President Bush’s Mugshot in NYC Library
Nov 30, 2007 Political
A NYC Public Library has mugshots on display as part of its “art” exhibits. These mugshots are phony pictures of President Bush and members (past and present) of his administration. The doctored photos are the work of two “artists” who obviously have a political axe to grind. I have no problem with people making this kind of stuff but I am a bit disturbed that it is on display in a taxpayer funded building.
I wonder if this library would put up pictures of Bill and Hillary Clinton in unfavorable displays, especially ones doctored by “artists”. I also wonder if an artist created a picture of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments or of Jesus in a manger would they be displayed and if they were would the ACLU demand they be removed?
This kind of “art” does not belong in a public library, it belongs in an art gallery. There appear to be no signs to indicate that they are fake, though most thinking people would have to know they are. However, there are children who use the library and these displays create a false image of our political leaders.
Libraries don’t like the idea that the feds can access computer logs to see what users have been doing and one library interfered when a credible threat was revealed but they don’t mind taking taxpayer money to stay open. Seems to me they could be a little more selective in what they display.
Source:
My Fox NY
Tags: art exhibits, bill and hillary, doctored photos, Hillary Clinton, jesus in a manger, mugshots, nyc public library, phony, political leaders, taxpayer money, ten commandments
Instead of Questions, Hillary Plants Questioner
Nov 28, 2007 Military, Political
The CNN/YouTube debate for the Republicans was held earlier this evening and I think it was a lively event. The problem with the event is that CNN allowed an activist who is a member of Hillary Clinton’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transsexual steering committee two minutes of talk time. It is absolutely true that CNN allowed a person affiliated with the campaign of a Democrat running for President to ask questions of the Republicans at the Republican debate. Not only was this gay retired Army general’s question one of the YouTube submissions selected but he was allowed to be in the audience and ask follow up questions. Before the LGBT community or the Democrats get their panties in a wad I want to make it clear that this person had a right to ask his question and he had a right to be at the event. However, CNN should have disclosed that this man was on a Hillary Clinton steering committee so that the public would know that he was not a Republican and that he was not unbiased.
I thought it was strange early on when someone asked a question and Anderson Cooper disclosed that the guy was in the audience and asked him if his question was answered. He gave a short answer and sat down. The only other person allowed to do that was the gay general. Now, it might be because he was the only other person to ask a question who attended the event. But it sure appears as if CNN had the first guy there so the second would not seem unusual. It also seemed strange to me that this guy asked why the candidates felt gays should not serve openly in the military and they gave their answers but when Cooper asked if he had been answered he said no and then went on a rant about his gayness and time in the service. It almost seems like it was set up that way.
As I stated, I have no problem with the question or the guy being there. I just feel that his affiliation should have been disclosed. This event makes it look like instead of planting the questions the Clinton campaign is now planting the people who ask them as well because the campaign had to know he was going to be there. CNN had to know who this guy was and it is no secret that he is connected to the Clinton campaign. The Gay general, Keith Kerr, is listed on her website as part of the steering committee and that they support her for president:
Members of LGBT AMERICANS FOR HILLARY [Keith Kerr is listed] have endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in their individual capacity. The names of past or present affiliations are included to assist in identifying the individuals listed and do not indicate any endorsement by that group or organization. HillaryClinton.com
There were well over 4000 questions submitted for the debate so it is unlikely that this guy was selected at random. His question was selected and he was present to show Republicans as people who hate gay people. I thought all the answers were pretty good. They told why they were opposed to gay people in the military. They did not say anything hateful but just that they felt it was not a good thing. The only one who tripped up on it is Romney who flipped from a previous position where he said he could not wait for the day when gays could serve openly in the military. This part of the debate is sure to rile up the gay brigade and have them out in hater mode tomorrow discussing how terrible the Republicans are. Don’t buy it, the answers were fine. People do not have to agree with that lifestyle and that does not make them hateful people. It just means they do not agree.
I wonder why it is that no Republican was at the Democratic YouTube debate to be selected for follow up. Can you imagine how Hillary would be in full conspiracy mode with the VRWC and black helicopters if a person on a Republican steering committee who had endorsed a Republican candidate was there and asked a question in an attempt to make the Democrats look bad? They would go nuts and Hillary, in particular, would be carping about the Republican attack machine. After all those years of being someone’s bitch in private tonight, this guy was Hillary’s bitch in public.
It does seem amazing that the Democrats did not have this happen to them but the Republicans did. Not too amazing because CNN (and they have some explaining to do) is the Clinton News Network but the Republicans allowed a Democratic operative, and a gay one at that, to come to their debate and ask a follow up question.
Who says Republicans are not inclusive?
