Justified Right

Media Matters (Not)

The left-wing website Media Matters published this critique of my recent column on why the very existence of the Birther Movement is Obama's fault.

If you don't know Media Matters, they describe their website as "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

That of course means they dedicate themselves to taking things out of context, like they did with their critique of my column.  Since it is a well trafficked site (ranked 3,700 in the US by Alexa), I'll respond.

Had they read my whole column and not a part of it, they would have noticed up front that I'm not actually in the Birther Movement. I take Obama at his word on his Hawaiian birth until someone can show me the proof he was born in Kenya, which they haven't.

My point was that Obama has not released one original document, and if he did, this whole story would be gone.  Even those who criticize my column won't venture an answer to why Obama won't just release his original birth cert and school records and punk the Birthers. 

Other than that, I'm not in this fight.

Yet Media Matters, in an apparant attempt to pull me in, noted my column where I relate the Birther's argument that Obama's parents or grandparents could have put the two Hawaiian newspaper birth announcements in those papers, becaue that's where Obama's grandparents lived.

Media Matters points to a PolitiFact.com peice, where someone interviewed  a current Hawaiian Newspaper Reporter, who said that the birth announcements come from the Department of Health, not the family.

Media Matters seems to suggest this is proving me wrong, not the Birthers.

Not only do I make clear that it is a Birther argument not mine (Media Matters ignores that) I also come to the conclusion that the newspaper birth announcements weigh against the Birthers and in favor of Obama (Media Matters ingnores that too).

Fine.  I'll let Media Matters drag me into this arguement for one brief moment.

I received a message from a commenter on JustifiedRight.com who uses the handle Scattergood.  According to Scattergood, if a baby were born outside of Hawaii (say in Kenya) the parents can later register the birth in Hawaii (you know, like if you married a Kenyan man and needed an anchor baby to keep him in the country).

Here is the Hawaiian statute Scattergood refers to:

    [§338-17.8]  Certificates for children born out of State.  (a)  Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

     (b)  Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate.  The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

     (c)  The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

Take note that this statute was passed in 1982, but Scattergood's research is that there was a similar statute in effect when Obama was born.

So, that would mean that the Newspaper birth annoucements could have been generated after Obama's parents returned to Hawaii and registered his birth.

Ok, now I'm back out of this debate.

I maintain, even more forcefully now, that Obama should release his original birth certificate and his school records to end this debate.

Any Obama-bots want to tell me a good reason why he won't?  What harm will come to him if he does?

First Pitch President - A Very Funny Email

Got this email from a friend.  Don't know the author, but a hat tip to you sir. 

I long for the days when the President was raised in America.

Enjoy:

FIRST PITCH PRESIDENT

  1.   2-Seam Fastball. Will cut down-and away.  The typical strikeout pitch.

  2.    Power-T position before the throw. Generates hip drive for max velocity.

  3. Eyes on the target.

  4. Pitching hand cocked back so batter can’t see ball during delivery.

  5. Business slacks. He ain’t here to play, he's gonna break the catchers hand.

ASSESMENT

Strike three – batter looking. Fastball looked inside coming towards plate then broke away on the inside corner.

 

 

  

1. Palm ball. Comes in slow and doesn't move.

  2. No Power-T. Right hand hanging down towards dirt.

  3. Eyes and mouth show fear that a batter will actually be in there to knock it 603 feet.

  4. Pitching hand open so batter can see ball during delivery.

  5. Blue jeans? When they asked him to throw out the first pitch he wrote a speech.

ASSESMENT

This ball will be hit so far it will need a flight attendant.

   

 

Welcome Free Republic Readers!

Thanks to the Freeper who linked to me.  I love Free Republic, and I hope you folks will keep coming back to my blog and taking part in the discussion!

Tommy

The Birther Movement Is Obama’s Fault

Trust but verify.  Ronald Reagan

It’s good practice to take a person at his word until someone shows you proof he is lying.

Barack Obama says he was born in Hawaii, and since no one has shown any proof he was born in Kenya or elsewhere, it’s OK to conclude he was born in Hawaii.

Sure his grammar school records show that he was enrolled as an Indonesian Muslim, but some people will say anything to get their kid in the right school.  It doesn’t really answer the question.

It’s OK though for others not to use my deferential standard and continue to question whether Obama was born in Hawaii.  We aren’t talking about a 12 year old qualifying to play Little League here.  There is a Constitutional mandate that the President be a natural-born citizen, and if Obama is not one, he certainly will have committed the biggest fraud since the White Sox threw the World Series.

The reason why people still question Obama’s citizen status is one-fold:  “President Transparency” has refused to release any original documents on the matter.  He can end the controversy in a day by releasing original documents, but for some inexplicable reason he refuses, and his love-struck media never asks him why he won’t.  The media instead spends hell-bent hours on making the Birther movement look like fringy, conspiracy-hungry kooks. 

