Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category

Newer Entries »

Humility … It’s Below His Pay Grade

Monday, July 27th, 2009

“There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition.” –Thomas Jefferson

When a slick “community organizer” cons his way into the White House, you may be able to take him out of the hood, but you can’t get the hood out of him.

When Barack Hussein Obama interrupted a recent live media propaganda confab on his administration’s most critical national initiative (socializing health care) in order to accuse a local police officer of “acting stupidly,” he got more than my attention; he earned my disrespect — and that of most law enforcement offices and veteran officers across the nation.

I graduated from a state police academy at age 19 and worked as a uniformed patrolman for the next four years while completing my undergraduate degree. That was many years ago, but I can assure you that there is no such thing as a “former police officer.” You can take a trooper off patrol, but can’t get the patrol out of a former trooper.

On occasion when my kids and I watch the television program “Cops,” with its familiar theme song “Bad Boys” and cameras recording real patrol officers on pursuits and takedowns, they know that I am not so much watching the show as I am vicariously riding shotgun.

So when Obama used a national soapbox to unfairly chastise a local Cambridge, Massachusetts, police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, for arresting one of BHO’s comrades, Harvard professor Henry Gates, Obama also took a cheap shot at every sworn officer and veteran officer in America. It’s a big fraternity, and even a novice like Obama should have known better.

There is an old but good adage, which Obama might want to learn before even the most devoted of his disciples declares the emperor has no clothes: “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!”

Of course when a pathological narcissist like Obama finds himself at odds with reality, he inevitably endeavors to alter reality.

Unless you just returned from Mars, you undoubtedly know the sequence of events regarding the arrest of H.L. Gates for disorderly conduct. Turns out, the arrest was fully justified and, having “been there and done that,” there was no question in my mind from the start of this controversy that Gates blew a gasket, and the officer’s actions were justified. (Gates might also benefit from the “stop digging” maxim.)

In any event, Obama, who has himself been so steeped in a culture of ethnocentric elitism by mentors of racial hatred like his old “pastor,” Jeremiah Wright, could not help but assume that the arrest of Gates was the result of racism.

Gates under arrest

Under pressure from a black president, a black Massachusetts governor (Deval Patrick) and a black Cambridge City mayor (Denise Simmons), the district attorney dropped charges against Gates before any of the facts of his arrest were reviewed.

Obama said the police “acted stupidly,” Patrick protested that this was “every black man’s nightmare,” and Simmons concluded, “the incident of July 16, 2009 was regrettable and unfortunate.”

However, as I said, Gates’ conduct was, at best, disorderly, and the arresting officer not only used restraint and good judgment in his actions, but Sgt. Crowley and a fellow black officer have, for the last five years, been instructors for a racial profiling class at the Lowell Police Academy in Boston, and Crowley was handpicked for that post by a senior officer who happens to be black.

At noon last Friday, with all the facts in, there was a press conference called by numerous representatives of Massachusetts law enforcement associations and unions, in support of Crowley and condemning Obama and Patrick for there rush to racial accusations.

One of Crowley’s defenders, Dennis O’Connor, noted that Obama “used the right adjective but directed it to the wrong party” — that it was Gates who acted stupidly. Noting that Obama did qualify his remarks by indicating he did not have all the facts, O’Connor added, “When you don’t have all the facts, your next words should be ‘I have no comment.'”

Though Obama can extend the benefit of doubt to folks like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, when it comes to a couple of local cops, he convicted them sight unseen.

Steve Killian, president of the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association called for Obama to “make an apology to all law-enforcement personnel.”

Not to be upstaged by the police unions, Obama made an unplanned appearance at a White House conference an hour after the Cambridge conference, to remake his case.

Receiving a reception similar to that George W. Bush received with his surprise appearance to have Thanksgiving dinner with our troops in Baghdad a few years ago, Obama’s unannounced appearance at the press conference elated his adoring MSM audience.

“Hey, it’s a cameo appearance. Sit down, sit down,” Obama said, like some Hollywood teen idol.

In one of the most contorted makeovers of his asinine remarks to date, Obama feigned “making nice” with Crowley and offered to have him and Gates as guests at the White House “for a beer.”

I am including a few Obama quotes below (with editorial reply), not only because he has dug himself deeper, but also because his comments were not read from a teleprompter. Consequently, the incidence of his verbal tick, “uh,” occurs at a ratio of 1.2 times for every 10 words. This is significant because for Obama, “uh” constitutes a “poker tell,” an unconscious cue that he is attempting to be deceptive.

When studying Obama’s unscripted comments, the occurrence of this tell at a ratio of 1/20 indicates his remarks are disingenuous. At 1.2/10, he is lying. (While the White House video mutes his verbal ticks and struck all of them from the text of his comments, you can read the full — and accurate — text of Obama’s comments here.)

“Uh, over the last day and a half, uh, obviously there’s been all sorts of controversy around, uh, the incident that happened in Cambridge with, uh, Professor Gates and the police department there. … Uh, and because, uh, this has been ratcheting up — uh, and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up — uh, I want to make clear that in my choice of words, uh, I think I unfortunately, uh, gave an impression, uh, that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically — uh, and I could have calibrated those words differently.”

(I am certain that saying they “acted stupidly” constitutes “maligning.”)

“Uh, I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that, uh, there was an overreaction in, uh, pulling Professor Gates, uh, out of his home to the station. Uh, my sense is you’ve got two good people, uh, in a circumstance, uh, in which, uh, neither of them, uh, were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved.”

(Ah, they did not act stupidly, they just “overreacted.”)

“Uh, the fact that it has garnered so much attention I think is a testimony to the fact that these are issues that are still very sensitive here in America.”

(No, Obama’s comment garnered so much attention because it was, uh, stupid.)

“Uh, what I’d like to do then I [sic] make sure that everybody … uh, not extrapolate too much from the facts — uh, but as I said at the press conference, uh, be mindful of the fact that because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past, uh, you know, African Americans are sensitive to these issues. And, uh … interactions between police officers and, uh, the African American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding.”

(What is clear, however, is that Leftist socialized programs ostensibly designed to give blacks a chance to attain the American dream, have spawned a subculture of nightmares, and there is no misunderstanding about the resulting disparity in criminal activity by race, or the burden that places on society, including police officers of all racial backgrounds, who have to deal with that burden.)

“Uh, my hope is, is that as a consequence of this event, uh, this ends up being what’s called a ‘teachable moment,’ where all of us, uh, instead of pumping up the volume spend a little more time listening to each other, uh … instead of flinging accusations, uh, we can, uh, all be a little more reflective in terms of what we can do, uh, to contribute to, uh, more unity.”

(The most teachable moment in this event was when Obama didn’t have the facts. As previously suggested, Obama should learn to say, “no comment.” The only folks flinging accusations were Gates, Obama, Patrick and Simmons.)

“Uh, but, uh, I just wanted to emphasize that, uh, one, one last point I guess I would make. … Uh, the fact that this has become such a big issue I think is indicative of the fact that, uh, uh, race is still a troubling aspect of our society. Uh, whether I were black or white, uh, I think that, uh, me commenting on this, uh, and hopefully contributing to constructive — uh, as opposed to negative — uh, understandings about the issue, uh, is part of my portfolio.”(Actually, it became a big issue because Obama made a brainless accusation, and for sure, digging himself into a deeper hole is definitely part of his portfolio.)“So, uh, at the end of the conversation there was a discussion about — uh, uh, uh, my conversation with Sergeant Crowley, there was discussion about, uh, he and I, uh, and, uh, Professor Gates having a beer here in the White House. Uh, we don’t know if that’s scheduled yet — uh, — but, uh, uh, but we may put that together.”Perhaps Sgt. Crowley will take this bait and say nothing further, but it is clear that Obama has no intention of offering an apology. But in regards to his actions in the arrest of Gates, Sgt. Crowley says, “There will be no apology.” Back to Obama’s remarks at his health care confab, I credit him with stating accurately, “There is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that’s just a fact.”

Sometimes both white and black officers overstep their authority, and on occasion, that is motivated by racial tension. But it is difficult to avoid race-based profiling when the felonious crimes committed in our country are perpetrated by a grossly disproportionate number of black and Latino males. “And, that’s just a fact.” (Yes, yes, I know, victims of “the man,” one and all…)

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

And a footnote: Regarding Obama and the Cambridge Police Department, you may recall that between 1989-1991, while a student at Harvard, Obama received 17 citations for offenses like parking in a bus-loading zone (how insensitive to those who must rely on public transportation). According to the Associated Press, Obama’s citations and late fees were paid by somebody “two weeks before he officially launched his presidential campaign.” I suppose he thought those citations were the result of racial profiling and thus, did not need paying.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias, Obama | No Comments »

Sotomayor and “Cultural Bias”?

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

Videotaped remarks shed light on Sotomayor
Charlie Savage, New York Times 

Washington — Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as “a product of affirmative action” who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to “cultural biases” that are “built into testing.” On another occasion, she aligned with conservatives who take a limited view of when international law can be enforced in U.S. courts.

But she criticized conservative objections to recent Supreme Court rulings that mention foreign law as being based on a “misunderstanding.” Those comments were among a trove of videos dating back nearly 25 years that shed new light on Sotomayor’s views. She provided the videos to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week as it prepares for her Supreme Court confirmation hearing next month.

The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an “affirmative action baby” whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Latino and had grown up in poor circumstances. “If we had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions, it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted,” she said on a panel of three female judges from New York who were discussing women in the judiciary. The video is dated “early 1990s” in Senate records.

Her comments came in the context of explaining why she thought it was “critical that we promote diversity” by appointing more women and minority judges, and they provoked objections among other panelists who pointed out that she graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and had been an editor on Yale’s law journal.

But Sotomayor insisted that her test scores were subpar – “though not so far off the mark that I wasn’t able to succeed at those institutions.” Her scores have not been made public. “With my academic achievement in high school I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates,” she said. “And that’s been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that – there are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.”

Sotomayor’s approach to affirmative action has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Conservatives have criticized her remarks in speeches that her personal experiences will influence her judging. If she is confirmed, Sotomayor would fill the seat being vacated by Justice David Souter, who has voted to uphold affirmative-action programs.

But in April, Sotomayor delivered a speech on how federal judges look at foreign and international law that suggested she may take a more conservative position on that topic than Souter. She said individuals have no right to file a lawsuit to enforce a treaty and ratified treaties are not legally binding unless Congress separately passes a statute to do so. Treaties usually have effect, she said, only if the president and Congress choose to respect such obligations as a matter of politics, not law. “Even though Article IV of the Constitution says that treaties are the ‘supreme law of the land,’ in most instances they’re not even law,” she said.

That principle, she said, explained the outcome of a high-profile 2008 Supreme Court ruling, Medellin vs. Texas, which involved a ruling by the International Court of Justice that some Mexican inmates on death row in Texas should get new sentencing hearings because authorities failed to help them get assistance from the Mexican consulate, contrary to a treaty the United States had ratified.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the international court’s decision had no legal force and that the treaty was not binding, because Congress never passed a statute explicitly making it domestic law. The ruling, Sotomayor said, “surprised many human rights groups and civil liberties groups” but was “premised on very traditional American law principles.”

Her remarks aligned her with the Supreme Court’s majority; among the three dissenting votes in that case was Souter.

Copyright 2009 SF Chronicle

Tags:,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias, US Politics | No Comments »

Panic Time for Pelosi

Friday, May 15th, 2009

Panic Time for Pelosi

Human Events
by  Jed Babbin 
05/01/2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has had a bad week. Caught between her own involvement in the CIA interrogations now condemned as torture and her party’s inquisitions, Pelosi floundered.  Her fear and frustration have apparently given way to panic after word reached her of the CIA’s reaction to the damage she, President Obama and other Democrats have done to the spy agency in the last three months.
 
Pelosi — as I wrote earlier in the week — was one of the few members of Congress briefed in detail on the harsh interrogation methods and who could have stopped them but didn’t. Pelosi first said that she wasn’t briefed about waterboarding. Then she sort of admitted she had, inserting that the CIA only said that they might do it, not that they were going to do it.  Which could have been plagiarized from John Kerry’s 2004 circular explanation of his vote for the war in Iraq.
 
As badly as that hurt Pelosi, what apparently pushed her into a panic was the feedback she and other Democrats are getting from the CIA.  Pelosi learned that her actions, and those of President Obama and other Democrats over the past ninety days have so damaged CIA morale that the agency’s ability to function could be in danger. 
 
As a result, two emergency closed-door meetings were called this week on Capitol Hill.
 
 The first meeting, on Tuesday evening, was attended by Pelosi, Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Tx) and others.  The following night, Pelosi and some or all of the other attendees met with CIA Director Leon Panetta, also behind closed doors. 
 
No Republicans were invited to either meeting which means the Democrats were assessing the damage and deciding how to maneuver their way out from under the responsibility for it.  Spin and strategy. 
 
Morale among in the spy agency is so low because of the relentless assault on the CIA in President Obama’s first 100 days.  The first blow to the CIA was his decision to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba without any plan on what to do with the 240 dangerous detainees housed there.  Many CIA employees believe these people to be killers, responsible for the deaths of CIA operatives overseas.   Many in the CIA apparently see this as a betrayal. 
 
The Obama administration plan to set some of these people loose in the US was despite CIA objections.
 
And then came the president’s decision to release the so-called ”torture memos” and the disavowal of CIA interrogation methods. 
 
The president’s on-again, off-again promise to not prosecute CIA operatives who had conducted the harsher interrogations has left many in the CIA uncertain of his real intentions.  Leaving up to the Attorney General whether to prosecute the Bush-era lawyers who wrote the ”torture memos” has added to the already great doubt about the safety and security of CIA interrogators’ jobs, and more.
 
By the end of the meeting Wednesday, Pelosi, Reyes and Panetta apparently determined that damage control had to begin immediately.   
 
Later Wednesday evening, Reyes sent an unprecedented letter to CIA director Panetta making a sort of apology to the CIA.  Reyes’ cover letter asks Panetta to ”…disseminate it to the CIA workforce as soon as possible.”  (At this writing, the letter has not yet been distributed.)  The letter to CIA employees is a very odd mixture of praise for the CIA and CYA for Reyes.  (Click here to read the letter)
 
Reyes begins, ”In recent days, as the public debate regarding CIA’s interrogation practices has raged, you have been very much in my thoughts,” expressing his ”… deep gratitude for the work you do each day.”  
 
But then Reyes retreats into lawyer-isms:  ”First and foremost, I wholeheartedly support the President’s decision that no CIA officer or contractor will be prosecuted for authorized actions they took in the context of interrogations.”  In other words, if some young prosecutor or Capitol Hill staffer decides you did something unauthorized, you’re sunk.
 
And then comes the CYA for Reyes:  ”One important lesson to me from the CIA’s interrogation operations involves congressional oversight. I’m going to examine closely ways in which we can change the law to make our own oversight of the CIA more meaningful; I want to move from mere notification to real discussion.” 
 
The fact that ”mere notification” of the interrogation methods was comprised of a virtual tour of them matters not at all: Reyes’ letter says Congress should be held innocent of any wrongdoing.  If CIA morale was bad before the letter, it will be vastly worse after it. 
 
Worst of all is the next sentence:  ”Good oversight can lead to partnership, and that’s what I am looking to bring about.”  If there’s anything that could possibly make the CIA even less effective than it was before 9-11, that’s it.  The nation’s security requires that the CIA be strengthened and more effective, not bogged down with congressional tourism.  
 
And, by the way, what Reyes proposes is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine. Not that Reyes would care.   But the prospect of more Congressional involvement is just another morale killer. 
 
Obama’s first 100 days did enormous damage to our entire intelligence community.  It’s all too clear that Speaker Pelosi will do much more if she believes it will help her out of the corner she’s in.  Panicked people make mistakes.  Pelosi has made a big one in propelling the inquisition into the CIA interrogations  She will make more, and the damage to our intelligence gathering ability may be fatal to many Americans.
 
URL: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31689

Tags:, ,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias, Obama | No Comments »

Gay Marriage – Legally Speaking …

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

As an attorney I’d like to take a minute to explain how the law actually applies to this whole gay marriage thing, and I hope you will forward this to as many contacts as possible.  This is information that absolutely must be circulated.   Interestingly, it has nothing to do with religion; we are strictly talking United States statutory and common law here.

(I wish somehow Miss California could get this.  She instinctually knows something isn’t right about gay marriage, but she didn’t have the foundational ammunition, aside from her personal moral convictions, to explain why).

The Real Law and Gay Marriage, by Patti Thornhill, Esq.

Marriage is a license, which means it is a legal status that is recognized through the mechanism of the state.  It is in the same category as business licenses, driver’s licenses and professional licenses.  The very fact that marriage is a licensed status means that it is not an inherent right — if it were an inalienable right, there would be no need for licensing.  For example, one needs a license to practice certain trades, but one does not need a license to practice one’s religion.  The first is a privilege bestowed by a state mechanism and the latter is an inherent right.

When courts declare that homosexual marriage is a right, they are making declarations that are contrary to historical law and the Constitution.  They are also establishing a very dangerous precedent on many levels, including one that could be detrimental to the very people who seek the state’s recognition of their gay union.

First, allow me to explain how the concept of precedent operates in our system of law.

According to the rules of Western common law, precedent is used as a means to provide continuity, predictability and stability to the system of law.  It requires jurists to look at past judgments in cases factually similar to the one at hand and use those to guide the jurist into how he should rule on the case before him.  Law that applies to an earlier case that is applicable to a current case because of their factual similarities and jurisdictional connections is called mandatory authority, which means that the judge must rule on the current case according to the former ruling.  This system was put into place to avoid the capriciousness that often afflicts human judges, forcing them to apply the rule of law rather than pursuing their own individual inclinations which might be contaminated by laziness, prejudice, stupidity, ignorance, etc.  It also allows for the law to be applied equally to similarly situated cases.

When judges ignore precedent, they are opening the door for the rule of law to be completely disregarded.  This allows the individual jurists to enjoy more power over their rulings since there are fewer legal restrictions tying their hands.  Uncertainty ensues at best, and at worst, anarchy.

When jurists declare that homosexual marriage is legal because it is a civil right, not only could they not be more incorrect, but they are opening a Pandora’s box that can lead down a “slippery slope” that many advocates of gay marriage might not be aware of and certainly of which they would not support. 

The fact is, because of the way our common law system works, once gay marriage is ruled a civil right, then all unions between adults will have to be regarded as a civil right as well.  You simply cannot say that gay marriage is a civil right without regarding other adult unions as such as well.  Thus, once the precedent is established, the next adult union that will also have to be recognized by the state with a license will be polygamous marriage.  There will be no way to stop it because competent adults cannot be allowed to marry someone of the same sex while disallowing multiple competent adults of any combination the right to do the same thing.  Incestuous marriages will likely follow, although the state might be able to prevent this on the basis of an overriding concern with the genetic effects on offspring of such a union.

The argument that people will marry animals is not legally sound, since animals are not considered to be mentally competent to sign contracts.  The same argument applies to children — they are considered legal “incompetents” and therefore are prevented from being held to legal contracts until the age of majority.

But here is where things get sinister.  There is a movement afoot, not just in some fringe groups like NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), but also in reputable sociological, psychological, and other academic circles, to lower the age of majority for children.  Some advocates even approve abolishing the age of majority altogether.  Their motives vary, but some pursue this for the purpose of “sexually liberating” children (i.e., they believe that society prevents children from enjoying their sexuality  by labeling them as children and applying legal sanctions to those who would encourage that enjoyment), to others who believe that society is denying children the privileges of humanhood by labeling them as minors.  In fact, early in her career, Hillary Clinton wrote extensively as a children’s advocate about the need to abolish the “minority status” of children, stating that doing so would be a great leap forward in line with “the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of married women.”  “Children,” she wrote, “would be like other persons…masters of their own destiny…capable of exercising rights and assuming responsibilities until it is proven otherwise.”  This movement towards liberating children from the right of their parents to make decisions on their behalf is often touted by state operatives under the guise of “children’s rights.”  The lowering or abolition of the minority status of children would allow them the same rights to engage in contracts as adults, including marriage contracts.

Many will scoff at this notion — “oh, that would never happen!”  Of course, twenty years ago, that same response would have been evoked had anyone offered that someday gay marriage would be legal. 

Licenses are bestowed by human beings through legal mechanisms because the people decide to recognize a status as a privilege.  As such, they can be confined particularly to one kind of arrangement and not others.  Therefore, if a community through its citizenry agrees to recognize gay marriage, because it is a privilege and not a right, they can confine the licensing to gay marriages only while legally excluding other marital combinations.

Another by-product often not considered by those lured into advocacy of gay marriage by virtue of the feel-good mantra of “equality” is that this subjects gay couples to identify themselves to the state, which they are encouraged to trust with this intimate knowledge.  But once the government knows who they are, will it always be so benevolent?  The government might indeed appear friendly to this status now, but governments are notorious for persecuting their own citizenry when unrestrained by the rule of law.  Anarchic systems normally give way to political voids that are filled with authoritative systems.  Is it impossible to consider that the system they trust to protect them now might not someday use this information and turn against them?

For most of western history, marriage was a contract between two families, and the state was not involved in this private arrangement. In the past, state licensing of marriage has reflected sinister motives.  Marriage licenses were used by 38 states in the 1920s to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays, or Filipinos without a state approved license. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “license” as, “[t]he permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission…would be illegal.” The authority to license implies the power to prohibit. 

Some groups believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary or immoral. Libertarians, for instance, believes that all marriages should be private, not requiring sanction from the state.  Some Christian groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between two people and God, so that no authorization from the state is required; in some US states, the state is cited as a party in the marriage contract, which is seen by some as an infringement.

Most Americans don’t care what consenting adults do when they are alone, but they feel nevertheless that something regarding the gay marriage issue is just not right.  They just can’t put their finger on it.

What many Americans sense instinctually is wrong with gay marriage has to do with misconstruction of the law.  It is abuse by the practitioners of the law that is giving many Americans pause here; if political operatives can manipulate the rule of law to satisfy one agenda, then they have the power to twist policy in any direction regardless of traditional and constitutional legal restraints.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias | No Comments »

Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment

By Chuck Baldwin

March 3, 2009
This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090303.html
 

According to ABC News (Feb. 25, 2009), “The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“‘As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,’ Holder told reporters.”

Holder also said that President Obama would seek to make the assault weapons ban permanent, close the “gun show loophole,” and ban “cop-killer” bullets.

At this point, I believe it is incumbent on me to say that both Eric Holder and Barack Obama have made a career out of doing everything in their power to strip the American people of their right to keep and bear arms. Even under the rubric of the abovementioned “few gun-related changes,” there is the potential for widespread assault against our Second Amendment.

For example, the so-called “assault weapons” ban is as phony as the Bush-Obama stimulus spending bills–and just as fraudulent. A semi-automatic rifle, which is incapable of automatic fire, is not an “assault weapon.” By definition, an assault weapon must be capable of fully automatic fire. A civilian AR-15-style rifle–in any configuration–is functionally identical to any semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact, many hunters commonly use AR-15-style rifles for all types of hunting, both predator and big game. The term “assault weapon” is simply a dangerous-sounding moniker that makes it easy for a compliant media to intimidate the public and public officials into passing a ban against semi-automatic rifles.

Furthermore, does anyone believe that if Obama and Holder were successful in outlawing semi-automatic rifles, pump and bolt-action rifles would not also be targeted? Get real! I well remember gun control zealots during the Clinton years railing against bolt-action rifles, calling them “sniper” rifles. And once rifles are outlawed, how long would it be before handguns and shotguns would fall victim to a similar fate? As always, the issue for these people is not what type of firearm it is; the issue is the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms–any arms.

Of course, the “gun show loophole” is nothing more than the prohibition against private citizens selling and trading their own personal firearms. I would like to remind the Obamas and Holders of this country that liberty is not a “loophole.”

In the beginning, the private sale and trading of firearms was almost exclusively the purpose for which gun shows were started. Today, commercial firearms dealers dominate gun shows, but it is still a convenient marketplace for citizens to buy and trade guns. This is a freedom and right that is as old as the country itself. Shoot (pun intended)! I remember when we were free to buy guns from a Sears & Roebuck catalog.

And as to banning “cop-killer” bullets, what bullet is not capable of killing? Any bullet that is not capable of killing a good guy is not capable of killing a bad guy (be it two-legged or four). This is just another approach to the same goal: the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, any gun without a bullet is pretty much useless.

The Democrats went down this road in 1994. Are they really willing to go down the same road again? It looks like they are.

It was largely an aggressive gun control agenda that caused the Republicans to sweep both houses of Congress in 1994 and render Bill Clinton without a majority in either chamber. It was also an aggressive gun control agenda that caused Al Gore to lose the Presidential election in 2000. Even Bill Clinton publicly acknowledged that fact.

All of that said, however, the underlying reality is that it is the individual States that must ultimately be guardians of the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights, of course). States must be willing to resist any and all efforts by the central government to intrude upon their independence, sovereignty, and liberties. If this was not the case, why did the individual States not dissolve after the federal government was created by the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787? Why? Because the States were deemed to be superior entities. Superior in assignment. Superior in responsibility. Superior in nature. Superior in scope.

As James Madison said in the Federalist Papers, No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Therefore, when the federal government begins to intrude upon the rights and liberties of the people, it is the responsibility of the States to resist. Obviously, the way the federal government tries to keep States in subjection is through bribery: by threatening to deny federal tax dollars unless States comply with their despotic machinations. And, sadly, most States have succumbed to this menacing temptation for far, far too long.

The good news is that States are finally beginning to fight back.

According to World Net Daily, “So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

“Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.”

Pertaining specifically to the Second Amendment, the State of Montana, in particular, seems to have it all together. In anticipation of the recent Heller Supreme Court decision, a host of Montana’s senators and representatives–along with its Secretary of State– proposed a resolution stating “that any ‘collective rights’ holding in D.C. v. Heller will violate Montana’s compact with the United States, the contract by which Montana entered the Union in 1889.”

The Montana resolution recalls, “When Montana entered into statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in
1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to ‘any person.'”

The resolution continues, “To be clear, the wording of the right to bear arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it was in 1884.”

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, “There is no question that the contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the parties to the contract.”

The resolution ended by stating sternly, “A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora’s box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation.”

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the infringement of its citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. I don’t think I’m reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I’ve just been told that New Hampshire may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.)

Montana has it exactly right!

Now it is time for every State legislative body in America that believes in the Second Amendment to step up to the plate and let Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the rest of these gun-grabbing socialists know that they will not tolerate even one more attempt to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms–and that includes any so-called “assault weapons” ban.

And let’s never forget that the purpose of the Second Amendment was not to ensure the rights of hunters, but of citizens to protect themselves–and their States–against the tyrannical tendencies of their own government.

P.S. If anyone wants to see firsthand testimony regarding the importance of the Second Amendment, I encourage him or her to watch this testimony given before Congress not long ago:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Tags:, ,
Posted in 2nd Amendment, Campaign 2008, Liberal Agenda, Media Bias | No Comments »

Obama Snubs Medal of Honor Inaugural Ball – 1st time in 50 years

Monday, January 26th, 2009

This is the ONLY article on this I could find in a major U.S. news outlet in a search of Google News:Obama Snubs Nation’s Heroes, Becomes the First President to Skip Ball Honoring Medal of Honor Recipients in Over 50 Yearshttp://www.clevelandleader.com/node/8627

The Cleveland LeaderBarack Obama may have stumbled over his words briefly during his inauguration, but he made an even bigger blunder later Tuesday evening. The newly sworn-in President opted not to appear at what should have been one of the most important Balls on his agenda that evening – The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball.The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball was begun in 1953 for President Dwight Eisenhower’s inauguration. The event recognized recipients of the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. There were 48 Medal of Honor recipients in attendance, who were undoubtedly disappointed by the Commander-in-Chief’s failure to show. Over the past 56 years and 14 inaugurations, no President has skipped this event – until now.

The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball is sponsored by the American Legion, and co-sponsored by 13 other veteran’s service organizations, including those such as the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

Instead of attending this ball honoring our nation’s heroes, Obama was busy making stops at 10 other official balls. Obama and his wife’s first stop was at the Neighborhood Ball. From there they went to the Home State Ball for Illinois and Hawaii, the Commander-in-Chief Ball, the Youth Inaugural Ball, and the Home State Ball for Delaware and Pennsylvania. They finished off the night with brief appearances at the Mid-Atlantic, Western, Midwest, Eastern, and Southern regional Balls.

Celebrities were a plenty at the balls, with Stevie Wonder, Shakira, Mary. J. Blige, Faith Hill, Jay-Z, Alicia Keys, Adam Levine, will.i.am, Sting, Mariah Carey, and Leonardo DiCaprio in attendance at the Neighborhood Ball. In addition, the other nine balls also featured a star-studded lineup including Kanye West and Kid Rock at the Youth Ball, Marc Anthony at the Western Ball, and Cheryl Crow at the Western Ball.

It was the party without all of the celebrities that Obama skipped. The very people who he sought to have support him during his candidacy and campaign, who have fought to protect this country, were snubbed in favor of publicity and the opportunity to rub shoulders – yet again – with the out-of-touch Hollywood elite.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Liberal Agenda, Media Bias | 2 Comments »

Ushering in the error of Obama

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

THE FOUNDATION

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” –James Madison

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

Ushering in the error of Obama

By Mark Alexander

Presidential oath – redux

The inauguration-ordination-coronation of Barack Obama on Tuesday was heralded by his fawning media as nothing less than a “messianic” revival, with endless inaugural balls and star-studded celebrations on either end.

Strange, but I seem to recall that the Leftmedia skewered George W. Bush for spending almost $40 million on his first inauguration, proclaiming the events to be “grotesque” and all about “excess.”

But with deficit spending estimated to fly past the trillion-dollar mark in Obama’s first year in office, not one of his media sycophants has questioned the cost of this week’s events. Perhaps that is because it cost a mere $.00017 trillion, or about $1.25 million for each of the 130 tons of garbage his constituents dumped on the Mall.

All this was apparently not enough funding, however, to provide for his attendance at the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball, which has been attended by every president since its inception 56 years ago. The event, hosted by the American Legion, the Military Order of Purple Hearts, and Paralyzed Veterans for America, recognizes their service and was attended by 48 of the nation’s 99 living Medal of Honor recipients. This is the 50th anniversary of the Medal of Honor Society.

Of course, it might be deemed indecorous to question the cost to inaugurate the first “African-American” president. (I hyphenated Obama’s heritage because, unlike 99 percent of blacks in America who are native to this land, one of Obama’s parents was actually African.)

Millions across the nation and around the world were watching as the climactic moment of the festivities arrived — the part where Barack Hussein Obama interrupted Chief Justice John Roberts just four words into the oath, then choked as he vowed to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Who could have predicted that? (Justice Roberts administered the oath of office again, Tuesday evening, in the Oval Office. Reportedly, Obama waited for his cue the second time around.)

To put Obama’s inaugural address into context, consider this proclamation at his kick-off celebration in Philadelphia: “What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives…” While he spells out his vision for that “new declaration” for our nation in his inaugural speech, I can only presume that his reference to “in our own lives” means rehab for those of us who are “bitterly clinging to guns and religion.”

As a public service, we analyzed Obama’s speech with The Patriot’s proprietary Leftspeak decoder software, using it to translate his speech into Rightspeak so that our fellow Americans might more fully understand what he was saying. I selected a few excerpts from our analysis for your consideration.

BHO: “My fellow citizens,” Apostles and disciples of hope and change,

“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.” Disagree with me and you must be racist or ignorant, or both.

“Our Founding Fathers … drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man … and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.” But we will overwrite them with judicial diktats until my rule is the rule of law.

“What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.” Our founders are dead and so is their vision for our nation.

“In the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.” Disagree with me and you are in violation of Scripture.

“We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth…” Let’s not offend anyone with the simple and undeniable truth that our national heritage rests on a Judeo-Christian foundation.

“Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some…” Blame our badly weakened economy on Wall Street greed and irresponsibility rather than Democrats in Congress.

“The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act … to lay a new foundation for growth.” Government growth…

“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” More government growth…

“Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill … but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control.” We must not only grow the government, but also ensure that it regulates every aspect of the economy.

“The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.” Darwin had it right, except in regard to human nature and free market capitalism.

“A new era of responsibility…” An era in which the fiscally responsible will bear an ever-greater tax burden for those of us who are not…

“Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.” The crisis of confidence and propagation of fear was the staple of my campaign rhetoric, and it was largely responsible for my election.

“Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.” I will remake America into Amerika.

“We will restore science to its rightful place.” Global warming hysteria is a great catalyst for expanding government control.

“The world has changed, and we must change with it.” Out with national sovereignty and in with the New World Order…

“Power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please.” Appeasement works…

“Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.” Appeasement really works…

“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” To the Islamic terrorists, we seek to appease you.

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” Except for my mentors Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, and my colleagues in the Democrat Party, the Socialist New Party, the ACORN crowd, Rod Blagojevich, Richard Daley, Saul Alinsky, Father Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi and Raila Odinga. You guys can just keep up the good work.

“This is the source of our confidence: the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.” I am calling on you to follow me.

Obama ended his speech with the last of several references to our Founders, calling on Americans to remember the words “the father of our nation” delivered to troops: “Let it be told to the future world … that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive… that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

Of course, those words were written by Thomas Paine on 23 December 1776 in his work, “The American Crisis,” which, indeed, George Washington ordered read to his Patriot countrymen on the eve of the Battle of Trenton.

Paine’s pamphlet, which begins famously, “These are the times that try men’s souls…” was about the animating contest for freedom and liberty from government oppression.

However, Obama’s entire treatise on the role of government, “a new declaration of independence … a new foundation for growth … a watchful eye … a new era of responsibility … remaking America,” contradicts everything that Patriots have died for since our Declaration of Independence.

Our Founders outlined their just cause for revolution with these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

During the next four years, every thoughtful American will come to learn that Barack Hussein Obama is no friend of freedom and liberty; that his “vision for America” is the antithesis of that held by our Founders.

George Washington admonished future generations to “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

Indeed.

Tags:,
Posted in Campaign 2008, Liberal Agenda, Media Bias, The Economy | No Comments »

Media Bias – It’s For Real

Tuesday, January 20th, 2009

Headlines on this date 4 years ago:“Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops die in unarmored Humvees”

“Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times”

“Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, ordinary Americans get the shaft”

Headlines Today:

“Historic Obama inauguration will cost only $120 million”

“Obama spends $120 million on inauguration; America needs A Big Party”

“Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate”

“Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama inauguration”

Tags:,
Posted in Campaign 2008, Media Bias, The Economy | No Comments »

No He Can’t

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association. She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer’s television series, “A World of Ideas.” The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas. Dr. Wortham is author of The Other Side of  Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues. She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality. Recently, she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness. Shortly after an interview in 2004 she was awarded tenure.

This article by her is something else.

No He Can’t
by Anne Wortham

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul’s name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America. I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions  and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival,  all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the “change” that Obama asserts has come to America. Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared “progressive” whites who voted for him because he doesn’t look like them. I would have to be wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration.  Political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that “fairness” is the equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to “go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice” is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the “bottom up,” and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting “Yes We Can!” Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead  and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the United States, the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare  statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person. So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine what little there is left  for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Campaign 2008, Media Bias, The Economy | No Comments »

Tale of two presidential workout fanatics

Sunday, December 28th, 2008

Tale of two presidential workout fanatics

By Michelle Malkin  •  December 27, 2008 09:08 AM

Chris Matthews won the Media Research Center’s quote of the year with his Obamedia-topping Leg O’ Thrill and Tingle remark. But Matthews only took first honors because Washington Post reporter Eli Saslow waited until Christmas to file his tribute to Obama’s sun-kissed pectorals. Have they no shame? No, they do not.

The gushing reminded me of a blog post I did three years ago on how Bush-deranged journalist Jonathan Chait reacted to President Bush’s workout regimen. It’s the subject of my syndicated column today. More liberal double standards: It’s just how they roll.

***

Tale of two presidential workout fanatics
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

Ah, the perks of media affection. On Christmas Day, the Washington Post delivered a front-page paean to Barack Obama’s workout habits. The 1,233-word ode to O’s physical fitness read more like a Harlequin romance novel than an A-1 news article.

Sighed smitten reporter Eli Zaslow: “The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.” Drool cup to the newsroom, stat.

Zaslow imparted us with vital information about buff Bam’s regimen: “Obama has gone to the gym for about 90 minutes a day, for at least 48 days in a row.” The Washington Post enlightened us with more gushing commentary from Obama friends and associates who explain how, as the subtitle of Zaslow’s opus put it, “Gym Workouts Help Obama Carry the Weight of His Position.”

For adoring journalists, you see, Obama’s workout fanaticism demonstrates his discipline and balance in his life. Apparently, what’s good for Obama’s glistening pecs is good for the country. Zaslow quoted Obama Chicago crony Marty Nesbitt, who offered this diagnosis: “He doesn’t think of it as something he has to do — it’s his time for himself, a chance for him to reflect. It’s his break. He feels better and more revved up after he gets in his workout.”

And when Obama feels better, the skies will part, the sun will shine (in moderate, environmentally-correct, non-global warming-inducing amounts, of course) and peace will reign worldwide!

Too bad the doughy, McDonald’s-chomping, coffee-guzzling members of the White House press corps couldn’t see the merits of White House exercise over the past eight years. After giggling about his out-of-shape colleagues in the media, Zaslow mentioned in passing that President George W. Bush shares Obama’s commitment to health. What he failed to acknowledge is that the same reporters who so greatly admire Obama’s lithe figure derided Bush for his training schedule.

Former Washington Post writer Jonathan Chait famously attacked Bush three years ago in an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times headlined, “The (over)exercise of power.” Recounting how President Bush ran 3 1/2 miles a day and preached more cross-training to a federal judge, Chait fumed: “Am I the only person who finds this disturbing?…What I mean is the fact that Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy.”

Chait argued that Bush’s passionate devotion to exercise was a dereliction of duty. “Does the leader of the free world need to attain that level of physical achievement?” he jeered. “It’s nice for Bush that he can take an hour or two out of every day to run, bike or pump iron. Unfortunately, most of us have more demanding jobs than he does.”

Can you imagine any member of the Obamedia mocking the incoming gym rat-in-chief this way?

Chait was not alone. Reuters journalist Caron Bohan weaved the same unhinged themes into a piece on Bush’s two-hour, 17-mile bike ride with cycling champ Lance Armstrong in Crawford, Texas in 2005. After noting his six-day-a-week workout schedule, Bohan steered the piece into an anti-war screed:

“Bush says exercise helps sharpen his thinking. But some of his critics view his exercise obsession as an indulgence that takes time away from other priorities. Among them is Cindy Sheehan, the Vacaville, California, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, who until late last week was camped out down the road from Bush’s ranch seeking a meeting with him to discuss her opposition to the war. Sheehan, who left her vigil on Thursday to tend to her sick mother, has said she believes Bush should take fewer bike rides to have more time to focus on the “the nation’s work.”

Fit Republican president = Selfish, indulgent, creepy fascist.

Fit Democratic president = Disciplined, health-conscious Adonis role model.

The good news: In just a few short weeks, W. will be able to exercise in peace, free from the disapproving glares of journalists now rushing to mop the sweat — er, the glisten — from Barack Obama’s hallowed brow.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Campaign 2008, Media Bias | No Comments »

Newer Entries »