Want to bet Hillary denies, claims ignorance or blames it on someone else? How about she says it is a coincidence?
UPDATE: Anderson Cooper says they did not know. I guess that means the gay general is unethical. But then again we knew that because if he served for 43 years he answered the “have you ever engaged in homosexual behavior” question and he had to put NO.
Big Dog salute to Webloggin and Stop the ACLU.
Others:
Liberty Pundit
Right Voices
Sister Toldjah
Michelle Malkin
Right Angles
Assorted Babble
TownHall Blog
Tags: anderson cooper, army general, clinton campaign, cnn, Democrats, gayness, Hillary Clinton, lesbian gay, lgbt community, Military, President, republican debate, Republicans, trans gender, youtube
Estrich and Sajak on Celebrities
Nov 28, 2007 Political
Pat Sajak and Susan Estrich have each written items about celebrity endorsements and they have both taken slightly different paths with regard to their views. Sajak, a conservative, stated that people do not need celebrities telling them who they should vote for . He discussed Oprah and her endorsement of Obama and the Streisand counter endorsement of Clinton. Sajak basically said that celebrities are the least qualified people to tell us how to vote:
If any group of citizens is uniquely unqualified to tell someone else how to vote, it’s those of us who live in the sheltered, privileged arena of celebrityhood. It’s one thing to buy an ab machine because Chuck Norris recommends it (he’s in good shape, isn’t he?) or a grill because George Foreman’s name is on it (he’s a great guy, so it must be a great grill!), but the idea of choosing the Leader of the Free World based on the advice of someone who lives in the cloistered world of stardom seems a bit loony to me.
~snip~
I suppose anything that gets people engaged in the political process is a good thing, but the idea that a gold record, a top-ten TV show or an Oscar translates into some sort of political wisdom doesn’t make much sense to me. Trust me, one’s view of the world isn’t any clearer from the back seat of a limo. Pat Sajak [Human Events]
Now, some idiot at the Huffington Post addressed Sajak’s piece by saying that Sajak wrote all this but he has endorsed Fred Thompson by donating $2300 to him. I understand that it is difficult for the people at Huffington to keep things straight between bong hits but I think Sajak was talking about public endorsements. His donation to a political campaign was not him going around the country campaigning for a candidate. He donated money. If this constitutes and endorsement then Babs Streisand has endorsed both Clinton and Obama because she gave them BOTH money (as have many Hollywood libs). Sajak’s point, one that was missed by the HuffPo bong passers, was that public endorsements do little good in swaying the vote. Interestingly, the HuffPo idiot in question did not take Estrich to task for her piece.
Estrich, a liberal, wrote that Oprah is great at recommending soap and books but when it comes to candidates her support will not make much difference for Obama. Estrich said that endorsements from celebrities were not what swayed voters because people are not sheep (where has she been):
No one doubts that Oprah is remarkable. But presidents are not soap. Trusting a beloved celebrity to recommend what you wash with is different than trusting them to tell you who should run the country. In my experience, what celebrities bring is crowds and attention. They don’t bring votes. In fact, almost no one does. Susan Estrich [creators.com]
I believe that Estrich is correct in her assessment but she made that assessment with a bias toward Hillary. She did not mention Streisand or indicate that Babs would not bring in votes for the Hildabeast. She only mentioned Obama because Estrich supports Hillary and wants her to win. It is even more interesting that while the Huffington Post was mocking Pat Sajak they ignored the piece by Estrich, who said something very similar to Sajak. If they wanted to ridicule someone for saying that celebrity endorsements did not matter by pointing out an endorsement it seems to me they would have been better off using Estrich than Sajak because while Sajak donated money as a private citizen, Estrich wrote a book about why Hillary should be president. The entire purpose of the book is to persuade people on why Hillary Clinton should be elected president in 2008.
One other thing that Estrich failed to mention while she was saying that celebrity endorsements do not matter (at least for Obama) is that Bill Clinton is a celebrity and he has endorsed Hillary. They trot him out all over the place because he has star status among Democrats and they use his celebrity to pack the folks in. I seemed to have missed the part in Susan’s piece where she said that Bill was good at selling sex but that people would not trust him on who to vote for. I guess she was afraid of what people might think if she used the phrase “good at packing them in” with regard to him.
Sajak wrote a piece indicating that celebrity endorsements are not some wonderful thing because celebrities have no better view of the world than anyone else (I would argue that they have a worse view because they do not know how we actually live). Estrich wrote her piece indicating that celebrity endorsements for Obama were no good and ignored those for her chosen candidate, Queen Hillary. The HuffPo showed its bias by taking Sajak to task for the piece by pointing out his personal donation to a candidate and ignored Estrich altogether even though she has done more than just give money to a candidate. She wrote a book to convince people to vote for the Hildabeast.