You have to admit though, even if you are a devout Obama-bot, Obama’s refusal to release any original documents makes for a newsworthy story by itself.

If he really wants the Birthers to shut up, he has the power to do it by releasing the original documents.  Why not just do it then?  It’s a simple task.  Why not get rid of a conversation that has been with America since the campaign?

The issue is the subject of several lawsuits, which only seek a peek at original documents. Can anyone explain why it is smarter for Obama to spend tens of thousands of dollars and man-hours defending the suits, when he can win the lawsuit for free by showing the original documents? 

By defending the lawsuits and not showing the documents, Obama feeds the suspicion of those who already think he is lying.  That’s why this issue has the power to linger, and that’s Obama’s fault alone.

Let’s look at what Obama has released, and you will see they are hearsay documents and not best evidence.

The Birth Certificate: The certificate put on the Internet by Obama and held up by the media was created in 2007.  In the lower left corner of the form there is reference to a Hawaiian statute that was revised in November of 2001, and if you look closely at the front you can see bleeding through from the back the date stamp from 2007 when the document was created.  It’s just a certification that an original does exist.

The Birthers say:  “Then show us the original.”  Obama says, “No.”  Why?

The Newspaper Announcements:  Two birth announcements from Hawaiian local papers show Obama’s birth.  The Birthers have a couple of good arguments about them.  First, Hawaii is where Obama’s grandparents lived and it’s not unusual for grandparents to announce a birth to their friends, even if the grandson lives elsewhere. Also, if Obama’s parents lived in Hawaii then moved to Kenya when they birthed him, it wouldn’t be unusual to announce the birth in the old neighborhood for friends to see.

The newspaper announcements cut against the Birthers, but they are hearsay documents and don’t answer the citizen question any more than his grammar school records prove he is a Muslim. The original Birth Certificate will end it all, if Obama will just show it.

School Records:  The Birthers believe that Obama’s records from college and graduate school will show he matriculated as a foreign born student.  This is easy – shut them up by releasing them!  Obama’s response?  “No.”  Why?

This one reminds me of John Kerry not releasing his Yale records until after the election.  During the campaign Kerry soaked in the warm media bath that swore he was the intellectual and George Bush the dolt. When the records came out later it was quietly reported that George Bush had a higher grade point average at Yale.

Media’s penchant to cover for Democrat candidates fuels the Birther fire as well.  See as an example John Edwards’ love affair.

Financial Aid Records:  Barack Obama relishes his own personal Sonia Sotomayor-like story of how he came from a broken home and pulled himself up by his own bootstraps.  But he refuses to show how his very expensive tuition from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School were paid for.

The Birthers believe the records will show Obama received financial aid as a foreign born student.  Obama says they won’t.  Not to sound like a broken record, but releasing the records will end the controversy, and Obama refuses to do so.  Why?

The Birther movement is Obama’s fault for not releasing the records.  I hope the Birthers continue to bite his ankles until he releases the records.   He deserves nothing less.

Sgt. Crowley Don’t Let Obama & Gates Use You At The Beer Summit

False face must hide what the false heart doth know. Shakespeare, Macbeth, 1:7

 

Dear Sgt. Crowley,

Barack Obama & Henry Gates intend to use you at this summit, because neither is backing off the claim that your actions were about race.

 

They claim now that your arrest of Gates is a “teachable moment” about race relations.  To say that is to accept that your arrest of Gates was based on racism, not his own tumultuous behavior for which he was charged. You have steadfastly denied this was about race, and the 911 tapes just released prove you right.

 

But Obama and Gates can’t have you be right.  They may not be calling you stupid anymore, but don’t let their smiles fool you.  As each mimics Rodney King’s post riot “Can’t we all just get along?” line, both claim you acted racially by calling your actions a “teachable moment” about white racism against black people.

 

It’s not only Obama and Gates spouting the “teachable moment” meme.  The Sunday political talk shows were lousy with Obama-bots spouting identical talking points:  “Use Sgt. Crowley’s arrest of Gates to revisit and learn about racism in America.”

 

Don’t you fall for that, Sgt. Crowley.  Not for one moment should you concede this is a teachable moment about white racism against black people. Don’t be overwhelmed by being in the presence of the President or the grandeur of the White House. Don’t get a couple of beers in you, succumb to their smiles and think to yourself, “Well, these are a couple of nice guys, and we are trying to get along, so I’ll accept this ‘teachable moment’ idea.” 

 

For when they teach of that moment, Sgt. Crowley, you will forever be playing the role of the racist cop.  You aren’t one, nor did you act like one.  The 911 tapes show the caller never said the two men who broke into the house were black.  The dispatch call never said the two men were black.  Gates was the first to act like a racist by assuming you were one, based upon nothing more than the color of your skin.

