday, Cox even let the viewers in on their joke — referencing Urbandictionary.com, a site which offers a number of colorful definitions for the term “teabagging.”

“Well, there is a lot of love in teabagging,” Cox said. “It is curious, though, as you point out, they do not use the verb ‘teabag.’ It might be because they’re less enthusiastic about teabagging than some of the more corporate conservatives who seem to have taken to it quite easily.”

Jenny Beth Martin, a Republican activist who helped organize one protest in Atlanta, said she’s not too worried about the protests being dismissed by some media outlets. She estimated 750,000 people attended more than 800 protests in all 50 states, and that at the very least the local media and community newspapers documented it.

“Our message definitely got out where it needed to get,” she said.

Related Posts: TEA Party Images
Media Covers Anti-Prop 8 Activists, Dismisses TEA Parties

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Today’s Rasmussen Report on Obama’s approval index is the lowest he has ever had.  There’s only a 3% difference between strongly approve and strongly disapprove.  His total disapproval is also the highest it’s been, 44%.

Date Presidential Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Total Approve Total Disapprove
04/03/2009 +3 35% 32% 56% 44%

Read Full Post »

What in God’s name is going on?  WorldNetDaily reports that, before photographs were to be taken at the G20 Summit and while delegates were greeting each other, Obama bowed at the waist to the king of Saudi Arabia.

Even though I detest Wikipedia, they have a bit of information that is important to this situation:  “Bowing to other human beings is frowned upon in Muslim cultures as all human beings are considered equal and bowing is only supposed to be done to God in Islam.”

Bowing is traditionally meant as putting yourself at the mercy of the one to whom you are bowing (your are unarmed, your neck is exposed, you are in an awkward position, and they could kill you if they wished); you are acknowledging them as superior or having control.

Why?  Why would you do such a thing?  No one else there was bowing like that.  Is he just making it up as he goes; surely he was informed of proper etiquette?  Is he really that ignorant?  Or is there something more sinister going on?

Obama bows to Saudi king

Greeting called ‘most unbecoming for president of the United States’


Posted: April 02, 2009
4:12 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

President Obama greeted the king of Saudi Arabia with a full bow from the waist yesterday, a move one commentator described as a violation of protocol and not worthy of the office he holds.

“I am quite certain that this is not the protocol, and is most unbecoming a president of the United States,” writes Clarice Feldman in an American Thinker commentary.

The situation developed as leaders of the world attending the G20 summit in London assembled for a photograph to mark the event.

In this first image, after the king extended his hand while Obama approached, Obama bends from the waist until his head is nearly at the monarch’s waist:


President Obama’s bow to Saudi king

In a second image, Obama has straightened up and is exchanging remarks with the Saudi leader:


Obama speaks briefly with Saudi king after bowing

Video by a television crew was posted on YouTube. The bow comes at about 50 seconds into the video:

The action appeared especially awkward since among the dozens of world leaders and their spouses, handshakes abounded, but there appeared to be no other bowing in the room.

The U.S. State Department’s office of protocol did not respond to a WND request for the proper etiquette for two heads of state meeting, but the online Travel Etiquette website for Saudi Arabia said handshakes are common greetings between members of the same sex.

“You should expect to undertake a considerable amount of small talk, and learning a few Arabic greetings would be well received. Saudis will stand closer to each other than many westerners are used to, and members of the same sex will often touch arms when postulating or emphasizing a point. You should not draw away from this as it would be considered rude and rejecting. Be aware that due to the conservative nature of Saudi Arabian society, it is not considered proper etiquette for men and women to greet each other in public,” the site advises.

“It is proper etiquette to refer to a royal as Your Highness, and any members of the government ministries as Your Excellency,” it said.

Learn about the rest of Obama’s plans for the United States, in “The Audacity of Deceit”

Many of the proper procedures for meeting royalty are set by the British monarchy, since its members carry probably the highest royal profile around the world today.

The website for the British queen advises men who are from the United Kingdom to provide a neck bow (from the head only) “whilst women do a small curtsy. Other people prefer simply to shake hands in the usual way.”

“On presentation to The Queen, the correct formal address is ‘Your Majesty’ and subsequently ‘Ma’am’,” the site advises.

ABC reported Obama and his wife, Michelle, were less formal meeting Queen Elizabeth II earlier this week, when they exchanged handshakes. The queen briefly touched Michelle Obama on the back, and she returned the contact.

Pundits were surprised, since in 1992 Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating was criticized when he put his arm around the queen in violation of a general “no-touch” rule regarding royalty.

But the traditional Miss Manners book of etiquette advises: “One does not bow or curtsy to a foreign monarch because the gesture symbolizes recognition of her power over her subjects.”

Read Full Post »

CNSNews is reporting that, in an interview with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the Democrat said, “I don’t know technically where that authority would be,” referring to how the Obama Administration is using TARP funds for the auto companies.

Hoyer: ‘I Don’t Know’ Where Obama Got Legal Authority for Auto Plan

Wednesday, April 01, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer


(CNSNews.com) – House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com on Tuesday that he does not know where President Barack Obama gained legal authority to oversee a restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler.  But if authority is a question, he said, then Congress will grant it to the administration.

However, when Congress  tried to enact an auto industry bailout plan in December, the legislation was approved by the House but failed in the Senate where, under the rules, it needed 60 votes.

Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.), meanwhile, toldCNSNews.com he was somewhat surprised that the administration did not consult with him at all about its auto industry plan despite his key committee chairmanship and that he had “been reading about it in the papers basically.”

Hoyer was similarly candid about his inability to cite the administration’s legal authority for the plan.

“The administration clearly believes it does have the authority to use some of the remaining TARP funds for the automobile industry,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com Tuesday.

“I don’t know, technically. I would be kidding you to mouth some words on that, because I don’t know technically where that authority would be,” Hoyer said. “But my own view is that if it is perceived they don’t have that authority and it is perceived by the Congress they need to have that authority, the Congress would probably be willing to give that authority. But I don’t know technically the answer to that question.”

The White House is implementing its plan under the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) that Congress enacted last year specifically to bail out financial institutions—and not other businesses such as auto manufacturers.  When President Bush asked Congress last fall to approve legislation authorizing him to use TARP money to bailout the auto industry, Congress rejected the legislation.

Even though the legislation was defeated, President Bush’s Treasury Department went ahead and loaned $17.4 billion in TARP funds to General Motors and Chrysler.

Critics ranging from Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich to the conservative Heritage Foundation criticized Bush for acting unlawfully in doing so.

The TARP law specifically says, “The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or ‘TARP’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.”

The law does not include auto companies under the category of “financial institution.” The law says the following: “The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government.”

Dodd, like Hoyer, expressed uncertainty when asked where the president got the authority to further fund the auto industry and oversee its restructuring given that TARP only authorizing federal aid to financial institutions.

“I don’t know whether there is legislative action needed regarding all this,” Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) told CNSNews.com Tuesday. “There may be. I just don’t know enough details of this and obviously we’re going to be talking about it.”

On Monday, President Obama announced certain conditions that General Motors and Chrysler would have to meet to get additional government funds. These included requiring both automakers to produce more “fuel efficient” vehicles, and requiring Chrysler to merge with the Italian auto maker Fiat.

Additionally, the administration “asked” General Motors President Rick Wagoner to resign.

“I wasn’t consulted at all on the process, not that I expected to be necessarily, but as the committee of some jurisdiction on this matter, I kind of expected I might hear something. I’ve been reading about it in the papers basically,” Dodd said.

Dodd also said he had questions about the president’s proposal regarding Chrysler.

“One piece that has me somewhat perplexed is whether or not we are providing funds to Chrysler in order to make their position attractive to Fiat,” Dodd said. “That’s going to raise questions in people’s minds.”

Using TARP money to finance a government-driven restructuring of GM and Chrysler as announced by Obama would not be legal without a congressional authorization, said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).

“No, it’s not legal without congressional approval,” Franks told CNSNews.com. “The language is clear. The money is directed toward financial institutions. But that may be the least of our challenge. The president finally seems to realize that bankruptcy may be the best option. The notion that government could specify what vehicles to make is ridiculous.”

Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) said he found the treatment of GM President Rick Wagoner troubling.

“It’s my understanding that the CEOs voluntarily agreed to really be the scapegoat here and I think it’s very difficult to say that the president did anything wrong there,” Hatch told CNSNews.com. “But I do not want the federal government dictating who runs corporations in this country. Now there is no question there is a lot of leverage with the federal funds. But it’s a very troubling thing that people think politicians can fire a leader of a company.”

Hatch added he was skeptical about the government’s ability to guarantee warrantees on vehicles.

“It’s tough to guarantee a warrantee if a company is out of business,” Hatch continued. “You can guarantee maybe parts, but ultimately, it is very difficult to do that without getting the government in a difficult position. It’s easy to say things like that. It’s another to do them.”

Read Full Post »

Operation Rescue informs us that California Abortionist Nolan Jones has finally had his medical license revoked and can no longer perform abortions.  Jones had been disciplined before by the California Medical Board for botched abortions; apparently one dead baby isn’t enough for someone to lose their medical license in this country.

CA Medical Board Revokes Abortionist Nolan Jones’ License

Los Angeles, CA – The California Medical Board has revoked the medical license of abortionist Nolan Jones, effective on April 20, 2009. According to the order, Jones falsified the medical records of two non-abortion patients, and violated his probation on other charges.

“This follows a national trend of abortionists being held accountable to the law,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, who worked to expose Jones’ dangerous practice to the public. “Jones was one of the most incompetent and dishonest abortionists in the country – and that is saying a lot. His license should have been taken years ago.”