To be clear, I would not listen to any of them. I have seen how they lie their very public lives and I would not trust their judgment with regard to anything. How can they tell me how to do things when they keep screwing up how they do things for themselves?
Tags: bong hits, celebrity endorsements, cloistered world, Democrats, fred thompson, Hillary Clinton, huffington post, Obama, pat sajak, political wisdom, President, public endorsements, susan estrich
Hillary’s Writers Go On Strike
Nov 28, 2007 Political
The DNC has canceled the the last of its fall debates because of a pending writer’s strike at CBS. The Writers Guild and the network have been without a strike for about two years so the union decided that this would be a good time to disrupt things. Queen Hillary had already indicated that she would not cross the picket line and the DNC, beholden to the unions to supply votes and thugs for events, decided not to show some courage and decide that they should not allow the union to disrupt things.
However, this is a good thing for Hillary Clinton since she has been dropping in the polls and did not need another melt down so close to the primaries. She would melt down because the writers would not be there to write for her and CBS might pick someone who did not have a planted question to ask.
Lost in all this is the effect on poor Katie Couric who was set to moderate this debate. I know she was just looking for an opportunity to bat her eyes at Clinton in admiration and then ask questions that would make Wolf Blitzer look like Stalin.
In the words of Dr. Evil: Boo-frickity-hoo
Source:
The Politico
Tags: dnc, dr evil, Hillary Clinton, katie couric, politico, primaries, queen hillary, stalin, wolf blitzer
Democrats Cannot Embrace Victory
Nov 25, 2007 Military, Political
The problem with the Democrats, besides their weakness on national security, is that they want to win so badly they will say of do anything to get elected. This includes slandering our troops and changing their points of view in order to refocus the attention of the electorate. For the longest time the Democrats claimed that George Bush was not listening to his commanders on the ground (though commanders say he was) but when commanders asked for more troops and Bush listened (the surge) the Democrats criticized the President for actually listening to his commanders. They said the surge would not work and that we are in the middle of a civil war.
The surge is giving us great results so the Democrats have to change tactics. The first one was to slander an American hero named General Petraeus. MoveOn.org and other leftist groups like Code Pinko slandered the man and his message because his assessment did not say what they wanted, as if they understand the military or its tactics. This did not pan out well so they changed gears and started telling everyone that these indications of success were not really success because there are still Americans dying. Now that the success of the surge is undeniable the Democrats have taken a new course and that is to say that the military has made progress on the ground but the Iraqis have not done anything to sure up their political situation so the effort is really a failure. Hillary Clinton, who opposed the surge, is saying that since there are still troops dying and since the Iraqis have not done what they need to then we need to leave because we are being a referee in a civil war.
It is important to note that Hillary has no military experience and her only contact with military subjects is when she defended her husband for dodging the draft and sitting on the Senate Armed Services Committee, a post she asked for to give the impression she cares for the military. We veterans know she does not support the troops and that she will get very little of the military vote. She is the one who basically called General Petraeus a liar. We are expected to believe that Hillary, who sits on her ample derrière in DC knows more than the guy leading troops in Iraq. The guy getting shot at is the liar while the question planting, flip-flopping, triangulating, poll watcher is telling us the truth. Right… Likewise, Obama and Edwards have no military experience.
It is obvious that the Democrats cannot embrace victory and they take every chance to slander our troops. Jack Murtha convicted a bunch of Marines before they were ever charged and thus applied undue influence on the case. Harry Reid has stated that we have lost the war, Clinton, Obama and Edwards all have differing plans that involve pulling our troops out of Iraq, and the other members of the Democratic Party keep telling us how either we are losing or the surge is not working. When even the New York Times (the mouthpiece for the left in America) reports that our troops are doing well then something must be going on.
These Democrats, especially the ones running for president, want to lead this country and want to be the leader of our military. How can they possibly lead the military when they do not support the military. They continually fail to provide money for the troops and they insist on pulling our troops out in defeat and disgrace. They cannot grasp the idea of victory and they do not understand the consequences of their actions. They change the rules, or move the goal posts back, in order to keep pressure on their plan for defeat. They cannot allow us to win and they cannot allow our troops to be successful or it will be bad for their ambitions.
We need a president who will lead us to victory and we need a majority in Congress who defines success as winning more than just the next election (say no to incumbents).
Source:
New York Times
Others with similar items:
Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, 123beta, Stix Blog, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Phastidio.net, Chuck Adkins, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Conservative Cat, Stageleft, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: american hero, civil war, Democrats, dodging the draft, general petraeus, george bush, Hillary Clinton, leftist groups, military experience, military subjects, moveon org, pinko, senate armed services committee, support the troops