 

Please, Sgt. Crowley, for your own legacy and for your family’s legacy, do not let them soft talk you into saying this is a teachable moment about police racism against black people, because when you do, the talk won’t be soft anymore. They will turn you into Bull Connor, the 1960’s Alabama police official who turned fire hoses and dogs on black marchers (Bull Connor was, by the way, a Democrat party official). Al Sharpton’s activist niece even called for “repercussions” against the woman who called the police. Imagine what they have in store for your reputation.  Obama, Gates and Company ultimately mean you harm, Sgt. Crowley, despite the beer.

 

Tell them at the summit that if it’s important to revisit the issue of police misconduct toward black people, it’s important to find a real instance of it.  Do not, under any circumstances, let them hang it around your neck.

 

If Obama and Gates are truly looking for teachable moments out of this incident, tell them to try these:

 

• It’s OK to call the police when you see people breaking into a neighbor’s house, no matter what color they are.

 

• If a neighbor calls the police about a burglary and it turns out it was just you breaking into your own home, thank the neighbor for watching out for your home.

 

• If a police officer arrives at your home because a neighbor saw you breaking in, offer him your identification with a smile.  For all he knows you are a burglar and he won’t know differently until you show your ID.

 

• There are laws on the books against “tumultuous behavior” in public.  They aren’t great laws because they are extremely vague. They are often used to quell a speaker who thinks he has the free speech right to yell in public, as Gates was doing. Once a police officer warns you about public disturbances, you should calm down, because you can be arrested if your free speech is done by public yelling.

 

• If ‘tumultuous behavior’ laws aren’t great laws because they are vague, that’s the fault of your legislators.  Be sympathetic to the police officer who is charged with having to figure out what public behavior is or isn’t “tumultuous.”

 

• If you really dislike ‘tumultuous behavior’ laws, elect a state legislator who promises to make it less vague.

 

• And finally, the obvious: If you start cracking on a police officer’s momma, then yeah, you’re going to get arrested for tumultuous behavior.

Kathy Ireland On The Science of Abortion

Wow. 

I'm impressed with Kathy.  She's very intelligent and articulate on the subject.  Clearly she's done a great deal of research and thinking on the issue of Abortion.

Listen in particular to how she approaches the oft stated excuse that "it's the woman's body."  Her refutation is compelling, and I must say I've not heard it put this way before:

Hat tip to my Facebook friend Missy Bosch for introducing me to the video.

Obama Channels Al Sharpton on Gates Arrest

While commenting last night on the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, President Obama said two things that proved he should have said nothing.  Here they are:

1. 1.  “I do not know all the facts.”
2. 2.  “The police acted stupidly.”

Sigh.

It makes you wonder how many other conclusions this President makes without first knowing all the facts.

His position in the Gates matter, as is Al Sharpton’s position on every matter involving an African American and a police officer, is that there is nothing Gates can do while standing on his own property to warrant getting arrested.  That of course is wrong.

 A read of the police report would have given Obama the rest of the facts and a clue that maybe the President of the United States, charged as the head of the Executive Branch with law enforcement, should have stayed out of it and not insulted the police officers.

Someone saw a man breaking into a house and called the police. Gates had apparently locked himself out and was breaking in.  Since the person didn’t know Gates, she did the right thing to call, and the police did the right thing to come.

When the police arrived and told Gates they needed to see ID, he should have cooperated.  He should have showed his ID, laughed at the situation and above all thanked his neighbor for her diligence in calling the police when she thought, with good reason, the house was being burglarized.

Instead, Gates became indignant and refused to show ID.  Why in the world would he choose that? Diffusing the situation rested with him, but HE chose to make it worse – not the police officers.

Now put yourself in the officer’s position:  You are on a call that a man broke into the house, and the man you encounter there is belligerent and refusing to show ID.  If Gates wasn’t originally a burglary suspect in the mind of the police officer, he made himself one, and has no one to blame but himself and his bigoted notion that a white cop is prejudiced.

Gates then began yelling to the police, “THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA!”  Actually Mr. Gates, it happens to men of every color in America who are seen breaking into a house, even if it’s their house. 

Still though, so far so good for Gates. He’s in his own home and can shout what he wants.  Then Gates changes things.  Not the police officers mind you – Gates changes things.

As the police leave he follows them out to his front porch.  With juvenile belligerence he tells the officer "ya, I'll talk to your momma outside!"  He then starts to rile up the growing crowd of people against the officers.  He continues to yell,  “THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA!”  He began shouting to the crowd that the officers were racists.  He was making a public scene.  He wouldn’t let up and was creating a disturbance.  Not the officers – Gates was.

Massachusetts has a law on the books against “tumultuous behavior” in public, as do most states in America.  Now, you might disagree with that law as much as I do.  It is so vague that people are unclear how to follow it. It leaves enough discretion to officers that it often leads to arrests that flirt with stifling free speech. A bad law is the fault of the legislature, not the police. Write to your legislators to get it revised. 

The police have the burden of trying to enforce the law as written.  Gates was screaming in public, gathering a crowd and trying to turn them against the police officers.  A situation like that, if allowed to fester long enough, could grow into something bad. Despite repeated police requests to stop his now public disturbance, Gates continued so they arrested him.

Whether “tumultuous behavior” is a good or bad law or whether Gates perfectly violated it do not speak to the police officer’s conduct here.  It was a legitimate arrest in furtherance of a statute that is on the books, and Gates brought it on himself with behavior which, ironically, revealed his own bigotry toward white people. 

The police did not act “stupidly.” Obama, in admitting he came to a conclusion without knowing the facts, acted stupidly himself.  Also, in condemning white cops as a group and not judging each on the content of his own character, Obama spoke as a racist does.  Sharpton must be proud of him today.

NY Times Columnist Tom Friedman Calls American Troops "Dumb"

Thomas Friedman is a pompous donkey.

In his OP ED piece today he calls American troops "dumb" but tries to cover by saying he means  that in a good way.

No kidding.  He really said that.  Here's his quote:

"I’ve long argued that there should be a test for any officer who wants to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan — just one question: “Do you think the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?” If you answer “yes,” you can go to Germany, South Korea or Japan, but not to Iraq or Afghanistan. Well, this war has produced a class of officers who are very out-of-the-box thinkers. They learned everything the hard way — not in classes at Annapolis or West Point, but on the streets of Fallujah and Kandahar.

I call them: “The Class Too Dumb to Quit.” I say that with affection and respect. When all seemed lost in Iraq, they were just too stubborn to quit and figured out a new anti-insurgency strategy."


Tom Friedman is dumb enough to look in a mirror to see if his eyes are closed.  But I mean that in a good way.

So let's see if I have the Tom Friedman logic cornered here:

The soldiers were dumb because they persevered.  I guess that means to quit is to be smart.  There goes his chance to rail against the Sarah Palin resignation.  He'll be forced to call her smart to be consistent.

Friedman concedes that what the soldiers did is working: "they figured out a new anti-insurgency strategy." I see their victory as confirmation that they were smart and  Friedman is stupid, that they were right and he was wrong.  But Friedman can't have that.

Instead he is condescending and takes on the whine of the loser - sure you soldiers were right in the end - but you're still dumber than me!

This is nothing new for Friedman.  He has written columns calling all Americans dumb.

What is it with liberals who are wrong insisting those who are right are dumber than them?  Remember John Kerry calling the troops stupid?  Recall his words:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Funny how John Kerry, whose grade point average was lower than George Bush's average, didn't get stuck in Viet Nam very long.  What was he there - three months?

Liberals love to call American servicemen and women dumb.  Why do liberals hate America?

Obama: I'll Bring "Inefficiencies" To Health Care

Yet another gaffe by the teleprompter addicted, most gaffe-tastic President of all time.  Or perhaps a Freudian slip.

The good news is Saturday Night Live has announced that Obama has had so many speaking gaffes they are finally going to start calling him dumb and writing endless skits dedicated to what a terrible speaker he is.

Just kidding.  They're going to write more skits about how smart he is.

Enjoy the vid:

Great Minds Think Alike

Much like my analysis of the Sotomayor Word Count Score found here, Patrick Gavin over at Politico did a similar analysis of the transcripts.  Patrick's is here.  We both found the Senators out-talked Sotomayor 2 to 1.

I'm sure Patrick has been receiving as much ribbing from friends as I have about having "too much time on my hands" for counting each word uttered at the Sotomayor hearings.

To those people Patick and I would like to say, "You see, there's this thing called a computer, and it has something called a word count function, and..."

More Monmouth Musings Running My Piece On the Christie/Guadagno Presser

Read the column about the Press Conference here.

This election is going to get national attention.  Newt Gingerich has already called the NJ and VA governor's races two of the most important elections in American history.

SOTOMAYOR HEARING WORD COUNT SCORE - DAY 4

I predicted that at the Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, the Senators would vogue for the cameras longer than a French waif on a fashion runway.  I was certainly proved correct on Day 4 ( as I was on Day 1, Day 2 and Day 3).

While absolutely refusing to give up the microphone long enough to allow us to learn anything important about the nominee, on Day 4 the rambling Senators out-spoke her 21,188 words to 9,304 words.

One exception was Senator Al Franken.  Perhaps foreshadowing the rest of his Senate career, he committed an act of Senatorial negligence by practically giving up his chance to ask the judge any questions at all, in what was the shortest exchange of the hearings.  Perhaps Senator Franken just didn't understand the importance of holding a seat on the committee, and the concomitant responsibility that comes with it to make the nominee talk.

Here is the roundup of words spoken during each Senator's examination of Judge Sotomayor on Day 4:*

Kyl:                   2139     Sotomayor:        1288

Feinstein:          708       Sotomayor:          489

Graham:           2068      Sotomayor:          789

Klobuchar:        1105       Sotomayor:          737

Cornyn:            1528       Sotomayor:        1200

Specter:           1824       Sotomayor:          746

Coburn:            2096       Sotomayor:          924

Franken:            278       Sotomayor:          425

Sessions:          1355      Sotomayor:           105

Hatch:              1009       Sotomayor:          297

Grassley:            499       Sotomayor:          500

Kyl:                   1065      Sotomayor:          569

Graham:            1377      Sotomayor:          108

Cornyn:               558      Sotomayor:          691

Coburn:               837      Sotomayor:          324

Leahy:                 518      Sotomayor:           75

Sessions:             431      Sotomayor:            36

*Senators Leahy and Sessions spoke outside the examination process as well.

After Judge Sotomayor finished testifying, a number of witnesses were called on Day 4.  Interestingly, in that one shortened day the Senators and the witnesses managed to speak more than 54,000 words, over 5,000 more words than the Senators allowed Sotomayor to speak over her 4 days of testimony.

Here is the final 4-day total of words spoken just during the examinations of Judge Sotomayor:

Senators:        95,592 (66%)

Sotomayor:     49,176 (34%)

So the Senators held a hearing, the purpose of which was to find out as much as we could about Sonia Sotomayor, and we ended up listening to the Senators speak 2/3rds of the time instead of her.

Smile for the camera's, voguing Senators.  Maybe you can go on tour with Madonna.

A very HUGE tip of the hat goes to Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times "Top of the Ticket" blog, who was kind enough to supply me and the rest of the world the transcripts of the Sotomayor hearings each day.

Sotomayor Hearing Word Count Score - Day 3

Well the effusive Senators out-talked Sonia Sotomayor again on Day 3, but this time by a much smaller margin, beating the Judge by only 1,222 words.

For a moment it seemed promising that the Senators were finally yielding the floor to the Judge and letting her talk when Senator Kaufman's questions amounted to only 950 words while Sotomayor's answers were 3,140 words, by far the most talking the Senators allowed her to do all day.

Senator Specter then saved the reputation of Senators as talkative blowhards when he out-spoke Judge Sotomayor 2,760 words to 1,160 words.

Here are the Day 3 word totals for each Senator, compared to the words Sotomayor spoke back to them:*

Cornyn:        1778
Sotomayor:   2523

Cardin:         2615
Sotomayor:   1873

Coburn:        1739
Sotomayor:   2027

Whitehouse:  1606
Sotomayor:   1794

Klobuchar:     2184
Sotomayor:   2498

Kaufman:      950
Sotomayor:   3140

Specter:       2764
Sotomayor:  1160

Franken:      2040
Sotomayor:  1743

Feingold:     789
Sotomayor:  334

Grassley:     1414
Sotomayor:  1500

Cardin:        889
Sotomayor:  508

*Senators Leahy and Sessions, as well as Judge Sotomayor also spoke outside of direct examination.

Here are the Day 3 totals:

Senators' words:           20,322
Sotomayor's words:      19,100

Here are the totals for all three days of the hearing:

Senators:          71,404 words

Sotomayor:       39,872 words

All told through Day 3, the Senators have spoken 64% of the time, and Sotomayor 36% of the time.

Good grief.

      

Welcome Los Angeles Times Readers!

And thank you Andrew Malcolm from "Top of the TIcket" blog for the bump!!!!

SOTOMAYOR HEARING WORD COUNT SCORE - DAY 2

At the start of the Sotomayor Senate Confirmation Hearings I made a prediction that the Senators, so acutely aware of the cameras, would pose and vogue in the spotlight, taking away time for the nominee to speak.

I predicted we would hear far more words from the Senators than from Sotomayor.

Since blogger Andrew Malcolm over at the LA Times blog "Top of the Ticket" is doing the hard work of posting the transcripts everyday, I decided to count the words and see if my prediction was true.

Day One which consisting of Opening Statements proved me right.  See those numbers here.

Day Two, the start of questioning, again showed the Senators more interested in the sound of their own self-serving "monologues pretending to be questions" than the were hearing from Judge Sotomayor.

Here is the breakdown showing the number of words spoken by each Senator during their questioning of Sotomayor and the number of words Sotomayor used in answering their questions:

Senator Leahy:*        2284   Judge Sotomayor:    2172
Senator Sessions:*   2688     Judge Sotomayor:   1756
Senator Kohl:        1649    Judge Sotomayor:   2297
Senator Hatch:      2571    Judge Sotomayor:   1843
Senator Feinstein:  1695    Judge Sotomayor:   1797
Senator Grassley:   1292    Judge Sotomayor:   2392
Senator Feingold:   2625    Judge Sotomayor:   1577
Senator Kyl:          3404    Judge Sotomayor:   1369
Senator Schumer:  2539    Judge Sotomayor:    1708
Senator Graham:   2785    Judge Sotomayor:   1347
Senator Durbin:     2465    Judge Sotomayor:   1528

* Senators Leahy and Sessions, as the Master of Circucs Ceremonies, have also had plenty of other words to say at the hearing outside of their examination of Judge Sotomayor.