Jones has been disciplined at least four times by the California Medical Board for offenses ranging from botched abortions to negligence during childbirth that led to the death of a wanted baby. Community Hospital in San Bernardino terminated his hospital privileges in 1997.

Jones was a predatory abortionist who set up shop in strip malls in seedy areas of Southern California to take advantage of low income and Hispanic women. When he got in trouble or fell behind on bills, he would close up his clinics and reopen in another location under a new name, such as La Rose, The Butterfly Clinic, Women’s Center Medical Group, Clinica Medica Latina Femina, and Clinica Medica Para La Mujer De Hoy, to name a few.

In the latter clinic, Jones worked for illegal abortionist Bertha Bugarin, and later “bought” the clinics from Bugarin after her arrests in LA and San Diego for committing abortions without a medical license. Bugarin is currently serving 3 years in prison on 7 charges in Los Angeles, and is scheduled for sentencing in San Diego on 9 felony counts on Friday, April 3.

Of the six abortion mills that Jones allegedly purchased from Bugarin, all but one location has closed. That location is now being operated by two other abortionists.

Jones had also racked up a staggering amount of financial liability and unpaid bills, declaring bankruptcy in 2003 with approximately 100 creditors and nearly $100,000 in credit card debt. At one point a pro-life supporter observed an eviction notice in the back seat of Jones’ car. Jones appeared to be homeless and sleeping inside his abortion clinics.

“That man’s life was train wreck,” said Newman. “We pray for Jones’ repentance and salvation, but as far as his abortion career goes, it is good riddance.”

View Revocation Order

Related Posts: Unlicensed Abortionist Gets 3+ Years in California

Read Full Post »

The National Right to Life Committee is remarking on some bizzare comments made by Hillary Clinton during her award reception by Planned Parenthood.

She said, “I want to assure you that reproductive rights and the umbrella issue of women’s rights and empowerment will be a key to the foreign policy of this Administration.”  So how, exactly, do “reproductive rights” (translation: abortion) contribute as a key role in foreign policy?  Killing unborn babies is a key to foreign policy?  What?

Hillary Clinton’s Bizarre Remarks

March 30th, 2009

hillclintonWe thought we had heard every out-of-left-field justification for slaughtering unborn babies imaginable. Until last Friday, that is, when we learned that ripping arms from the torsos of the little ones not only funnels millions of dollars into the war chest of Planned Parenthood, it is also a critical component in defeating Al-Qaida!

To be fair, when receiving PPFA’s “highest award,” pro-abortion Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can perhaps be forgiven for making even less sense than usual. There she was, at the annual conference of the nation’s largest abortion “provider,” receiving the Margaret Sanger award, in honor of the founder of PPFA. What could make everyone feel better at the Houston gala than to be told that directing “family planning” money into the hands of groups who never tire of finding new populations to thin out is an “indispensable ingredient of [the Obama Administration’s use of] smart power”?

A further example of “smart power” of which she “was very proud” Clinton said, was “when President Obama repealed the Mexico City policy.” Opening the floodgates to allow tax dollars to pour into the hands of militant pro-abortionist certainly enhances the power of the International Abortion Establishment, but smart it is not.

The best way to understand Clinton’s logic is to read her speech right to left, as if it were written in Chinese. Somewhere in the midst of a sea of non sequiturs Clinton launched the idea that obliterating unborn babies in the developing world is connected to defeating terrorism, bizarre even by her stream-of-consciousness lights..

The operative paragraph goes as follow: “I want to assure you that reproductive rights and the umbrella issue of women’s rights and empowerment will be a key to the foreign policy of this Administration.”

Abortion and birth control and education and the right to vote all fall under the same “umbrella.” Each one is, as Clinton said, part of “expanding opportunities for women.”

But she was not done. Just as providing economic opportunity and adequate food and water is a necessary underpinning so, too, is  ”access to family planning” [aka abortion] which “broadens the horizons and expands the vision of women everywhere.” All the women except those who’ve been killed in utero, of course.

In an opening moment of solidarity Clinton told her audience,  ”Yet we know that Margaret Sanger’s work here in the United States and certainly across our globe is not done.” That is true. They will target every protective abortion law at home and abroad six days a week and twice on Sunday.

We all must be just as diligent in opposing everything they stand for as they are in promoting them. And we will.

Read Full Post »

Don’t forget that March 31 is Red Envelope Day.  RED is a grassroots effort to show Washington, specifically Barack Obama, that we are outraged that abortion is still legal in the U.S.  Every empty red envelope is a representation of an aborted baby that never had the chance to make an impact on the world.

Please take a look at redenvelopeproject.org for more information and how to format your red letters for the White House.  I realize this is short notice, but they need to be in the mail tomorrow, March 31.  You can have redenvelopeday.com send them for you tomorrow if you purchase them online.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »