Minggu, 04 Maret 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog

The Left’s Limbaugh Lie is No Fluke

Posted: 03 Mar 2012 02:28 PM PST

By now, you’ve probably heard of Sandra Fluke, the “coed” who testified before Congress last week about how she and her “coed” friends at Georgetown Law School can’t afford birth control. She claimed that 40 percent of women attending the tony college, some of whom have full-time jobs, could not afford birth control because it costs $1,000 a year. The Democrats and their MSM lickspittles took Fluke’s comments at face value then ran with them to the conclusion that EEEEEEEEEEVIL Republicans want to take birth control away from every woman in America.

  1. Sandra Fluke isn’t a young coed. She’s a 30 year-old professional “reproductive rights” activist who targeted Georgetown University, a Catholic school, specifically because of its faith-based policy.
  2. Fluke’s numbers are ridiculous. She claimed that birth control costs students $1,000 a year for three years. That is flat-out nuts. Any Georgetown student can get very inexpensive, or even free, birth control close to campus. In other places, birth control is so easy to find that you can literally fill your pockets with free condoms in a couple hours. The notion that birth control is widely unavailable and/or prohibitively expensive is a lie.
  3. No one — no one — in the Republican Party is trying to take birth control away from women. Georgetown Law School has not stopped any student, male or female, from buying whatever contraceptive they desire. The school does not generally provide contraceptives on its health care plans because — and pay attention here, because this is crucial — to do so would violate its religious beliefs.

I’ll get back to the crucial point in a moment. First, I want to comment on Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” comment, because it bears directly on that crucial point. The MSM and their friends on the left have claimed, very loudly, that Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” on his show this week. As such, they have bent the discussion from whether the government has the power to force you to violate your religious beliefs to whether Rush Limbaugh is a big meany-head. Their disingenuous reports have, as planned, caused many people on the right who should know better to attack Limbaugh as a loose cannon and a detriment to conservatism.

To those on the right who swallowed the progressive load of crap they were given by the MSM, I say shame on you. How many times to you have to be fooled badly before you learn never to accept what the left says about one of us? Here is what Rush said, from his own transcript, posted on February 29th.

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We’re not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word. Okay, so she’s not a slut. She’s “round heeled.” I take it back.

What, exactly, is objectionable about that? Sandra Fluke did demand from a Congressional committee that you and I pay her and her fellow “coeds” $1,000 a year so they can have as much sex as they please. What else would you call a woman who makes such a demand? Note also that Rush corrected himself just seconds later to make his answer more accurate. Fluke’s statement doesn’t make her a slut but a prostitute, which is exactly how she portrayed herself before Congress. She wants our money to have sex. She sold her dignity and integrity to the progressive movement in order to take your freedom of choice and conscience away from you. What Rush said was certainly brash and indelicate, but since when it is wrong for a broadcaster to be brash and indelicate? He didn’t call her a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick” nor did he use the word “slut” as a direct insult. He has apologized for his use of the word, which is more than any progressive has ever done, but he needn’t have done so. He did nothing wrong except to expose yet another progressive attempt to lie their way into more power.

That, folks, is what this whole contraceptive debate is about. It has nothing to do with health care or women or poverty. Those making hay out of the word “slut” couldn’t care less about Rush Limbaugh or Sandra Fluke or civility or health. They care about control. Sandra Fluke, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and the rest of those shrieking about Rush Limbaugh today believe they are smarter and better than you. They believe they are more fit than you to make essential decisions about your life and your livelihood. They believe they have not only the right but the duty to decide where you spend your money, what health care you receive, what you eat and drink, and what car you drive (or even whether you drive one at all). Most importantly, they believe they have the power to decide what religious beliefs you may exercise, publicly and in private. They believe with all their hearts that their faith in the government is more important and should have greater power than your faith in God, Allah, Buddah, or no supreme being at all. To get the power they crave, they have turned law-abiding American citizens into enemies: “the rich”, Rush Limbaugh, the Koch Brothers, the Catholic Church, you. They are the tyrants about whom the Founders warned us; the people whose totalitarian dreams they preemptively crushed with the First Amendment.

The only way the progressive left can take control of our lives is if we let them. They can bluster and pose all they want about Rush Limbaugh, but they have no power unless we give it to them. You wouldn’t normally cede that much control to them because you are a reasonable, rational, and free human being, so they have to trick you into it. That is why they had to build such a ridiculous lie about the cost of birth control and why they lied about what Rush Limbaugh said and why they magnified both lies to the level of Great National Crisis.

They should pay for their dishonesty with their jobs.

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare
Diposting oleh di 1 komentar:

Kamis, 01 Maret 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog

R.I.P. Andrew Breitbart, the Friend I Never Really Met.

Posted: 01 Mar 2012 09:03 AM PST

I didn’t know Andrew Breitbart. I wish I did. I had a couple chances to meet him at CPAC last month, but he always had a throng around him and I’m no good at pushing though crowds, so I didn’t take the opportunity to introduce myself. I doubt that he knew who I was, though we had several friends in common. Despite that, I considered him a friend because, though he probably didn’t know me, he would have had my back if I needed him to because that’s the sort of man he was.

And now, he is dead at the age of 43. He left a wife and four children. My heart breaks for them and for the legion of people to whom he was so very dear.

Andrew was fearless, a warrior for conservatism, and a man who knew that friends are dear in this world so you’d better fight for the ones you have. And he did. Oh, how he fought on behalf of his friends. We remember how he want to war for his conservative friends like James O’Keefe and Dana Loesch, but we should also remember how he went to bat for Arianna Huffington. I admire that. I wish we had more of it in this world.

Andrew Breitbart was a good man and we will miss him.

Well, not all of us. Some among the progressives couldn’t wait to leap up and down like the goons they are deep inside and fling the biggest piles of poo they could excrete. Andrew seemed to get energy from his left-wing critics and it’s entirely possible that he would rejoice that his death cause such prominent members of the left as these professional bloggers and frequent MS-NBC guests to tweet like this today.


It’s confirmed.Breitbart has passed away. http://t.co/gpOwndWx Ironic legacy is that no one was sure because it was reported by his website.
about 2 hours ago via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@cenkuygur
Cenk Uygur


Conventions around dead people are ridiculous. The world outlook is slightly improved with @ dead.
about 2 hours ago via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@mattyglesias
Matt Yglesias


If you think @‘s opponents shouldn’t be glad he’s dead, you’re not taking his life’s work seriously.
about 1 hour ago via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@mattyglesias
Matt Yglesias

Surprisingly, Media Matters, which whom Andrew battled almost daily, refrained from celebration (though the comment section of their post is a cesspool of hate like he received from the left every day of his life). He would also not be surprised at all that the Associated Press couldn’t resist getting in a few biased (and untrue) digs at him in its story about his death.

I want to leave you with something better though, better even than the speech he delivered at CPAC this month. Please read these tributes by Melissa Clouthier, Matt Welch, and Jonah Goldberg. They both knew Andrew far better than I and confirm what I knew to be true, even from a great distance. He was a brilliant, joyful, creative new media visionary who was filled to the very brim with love for his country, his family, and his friends. My condolences and prayers are with his family and all who considered him dear.

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

The Delivery Presents – The Moderate Myth and My Musical Malaise

Posted: 29 Feb 2012 10:23 AM PST

Episode 136 was a low-key affair that asked more questions than it answered, at least in the second half. First, though, I needed to deal with the news of the day — the retirement of a Senator from Maine and the inevitable “ZOMG THE MODERATES ARE GOING AWAY” narrative her retirement is sure to bring. For that, I invoked the power of facts, in the form of actual numbers. The conclusion? Well, you’ll have to listen to find out, won’t you?

The second half was a low-key affair in which I reveal why I’m always late to church (Hint: it’s music-related) and talk about a fear larger than the fear of failure. I admit up-front that I don’t have great answers to any of the questions I raise, but if you do, I most definitely want to hear from you. Just drop me a note with your thoughts and if i get enough responses, I’ll revisit one or both topic in a later show.

Also, need to give a shout-out to Super Mega Producer Mike for the lovely show art this week. He always finds good stuff for the weekly graphic, but this week’s art is the best I’ve seen in a long while.

Oh, hey! Did you know that you can subscribe to The Delivery on iTunes? You can, by clicking this link right here. A subscription will bring fresh, hot episodes of the show right to your iTunes so you can load them up on your iPod, iPad, iPhone, or iWhatever. It’s easy, fast, and free! What’s not to like?

The Delivery - Episode 136

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

Diposting oleh di Tidak ada komentar:

Rabu, 29 Februari 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog

About that RoboKerfuffle

Posted: 28 Feb 2012 12:11 PM PST

I hate robocalls. For those of you who don’t know what a robocall is, know that you’ve gotten one, even if you didn’t know what it was. You know those automated calls you get that just play a recorded message when you pick up the phone? That’s a robocall, and they are much beloved by telemarketers, bill collectors, and political campaigns because they are cheap and easy.

Recently, in Michigan where the state is about to hold its Presidential primary, one of those “friends of the candidate” groups ran a big robocall in support of Rick Santorum that was unusual because it targeted Democratic voters. Here is the text of the call (and you can hear it for yourself here).

Michigan Democrats can vote in the Republican primary on Tuesday. Why is it so important? Romney supported the bailouts for his Wall Street billionaire buddies but opposed the auto bailouts. That was a slap in the face to every Michigan worker, and we're not going to let Romney get away with it. On Tuesday join Democrats who are going to send a loud message to Massachusetts Mitt Romney by voting for Rick Santorum for president. This call is supported by hardworking Democratic men and women and paid for by Rick Santorum for president.

Dastardly, huh*?

This really is the sort of “inside baseball” stuff that gives average folks ample reason to hate politics. Political junkies love stories like this because it’s very easy to turn a nothingburger issue and blow it up into ZOMG THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAR. But let’s slow down for a second and look at what the story really is: Rick Santorum, who is clawing for every vote he can get in a hostly contested primary that allows anyone to vote for any candidate they please, made a fairly small effort to get Democrats to vote for him. Is that really such a terrible thing?

Oh, but the Romney stalwarts have pointed out some progressive howler monkeys like Kos have asked Democratic voters to do the same thing, because they apparently believe that Santorum is easier electoral meat for Barack Obama than Mitt Romney. Maybe he is. So what? Rick Santorum would be foolish not to try his level best to get votes from anywhere he can, and if he does end up as the nominee, there’s a chance that some of those votes can stick in the general election. Not every Democratic blue-collar voter (and Michigan is packed full of them) is a sure vote for Barack Obama nor is every Democrat a raging progressive bent on dragging us kicking and creaming into a socialist utopia. And look, it’s not as if Republican voters don’t cross over into Democratic primaries, too. Heck, sometimes even very important Republicans who aspire to higher public office do it once in a while. That Rick Santorum has chosen a similar tactic to one used by progressives does not mean that he has entered an alliance with them nor does it mean he is on their side ideologically. If you truly think so, check with your nearest mental health professional and have them crank the dosage on your medication up just a little bit.

The real question here is why Republican candidates don’t try just a little bit harder to court Democratic voters in open primary states. Eventually, the nominee is going to have to court every voter, and a small amount of effort — a little message here, a mailer there, an advertisement or campaign stop over yonder — could pay off in a few thousand critical votes in November. I am no campaign professional, but I’d think any candidate would want to pull some votes from a pool  their opponents aren’t fishing very hard. Santorum. Gingrich, and Romney have all spent quite a bit of time on television, interviewed by hostile left-wing hosts, and most of their debates were moderated by progressive foes, so why wouldn’t they attempt to woo some Democratic voters on their terms? It could keep one of them in the race long enough to win it.

*Yes, I think I need a couple caveats here.

  • I am not a Rick Santorum guy. So far as his campaign knows, I don’t even exist. I’ve gotten no calls or e-mails from any of Santorum’s people asking for my direct assistance. I met him once a couple of years ago at CPAC, and to be perfectly candid, I was more interested in meeting the guy he was with at the time, Mark Levin.
  • I do not in any way support Rick Santorum’s position on the bailouts. I opposed the Wall Street bailouts. I opposed the auto company bailouts. I opposed the Stimulus bill. I oppose the ongoing “green energy” handouts. I even oppose the current payroll tax “holiday”.

 
Diposting oleh di Tidak ada komentar:

Selasa, 28 Februari 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog

The First Amendment, Explained Well

Posted: 27 Feb 2012 10:22 AM PST

Rick Santorum said something today at a campaign stop in Livonia, MI that struck me as simple but very profound.


Santorum: “I’m for separation of church and state. The state has no business telling church what to do.”
February 27, 2012 09:45 via Twitter for MacReplyRetweetFavorite
@jonward11
Jon Ward

What’s notable about that, you ask? It gets the relationship between government and church exactly right. The First Amendment does not exist to make sure that a particular church does not take over government but to protect all churches from undue government interference. The Founders were far less afraid of today’s Progressive Bogeyman, the Fundamentalist Theocracy, than they were of a situation in which the government backed one church and used its coercive might to squash other churches. They knew very well how that worked.

One of the great divides between progressives and conservatives is how they view the relationship between church and government. Progressives believe that the supposed Wall of Separation exists to prevent the government from becoming overrun by faith and morality and other icky bits of religious belief. They believe if that wall, erected by the Supreme Court in 1947, wasn’t there then the United States would slide into a theocracy, possibly run by the American Taliban.

Conservatives believe differently. We know that if everyone is allowed — and even encouraged — to pursue their own religious believes with as much vigor as they desire, there is no chance that any one religion will amass enough power to run our government. It is only when government intrudes upon the church instead of protecting the free expression of religion that the balance changes and favored religions gain advantage over those that do not have the regard of powerful government officials. That is how you get a national religion or, as we’ve seen in the United States lately, a national push to drive religion from the public square.

And, by the by, we conservatives also know it’s perfectly acceptable for a man to speak at a religious university about his religious beliefs, even if four years later he decides to run for President. We can do that without falling into a hysterical tantrum because we know that the First Amendment both allows it and constrains our government from letting that man become Theocrat-in-Chief. It’d be nice to have a President in office who knows the Constitution well enough to know how the separation of church and state should work. Granted, he’s no scholar or anything, but I think we can live with that.
Diposting oleh di Tidak ada komentar:
Langganan: Postingan (Atom)