Here are the Day Two totals for words spoken:

Senators:                 27,907    

Judge Sotomayor:  19,786

Here are the spoken word totals for both days:

Senators: 

51,082

Judge Sotomayor:

20,728

The purpose of this hearing is to find out what we can about Judge Sotomayor, but the Senators are talking instead of her more than 70% of the time.

Good Grief.

Sotomayor Hearing Word Count Score

Yesterday I lamented that confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices tend to waste ridiculous amounts of time with speeches by camera-posing Senators. That eats the time we should be using to allow the nominee to speak so we can learn about her.

Learning what Sotomayor thinks and not what the Senators think is the point, isn't it?  Unfortunately, if there is a camera around, the Senators will pose like voguing Madonnas. They'll blow off the important work of cross-examination to opt instead for "attention-whore" speeches to make the folks back home know how smart they are.  They'll even pose their questions with monologues.

I predict that when it's all over, we will have heard more words from the Senators than from Sotomayor.

Last night I fished around the web for a transcript of the entirety of the first day's hearing.  I got lucky and found it posted by blogger Andrew Malcolm over at the LA Times blog "Top of the Ticket."

If Andrew posts the full transcript of each day's hearings, I promise to count the words each day.

Here is the spoken word tally from Day One:

 

Senators:      23,175

Sotomayor:        942

 

Good grief.

What I Hate About Judicial Confirmation Hearings...

The Senate confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor are underway and right from the get go I'm reminded of what I hate about these hearings:  The speeches.  Those long-winded, unnecessary, pose-for-the-camera speeches by Senators.

I already know Orrin Hatch and Dianne Feinstein.  In this forum I don't need to hear  (agiain) what they know or what they think.  This hearing isn't about whether anyone is going to vote for them next election.  It's about whether I want them to vote for Sotomayor.

I can only learn about Sotomayor if the Senators ask her questions and let her talk.

If I were running these hearings I'd ban all opening remarks by Senators beyond "Good morning."  Force them to dive right into the questions.  I'd also put a time limit on asking the acutual questions so that we don't hear, as we usally do, an extended monologue by a Senator followed by a simple question.

That's just a fantasy.  I predict more words will be spoken by the Senators than by Sotomayor during these hearings.  I wonder if there is someone out there who can count the words.

Barack Obama Likes Big Butts; Impresses Sarkozy

BABY GOT BARACK!

YES WE "CAN!"

Here we see President O-bum-a "eye-molesting" a young lady's derriere.

The look on French President Sarkozy's face is PRICELESS.

I hope this photo becomes as famous as Ruth Orkin's 1951 photo "An American Girl In Italy:"

By the way the girl in the Obama photo, Mayara Tavares, is 16 years old.  That's about 6 years younger than Monica Lewinsky was when Bill Clinton decided he liked girls half his age.

Tavares is 1/3 Obama's age.  Pretty gross, Barack.

I wonder if the Obama/Sarkozy eye-candy photo explains anything about this shot:

So far this morning I've seen both ABC and NBC defending Barack.  You know, like they did with Governor Mark Sandford.

Sir Mix a Lot, Sponge Bob and the Burger King are all not impressed:

Update:

Here's another "Obama likes Butts" shot of the Commander In Cheeks. Thanks for making us look so distinguished in the eyes of the world, Barack:

Palin Proves The Problem With Journalism Is Maureen Dowd

        

Sara Palin, Official Photo                           Maureen Dowd, Mall Glamour Shot?

The one-two punch thrown by Democrats and their counterparts in mainstream media have probably cost Alaska the governorship of Sarah Palin. 

 

Sarah has provided two reason for stepping down as Alaska’s governor:  1) The money she and the state have had to spend defending against 15 ethics complaints, all dismissed, and 2) The endless attacks against her spouse and children by Democrats, the media and those in pop culture.

 

Politics is officially a rich person’s sport – so long as you are rich enough to defend yourself against a string of baseless complaints you can stay.

 

Also, the children of Republican politicians are now a target-rich environment for Democrats and media demagogues.  It makes you wonder how many good people otherwise willing to serve, perhaps even better than those serving us now, are deciding to stay away from politics because of ruthlessness from Democrats and the media.

 

Let’s look at both issues.

 

Right down to the level of local politics, Democrat strategy is to bring ethics complaints against Republicans in the months leading up to an election.  The goal is pure smear.  After the election the complaints are dismissed or abandoned, as they are no longer useful against the Republican candidate. 

 

Even baseless complaints have to be defended.  In Sarah Palin’s case, she racked up a few hundred thousand dollars in legal bills and Alaskans spent even more for administrative costs. It gets in the way of governing.

 

The solution here is for Alaska to pass a bonding law.  Anyone filing an ethics complaint against a candidate within a year of an election should be required to post a bond to cover the costs should the ethics complaint be found to be baseless or abandoned.

 

On to Democrats beating up kids. That didn’t start with the Palin teenagers.  It started in 2004 with Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary.

 

During John Kerry’s debate with George W. Bush, Kerry brought up that Mary Cheney is a lesbian.  During John Edwards’ debate with Dick Cheney, Edwards brought up that Mary Cheney is a lesbian.

 

If a Republican were to bring up lesbianism, the left would scream that they were trying to rally their homophobic base.  What Kerry and Edwards were trying to do was, exactly that – rally the Democrat homophobic base.

 

Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill was interviewed about why Kerry and Edwards kept bringing up Mary Cheney being a lesbian.  Her response:  She called Mary Cheney “fair game.”

 

“Fair game” is a hunting term, used to identify which animals one can shoot.  Can you imagine the outrage were a Republican to call a woman “fair game” because she is a lesbian?  No Republican would, but the Democrats did.

 

It was the first time in American history that either party officially announced that they were intentionally attacking the family members of opposing candidates.  Democrat politics have been uglier ever since.

 

Sarah Palin walked right into the new world of Democrat child abuse.  As soon as Sarah was announced as the Veep choice, the Obama Campaign, Democrats and their media Igor sidekicks floated every rumor and joke they could think of about the Palin family, from Sarah’s baby being her daughter’s right up to Letterman’s rape joke about 14 year old Willow Palin.

 

Don’t think of Sarah when you hear these jokes.  Think of the two teenage girls who have to take it from Democrat adults, who are forced to suffer public abuse they may not be mentally ready to take, for no other reason than their mother wished to serve her country.

 

In the next Presidential election Malia Obama will be 14 like Willow Palin.  Should conservatives go at her with both barrels, tease her, ridicule her and hurt her every time she turns on the television?  Hell no.  Conservatives wince at the thought, even while knowing Democrats have positioned our children as “fair game.”  It is the burden of those who set the high moral bar to live by it, even has Democrats pass underneath the bar in an effort to hurt our families.

 

Sarah Palin is a woman who came up through the ranks from local politics to the governorship, which used to be honored as paying your dues through gradual experience.  To hammer Sarah, the Democrats and the media turned starting from the bottom into something bad.  Democrats believe it’s more respectable to spend $80 million of your own money buying your first elected office as US Senator, as did NJ Democrat Jon Corzine.

 

In the 20^th century 8 men rose from governorships to the Presidency. Most had not a lick of foreign policy experience (like Reagan or Clinton). A governorship became the standard for pre-Presidential experience, and if you hadn’t been a governor and were standing for President, you had some explaining to do.  Yet for Palin, the Democrats and the media threw out the governorship standard, when the only difference between Sarah, Reagan and Clinton was that she is a woman.  Misogyny was used to tear apart Sarah.  So-called feminist groups have only been heard to applaud it.

 

So what does all this have to do with Maureen Dowd, political columnist for the erstwhile “paper of record” the New York Times?

 

When Sarah Palin announced her resignation she did so with the complaint that the media was relentless in ridiculing her and her family.  Dowd stood at the crossroads of choice: She could pen a column acknowledging some of Palin’s good works - like taking on her own party, fighting corruption and gaining unmatched popularity in her home state.  Or, Dowd could continue down the road of journalism as pro-wrestling and throw a mindless, Hulk Hogan smack-down on Palin (thus proving Palin’s point).

 

We know what a journalist would do.

 

Here is what Maureen Dowd did (I won’t reprint her whole column, just the names and adjectives she used on Sarah):

 

Caribou Barbie, nutty puppy, exquisite battiness, erratic, egoistic, narcissistic personality disorder, grandiosity, need for admiration, lack of empathy, loopy, solipsistic meltdown, strange, incoherent, breathless, prickly, thin skinned, country-music melodrama, reckless, ga-ga, crazy like a fox, crazy, casuistry, girlish burbling.

 

You don’t need any other words from Dowd’s column to understand it, because the entirety of it was this ad hominem attack. Such is the state of journalism post-liberal takeover. Reason is dead and yellow journalism soars. Dowd no longer even tries her hand at political analysis with intellect.  She has gone form Pulitzer Prize, to plagiarism to name-calling. 

 

Stay classy, New York Times. As for Dowd, maybe Vince McMahon’s WWE wrestling needs a commentator.

I Dare You Not To Cry. I Triple Dog Dare You.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Happy Independence Day!

Take a moment to review the Declaration if Independence today to honor why we created this great nation and what we believe.

Then go have some fun!  One of the best byproducts of freedom in America is all the fun we have in our pursuit of happiness.

So here's some fun:

 

Rockets' Red Glare and Bombs Bursting In Air On July 4th?

           

Tomorrow we may see the most interesting fireworks show in the history of Independence Day.

North Korea is planning to test an ICBM, quite possibly fired in our direction (you know, because they aren't part of the axis of evil).

President Obama may shoot it down when Kim Jong Crazy fires it.

I hope he does.

Here is what it may look like:

Bush Vindicated On Iraqi WMDs By Hussein’s FBI Interview

File this one in the “we’ve been telling this to liberals all along” folder.  Saddam Hussein intentionally made the world believe he had WMDs.  Liberals can finally stop bad mouthing former CIA director George Tenet.

The National Security Archives has just published reports of more than two dozen conversations between Saddam Hussein and Arabic speaking FBI agent George Piro.

The conversations make clear that America had a very good reason to invade Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction in 2003 and Saddam Hussein supplied that reason himself.

By way of background (for the sake of liberals who ignore it or conveniently pretend not to know it) Saddam Hussein agreed to no longer have weapons of mass destruction at the conclusion of the first Gulf War in 1991.  It was either agree to that, or risk Stormin’ Norman Schwartzkopf continuing through Iraq and deposing him.

Consistent with the ceasefire agreement, UN Resolution 687 was passed and Iraq agreed to it.  In UNR 687 Saddam agreed not only to forgo having WMDs, but to two other very important things:

1. The public destruction of the WMDs he possessed, and

2. Continuing inspections to make sure he didn’t produce more.

Schwartzkopf once noted how badly Saddam Hussein tended to miscalculate on the battlefield.  The FBI interviews now reveal his political miscalculations gave George W. Bush no choice but to invade Iraq. 

In a conversation with Piro on February 13, 2004, Hussein admitted that Iraq accepted UNR 687, but said that he made a mistake in destroying some weapons without UN supervision.

Mistake?  That’s an understatement.  Consider where that “mistake” ultimately left America – having to take Saddam Hussein at his word that he destroyed the weapons privately, in the face of his agreement to do so publically.  Consider too that weapons inspector Hans Blix’ admitted Iraq had fooled him in the 1980’s by hiding their nuclear program form him as an IAEA inspector, and it’s clear Bush had no reason to take Saddam at his word.

Which raises the issue of the foreign policy inexperience of our current President who, while knowing the above, was against America going into Iraq to look for weapons and therefore would have taken Hussein at his word.

If you are thinking of letting President Obama off the hook because ultimately no weapons were found, consider that in June 2000 Hussein gave a speech saying he WOULD NOT disarm unless the whole region had disarmed.  That’s an admission that he still had the weapons.

In a conversation with Piro on May 13, 2004, Hussein said he actually didn’t consider that his June 2000 statement would give the impression that he still had weapons of mass destruction, and he would be glad to make a statement clearing that up.  Talk about closing the barn door after the horse is out – America had already invaded and Hussein was in American custody by then.

In a conversation with Piro on June 13, 2004, Hussein reversed himself and spoke of his reason for giving the June 2000 speech that led the world to believe he still had WMDs.  He felt Iran wanted to invade and annex all of southern Iraq.  He felt that the rest of the Arab countries were too weak to do anything about it.  This passage from Piro’s report sums up best why Hussein intentionally led the world (Obama included) to believe he still had WMDs:

“Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.  In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq…Hussein indicated he was angered when the United States struck Iraq in 1998.  Hussein stated Iraq could have absorbed another United States strike for he viewed this as less of a threat than exposing themselves to Iran.”

There’s that miscalculation Schwartzkopf spoke of.  Hussein thought it better for America to think he had WMDs than for Iran to know that he didn’t.  Someone should have told him to be careful what he wished for.

Iraq agreed to UN 687 as a quid pro quo for ending the 1991 war.  He not only violated it by refusing to publically destroy weapons or allow inspections, but he subsequently ignored almost a dozen UN resolutions commanding he comply, some of which warned him of military consequences for non-compliance.  Now we know why – fear of Iran.

Assume you are President of the United States in 2003.  Would you invade Iraq to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction if you know this? –

1. Hussein used WMDs in previous wars;

2. He had in the past tricked IAEA inspector Hans Blix and hid his nuclear program from Blix;

3. Hussein violated his agreement to publically destroy WMDs, and asked UN inspector Hans Blix to please believe him this time that he did;

4. Hussein stopped the UN inspections in Iraq;

5. Hussein made a speech in June 2000 that made clear he still had WMDs.

It’s unfathomable that President Obama, knowing the above, would not have gone in to look for WMDs. What would it take to move him, a mushroom cloud on US soil? President Bush responded correctly by not taking Hussein the liar at his word. He made the right call by invading Iraq to confirm the status of WMDs once and for all.

Case closed.

Limbaugh: "Michael Jackson flourished under Reagan, languished under Clinton and Bush, died under Obama"

Only Conservatives who watch this video will catch on to the great compliment Rush pays to Michael Jackson about exceptionalism that comes from individualism, which is the centerpiece of conservative thinking.

For libs, that will fly right over their heads with no understanding of it whatsoever.

Enjoy the vid: