Posts Tagged ‘Julian Assange’

Liberal Rep. Weiner Shows Proves What A Weiner He Truly Is – LITERALLY!

June 1, 2011

It has to be ironic that the two Democrats whose names are euphemisms for the male reproductive organ are now BOTH demonstrated perverts (and of course Barney Frank, the homosexual who just got caught advancing one of his gay lovers for a position at the bankrupt Fannie Mae that caused our economy to implode in 2008, is the other).

Republican Rep. Chris Lee was caught sending a picture of himself shirtless to a woman.  That was so bad that he resigned.  A Democrat won his seat because people were disgusted by the behavior.  But that was a “G” rated picture compared to Weiner’s weiner.

It’s Weiner’s turn to say bye bye because of “Weinergate.”

Here’s the story:

Too many coincidences in Weiner’s tale
By PETER INGEMI
Last Updated: 7:22 AM, May 31, 2011
Posted: 7:21 AM, May 31, 2011

In the New York of the late 1800s, Boss Tweed famously complained about Thomas Nast cartoons: Though many immigrants in the city couldn’t read, even the illiterate could understand “those damn pictures.” Rep. Anthony Weiner and his staff now face a similar problem.

By now, you’ve heard about the Tweet picture sent from Weiner’s account to a young lady named Gennette Nicole Cordova. The congressman has insisted his accounts were “hacked.” Cordova, in a statement released late Sunday night (36 hours after the tweet in question), says, “The account that these tweets were sent from was familiar to me. This person had harassed me many times after the congressman followed me on Twitter.” She also said that her previous tweet, “I wonder what my boyfriend @repweiner is up to,” was a joke.

Such statements notwithstanding, those on the left trying to paint this as a conspiracy must deal with an array of odd elements that an increasingly tech-savvy public may find suspicious:

* Not just the offending picture but most of the congressman’s pictures were removed from the site.

* Not only did the young lady’s Facebook and Twitter accounts disappear from the ’Net (she’s apparently since started a new Twitter account, and may go back on Facebook), but also her bylines on articles in her college paper.

* The congressman made it a point to tweet what time an East Coast interview would be shown in Seattle, where the young lady’s from.

* Cordova reportedly wrote in the college paper in March about Twitter’s verifiable accounts giving access to celebrities.

Coincidences all, but there’s one more that millions of Twitter users will understand best:

On Twitter, famous people tend to have tens of thousands to millions of followers — but they themselves follow only a fraction of that amount.

Rep. Weiner is a man of national prominence, a rising star in the Democratic Party, frequently on TV, a past and likely future candidate for mayor. He knows and is known by thousands of movers, shakers, members of the press and politicians on the city, state and national levels.

Yet, as of yesterday, he was following fewer than 200 others — and, with all those famous folks to choose from, one of the few he followed was Cordova, a 21-year-old college student who lives nearly 3,000 miles away in Bellingham,Wash.

Run that though your head for a second and at the same time remember two important facts about Twitter:

1. If two people follow each other on Twitter, they can send private messages unseen by others.

2. The difference between a direct message, seen by only the recipient, and a public tweet, seen by the world, is a single character.

The biggest problem for Weiner and his defenders on the left is not bloggers from the right. It’s the details of “#weinergate” can be understood by millions of ordinary people in 140 characters or less.

Peter Ingemi blogs at datechguyblog.com. He is the host of Da- TechGuy on DaRadio Saturdays 10 a.m. on WCRN-AM 830 in Worcester, Mass.

Here’s Weiner’s utterly bizarre press conference (it’s 7:30 long, but if you think this guy is actually innocent, maybe you could explain how in a way he refuses to do):

He stuck rigidly to his “If I were giving a speech to 45,000 people” non-analogous “analogy” with CNN. But apparently felt the need to add that a Clinton News Network producer is a “jackass” for actually expecting Weiner to answer an actual question about what he has claimed and what he has tacitly admitted.

Weiner – who refused to state that the picture in question was not actually of him – is calling it a “prank,” which is very different from calling it a “crime” as he immediately did when the story first came out on Big Journalism. And he is now refusing to talk about it any more than his answers to questions he’s done nothing but dodge.

Weiner claimed at first his account had been hacked – which is a federal crime (particularly given the fact that he is a congressman) involving real jail time which would obviously need to be handled by the Capitol Police and/or the FBI. But in spite of the fact that he said afederal crime had been committed against him, he refused to file a criminal report. Instead he called his lawyer – who of course essentially said “Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!  We’ll investigate this ourselves and tell you exactly what happened.”  And now Weiner – who wanted a federal investigation of Glenn Beck for pitching gold (which has massively increased in value since Beck pitched it, for the record) – suddenly doesn’t want an investigation of what he initially represented as a crime.  He doesn’t think it rises – pun apparently not intended – to the level of national federal resources.

The theory that best fits the facts is that Weiner most certainly DID intend to send this picture, but did not intend to send it to all 45,000 of his fool followers.  We’re finding out that Weiner had a penchant for tweeting young women – such as porn actress Ginger Lee, with whom Weiner exchanged private tweets.  What do you think are the odds that Weiner forgot to change a setting and sent something public what he wanted to send private?

I’ll have to say this: there’s a major difference between liberal women and conservative women.  Liberal women have a depraved tendency (which is probably simply part of the fact that liberals are depraved in general) of being willing to sexually service their idols.  I think of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.  Even the New York Times acknowledged that the guy “smelled as if he hadn’t bathed in days.”  But that didn’t stop liberal women from servicing their socialist star.  I think of “journalist” Nina Burleigh who famously said she would gladly give Bill Clinton oral sex to thank him for keeping abortion legal.  [That’s just one of the reasons that fascists are leftists; liberals are only too willing to go to depraved lengths for their messiahs].  And so we shouldn’t be one bit surprised that Weiner is out advertising his weiner to his fans.

It’s time to retire so you can spend more time with your Tweets, Weiner.

Advertisements

A Nobel For Wikileaks? Nobel Prize Worth About A Cup Of Horse Crap These Days

March 4, 2011

Jimmy Carter got one (maybe it was for abandoning a key US ally in the Shah and inviting in the Ayatolloahs?).  Al Gore got one for being a global warming propagandist.  Barack Obama got one for being nothing but a slick-talking socialist.

Ronald Reagan, who won the Cold War that had plagued the world for nearly fifty years, and who turned around an economy that was on its way down the toilet, didn’t get one.

So clearly being an ideological partisan liberal is a prerequisite for “winning” a Nobel Prize.

Murderer Yassar Arafat got one.  So maybe being a terrorist or at least being someone who is good at destabilizing world peace is a prerequisite, too.

And, of course, one of the few people who actually deserve the award was languishing in a Chinese prison while the Chinese who were crushing the human spirit were sipping champagne with Barry Hussein in the Obama White House.  So I guess hypocrisy and moral cowardice are probably criterions, also.

The background for giving that dissident – Liu Xiaobo – the Nobel Prize, is itself rather revealing.  Basically, in giving it to Obama for doing nothing beyond being a leftist, the Nobel committee felt pressured to give the 2010 award to somebody who actually deserved it.  If this was a Pee Wee Baseball umpiring deal, the dirty umpire would make sure his kid’s team won every single game but the one where league officials came to monitor his calls.

All that said, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange would seem to be a perfect choice for the award.

A cup full of horse crap stuffed in his face would be a pretty good choice, too.

As Hot Air points out:

There’s also the complicity of Wikileaks in possible torture and death, but who cares about that? Wikileaks callously released the names and whereabouts of Afghan informants helping US troops drive out the Taliban — a truly corrupt, murderous, terrorist regime — putting not only the lives of the informants in danger, but also the lives of their families. (Even Amnesty International was disgusted by this.) Julian Assange doctored a video of an Apache shooting insurgents in Baghdad, calling it collateral murder, but his little act of exposure in Afghanistan could lead to real collateral murder. The “courage” of the Wikileaks document drop also put the lives of US citizens and troops in danger, but hey, maybe that’s why they’re being nominated.

Julian Assange also admitted that Wikileaks was responsible for a Kenyan massacre that followed one of their document drops, but who cares? The Kenyans were informed before they were slaughtered. I’m sure that, were they alive, they would totally say it was worth it.

Even the flagship of liberalism The New York Times acknowledged that Assange and Wikileaks altered video to falsely demonize the US military:

By the time of the meetings in London, WikiLeaks had already acquired a measure of international fame or, depending on your point of view, notoriety. Shortly before I got the call from The Guardian, The New Yorker published a rich and colorful profile of Assange, by Raffi Khatchadourian, who had embedded with the group. WikiLeaks’s biggest coup to that point was the release, last April, of video footage taken from one of two U.S. helicopters involved in firing down on a crowd and a building in Baghdad in 2007, killing at least 18 people. While some of the people in the video were armed, others gave no indication of menace; two were in fact journalists for the news agency Reuters. The video, with its soundtrack of callous banter, was horrifying to watch and was an embarrassment to the U.S. military. But in its zeal to make the video a work of antiwar propaganda, WikiLeaks also released a version that didn’t call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric “Collateral Murder.” (See the edited and non-edited videos here.)

Too bad those Reuters journalists decided to pal around with armed terrorists.  And too bad that Wikileaks released what was clearly propaganda that edited that little detail out of their Nobel-Prize-winning effort.

But propaganda is FINE with the political left, as long as it’s propaganda that demonizes conservatives, Republicans, America or the US military.  And just as is the case of Al Gore, the fact that Julian Assange is a documented propagandist who falsifies stories really doesn’t much matter in whether or not he should get a big fat award.

The New York Times, which of course helped Assange get his America-undermining pile of secrets to the world, was rather petty in its treatment of Assange.  After all, they were the arrogant elitists, and Assange wasn’t even a “real journalist.”  So after benefitting from his story, they turned on him like cockroaches eating their own:

On the fourth day of the London meeting, Assange slouched into The Guardian office, a day late. Schmitt took his first measure of the man who would be a large presence in our lives. “He’s tall — probably 6-foot-2 or 6-3 — and lanky, with pale skin, gray eyes and a shock of white hair that seizes your attention,” Schmitt wrote to me later. “He was alert but disheveled, like a bag lady walking in off the street, wearing a dingy, light-colored sport coat and cargo pants, dirty white shirt, beat-up sneakers and filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles. He smelled as if he hadn’t bathed in days.”

So maybe really lousy personal hygiene habits are desirable for winning a Nobel Prize, too.

John Stossel pointed something out in an interview with Bill O’Reilly.  O’Reilly mentioned all the awards Stossel had won as a journalist, including 19 Emmys and 5 awards for excellence by the National Press Club.  But John Stossel noted that he wouldn’t be winning any more such awards.  Because he went to Fox News.  And the field of journalism is largely comprised of radical leftwing ideologues who are simply far too biased to recognize that the same great journalist who won all those awards is still the same great journalist doing the same great work.  But the field of American journalism doesn’t care about that; as far as these ideologue propagandists are concerned, John Stossel is persona non grata.  It’s just the way the roll.

And frankly, John Stossel is a better journalist than he’s ever been, because he cares more about the truth than he cares about playing these sick people’s game to win their stupid awards for leftwing bias.

The only reason the Nobel Prize award gets any coverage at all any more is because it is clearly lagely a far leftist award, and the media that gives us “the news” are a bunch of far leftists who think their fellow leftists (and only fellow leftists, mind you) deserve accolades.