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
Don’t Take Flight 93 to Mecca – Ever!
Nov 28, 2007 Flight 93
Mary Bomar’s fraudulent investigation
In April 2006, Park Service Director Mary Bomar ordered an internal investigation into claims that the planned Flight 93 Memorial is actually a terrorist memorial mosque, built abound a giant Mecca-oriented crescent. Bomar’s investigation was a total fraud, concluding, for instance, that it isn’t possible to calculate the orientation of the crescent because the site-plan has not been geo-referenced. (Page 2, PP2 of September 2006 summary report. Page 1 here.)
In fact, the original Crescent of Embrace site-plan was drawn on a topo map that the Memorial Project provided to all participants in the design competition. A topo map is the epitome of a geo-referenced map. North marked on a topo map is true north, which is the only piece of information needed to calculate the orientation of the crescent. Just connect the tips of the crescent, form the perpendicular bisector, and calculate how many degrees it points from north (53.4).
Also known are the crash-site coordinates, which is all that is needed to calculate the direction to Mecca (55.2° clockwise from north). All of this is trivially easy to verify. Just use the Mecca-direction calculator at Islam.com to get a graphic of the direction to Mecca from the crash site and place it over the crescent site plan:
Somerset PA is ten miles from the crash-site. The “qibla” is the direction to Mecca. Red lines show the orientation of the crescent. The crescent points 1.8° north of Mecca. (Click for larger image.)
A request for oversight
Because it is the director’s office that has been covering up the Mecca-orientation of the crescent, oversight can only come from Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne himself. Several people sent letters to Secretary Kempthorne two weeks ago, showing how the giant Mecca-oriented crescent remains completely intact in the so called redesign. But Mr. Kempthorne also needs to know that he is getting bad information from his subordinates in the Park Service. Thus a request for all readers of this post: if you have a minute, please copy and paste this entire post into an email for Secretary Kempthorne.
We don’t need for the secretary to understand all the terrorist memorializing features in the design, or the numerous proofs of intent that architect Paul Murdoch included so that his accomplishment will be undeniable once it is a fait accompli. It is enough that he be concerned about features that can be readily interpreted as terrorist memorializing, whether they are intended or not. As Congressman Tancredo put it: we need “a new design that will not make the memorial a flashpoint for this kind of controversy and criticism.”
But even getting to the most basic facts about what is in the present design requires getting past Mary Bomar’s fraudulent report, which tries to pretend that there is nothing that can even be interpreted as untoward.
Mary Bomar’s intellectually dishonest “experts”
In addition to claiming that topo maps are not geo referenced, Mary Bomar’s internal investigation cites a small number of academic experts, all of whom spout nothing but the most absurd non sequiturs. One is Dr. Daniel Griffith, professor of “geo-spatial information” at the University of Texas. About Alec Rawls’ analysis of the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent, Dr. Griffith writes:
… Mr. Rawls’s arithmetic calculations appear to be correct … [but] … just because calculations are correct does not make the resulting numbers meaningful.
Dr. Griffith’s point, it seems, is that the mere fact of Mecca orientation does not imply intent. Who said it did? The way Murdoch proves intent is by repeating his Mecca orientations (scroll down to the last section here). But intent is not the only thing that matters. Even without terrorist memorializing intent, it is inappropriate to plant a giant Mecca oriented crescent on the crash site.
The Memorial Project knows this, but it is committed to defending the crescent design, so it keeps using its doubts about intent as an excuse for denying the facts. Dr. Griffith, for instance, is telling every reporter who will listen that there is no such thing as the direction to Mecca. “Anything can point toward Mecca,” he told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, “because the earth is round.” One billion Muslims face Mecca five times a day to pray, and Griffith pretends there is no such thing as facing Mecca!
Of course he knows better. The first thing that Griffith’s report does is calculate the direction to Mecca:
I computed an azimuth value from the Flight 93 crater site to Mecca of roughly 55.20°.
Bomar expert #2
Dr. Kevin Jaques, specialist in Islamic sharia law from the University of Indiana, acknowledges that the Mecca-oriented crescent is similar to the mihrab around which every mosque is built, but says:
…just because something is ‘similar to’ something else does not make it the ‘same’.
Yes, well, similar–very, very similar–is exactly the problem.
Like Daniel Griffith, Mr. Jaques is trying to make hay of the fact that Mecca orientation does not by itself imply intent. So what? Intentional or not, it is unacceptable for the central feature of the Flight 93 memorial to be a geometric match for the central feature of a mosque. Jaques is pretending that the questions he raises about intent somehow make the facts irrelevant.
Professor Jaques also dismisses the likeness between the Mecca-oriented crescent and a traditional Islamic mihrab by noting that lots of religious structures have prayer-direction indicators, not just mosques:
The biggest hole in [Rawls’] argument is that all of the elements he points to are common architectural features that one would find in a church or synagogue. The mihrab originated in pre-Islamic buildings and can be found in temples, churches, and synagogues around the Mediterranean.
This is logic? Because Christian churches are often oriented to the east, that somehow makes it okay to build the Flight 93 memorial around a half-mile wide Mecca oriented crescent? If this is “the biggest hole in [Rawls’] argument,” then there are no holes in Rawls’ argument.
Project spokesmen know the truth, and are lying about it
Memorial Project spokesmen have followed the lead of these academic frauds, using doubts about intent as a pretext for denying the facts. Asked about Rawls’ Mecca orientation claim, Patrick White, vice president of Families of Flight 93, denied it:
Rawls’ claims are untrue and “preposterous,” according to Patrick White, Families of Flight 93 vice president. “We went through in detail all his original claims and came away with nothing.”
In fact, Patrick White is fully aware of the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent. At the Memorial Project’s public meeting in July he argued that the almost-exact Mecca orientation of the giant crescent cannot be intended as a tribute to Islam because the inexactness of it would be “disrespectful to Islam.”
Joanne Hanley has done the same:
“Alec Rawls bases all of his conclusions on faulty assumptions,” said Joanne Hanley, the superintendent of the Flight 93 National Memorial. “In addition, the facts are twisted and people are misquoted, all to serve his intended purpose.”
But she too has admitted the Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent, telling Mr. Rawls in a 2006 conference call that she wasn’t concerned about the almost-exact Mecca orientation of the crescent because: “It isn’t exact. That’s one we talked about. It has to be exact.” (Crescent of Betrayal, download 3, page 145.)
These are your subordinates Mr. Kempthorne. Please do not let them get away with this fraud. Congressman Tancredo is demanding answers from Director Bomar and many of us are hoping that you will do the same. There is not much time. Construction on Paul Murdoch’s terrorist memorial mosque is about to begin.
Sincerely,
Others:
Cao’s Blog
Tags: Congress, flight 93 memorial, interior secretary dirk kempthorne, internal investigation, Mecca, park service director, perpendicular bisector, President
Hillary is Not Unbeatable
Nov 26, 2007 Political
Since Bill Clinton left office after eight tumultuous years and his wife of convenience won a Senate seat in New York it has been widely speculated that she would run for the office of president and that she would win. She believes that the office of president is her manifest destiny, a right that she is owed by this country. She played coy, to be certain, but she knew all along what she intended to do even while she was denying she would run. She told voters who asked her if she would abandon New York for the White House that she was concentrating on winning her Senate seat, a ruse and half answer to make the uninformed believe that she had no aspirations to higher office. Then B. Hussein Obama came out early and announced his candidacy putting Hillary on the defense, a position that she does not like though as a Clinton, one to which she should be accustomed.
When Hillary announced she was running she was proclaimed the candidate to beat, the one with the experience, the one with the birthright to the presidency, a Hsu-in*, if you will. Hillary has been running a good campaign by keeping her interviews scripted, her questions planted, and her media friends happy. There is a certain segment that supports her out of fear or keeps their lack of support secret for much the same reason. If Hillary wins she will not forget those who crossed her and if she loses many will have hell to pay. Her name recognition and vague positions gave her a commanding lead when the whole campaign season kicked off but as time wore on her Democratic rivals began to attack her and that is where the cracks in her armor began to appear. She began fumbling for answers and has responded poorly to items that show her in a negative light.
Still Hillary was in the lead and looked unbeatable. She was in a tight race in Iowa but national polls showed her the presumptive winner in the primary and handily beating any Republican. Some of her supporters have commented here that her gaffs were minor and she has not suffered in the polls because she is a superior candidate and the things people are bringing up are non issues. It would seem that this is not the sentiment of the population now that Obama has taken the lead in Iowa. Hillary is not seen as invincible any longer. In a recent Zogby poll Hillary would lose to the top 5 Republicans if the election were held today. Hillary, whose people have been downplaying a potential loss in Iowa, now have to deal with news that she is not necessarily the front runner in the race.
The news gets worse for Hillary because the same poll shows that Obama beats every one of the Republicans to whom she loses. Couple this news with Obama’s surge in Iowa and this might make those who were weary of her in the first place even more inclined to vote for her toughest primary opponent. Democrats are so desperate to win the White House this news might cause a number of people to jump ship in hope that Obama can accomplish that task. Hillary, for all her faults, is not a dumb person. She has to know what the polls mean. She is an avid poll watcher and she has to comprehend what the future holds if current trends continue. She has to know that Obama will get a great lift from this poll because Democrats want someone who can not only win the primary but who can beat the Republican nominee and, right now, that person appears to be Obama.
The primaries kick off in about 5 or 6 weeks and a lot can happen between now and then. The Clinton camp can dig up some more dirt on Obama or release some false information just prior to the caucuses causing him to go into a tailspin. If current trends continue the dirt will be flying sooner rather than later as Hillary attempts to reign in her support and destroy Obama. Of course, she might be holding back because there are plenty of skeletons in her closet and she does not want them exposed. She also has some new issues with which to contend so she needs to tread carefully through the minefield of primary politics.
If she is not careful with how she slings the mud she might have to explain the rumors about her relationship with her female adviser. Another Clinton sex scandal might be just enough to sink her forever.
Source:
al Reuters
*Credit GM Roper for that one
Tags: commanding lead, Democrats, gaffs, hell to pay, Hillary, national polls, Obama, President, senate seat, wife of convenience
Clinton Mocks Obama’s Experience
Nov 21, 2007 Political
Hillary Clinton mocked a statement by B. Hussein Obama concerning his experience. He indicated that because he lived in foreign countries as a child he gained a different perspective on foreign policy challenges. Hillary remarked:
‘‘I offer the experience of being battle-tested in the political wars here at home,’’ said Clinton, arguing that her background not only was superior as a potential president but also made her the most electable Democrat.
‘‘For 15 years I’ve been the object of the Republican attack machine and I’m still here,’’ she said. Chicago Sun Times
Once again I must ask the question, what experience does she have? What does she have that makes her any more qualified than Obama? She is a one and a half term Senator and since she has been campaigning for President since just after the last election, she really only has one term. She spent all her time in the White House as the First Lady. Granted, she stuck her nose in the country’s business but she was not elected she held no position of leadership. The only reason she was even there is because she was married to the guy that was elected. This does not equate to experience.
I know she has this delusion that she has leadership experience because she was First Lady but deciding what desert to serve at White House meals is not experience and neither is deciding on the pattern for the White House China. Perhaps if she released her records from that time we could see if her work actually backs up her claim but since she has not released it, it is a good bet that there is nothing to substantiate her claim. John Kerry tried this with his military record but he refused to release his records so it was obvious that he was covering up (he still has not released them). Hillary could put an end to the experience once and for all by releasing records that show she has leadership experience but she needs to release ALL of them so we can get the entire picture.
As far as I am concerned the time she spent in the White House is a non issue and does not count. Her time in the Senate is the only experience she has and her record is unremarkable. As far as being attacked for 15 years and still being here, big deal. Ted Kennedy has been in the Senate for 46 years and he has been attacked but he sticks around. That does not mean he is effective or can lead anything.
As far as being attacked by the VRWC, she is attacked by her own party as well. There are many who do not like her but will vote for Satan if it means putting a Democrat back in charge. She has a disapproval rating above 50% so there are plenty of Democrats who are not thrilled with her. Additionally, She has lost her lead in Iowa and now has to play catch up to the “less experienced” Obama.
Hillary, you have little experience and have never led anything. Continually saying you have does not change this indisputable fact.
Tags: battle tested, delusion, Democrats, first lady, Hillary Clinton, leadership experience, military record, Obama, policy challenges, President, white house