If thou art privy to thy country's fate,
Which, happily, foreknowing may avoid, O, speak! ---Hamlet.
Quick! Someone get in touch with the editor of Guns & Ammo magazine, Dick Metcalf, and let him know that "happily" as used in the early 17 century by William Shakespeare does not mean "happy" but "perhaps." And perhaps (happily) Mr. Metcalf won't make the same ridiculous error again when he completely misinterpreted the 18th century meaning of "Well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to mean government regulations as a justification to call for gun control.
Bryan Preston of the PJ Tatler points out the blatantly obvious which went completely over Metcalf's head when he wrote a gun control column:
Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post has been forced to perform yet another ObamaCare Oops!
When last we encountered the Polyanna ObamaCare cheerleader Kliff she was claiming that young people were among the more enthusiastic ObamaCare shoppers based on evidence that ranged from nil to none. This empty claim came on the heels of her previous ObamaCare Oops when Kliff, after hailing one Chad Henderson of Georgia for supposedly enrolling in ObamaCare, was forced to backtrack the very next day after Peter Suderman of Reason performed some real journalism and discovered that Chad's "success" story was false. You would think Ms Kliff would have learned from her tragically funny experience but noooooo. She has now made an error of such proportions that basically involves thousands of Chad Hendersons. Here is Kliff last Thursday happily announcing that "ObamaCare just cut Oregon's uninsured rate by 10 percent":
It's time for an "ObamaCare Success" victory parade!
And what was this "ObamaCare Success?" Why, it was Paul Krugman conveniently discovering ONE unnamed person who claims to have "signed up" for ObamaCare. Here is Krugman breathlessly describing this astounding "ObamaCare Success":
If Washington Post writer, Sarah Kliff, of the WonkBlog had been the music director aboard the Titanic, the last tune played on the deck of the sinking ship would probably have been Happy Days Are Here Again. I make that claim because Ms Kliff has taken upon herself the role as pollyannish cheerleader for the "train wreck" known as ObamaCare.
In her latest desperate search for a nonexistent silver lining, Kliff has conjured up what she imagines to be an indication that young people might, could be, maybe, possibly are interested in signing up for ObamaCare. Here is Kliff imagining what she so desperately hopes to be true based on nothing real:
Last evening NBC Nightly News featured the story about WWII veterans who were denied access to the WWII memorial in Washington, D.C. supposedly due to the government shutdown. After being denied entry for about 15 minutes, a group of congressional officials opened the barricades and tape to allow entry of the veterans. To watch this NBC News report you would barely have any idea who lowered the barricades except for a quick innacurate mention of a "bipartisan" group.
The NBC News report with transcript is below the fold. Since this report is inaccurate in what it leaves out, there is also a video interview with Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann which fills in the holes that NBC News very conveniently left out of its report.
Otter: Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You f---ed up... you trusted us!
It is no surprise that conservative magazines and blogs are opposed to ObamaCare but now even leftwing publications are beginning to have this opinion. What caused their new-found opposition is the fact that labor unions have finally discovered that ObamaCare is going to devastate the health plans of their members. The situation of the union bosses from AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on down who placed their blind faith in the Obama administration somehow exempting their members from the deleterious effects of ObamaCare is analogous to that of the clueless Flounder in the movie "Animal House" after the Delta House members destroyed a car he borrowed.
And now even TruthOut magazine, the periodical that boldly predicted the indictment of Karl Rove (within 24 business hours) back in May 2006 has published this highly critical article about ObamaCare and the unions by the far left Shamus Cooke. If the source were not identified, you would think the following quotes came from a conservative:
One thing the press can't stand is criticism. And sometimes the reaction of members of the press to criticism goes so over the top that the results are absolutely hilarious. Such was the case of Marci Shatzman, a reporter for the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel Forum Publishing Group who was covering a routine meeting of the West Boca Community Council in Florida. What set Marci off to act completely unprofessional at the 43 second mark of this video was guest speaker Andre Fladell daring to criticize members of the press for acting...unprofessional.
Imagine a radio station that does an interview and a video of it goes viral on the Web. Of course, you would expect such a station to feature that video on its website, probably its front page. Well, radio station 1010 WINS in New York City had such a video but instead of featuring it, they completely ignored it despite the fact that the video was highlighted on such websites as the Drudge Report, the Daily Caller, and many others. As of this writing you won't find that video, which was originally posted on YouTube by tvnewsnj anywhere on the WINS website.
The interview with the woman, Donna Jackson, of the Newark Non-Violence Coalition is a damning indictment of the level of violence in Newark, Mayor Cory Booker who was accused of being MIA while campaigning for senator, and of the news media whom Jackson accused of suppressing any bad news about Booker. The only way one even knows that WINS conducted this interview is the microphone which identifies it as 1010 WINS. Read the highlights of the dramatic interview and you will understand why this video went viral all over the Web with the notable exception of the WINS website:
It must be nice to be a political leader preferred by news agencies because you can count on them to pull unflattering photos. Such was the case with both Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Reuters when they pulled a bizarre photo of French President Francois Hollade in which he appears to have a clueless smiling clown expression on his face. The UK Guardian describes the controversy:
Two international news agencies are at the centre of a row over self-censorship after withdrawing an unflattering photograph of the French president, François Hollande. Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Reuters were subjected to criticism and widespread ridicule on the internet and social media sites after deciding to pull the picture.
Matt Damon, the star of the movie "Elysium" and its director, Neill Blomkamp, have both vociferously denied that their film is political. Well, perhaps they might want to consult with Jodie Foster who also stars in this movie to get their stories in proper alignment because she expressed a very different opinion.
First let us read the not very convincing denial by Blomkamp of any political motivation as reported by Fox News:
If you were expecting any useful information in the article by CNN's John King pondering Why Benghazi Matters, you would be sadly disappointed. Out of 1029 words in his article, 422 or over 40% of the verbiage is devoted to speculating about if the congressional investigation into Benghazi is really a Republican "witch hunt." Although King pays lip service to what happened at Benghazi, it is the "witch hunt" theme he is most interested in as you can see from these Democrat talking point excerpts that he recites:
Remember the 'Flush Rush' boycott attempted by David Brock and Media Matters which called for advertisers to drop their sponsorships of Rush Limbaugh's radio show? How did that work out in the long run? According to liberal radio talk host Thom Hartmann on CNN's Reliable Sources yesterday it completely backfired because it ended up hurting liberal shows:
David Brock and Media Matters were leading the boycott Limbaugh crusade, which did presumably some damage to the Limbaugh show. I can tell you it did a lot of damage to progressive talk radio, because a lot of advertisers right across the board said just pull me out of all talk radio.
What happens when a writer with a left of center periodical such as The Atlantic honestly confronts the unfolding and inconvenient facts of what the Obama administration labels as the "phony scandal" of Benghazi? A reality check. Such was the case with Conor Friedersdorf who although he has enough of a libertarian streak in him to have opposed Obama's re-election, still has enough leftwing bonafides to absurdly slam Rush Limbaugh for "race baiting."
Therefore it must have come as something of a shock to the liberal bubble readers of The Atlantic to read Friedersdorf admit that he had "tuned out" Benghazi as most of the MSM reporters had done but has now changed his mind as you can see in the self-explanatory title of his article: The Attack in Benghazi: Worth Investigating After All. Here is Friedersdorf's explanation for his change of mind:
CNN found time to broadcast a story about a "neighbor from hell" but as to harsh labor union criticism of "healthcare from hell," not a word. Not only is CNN maintaining a wall of silence on union opposition, expressed in a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, to ObamaCare but pretty much the rest of the mainstream media, with the notable exceptions of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, are stubbornly remaining mum on the story despite President Obama being forced to go into campaign mode to sell his unpopular healthcare law.
To read the MSM stories about opposition to that unpopular law, you would think that opposition comes primarily from Republicans. The fact that major (non-governmental) labor unions are now harshly criticizing it does not fit that narrative, thus the avoidance of that very inconvenient fact by the MSM. And the criticism by the unions is not mild by any stretch of the imagination. It is extremely harsh as you can see in this Wall Street Journal article:
The only thing more annoying than NBC's Luke Russert acting as a blatant advocacy reporter is when he pretends to be a political pundit and little Luke did both at a press conference this week when he broadcast his opinion in the form of a question to House Speaker John Boehner at a press conference this week. It wasn't only what he said but also how he posed his question which was done in a tone of studied condescension as you can see in this video and below the fold.
Although you might wish to spare yourself the annoyance of watching insufferable Luke and his partisan brand of journalism, I promise that if you stay with this story until the end you will receive a very enjoyable comedy treat inadvertently provided by the young Russert.
Have you ever wished that errant journalists could get their noses rubbed in their own absurdities and outright falsehoods like puppy dogs who make a mess? Well, if you had been watching Meet The Press today then you would have seen Congressman Raul Labrador of Idaho do just that to the New York Times house "conservative" David Brooks who was slapped down not once but twice.
As you can see in this video and below the fold, Brooks didn't learn his lesson after being slapped down by Labrador for uttering absurdities about the Senate immigration bill. Labrador was forced to perform an encore performance after Brooks flat out uttered a falsehood. First we see Brooks describe how wonderful he thought the Senate immigration bill was:
Perhaps that isn't such an absurd question when using the logic of Chris Matthews in which almost all forms of opposition to Barack Obama can be attributed to racism. And since the setting sun almost ruined Obama's speech in Berlin by making it impossible to read his teleprompter, thus making it difficult for him to finish his speech, could old Sol be a closet racist?
Here is the video of a freelancing Matthews whining against the sun for ruining what could have been Obama's shining moment:
On his Wednesday radio show, Glenn Beck read a threat of Occupy Wall Street violence that appeared on the Web. Although no author was mentioned, it was written by DU fraudster William Rivers Pitt who has a history of involuntarily turning himself into a Web laughingstock on numerous occasions.
Remember the Karl Rove indictment hoax back in May 2006? Pitt was one of the perpetrators of that non-event. Since David Shuster of MSNBC at that time practically assured that Rove would be indicted, Pitt and his cohorts decided to deliver a "scoop" that Rove had already been indicted on May 12, 2006. When that indictment failed to materialize, Pitt changed his story a bit and declared the indictment would take place within "24 business hours." A month later when Karl Rove was still walking free, Pitt still refused to admit there would be no indictment but did issue what could best be described as a voluminous partial birth non-apology which in addition to providing reams of unintentional humor must also be of interest to mental health professionals fascinated by the vast amount of whining self-pity.
Joe Scarborough is outraged, OUTRAGED, that any senator could have opposed the gun bill which went down to defeat.
Oops! That was a month ago and it now appears that Scarborough is having second thoughts on this since he wondered aloud today if the government could be trusted with performing background checks in the light of the revelations of the IRS scandal in which that agency targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups. First let us look at Scarborough in the video below the fold in full outrage mode in April when his over the top anger at the gun bill opponents was chronicled by NewsBusters' Executive Editor, Matt Sheffield.
Apparently former congressman Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, granted the New York Times Magazine a long interview with the intent of preparing the public for a new post-tweet exposure scandal campaign for public office, most likely for New York mayor. However, if Weiner thought he could put the scandal, and the jokes, behind him he would be wrong. Although the extended profile of over 8300 words written by Jonathan Van Meter was mostly sympathetic, it just couldn't resist repeating an absolutely hilarious Weiner joke as told by former DNC chairman, Terry McAuliffe.
The Weiner joke is so funny that your humble correspondent is placing it below the fold so you have time to put down your drinks and spare soaking your screens and keyboards. Oh, and if there are any kids around, please tell them to step away since the joke is risqué. Very risqué:
Talk about hyper hypocrisy! Today on Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough slammed Quentin Taratino as a "pornographer of violence." Too bad Joe didn't have even a small fraction of such moral outrage yesterday when he and the Morning Joe crew allowed Robert Redford to ramble on and on promoting his new movie "The Company You Keep" which glorified Weathermen murderers.
Watch the video below the fold but the viewer will wonder at what point in Redford's long spiel that Scarborough or anyone else on his show challenges Redford on the fact that his movie gives sympathetic treatment to the murderers loosely based on the 1981 Brinks robbery by radicals who had previously been involved in Weathermen bombings. That robbery resulted in the murder of two police officers and a security guard. However, not a word of protest on Morning Joe about Redford being a "pornographer of violence" even those his movie gave a sympathetic portrayal of the killers.
One of the big talking points of liberal dogma is that hunters don't "need" to use AR-15 rifles for hunting. So what happens when a television correspondent praises the qualities of AR-15s for hunting wild hogs? He has to perform a bizarre sort of mea culpa by sidetracking the story a bit and asking a hog hunter if he really "needs" to use an AR-15.
Such was the case with CNN correspondent Victor Blackwell in his story about wild hog hunting on Anderson Cooper 360. First Blackwell reports on the damage caused by wild hogs to farms in Georgia as you can see in this video.
CNN has just performed a valuable public service by revealing that the director of the Americas Program at the (Jimmy) Carter Center, Jennifer McCoy, is a complete moonbat. And how did they do that? Simple. They merely quoted her.
Although McCoy is often cited in the MSM as some sort of expert on the subject of Venezuela such as in her recent USA column about the Chavez "legacy," her efforts to defend the Chavista thugs extends even to the point of completely misconstruing the opposition to vice president Nicolas Maduro's unconstitutional takeover of the presidency of that country. Here is how McCoy incorrectly describes that opposition:
Confession: I yell at my TV while watching The Ed Show and Morning Joe because Twitter spambots are also boosting those programs.
Apparently the use of spambots to boost Rachel Maddow's show which was revealed here on Saturday now includes at least two other MSNBC programs: The Ed Show and Morning Joe. This revelation was made by liberal blogger Paul Bibeau at the Goblinbooks blog. First he establishes his liberal bonafides in no uncertain terms before presenting his Twitter spam case against those programs:
Okay, Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, who is now on a three month world tour, no more called for the release of five spies for the Castro government than Rush Limbaugh actually purchased a can opener for his mother so she could eat dog food. Let me explain:
The Miami Herald reported that ironic comments by Sanchez, currently in Brazil, were misunderstood to mean she supported the release of five agents sent by Cuba to spy on anti-Castro groups in Miami:
It's a reasonable question to ask because the Extra host's interviews of celebs like Angelina and Brad couldn't have been any more of a puff piece than Kroft's starry-eyed interview of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday's 60 Minutes. A half hour of softballs were gently served up by Kroft who acted as if he were overjoyed to just bask in the glow of his interviewees who ate up almost all the time praising each other. Oh, there was the obligatory question that Kroft was almost required to ask about Benghazi but it was delivered in such a manner as to be easily deflected by Hillary before the interview returned to full empty calorie cotton candy mode.
Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead! But is Presidente Hugo Chavez of Venezuela still alive? In what might be a case of life imitating art, could the vice-president of Venezuela be attempting to replicate "Weekend At Bernie's?" To refresh your memory of that entertaining comedy movie, two young insurance executives are desperate to maintain the fiction that their boss, Bernie, is still alive at his beach house. The Venezuelan vice-president, Nicolas Maduro, is now ruling Venezuela in Hugo Chavez's absence especially since he was given the blessing as El Commandante's successor in December when we knew for sure that Chavez was still alive. However, the big question is if Chavez is still alive.
The Associated Press seems to think so based on their story that Chavez signed a decree naming a new Venezuelan foreign minister. However, the AP missed that the decree stated that it was signed on January 15 in Caracas (yellow highlight in photo below the fold) when we know that Chavez (or his body) has been in Cuba for weeks. Here is the AP report that failed to note this big descrepancy:
Being publicly identified as to whether or not you are a gun owner is fine for thee but not me.
That is the attitude of many newspaper editors and journalists as was revealed in a video produced by Project Veritas. Here is the Project Veritas explanation of what happened:
Posing as "Citizens Against Senseless Violence," we visit the homes of journalists working for Westchester Journal News, MSNBC, and the Star-Ledger. We also visited the home of Eric Holder. None will take our signs that say "THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE."
So declared the New York Times in an article almost dripping with self-righteous jubilation. This sentiment was also echoed at the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, and many other media outlets. But could they all end up eating globally warmed crow?
According to Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? that is exactly what they might be forced to do. The source upon which this "Hottest Ever" story is based is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). According to Watts' intensive research, it appears that the NCDC has been keeping two sets of data: one for public (and gullible MSM) consumption and the other the actual stats. Here is what Watts discovered: