It's only 2,000 pages.
There goes my weekend ;-)
Download a pdf of the bill by clicking: Download PelosiBill.
Thanks so much to a reader identifying himself as "EBounding," and I have know idea if that is ESPN ombudsman Don Ohlmeyer or not.
EBounding uploaded more of the ESPN segment from 2003 when Rush Limbaugh was speaking about Donovan McNabb.
Just as my extraordinary, elephant-like memory recalled it, Rush said the media rooting for McNabb to become a league dominant quarterback in the NFL was "a good thing."
That of course obliterates the argument that Rush was saying something racist, not that those who live to hate him will ever admit it.
Special thanks to EBounding here. Every other news outlet in America has edited out that part of the video for the past 5 years. EBounding, it appears, is more honest than the rest.
Watch the video below, and pay close attention when it gets to the 1:42 mark:
Got the happy news that the column I wrote last week, "How To Win The Nobel Prize In Only 12 Days" was clicked on 650,000 times when it appeared on FoxNews.com!
It was in the top 10 most read pieces that appeared on Fox for last week. Not bad since that website is ranked #40 in the US for Internet traffic by Alexa.com.
I knew the column was blowing up when I got the news that it was being cited in news stories (not opinion pieces). For instance the BBC (ranked 45th in the WORLD by Alexa) quoted me in a news item called "US Media On Obama Nobel Award."
According to the BBC, this blog is "US Media." I don't know whether that's a compliment or an insult. I'm a blogger! Cutting edge. Don't want to be lumped in with so called mainstream US media who hide opinions behind phony claims of objectivity. Justified Right is more honest than that.
MSNBC quoted me in a piece called "GOP, Even Some Liberals, Dismiss Obama's Prize."
So according to MSNBC, I'm "the GOP." Now if that were true, the GOP would be winning.
Actually I'm just having some fun with the BBC and MSNBC here. I'm thrilled they quoted me and I'm happy to get the recognition. Hope they do it regularly.
A google search on the title of my Nobel piece reveals it showing up on over 2,700 websites and search engines already. People have reprinted the piece on their blogs by the thousands.
Let me go out to my mailbox and see if any of them have sent me royalty checks........Nope! Mailbox still empty. I'm sure the checks are on their way though ;-)
The most fun of all the alerts I received about where Justified Right was linked has to be Wikipedia, in their entry on the Nobel Prize.
Since my piece is critical of the award (note that well - critical of the award, not the President) I'm sure some Wiki-Monster will go edit me out of the entry.
But it's fun to see while it lasts!
I've pointed out that the Internet seems to be scrubbed clean of any transcript or video of Rush Limbaugh talking about the media's favorable treatment of Donovan McNabb in 2003. No media outlet plays the whole segment, particularly when Rush says, "It's a good thing," which completely belies the allegation that he said something racist.
Old friend and JR reader Darren Cytryn alerted me that ESPN's Sunday Countdown has an archive, and mysteriously, the whole month of September (the month Rush was on the show) is missing.
See the page from ESPN's website with the month of September missing here.
I've written to the ESPN ombudsman Don Ohlmeyer for a copy of the segment to play on this blog.
Let's see if he responds.
From ESPN's website, this might be the reason why I can't find on the Internet a video of Rush talking about McNabb and the Media in 2003, or even an official transcript:
ESPN, Inc. doesn't release or sell copies of its programming or promos. We generally only have telecast rights to programs on our networks and not tape-distribution rights.
I'm going to write to ESPN's ombudsman to see if he will get them to release to me a copy of the segment in the interests of good journalism.
“It’s a good thing.”
I know that “It’s a good thing” is Martha Stewart’s tag line, but today it stands for two other things.
In fact, so scrubbed from the public record is the portion of Rush’s statement when he said, “It’s a good thing” about McNabb, that you can’t find a video or audio of the whole exchange between the ESPN analysts. Not even on ESPN’s website, which carries plenty of video and audio of people trashing Rush.
Perhaps my “Googling Kung Fu” isn’t that strong and the audio or video of the entire exchange is out there. If you can find it, send it to me.
In this column, I’m going to dare every news outlet in America to dig up the audio or video of the show and play the entire piece right to the point to where Rush said, “It’s a good thing” instead of editing it out. Particularly you, ESPN.
Let me recreate the scene from 2003 on the show “ESPN Sunday Countdown.”
The topic, as decided upon by ESPN producers and not Rush Limbaugh, was Donovan McNabb’s popularity despite his dismal performance. He was the highest paid player in NFL history and he seemed to be on every television commercial on every station.
His performance was awful to that point that year. He had the lowest quarterback rating in the league. His team had only won 1 game and his offense was ranked #31 in the league. He had yet to throw a single touchdown pass. Fortunately for the Eagles, their defense was highly ranked at the time.
Before Rush spoke, another analyst on the show, a former NFL quarterback if I recall, even suggested that McNabb be benched in favor of backup quarterback Koy Detmer. Although it would have been unfair, I’ve always found it curious why that analyst wasn’t called a racist for suggesting McNabb be benched just before Rush spoke.
So the ESPN topic, decided on by ESPN producers and not Rush, was McNabb’s popularity vs. his terrible play. Rush was asked to give his opinion of why it was happening.
He said, quite correctly, that McNabb was popular WITH THE MEDIA because THE MEDIA wanted to see a league-dominant black quarterback. His comment is about the media rooting for McNabb, not McNabb himself.
Here is the part of the quote often cited in writing and played on television, and you don’t have to be an English major to identify that the subject is the media, not McNabb:
"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
Limbaugh’s sin was not insulting McNabb – there was no insult. Every analyst on the show already conceded the numbers showed McNabb wasn’t playing well. Limbaugh’s sin was that he dared question the objectivity of the media, and the media decided to make him pay for it.
Seizing on the fact that he brought up race at all, every news outlet cut the last part of the quote where Rush said the media investment in McNabb was “a good thing” and they called him a racist.
However the claim of “racism!” only works if you cut out Rush saying, “It’s a good thing,” about the media and McNabb, so that’s what every news outlet in America who wanted to bury Rush did – they left truth on the editing room floor.
Is it racist to say the media, even America herself, wanted to see a league dominant quarterback? Of course not. The big narrative in football in the 1970’s and 1980’s was that the NFL had no black starting quarterbacks due to racism (which was correct), and it was certainly OK to root for a black man to become one to break that color barrier.
Now that the NFL has black starting quarterbacks, it is OK to similarly root for one to be the first league dominant QB. I’m rooting for it. It’s OK to root for that since it was racists in the NFL, not Limbaugh, who kept black players away from the QB spot for so long.
To show that it is OK to root for black men to have quarterback milestones in the NFL, take a read of this 2005 column from the Washington Post just prior to Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb squaring off in the NFC championship game. It’s loaded with quotes from prominent people both white and black about why it’s “a good thing” to root for a black man to become a league-dominant QB.
Yet no one called any of them racists.
Rush is no racist either, if you listen to the whole ESPN segment from the moment one analyst suggests McNabb be benched to the moment Rush says the media rooting for McNabb is “a good thing.”
So today I call on media to be fair and show the whole clip, highlighting this time instead of editing out where Rush said, “It’s a good thing.” Since racism sells better than non-racism, I’m going to call my bookie and bet my last dollar no media outlet will bother showing the truth. Racism gets better ratings than truth.
Earn bonus points: If you can find it, also send me a video of the segment from the ESPN show the week prior where Rush excoriated the NFL for not having enough blacks in front office jobs.
You know - 'cause he’s such a racist.
Happy Columbus Day! Sorry if your holiday celebrating America’s
Columbian beginnings will be interrupted by silly claims about Christopher
Columbus being a bad person, but it will be, by the same people who manufactured
such silly claims as JKF conspiracies, alien abductions and George Bush
Phony anti-Columbus claims of his mistreating the Indians are put forth
in books by such exceedingly bad fellows as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, whose
credentials for hating America are unfortunately honored on leftist college
campuses throughout the fruited plain.
Since academia has shut out the light of truth about Columbus, let’s
turn it back on and have a look at true history, shall we?
Detractors of Columbus fail to admit their allegations are based upon the claims of a man named Francisco de Bobadilla. Who was de Bobadilla? The man who wanted Columbus’ job as Governor of Hispaniola, that’s who, so he attempted to discredit Columbus.
Exactly how trustworthy do you suppose was the word of the man who
wanted Columbus ousted from his job so he could take it himself? About as
trustworthy as the word of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Jewish holocaust - a word
Ahmadinejad to give two years ago, coincidently at a place named for
Christopher Columbus: Columbia University.
Believing Columbus committed a holocaust against the Indians takes the
same intellectual dishonesty as believing Hitler didn’t commit one against the
Jews, and proponents of both theories have something in common – they dislike
The King and Queen of Spain did send de Bobadilla to the New World to
check on Columbus because of complaints about him. This is
important: THE COMPLAINTS WERE NOT
ABOUT HIS TREATMENT OF INDIANS. They were complaints of EUROPEANS who
weren’t getting enough out of the New World as they wanted. That means Columbus was protecting the Indians,
for those on the left who need it spelled out for you.
So de Bobadilla came and claimed to talk to people for only a few short days. He did not speak to Columbus, who he arrested on sight with his brothers and sent them back to Spain. As you could have predicted, de Bobadilla immediately assumed the Governorship for himself.
How wide of an investigation can one do in the year 1500 with no
telephones and no motorized transportation? How many people can you
actually talk to in a day in year 1500? And what of due process for
Columbus? Have his detractors nothing to say of conflict of interest? -
de Bobadilla both investigated Columbus and reaped the reward of his expulsion.
While Columbus’ modern detractors may have nothing to say of it, The King
and Queen of Spain did. They yelled
shenanigans on de Bobadilla, recalled him back to Spain and re-instated
Columbus as Admiral. de Bobadilla’s ship home was destroyed in a
hurricane and he drowned. Too bad. His trial would have given us a great
historical record of his lies about Columbus, which in turn would have forced
Zinn and Chomsky to read books instead of write them.
Contemporaries of Columbus thought he conjured up the hurricane to kill
de Bobadilla, the same way leftist loons today like Kanye West and the media
think George Bush conjured up Hurricane Katrina because he didn’t care about
New Orleans’ 9th ward.
Columbus was NOT involved in
slavery. During his first voyage a ship
of his crashed on modern day Haiti.
Having no boat left to take his men away in, Columbus founded a colony
called La Navidad (Christmas). He left
all 39 men there to start the colony.The Taino Indians killed every
white man they could find, until all 39 were dead (yet anti-Columbian
historians refuse to call the Indians genocidal).
When Columbus returned a year later expecting to find a colony
and instead found the dead bodies of his men decaying right where they fell
without burial, he went to war with the Tainos. There were 500 taken as POW’s, NOT SLAVES, and sent to
Europe. They deserved it for killing 39
The silliest claim of all is that
Columbus was a killer because his European body carried pathogens that the
Indians weren’t used to so they died of new diseases. These same people laugh at Columbus for thinking he was in the
East. That being true, he certainly had
no plan to kill anyone with diseases, the mechanism for which he didn’t
The truth is no matter who the
first Europeans were to interact with Native Americans, even if it were Zinn
and Chomsky, they were going to spread disease, much like Zinn and Chomsky
spread diseases of the brain harming history and intelligence today.
So try to ignore idiots and
hypocrites who demean Columbus today.
Take for instance Brown University, who earlier this year voted to
change the name of Columbus Day to “Fall Weekend.” The hypocrisy of course is that the Brown family was slave
traders and Brown University was founded
with slave money. Yet they didn’t
vote to change the name of the University.
Happy Columbus Day!
You can enjoy more of Lavery's work on his twitpic page by clicking here. He's really good!
This silly Nobel pick has been wonderful for laughs.
While listening to liberals on television struggle to defend the pick, they kept talking about Obama's "promising" to bring peace as deserving of a Nobel. Upon hearing that my wife asked, "If my son promises to get an A on his next test, does he get one?"
We heard some libs also argue that Obama is "attempting" to bring peace (by making speeches), therefore the attempt alone is deserving of a Nobel prize. To that my wife asked, "If my son attempts to get an A on his next test, does he get one?"
Some of my other favorites so far have been these:
"The Norwegian People's Choice Award."
"The European Equivalent of Hollywood's Walk of Fame."
Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. Over the last decade the only requirement to win the prize was that the nominee had to be critical of George W. Bush (see Al Gore, Mohamed ElBaradei and Jimmy Carter).
President Obama has broken new ground here. Nominations to win the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ended February 1. The President took office only 12 days early on January 20.
Let’s take a look at the President’s first 12 days in office from his publicized schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize:
January 20: Went to a parade. Partied.
January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an “open house” party at the White House.
January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; Re-affirmed Army Field Manuel Techniques for Interrogations; Expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that working out?);
January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.
January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.
January 25: Skipped church.
January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner swearing in ceremony.
January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.
January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.
January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning US Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.
January 30: Met economic advisors. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.
January 31: Took the day off.
February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.
So there you have it. The short path to the Nobel Peace Prize: Party, go to meetings, skip church, abort some fetuses, party some more.
It was less than a year ago when Sarah Palin was speaking to an audience in North Carolina, and she called small towns “Real America.”
Liberals everywhere suffered a collective heart attack. They immediately played the race card. So cloistered are liberals that they don’t know Black people live in small towns too.
Of course Palin’s comments had nothing to do with race. Since conservatives like to read, read her full quote below to get the context. What Sarah Palin referred to as “Real America” was “hard work” and “patriotism,” which she often finds in small towns.
Even though liberals will never believe it, Black people share the values of hard work and patriotism too, and shame on liberals for thinking Black people don’t.
Here is the full Palin quote from October 16, 2008:
"We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom."
Joe Klein of Time Magazine used the speech as an opportunity to bash white people. That kind of racism is OK with Klein and Time.
However, Jon Stewart’s reply to Palin really encapsulated the personality, intelligence and commitment to civilized discourse held by the American left. He said, “F*** You.” Not sure if that was done with or without the clown nose, Jon.
The American liberal was so apoplectic with self pity that Sarah dared to compare another part of the country favorably to their beloved seat of government power in Washington D.C., Palin eventually offered the old, “If you took it wrong, I apologize.”
So the liberal rule is that you can’t say one part of the country is “better” at being American than another part of the country. You just can’t, and if you do, you’re a racist.
Last week, President Obama told the International Olympic Committee that “Chicago is that most American of American cities…”
“Most American?” Really? If Chicago is most American, doesn’t that mean other parts of the country are less American? What parts of country do you see as having a lesser American aesthetic, Mr. President? Perhaps you are downing – small towns? Are you challenging the Americanism of those who do not live in a metropolis?
Sarah Palin’s remark was about characteristics anyone of any color can have – work ethic, patriotism, kindness, goodness and courage.
Barack Obama’s comment was not about individual character. His was about – you guessed it – race and nationality, because with our “post racial President” it’s always about race.
Since conservatives like to read, read Obama’s whole quote below to get the context:
“You see, growing up, my family moved around a lot. And I never really had roots in any one place or culture or ethnic group. Then I came to Chicago. And on those Chicago streets, I worked alongside men and women who were black and white; Latino and Asian; people of every class and nationality and religion. I came to discover that Chicago is that most American of American cities, but one where citizens from more than 130 nations inhabit a rich tapestry of distinctive neighborhoods.”
While Sarah Palin was favorably judging people solely on the content of their individual character, Obama was favorably judging people solely on the color of their skin.
I think Sarah is right. People should be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. You know, someone famous should put that in a speech. I bet it would catch on.
So what do we learn from this?
If conservative Sarah Palin says that small towns have people with good values, media paints her a racist, even though people of all colors live in small towns.
If liberal Barack Obama says Chicago is better than small towns based on nothing more than the skin color of people who live there, the media ignores it, because it’s impossible for Barack Obama to say something racist.