New Sex Charges Filed. Only Not Against Roy Moore, But Al Franken. AND SHE HAS PIC OF BEING GROPED WHILE ASLEEP!!!

Either Al Franken needs to resign or be impeached and expelled from the Senate with full Democratic Party participation, or Roy Moore needs to be elected.

I’ve watched the fiasco of the Roy Moore allegations – and Moore’s poor responses to those allegations – with growing horror.  But I am just as outraged that women would wait for 38 years to bring charges against a man who has been in public service for nearly his entire life – including a high profile Republican primary runoff in which Moore defeated a Republican candidate supported by Donald Trump and the entire GOP establishment – without saying so much as “boo.”  ONLY when Moore wins that runoff and ONLY when it is too late to even remove his name from the ballot according to Alabama law, does the self-acknowledged biased Washington Post put out this story.

I am forced to acknowledge that the Moore allegations might be true; but it is every bit as obvious that this was nothing short of a political hitjob where politics and ideology, rather than any issues with “women,” were at the heart of the left’s attack.

What is amazing to me now is that liberals and feminists are actually revisiting charges against Bill Clinton.  Remember him?  Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaderick (among many other victims of Bill Clinton’s lust problems) sure do.  And back then, liberals and feminists rabidly supported Bill.  Because none of these “feminists” have ever ONCE given a flying damn about actual “women.”

In a November 13, 2017 New York Times piece entitled “I Believe Juanita” written by Michelle Goldberg, we have this stunning admission by a feminist:

Of the Clinton accusers, the one who haunts me is Broaddrick. The story she tells about Clinton recalls those we’ve heard about Weinstein. She claimed they had plans to meet in a hotel coffee shop, but at the last minute he asked to come up to her hotel room instead, where he raped her. Five witnesses said she confided in them about the assault right after it happened. It’s true that she denied the rape in an affidavit to Paula Jones’s lawyers, before changing her story when talking to federal investigators. But her explanation, that she didn’t want to go public but couldn’t lie to the F.B.I., makes sense. Put simply, I believe her.

Oh, Goldberg parses out some reasons why she didn’t believe Willey and Jones, with the later being just because she was supported by political opponents (which means she shouldn’t believe any of Roy Moore’s accusers, either).  But she now believes that Bill Clinton is not merely a sexual harasser, but an actual RAPIST.

This title from the leftist The Atlantic is pretty amazing:

Bill Clinton: A Reckoning: Feminists saved the 42nd president of the United States in the 1990s. They were on the wrong side of history; is it finally time to make things right?

Here we have an open acknowledgment from the left that feminists who “saved the 42nd president” were “on the wrong side of history.”  They weren’t on the wrong side of history; THEY WERE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF MORALITY.  Feminists blatantly and hypocritically sided with evil against good, and wrong against right.  Because all that really mattered to them, all that has EVER mattered to them, all that matters to them to this very day, as I will explain, is the ideological left rather than anything else.

A couple of days after these Nov 13 pieces, we had this on Nov 15 entitled “‘What About Bill?’ Sexual Misconduct Debate Revives Questions About Clinton” also in The New York Times:

The cultural conversation about women, power and sexual misconduct that has consumed the United States in recent weeks has now raised a question that is eagerly promoted by those on the political right just as it discomfits those on the political left: What about Bill? While Fox News and other conservative outlets revive years-old charges against Mr. Clinton to accuse Mr. Moore’s critics of hypocrisy, some liberals say it may be time to rethink their defense of the 42nd president.
Matthew Yglesias, a liberal blogger who once worked at the Center for American Progress, a pillar of the Clinton political world, wrote on Vox.com on Wednesday that “I think we got it wrong” by defending Mr. Clinton in the 1990s and that he should have resigned. Chris Hayes, the liberal MSNBC host, said on Twitter that “Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.”

According to the new morality of the left, versus what the Democrats, liberals and the left have been saying whether about Donald Trump or Roy Moore, is that every single Democrat who has EVER voted for Bill Clinton is a vile sexual predator and enabler of hate against women.  Buh-bye, Democrats.

We can properly argue that Roy Moore merely looked at what liberals and feminists and Democrats did for Bill and said, “I want me some of that!”

Let’s just understand something: this stuff dated November 13 are coming out now because of the stuff dated Novemeber 9 against Roy Moore.  And you’ve got a lot of very legitimately angry Republicans and conservatives pointing out that virtually ALL of the most rabidly angry Democrats coming out demanding Roy Moore be hung, drawn and quartered without so much benefit as any trial or any presumption of innocence whatsoever had a very different song to sing when Bill was a serial damned rapist getting blowjobs from young girls in the Oval Office.  Even his semen on her blue dress matching his DNA didn’t change Democrats’ tune.

They surrounded him and they protected him.

Remember Nina Burleigh, just one of many stunning examples that “journalism” in our nation is a sick, depraved JOKE, who said she would be “happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”  That was said AFTER the Paula Jones story broke!

That’s who these people REALLY are.

We’ve known this since Ted Kennedy let a woman named Mary Joe Kopechne slowly drown to death at Chappaquiddick in 1969 and be lionized as one of the great Democrats.  Because, Democrat, you are just like your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires.  You have been murderers since you started killing unborn babies by the tens of millions, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in you.  And when you lie, you speak your native language, for you are liars and of the father of lies.

To be a Democrat is to be a rabid hater of women.  And I say that not by my standard, BUT BY THEIR OWN.

Most of the haters of women who have been publicly revealed, such as Harvey Weinstein, are LIBERALS in a VERY LIBERAL INDUSTRY.

So let me explain why liberals and progressives and Democrats and feminists are turning on Bill Clinton [and Hillary] now.  The ONLY reason: BECAUSE THEY ARE DONE.  Democrats pathologically and rabidly protected Bill and Hillary while they mattered and while they were advancing the leftist agenda.  And now they are more of a liability than they are an asset.

And we’ve got this Roy Moore thing and a chance to steal the power balance in the Senate.  And that matters right now today.  But ohmigod, what we said about our perverts gives the other side the right and even the duty to shelter their perverts.  So let’s throw our old perverts under the bus and pretend that we somehow learned something and that will give us the right to scream for Roy Moore’s head in a way that guarantees us a STEAL for a Senate seat that we otherwise could never have possibly ever won.

Okay, but here’s the rub: his name is Al Franken.  And he’s a right-now pervert.

And we don’t have accusations: we have PICTURES!!!

The actress says that Al Franken kissed and groped her against her will and she has PROOF.

Here is part of her story against the Democratic Senator and hate-filled rabid leftist roach, the Honorable Al Franken:

As a TV host and sports broadcaster, as well as a model familiar to the audience from the covers of FHM, Maxim and Playboy, I was only expecting to emcee and introduce the acts, but Franken said he had written a part for me that he thought would be funny, and I agreed to play along.

When I saw the script, Franken had written a moment when his character comes at me for a ‘kiss’. I suspected what he was after, but I figured I could turn my head at the last minute, or put my hand over his mouth, to get more laughs from the crowd.

On the day of the show Franken and I were alone backstage going over our lines one last time. He said to me, “We need to rehearse the kiss.” I laughed and ignored him. Then he said it again. I said something like, ‘Relax Al, this isn’t SNL…we don’t need to rehearse the kiss.’

He continued to insist, and I was beginning to get uncomfortable.

He repeated that actors really need to rehearse everything and that we must practice the kiss. I said ‘OK’ so he would stop badgering me. We did the line leading up to the kiss and then he came at me, put his hand on the back of my head, mashed his lips against mine and aggressively stuck his tongue in my mouth.

I immediately pushed him away with both of my hands against his chest and told him if he ever did that to me again I wouldn’t be so nice about it the next time.

I walked away. All I could think about was getting to a bathroom as fast as possible to rinse the taste of him out of my mouth.

I felt disgusted and violated.

Al Franken claimed he was just being funny.  “Is that funny if she does that to your sister or to your daughter or to your wife,” Leeann Tweeden asked?

And you’re going to rabidly turn on him, Democrats, or you’re going to once again show that you are just as hypocrite and wrong and evil today as you were when you were backing your Rapist-in-Chief.

Al Franken needs to be forced to immediately resign from the U.S. Senate.  Period.  End of story.  Or get off your high horses about Roy Moore.

For the record, there is nothing in atheism that disqualifies one from atheism if he or she is morally depraved.  There are no grounds for “morality” in evolution.  The ONLY way to be a “bad atheist” is to start believing in a Creator God.  Rape is merely a historically successful method to survive according to “survival of the fittest,” according to which theory the fittest organisms are defined as those who leave behind the most offspring with the most partners and thereby alters the gene pool.  Don’t like that?  Then abandon atheism and secular humanism and start reading your Bible to look for a God who declares right from wrong because He created us in His image – male and female (Genesis 1:27) – and holds us accountable to His ways as His imagebearers.  And where the pagan gods of the pantheons were rapists, the God of the Bible is most certainly NOT.

If it turns out that Roy Moore committed these acts that he’s being accused of from four decades ago, then he violated everything that he professed to believe about Jesus and about the Christianity he claims.  And so I can definitively state that if Roy Moore treated women the way he is being accused of having done, he is a lousy Christian and a hypocrite who pretends to be something he isn’t.

But when a Barack Obama assures the American people that he is AGAINST gay marriage because he believes “as a Christian” that marriage is between one man and one woman, and then reverses himself, was Barack Obama the LORD God Almighty and Creator of the heavens and the earth who changed his mind???  All liberalism is – and you can add the pseudo-descriptor of “Christian” to liberalism – is constantly evolving moral hypocrisy.

Whenever you claim any connection whatsoever to Christianity or to Jesus Christ, you are liars, pure rank liars.  You have no standards or integrity, and any moral standards you claim are parasitic upon a faith that you have done everything to destroy with casual divorce laws, with homosexuality, with the abortion holocaust, with Government-as-God-and-Savior.  You stand for nothing.  Your feet are firmly planted in midair.  And even when you DO come to some moral realization, such as the fact that you all voted for a rapist, it is only a political pretense to help your cynical and craven political cause now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Liberalism’ Is A Synonym For ‘Hypocrisy.’ Or To Put It Another Way, Saying ‘Liberal Hypocrite’ Is Redundant.

There is a rather stunning admission of liberal hypocrisy in the following Los Angeles Times article.  Basically, if you go to the most liberal and wealthy county in überliberal California, what you will find there is a bunch of leftwing turds who are only too happy to have programs for the poor as long as a) somebody ELSE pays for it; and b) somebody ELSE has to suffer the effects of the programs that they love to impose on everybody else.

This is Nancy Pelosi’s county, boys and girls.

Do you want to know what Democrats true views of Hispanics are?  It boils down to, “I’m all for illegal immigrants.  I think everybody should own at least one.”

Affordable housing is again a red flag in ‘green’ Marin County
The issue has long produced conflict in the eco-friendly county, California’s wealthiest. Officials are being urged to help workers find housing in a place where the median home price is $650,000.
March 31, 2013|By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times

• 

Advocates for affordable housing in Marin County protest before a meeting… (Sherry LaVars / Marin Independent…)

SAN RAFAEL, Calif. — After George Lucas abandoned plans to build a movie studio along a woodsy road in Marin County, he complained about the permitting process in a place so environmentally friendly that hybrid-car ownership is four times the state average.

His next move, some here say, was payback for what Lucas described in a written statement as the “bitterness and anger” expressed by his neighbors.

The creator of “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” is working with a local foundation that hopes to build hundreds of units of affordable housing on a former dairy farm called Grady Ranch, where his studio would have risen.

Now Marin County is squirming at that prospect — and it is not a pretty sight.

The issue of affordable housing in California’s wealthiest county has always brought its “green” lifestyle and liberal social leanings into conflict. No Bay Area county has more protected open space — or fewer workers who can afford to live anywhere near their jobs.

At a recent planning commission hearing, where possible sites for subsidized housing were discussed, nearly all the heated testimony had some version of: “I’m all for affordable housing, but …”

Nine days later, protesters wearing “End Apartheid in Marin County” buttons demanded that officials do something to help low-income workers find housing in a place where the median home price is $650,000 and 60% of the workforce lives somewhere else.

The irony is not lost on Thomas Peters, president of the Marin Community Foundation, the philanthropy that is collaborating with the filmmaker to build along Lucas Valley Road. The region’s environmentally conscious lifestyle, he said, is built on the long commutes of low-paid workers whose cars choke Highway 101 to the point that “you can literally see the CO2 rising.”

“The community, to some degree, has been lulled by success in its 40-year-old determination to really protect the open spaces,” Peters said. But “it is not sustainable to hold that kind of misperception that this is all beautiful and everything can stay as it is.”

With the Golden Gate Bridge as its front door and Point Reyes National Seashore in the backyard, Marin County is blessed with some of California’s most breathtaking vistas. Indeed, 84% of its land is protected as tideland, open space, parkland, agricultural preserves and watershed.

In an effort to address climate change and cut greenhouse gas emissions, the county in 2010 launched California’s first so-called community choice energy program. Marin Clean Energy purchases power for its customers from renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydroelectric projects.

But Marin is near the back of the pack in the nine-county Bay Area region when it comes to absorbing predicted population growth — and is the most unwilling, said Ezra Rapport, executive director of the Assn. of Bay Area Governments.

Every eight years, California’s 58 counties are required to come up with a “housing element.” The documents are not guarantees that units will be built, but simply a demonstration that the county is zoned so growth could happen.

After the Department of Housing and Community Development produces growth estimates for each part of the state, regional governmental agencies negotiate with their cities and counties to divide up the responsibility to zone for possible future home building.

Currently, the Bay Area must plan for 187,000 new housing units by 2022, of which 110,000 must be affordable to very low-, low- and moderate-income families.

So how much of that burden is Marin County’s?

A total of 2,292 units, of which 1,400 must be affordable. In other words, 1.2% of the total homes and 1.4% of the affordable ones.

“It’s really a small amount of the Bay Area’s housing needs …[which are] pretty enormous,” Rapport said. “I don’t think anyone’s expecting them to rezone parkland. … But Marin should be somewhat responsible for its own growth.”

The difficulty was plain to see during the March planning commission hearing in the county’s graceful civic center designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Under discussion were 16 sites that could be zoned for 30 units per acre — high density for a county that has fewer than 500 people per square mile, compared with Los Angeles County’s nearly 2,500.

Although residents were dissatisfied with all the options, Grady Ranch and a project called Marinwood Plaza near Highway 101 were among the most controversial. They also paint a stark picture of Marin County’s reluctance to build housing for its low- and moderately paid workers.

Marinwood Plaza’s location — within sight, sound and smell of the 101 — was a stumbling block for several residents who worried it would be unfair for low-income people to have to live near a source of pollution that could increase asthma rates.

“This is NOT a safe environment for humans,” said Steve and Sharon Johnson in a letter to the planning commission. “The proximity to the freeway and the particles of brake that float in the air when people put on their brakes to come down the hill will hit right where this proposed development is.”

Grady Ranch is about 31/2 miles from the 101, but that’s a problem too, said Nancy Lowry, a real estate agent who lives in the Lucas Valley area.

“There’s no public transportation,” Lowry said. “It’s 51/2 miles to the nearest grocery store, seven or eight miles from the high school. There are no buses. …You’re trying to bring in people so they can have a workforce that lives locally. But there are no services, no sewer lines, no electricity. It just doesn’t seem like the place that it should go.”

But Peters argues that the site is more than feasible. It already is zoned for housing, he said, and contentions that it is in the middle of nowhere are “laughable.”

Grady Ranch is made up of about 1,000 acres of rolling hills and bright green grassland, studded with oak trees and patrolled by wild turkeys. In the stretch separating the ranch from Highway 101, there are several subdivisions with hundreds of houses.

More than a decade ago, Lucas donated an estimated 800 acres of the ranch property to the Marin County Open Space District. Of the remaining land, only 20 to 30 acres is “actual, buildable space,” Peters said.

County planners peg the site as appropriate for around 240 units, although no plans for construction have been submitted. That, Peters said, could happen by summer.

Grady Ranch is “a grand opportunity to address a long-standing issue,” Peters said, and anyone who thinks this is payback has never spoken to the filmmaker.

“This is George Lucas. He doesn’t need to engage in small-town pique.”

That’s right.  No rich person EVER held a grudge in his life.  Rich people are your betters, and above such petty “piques” that plague the unwashed masses.  But that isn’t my axe to grind.

Note that the liberal Democrat überrich Marin County whining hypocrites literally state that they haven’t done jack diddly to create “public transportation” for the poor as their grounds for permanently zoning the poor out of their lovely but cockroach-souled leftwing hypocrite world.  We shouldn’t build the poor the homes that we force everybody else to build because we have never built the public transportation for them that we force everybody else to build.  And so being a double-hypocrite actually cancels out our hypocrisy, you see.

George Lucas is probably a hypocrite, too.  The difference is that he is so fantastically rich he will never once in his life have to mingle with these dirty poor people unless he wants to stage a photo-op to bask in their worship of him.  All the other liberals would probably have to stand in line behind these filthy unwashed Hispanics at the grocery store.  And they don’t want to do that because they are liberals and therefore turds without shame, without integrity and without honor.

This is so damn typical of liberal Democrats.  I remember Ted Kennedy – the champion of alternative energy “solutions” – as long as it didn’t block his damn view.  But of course, if it even theoretically affected him in any way, shape or form, it was whatever the current elite libspeak for “let them eat cake” turns out to be.

Let’s call it NIMLBY: Not In My Liberal Backyard.  Liberals do dishonest abject moral hypocrisy quite nimbly, it turns out.  Or maybe PIIRB: Put It In Republicans’ Backyards.  While demonizing them with every breath, of course.

This reminds me of Al Gore, who as he was pimping his green agenda – and become a billionaire convincing others to sacrifice for the environment – flew around on the WORST pollution-emitting private jet on the planet while occupying mansions that all had gigantic carbon footprints.  Oh, and then he sold his television network to a terrorist “news” company called Al Jazeera which is largely owned by oil emirates.  And tried to structure the sale to avoid paying the higher taxes he believed others should be forced to pay.  Because Al Gore is a good person for wanting other people to pay higher fascist taxes; so he shouldn’t be expected to pay the taxes himself.

It reminds me of Warren Buffet, who – in spite of the fact that he owed the federal government over a billion in back taxes (see also here)- came out with a “tax plan” that would have made life more expensive for other rich people, but – contrary to his dishonest claims – wouldn’t have affected his OWN taxes.  It only would have grabbed “other peoples’ money.”  And he deceitfully pimped this plan (along with his greedy rich selfish buddy Barack Hussein Obama who gave virtually NOTHING to charity until he decided he wanted to be president) on the basis of a false claim that he paid more in taxes than his secretary.  As usual, liberals sold their lies by telling MORE lies.

And of course the Obamas and the Bidens go on massively expensive vacations only to return (between massively expensive vacations) to hypocritically claim that we can’t afford ANY budget cuts or they’ll gut poor people’s police and fire protection.  These are people who know damn well that they’ll never be willing to pay this kind of largesse on their own tab.  But hey, they can force other people to pay for their extravagance, and so “let them eat cake.”

Obama is a man who has personally racked up more debt – and more reckelss and immoral and unsustainable debt – than any human being in the entire history of the world.  His last four budgets were so insane and so evil he couldn’t even get a single Democrat to vote for them.  The Democrat-controlled Senate under his control went four damn years without ever bothering to even TRY to pass a budget.  But that doesn’t stop him from getting another massive dose of free air time to “teach young people how to budget resonsibly.”

I could go on and on and on and on and on, ad nauseam.  These are incredibly wicked and dishonest people.  And they are hypocrites right down to the cores of their shriveled little souls.

Conspiracy Theory Revisited: Obama Helped Oswald Kill The Kennedys

I remember watching those documentaries about how Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly have assassinated John F. Kennedy all by himself.  I saw the “magic bullet” theory presented.  I watched a couple conspiracy movies about who allegedly took part in the conspiracy and cover-up to kill Kennedy and why.

I don’t know what’s true about Oswald and John F. Kennedy, but when it comes to killing Kennedys politically, I have to pose a rival theory: Obama did it.

First there was Massachusetts.  Amazingly, Barack Obama created a 31 point swing and brought about the stunning and literally unimaginable victory for Republican Scott Brown.  Obama turned Camelot Republican.  He pretty much pounded the nails into the coffin of the Kennedy legacy in Massachusetts.

But Ted Kennedy’s past legacy isn’t the only thing Obama murdered with his rabidly and ideologically leftist policies: the last Kennedy in politics is now dropping out:

Rhode Island Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy, the last member of his legendary family currently serving in Congress, will announce on Friday that he is retiring, according to Democratic insiders. […]

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), the congressman’s father, passed away last year. Democrats unexpectedly lost his seat last month to Republican Scott Brown.

Patrick Kennedy is planning to run a two-minute TV ad on Saturday back home in Rhode Island to explain his decision, said a source close to the lawmaker. Democrats said Kennedy had reserved the air time in the last few days, which led some Democratic strategists to believe he was preparing to run a vigorous re-election campaign.

But several House insiders said, that over the last few days, Kennedy had privately informed Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders that he intended to leave Congress.

Although Kennedy never faced a serious threat in his overwhelmingly Democratic district, he was looking ahead to what may have been his toughest race yet this fall. Republicans are poised to nominate John Loughlin, an Army veteran and member of the Rhode Island legislature who raised more than $246,000 last year, putting him on pace to out-raise Kennedy’s recent challengers.

And Kennedy’s approval numbers were sagging. According to a poll taken by a Providence TV station earlier this month, the incumbent was viewed unfavorably by 56 percent of voters in his district and his re-elect — those voters who said they would definitely vote to return him to office — was only at 35 percent. […]

Given the nature of the district — it’s the more liberal of the Ocean State’s two — Kennedy’s decision will surely set off a fierce competition for the Democratic nomination. The 1st District includes blue-collar Pawtucket and much of Providence, the state’s capital and largest city.

That’s two Kennedys for Obama to Oswald’s one.  And Oswald only killed Kennedy physically; his legacy lived on for a generation.  Ted Kennedy’s signature issue of health care was utterly repudiated by his state; Obama wiped his legacy out.  And Patrick Kennedy is just fading away into the breeze.

Obama doesn’t need a gun like communist assassin Lee Harvey Oswald to wipe out Kennedys.  All he needs is a collection of failed policies.

In Ted Kennedy’s Honor, Let’s Pass ‘Kopechne Care’

I wrote this in August after Ted Kennedy passed away.  I decided not to publish it at the time, out of respect for the recently deceased.  But the Democrat leadership rushing out to invoke Kennedy’s name during and after the vote last night made me realize that the time had come to put it out there:

Nancy Pelosi, eager little demagogue that she is, rushed out as soon as she heard that Ted Kennedy had passed to say:

“Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration.”

Democrat Chairman Howard Dean predicted:

“his [Kennedy’s] death absolutely will stiffen the spine of the Democrats to get something this year for this extraordinary giant in Senate history.” Sen. Chris Dodd: “Maybe Teddy’s passing will remind people once again that we are there to get a job done as he would do.”

And Robert Byrd suggested that the subsequent health care reform be named in Ted Kennedy’s honor.

Mind you, in spite of all the blatant politicizing of Ted Kennedy’s death, Democrats bristle with the suggestion that they are doing what they are clearly doing.

The Democratic politicization of Kennedy’s death hearkens to the so-called “Wellstone effect,” as Democrats showed their true colors “honoring” the death of Democrat Senator Paul Wellstone.

And that has some influential conservative voices sounding the alarm and calling foul.

While most prominent Republicans stuck Wednesday and Thursday to sober condolences — and several Republican operatives said it was too early to accuse Democrats of politicizing a sad moment — the conservative media, as well as some operatives, has seized on the whiff of politicization of his passing, recalling the bitter charges and countercharges that followed Sen. Paul Wellstone’s (D-Minn.) memorial service in 2002.

That service, a sometimes boisterous rally that included calls to carry on Wellstone’s political legacy and some catcalls for Republican speakers, turned the memorial into a central campaign issue, and many observers think the still-disputed event helped elect a Republican to fill his seat.

In all the constant eulogizing of the last couple of days, we learn that Ted Kennedy had this “love of humor”:

Meanwhile, listening to ”Reflections on Sen. Kennedy … Lion of the Senate” on the Diane Rehm Show on the drive home last night, I was deeply moved to hear Newsweek’s Ed Klein tell guest host Katty Kay about Kennedy’s love of humor. How the late senator loved to hear and tell Chappaquiddick jokes, and was always eager to know if anyone had heard any new ones. Not that Kennedy lacked remorse, Klein quickly added, seeming to intuit that my jaw and perhaps those of other listeners had just hit the floorboards. I gather it was a self-deprecating manuever on Kennedy’s part, exercised with the famous Kennedy charm, though it sounds like one of those “I guess you had to have been there” things.

“Ha, ha, ha.  Can you tell me any new ones about that time when I was driving around drunk late at night with a young woman not my wife – what was her name?  Mary Joe Something? – and drove into the drink?  My favorite ones are about how she tried to claw her way out of the car after I abandoned her to die.”

Well, I’ve got a Chappaquiddick joke for you: why don’t we name the health care bill Democrats want to name in Ted Kennedy’s honor “Kopechne Care” instead?  I’d suggest “Chappaquiddick Care,” but it’s too hard to spell, and it doesn’t give proper recognition to the victims this bill is going to abandon by means of medical rationing.

If your elderly parents get sick, the Kopechne Care plan would call for them to be loaded into the back seat of a car and driven off a bridge.  As the cost of the Democrats’ plan becomes more and more expensive, you will see expressions of regret that the “clunkers” cars were all destroyed.

Let me tell you something: the theme of being trapped in a government system with no way out as your care is rationed away from you actually ties in quite well with the terrible fate that Mary Joe Kopechne suffered.

Barbara Wagner, battling to survive cancer in Oregon’s government health care system, would certainly agree.  An IBD editorial tells her story in the context of the larger debate around the government single-payer system that abandoned her to die:

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society’ whether they are worthy of health care,” [Sarah] Palin wrote.

“Such a system is downright evil.”

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean’s response was, “She made that up.”  Oregon resident Barbara Wagner might beg to differ — as she begs to stay alive. Last year, the 64-year-old received news that her cancer, which had been in remission, had returned. Her only hope was a life-extending drug that her doctor prescribed for her.

The problem was that the drug cost $4,000 a month. The state-run Oregon Health Plan said no, that it was not cost-effective. Oregon’s equivalent of a “death panel” sent her a letter saying it would cover drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost only $50 or so. Oregon could afford that.

“It was horrible,” Wagner told ABCNews.com. “I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die.

“But we won’t give you the medication to live.”

The $4,000 could be better spent on someone else.

Death panels are already here it seems, just as they have been for some time in Britain and Canada. The concept behind deciding who lives and who dies and how finite resources should be allocated was described by key Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

In his paper, “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions,” he expounds on what he calls “The Complete Lives System” for allocating treatments and resources.

“When the worse-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly,” he says, “allocating to the better-off is often justifiable.”

These are Dr. Emanuel’s words, not Palin’s. We’re not making this up and neither is she. It is not hard to see this formula for rationing forcing children such as Trig and the elderly such as Barbara Morgan to take a number — a very high number.

So let Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean call it “Kennedy Care.”  I’ll call it “Kopechne Care” – in honor of Ted Kennedy’s first victim.  And point out that if “Kennedy Care” is passed, there will be many, many more victims like Barbara Wagner in the years to come.

It was perfectly fitting for Democrats to honor and mourn the passing of one of their great politicians.  But if they want to turn Kennedy’s passing into a political weapon – and invoke the name of a man who abandoned a helpless woman under his care to die – they had better be aware that it will be a sword that cuts both ways.

If Barack Obama Wrote An Honest ‘Thank You’ Note…

I came across this from someone via email.  I couldn’t find anything that was factually untrue, so I pass it on:

My fellow  Americans,

As your  future president I want to thank voters of all political stripes for  their mindless support, despite my complete lack of any  legislative achievement, my pastor’s ties with Louis Farrakhan and  Libyan dictator Moamar Quadafi, and my blatantly liberal voting  record while I present myself as some sort of bipartisan  agent of change.

I also  like how my supporters claim my youthful drug use and criminal  behavior somehow qualifies me for the presidency after 8 years of  claiming Bush’s youthful drinking disqualified him. Your  hypocrisy is a beacon of hope shining over a sea of political  chicanery.

I would  also like to thank the Kennedys for coming out in support of me.   There’s a lot of glamour behind the Kennedy name, even though JFK  started the Vietnam War, his brother Robert illegally wiretapped  Martin Luther King Jr., they both slept with Marilyn, and Teddy’s  negligence caused the drowning death of a young woman.  I’m not going  anywhere near the Kennedy cousins, especially Michael Skakel.

And I’d  like to thank Oprah Winfrey for her support.  Her love of  meaningless empty platitudes will be the force that propels me to the  White House.

Americans  should vote for me, not because of my lack of experience or  achievement, but because I make people feel  good. White  people who vote for me will get relief from their racist guilt.

I say things that sound meaningful but don’t really mean anything because  Americans are tired of things having meaning.  If things have  meaning, then that means you have to think.

Americans  are tired of thinking.  It’s time to shut down the brain and open up the emotion.

So when you go to vote in November, remember don’t think, just do.  And do it for me.

Thanking you in advance.

Barack Hussein Obama

And that’s change you can believe in!

Pettiness and Visciousness Over Tony Snow’s Passing: The Left Should Be Ashamed

The Associated Press’ “eulogy” of Tony Snow contained the following comments:

With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster’s good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses.

In that year and a half at the White House, Snow brought partisan zeal and the skills of a seasoned performer to the task of explaining and defending the president’s policies. During daily briefings, he challenged reporters, scolded them and questioned their motives as if he were starring in a TV show broadcast live from the West Wing.

Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation. He was the first press secretary, by his own accounting, to travel the country raising money for Republican candidates.

Bill O’Reilly clearly wasn’t touched by the Associate Press‘ treatment of Snow. He had this to say yesterday:

Over the weekend, we eulogized Tony Snow in a personal way. I hope you saw our broadcast because I believe we painted a very accurate picture of a great man. Tonight we’ll get into policy — the things that Tony believed in and the challenges he faced going public with those beliefs.

Hours after Tony died early Saturday morning, the Associated Press published an obituary of him. Written by Douglass Daniel, the obit listed Tony’s bio and some of his achievements, but it also injected a left-wing partisan viewpoint, which was insulting to the Snow family and completely inappropriate.

Just a few weeks ago, the AP ran a terrific obituary for Tim Russert, avoiding any cheap shots. But Daniel could not do that for Tony Snow as he wrote: “With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster’s good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses. Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation.”

Now, if you want to criticize Tony’s White House career, do it after he’s buried, OK, Associated Press? Your opinion of his job performance doesn’t belong in an obituary. It was an insult to Tony’s family and demonstrates once and for all the AP is no longer a news service. It has become a liberal clearing house.

Now, I myself just wrote a eulogy remembering both Tim Russert and Tony Snow. Tim Russert came from the Democratic ranks; and more than occasionally I believed that he was grilling Republicans in a way that he did not grill Democrats on his program. But I was writing a eulogy, and so I focused on the very best of these two men.

That’s what you do when you eulogize, unless you are overly partisan. You look at the best of someone, and pointedly ignore the negative. The AP gave a magnificent, criticism-free sendoff to Tim Russert. It just couldn’t find the same graciousness for a conservative.

Shame on them for allowing their thinly veiled political ideology to intrude on good taste.

Rush Limbaugh, commenting on the AP‘s lack of journalistic balance, said this:

A month ago I went on a riff about the lone remaining monopoly in the Drive-By Media, that being the Associated Press and I pointed out how dangerous they are. They still have a monopoly in the sense that every newspaper in the country subscribes to their service and prints their BS. Yesterday, Politico.com ran a story about the new Washington — or the editor, bureau chief, whatever; Washington bureau chief; I forget what title he has, Ron Fournier, the former White House reporter. He has decided — and I don’t know how long ago they decided this, but it probably coincides pretty much with my noticing it, but they decided, he decided — from now on the AP is going to start putting opinion in the news, that people are just too stupid to figure out what the news is without an opinion being thrown in there. Honestly this is what they said. I had the story in the stack yesterday. I think I have it anywhere near here, but I’m summarizing it pretty closely.

Limbaugh was referring to a Politico.com story titled, “Is Fournier saving or destroying the AP?” in which Ron Fournier, the head of the Associated Press’ Washington bureau, is revealed to encourage first-person writing and the use of emotive language in news stories. Part of the Politico piece points out the clear pitfall of Fournier’s new approach to journalism:

Fournier and other critics of the conventional press model, especially those on the left, have said that being released from the tired conventions of news writing is exactly what journalism needs.

By these lights, the mentality that presumes both sides of an argument are entitled to equal weight is what prevented the media from challenging the Bush administration more aggressively on the Iraq war and other issues.

Others warn that what Fournier and other proponents see as truth-telling can easily bleed into opinionizing — exactly the opposite of the AP’s mission of “delivering fast, unbiased news.”

“The problem,” says James Taranto, the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web columnist and a frequent critic of what he sees as the AP’s liberal bias, “is that while you can do opinion journalism and incorporate reporting into it, you can’t say you’re doing straight reporting, and then add opinion to that.”

A dispatch Fournier filed in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina began: “The Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes. The economy is booming. Anybody who leaks a CIA agent’s identity will be fired. Add another piece of White House rhetoric that doesn’t match the public’s view of reality: Help is on the way, Gulf Coast.”

Fournier cited the article in an essay titled “Accountability Journalism: Liberating reporters and the truth” he wrote for the June 1 issue of the AP’s internal newsletter, The Essentials, as an example of how to be “provocative without being partisan … truth-tellers without being editorial writers.”

“I call ’em as I see ’em” has little validity if you are in the tank for one side. You probably wouldn’ t want a die-hard Lakers fan like me refereeing a Laker game in the playoffs if you are rooting for the other team – or even if you simply want an objectively-called game. It’s not that I would deliberately cheat; it’s just that my “pro-Laker” mentality and desire to see the Lakers win would alter my perception and affect my judgment.  Limbaugh used the media’s outrage over the NBA referee scandal as an example of their own innate hypocrisy. It’s too bad they refuse to apply the same standard and rationale about genuine objectivity for themselves that they reserve for everybody else.

Here is a collection of pieces I’ve writing discussing about the media’s ideological biases:

NBC’s Deceptive Editing Reveals Why Bush Right and Obama Wrong

How to Demagogue the Economy

Hillary’s Pennsylvania Win Has Media Snivelling

Media Frenzy over ABC Democratic Debate Reveals Leftist Bias

I chuckled over a July 14, 2008 Mallard Fillmore cartoon that read: “This just in!… The mainstream media now say they felt the need to cover the “Countrywide” loan scandal involving Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad just as aggressively as they cover Republican scandals… then quickly sat down until the feeling went away.” It’s absolutely true. They covered the story, and then let it slide into obscurity. Had it been a pair of Republicans, there would have been a daily drumbeat of coverage until the two resigned.

When the media becomes ideologically biased – which they have – they undermine the role our founding fathers intended for them in the Bill of Rights, and leave us vulnerable to the ramifications of a people with a distorted view of the world.

When they even feel the need to editorialize and present their biases in a eulogy, it is beyond petty.

But the obvious bias of the left-tilted media – which is revealed even in coverage eulogizing political journalists who have just passed away – is only part of the story. We also must recognize that there is a rabid left wing in this country that are absolutely vicious.

That viciousness was revealed following the announcement of the death of Tony Snow.

The LA Times has a moderated blog which had the following remarks allowed about Tony Snow:

I hope the rest of these criminals die too. Good riddance to a person who contributed to making this world a worse place. – Posted by: Max | July 12, 2008 at 05:58 AM

Its unfortunate he won’t be able to see the damage he helped inflict on this country and the world. I wonder how he likes hell. – Posted by: tedson | July 12, 2008 at 06:27 AM

Was anyone more perfectly named for their job? Tony’s Snow-jobs about Bushian idiocy only helped sink the nation into the hole where we are now. – Posted by: Johnsy | July 12, 2008 at 06:58 AM

Good riddance , we still have a white house full of liars
and American soldiers being slaughtered. if Cheney strokes
then change will begin , as for Bush he is just to stupid
to die and when he dies bury him at home in IRAQ.
– Posted by: slimjim66 | July 12, 2008 at 07:30 AM

This outrage indicates why new legislation should be put in place to require a regular colonoscopy for Snow’s cohorts in propaganda. (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck etc) Only a careful inspection of their alimentary tracts will prevent their insolent, hatefilled cancer from developing and spreading. – Posted by: Passing LostAnglos | July 12, 2008 at 07:38 AM

The question begs to be asked, is it possible to die when you don’t have a soul.
– Posted by: Chad | July 12, 2008 at 09:38 AM

Oh YES HE WAS A WONDERFUL MAN AND A …..
PUUULLLEEEASE
THIS PERSON HAD A MAJOR PART IN THE MOST EVIL ADMINISTRATION THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN.
DEATH AND TORTURE, ILLEGAL WARS, WAR CRIMINAL SOLDIERS, GOOD RIDDANCE
CANCER WAS TOO GOOD FOR HIM
HOPE IT WAS PAINFUL.
NOW FOR THE REST OF THIS SCUMMY ADMINISTRATION. COME ON CANCER, DO YOUR GOOD WORK…………
– Posted by: perry | July 12, 2008 at 02:26 PM

I have frequently heard liberals talk about how hateful the concept of “hell” is and that condemning biblically-forbidden behaviors and warning about the judgment of hell is hateful. But now I see that liberals don’t mind talking about hell at all; they merely wish to reserve it for conservatives and those who actually believe in the Bible.

The Daily Kos, by all accounts, was even worse.

The hatred of the left must be pointed out. People need to see these people as they actually are. The people who talk about “tolerance” routinely shout down conservative speakers and broadcast outright visceral hatred for those with whom they disagree.

One of the posters to the LA Times blog had this to say:

All you right wingers would be saying much worse things if the same had happened to Ted Kennedy or Obama – you are nothing but trash and liars just like Snow job was. good riddance to bad rubbish. – Posted by: Alan | July 12, 2008 at 04:52 PM

Nope. When Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, I wrote a piece asking for prayer for the man. I don’t have the hatred for even Osama bin Laden that so many on the left publicly harbored for Tony Snow. I just don’t have that kind of hate and meanness in me.

Nor have I ever come across a “right wing hate site” that was even close to the outright viciousness that is routinely contained in major liberal blogs such as Media Matters and the Daily Kos (and now the LA Times!!!).

The liberal media is not only overtly ideologically biased, but is now actually providing a forum for the worst kind of hatred (one LA Times blog comment allowed by the moderator asked whether Tony Snow would be buried in his Nazi uniform), has sunk to levels that are downright despicable. It is no wonder that they are losing their readership and viewership in droves.

Liberals ought to be ashamed.

Malignant Brain Tumor: Say a Prayer for Ted Kennedy

I don’t mind saying, I hate Sen. Ted Kennedy’s politics.

But I don’t hate the man.

Today is a day to put politics aside and come together to pray for the man. Ted Kennedy is – by all accounts – a beloved patriarch of a family that has witnessed much greatness and endured much pain.

Over the past several years I have seen shocking hatred expressed when conservative figures have been diagnosed with serious illnesses, and glee expressed in their passing. It is hard to believe that so many people are willing to sink to such a level, but we’re seeing more and more of it in our deteriorating culture.

I’m sure that a few “right wing” sites might express the same glee today over Ted Kennedy, but I don’t subscribe to any such sites, and would walk away from any sites that offered up or tolerated such hate.

Ted Kennedy – and for that matter such men as Charlton Heston, Tony Snow, and William Buckley – are human beings, and all these men deserve the fundamental dignity and respect due to ALL human beings.  And even as we disagree over politics and as we fight to advance our positions, we should always recognize that there is a line that we should dare not cross.

I have, in my articles, attacked Democrats on their positions and on their worldview. And I will continue to do so. But I have never wished them harm or suffering.

I will do everything I can to prevent Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton from being elected President of the United States. But if one of these individuals IS elected – as a religious person and as an American citizen – I will continue to pray for the wisdom, judgment, safety, and health of my leaders. There comes a point when despising your leaders is tantamount to forming a circular firing squad.

So I will be praying for the health and recovery of Ted Kennedy and the strength of his family while he goes through this crisis. And I hope you will join me.