Wednesday, 31 December 2008
RACHEL ("THE LAMB") MADDOW & ISRAEL
Rachel Maddow is intelligent and articulate. That's the good
The bad news is that she is a LAMB. A member of the
Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade.
This brings us to Ms. Maddow's position on Israel - specifically, its attack on Gaza.
LAMBs hate Israel. They hate Israel because it is a winner. It is successful. It
is far ahead of its impoverished neighbors in so many ways.
LAMBs tend to hate countries like Israel because
they cannot be happy if anyone does better, or has more, than anyone
else (which, of course, means that they cannot ever be happy at all).
Never mind the reasons that Israel is so far beyond its Arab neighbors in
freedom and democracy, education, industry, agriculture, medicine, science, etc.
Never mind that Israel's neighbors are their own worst enemies. The
neighbors have less, so they are aggrieved and oppressed. Israel has more so it is
This brings us to Gaza.
"Palestinians" have less than almost anyone else
in the Middle East, Israeli or Arab. Never mind that for over half
a century palestinian Arabs, as a group, have forgone virtually
everything that would improve their lives. Never mind that they
have, instead, dedicated themselves to taking over Israel and killing
Jews. That's okey-dokey with the LAMB set. After all, Israel is the
bad guy. Israel has more, so it must
be the bad guy.
Three years ago, Israel left Gaza, thus giving Gazans what they claimed to want. 100% of the
land, free of all Jews. A deal that hitler would have loved to
Israel also offered to partner with Gazans in building their quality of
life. Why not? The happier and more prosperous Gaza is, the safer
Israel is likely to be. Both sides win.
But Gaza didn't work out that way. Instead of seizing the opportunity
to build a functioning, viable society, Gazans went running to hamas, allowed it
to take over the entire Gaza strip, and rededicated itself to obliterating
Israel and killing Jews. That was much more important than living in peace
When Israel finally had its fill of the daily mortars and rockets being fired at its
civilian population, it attacked. Not a "proportionate response", which
never got Israel anything but more mortars and rockets, but an attack designed
to severely damage hamas' ability to fire at Israel's cities and
So how does Rachel Maddow react to this? I'll let Jack Coleman of www.newsbusters.org tell you:
Maddow Criticizes Lack of
'Proportionality' to Israel Hitting Hamas -- While Exaggerating Civilian Deaths
Listening to Rachel Maddow's criticism of Israel for the
conflict in Gaza, I was reminded of a cartoon I saw years ago when World War II
was still vividly within memory for many Americans.
The cartoon showed a German having built what he
expected to be a toy, with the empty box and its assembled contents beside him
and a friend standing nearby. The man turned to his friend in exasperation and
said -- No matter what they send out, it always ends up a machine
Maddow is like the postwar German industry of the
cartoonist's premise -- not much versatility in the product line. Regardless of
circumstances leading to renewed conflict in the Middle East, her deconstruction
of reality places only Israel on the trigger end of a smoking gun, and guilty
for whatever actions led to its use.
Here's what Maddow imparted to her Air America
Radio listeners on Monday --
But while we're on the wild wide world of scary
tour, of course, Israel has started another war. A third straight day of
airstrikes on Gaza, the death toll now more than 300 people. Israel says they
are doing this to prevent Palestinians from firing rockets into southern
Israel. First of all, there's the question of proportionality as to how many
people those rockets have killed versus how many people the Israeli bombing
has now killed. There's also the issue of effectiveness. In the midst of this
massive air assault killing hundreds of civilians in Gaza, a rocket
fired from Gaza today killed a man and wounded seven in the Israeli town of
Ashkelon. Effectiveness. Three Israelis were also stabbed by a Palestinian in
a Jewish settlement in the West Bank today. Is there a military solution to
In a manner akin to Barney Fife charging a mugging
victim with assault for swinging back, Maddow blames Israel for having "started"
another war, instead of citing the undeniable aggressor -- Hamas. But what
lowers Maddow's comments to the contemptible is her condemnation of Israel for
alleged lack of "proportionality" in response to Hamas' aggression -- while
Maddow exaggerates the number of civilian deaths caused by the Israeli
News reports out of Gaza, such as the following
excerpt from a story earlier today in the International Herald News, don't come anywhere near Maddow's claim of "hundreds of civilians"
killed by Israel --
So far, more than 350 Palestinians - about 60 of
them civilians - have been killed, according to the United Nations. Four
Israelis - three civilians and a soldier -
You'd think being able to say "dozens" or "scores"
of civilian deaths in Gaza would suffice for Air America propagandists, but
apparently this level of carnage doesn't meet their standards.
As 2008 draws to a close, Maddow has received
abundant praise from likeminded quarters for her rapid ascension in the
punditrocracy. Among critics outside the chorus, however, is CNN anchor-reporter
Anderson Cooper, who had this to say to the Los Angeles Times --
LA TIMES: This year we saw the rise of Rachel
Maddow and Campbell Brown -- very opinionated. You haven't succumbed too much.
Do you have plans to?
COOPER: I have no plans to, no. I think
those people are really good at what they do. Rachel Maddow is an incredible
talent -- she's funny, and smart, obviously well researched on subjects. I'm
just not interested as a viewer in listening to anchors' opinions. It seems
like there's an awful lot of yelling, and this year yelling's been replaced by
sarcasm and snarkiness.
Cooper's criticism of Maddow was picked up by
wowOwow, "The Women
on the Web" blog. I was struck by one of the comments to the post --
Commentators and reporters are two different
things and comparing the two is ridiculous and a non-issue. The fact that
Cooper would require a commentator like Maddow to act like a news reporter
makes me question his understanding of the news media. Its not her job to act
like Cooper. Its not Coopers job to act like Maddow. This is
To which I say, couldn't agree more. Maddow is a
commentator, not a straight news reporter (no pun intended), nor an anchor. She
is free to pontificate about whatever she wants and, to her credit, could hardly
be more transparent in her politics.
But this doesn't mean Maddow can create her own
facts, which she did on Monday -- and not for the first time, as described in
previous posts at NewsBusters.
That is exactly what I would expect from a LAMB.
And, needless to say, Ms. Maddow also brings her LAMB views to MSNBC.
While I admit I have avoided watching her show recently (mostly due to
business/personal/family time superseding politics), I have no doubt Maddow is
as anti-Israel there as she is on her radio show.
Improbable though it seems right now, there may come a time when Gaza
collectively comes to its senses and starts valuing quality of life over
hatred and death. And if they do, Gaza has the potential to be as prosperous
Then Maddow and her fellow LAMBs will have another enemy to talk
UNCLE RAY'S 2008 YEAR IN REVIEW
Ok, this finishes the blogging for 2008. My wife and I are going to
visit family, then into New York City with dear friends for what we
hope to be a great dinner and a great night.
Since I want to wind up on a happy note, I am posting a link to one of the
funniest, most brilliant pieces I have seen all year. It was sent to me by
my west coast pal Russ, who has a talent for finding really great stuff like
So, without further ado, here is "Uncle Ray's 2008 Year In Review". And if
it doesn't make you laugh early and often, you need a humor implant.
MORE COMMENTARY ON ISRAEL'S GAZA ATTACK
Earlier today I blogged about Rachel Maddow's attitude regarding the Israeli
attack on Gaza - which is intended to cripple hamas' ability to put
Israel under daily siege.
Scott Johnson of www.powerlineblog.com has an excellent
blog about the mindset of people like Maddow. It has links to both
Alan Dershowitz and Victor Davis Hanson's commentaries as well, and is
very worthwhile reading. So I'm posting it below:
Alan Dershowitz addresses the subject of "Israel, Hamas and moral idiocy" in a Christian Science Monitor column that bears the stamp
of his characteristic verve. On the same subject, Victor Davis Hanson offers
seven moderate proposals that in their own way get at the moral idiocy Dershowitz
1) Request that 50% of Israel's air-to-ground
missiles be duds to ensure greater proportionality.
2) Allow Hamas another 1,000 free rocket
launches to see if they can catch up with the body count.
3) Have Israeli soldiers congregate in border
barracks so that Hamas's random rockets have a better chance of killing
military personnel, to ensure it can claim at least a few military
4) Redefine "holocaust" to refer to deaths of
terrorists in numbers under 400 to give greater credence to Hamas's current
5) In the interest of fairness, allow Hamas to
establish both the date that war is supposed to begin and the date when it
6) Send Israeli military advisers to Hamas to
improve the accuracy of their missiles.
7) Take down the barriers to return to Hamas a
fair chance of getting suicide bombers back inside
Fans of the idiotic version of "proportionality"
that Hanson mocks will be glad to know that Hamas is pounding southern Israel with rockets.
I doubt this will have much impact on Maddow & her LAMB friends, but
there it is anyway.
Reality is what it is, even if some people avoid it like the
THE CONTINUING SAGA OF ROLAND BURRIS
A day has passed since rod blagojevich selected Roland Burris to complete the
senate term of soon-to-be-President Barack Obama.
And "blago" has gotten exactly what he wanted. Illinois is in an uproar
and Democrats are furious and embarrassed.
But what can they do about it? Damn little, that's what.
The Illinois secretary of state, Jesse White, says he will not certify Burris
as the state's new senator. That sounds very problematic, doesn't
it? Except there is no legal need for White to do it. Here is what
the Congressional Quarterly has to say about certification:
Although the secretary of
state typically signs the certification letter and a Senate-suggested
template for the letter leaves a spot for the signature in addition to that of
the governor there appears to be no requirement under the federal or state
constitution, Illinois law or Senate rules that the secretary of State sign
off on the pick.
So although certification has become a tradition of sorts, it has no legal
standing at all (it should be noted that the AP has an
article today which indicates certification is
a requirement. Stand by for their retraction).
have Majority Leader harry reid. reid says that he and the rest of the Democratic senators will not accept
Burris into the senate. He is basing this rejection on Article 1, Section 5 of
you would logically assume that Article 1, Section 5 gives reid
the authority to keep Mr. Burris out. But it doesn't. Here are
the relevant parts of Article 1, Section 5, straight from www.senate.gov
-- complete with its own explanation of what they mean:
Well, let's see:
Mr. Burris was not elected, there are no returns to check and he personally
fits the constitutional requirements to be a U.S. Senator.
Each House shall be the Judge of the
Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority
of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may
adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of
absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may
The House and Senate decide whether their
members are qualified to serve and have been properly elected, and
determine any disputed elections. One-half plus one of each house is
necessary to make a quorum to conduct
Each House may determine the Rules of its
Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
The Senate and House each sets its own
rules, disciplines its own members, and by a two-thirds vote can expel a
member. Censure and lesser punishments require only a majority
Further, in order to punish Mr.
Burris for disorderly behavior and/or expel him from the senate, he would first
have to be a member of that body. And even then, punishment for disorderly
behavior and expulsion would relate to his personal actions, not those
of the guy who appointed him.
So all reid has done is to again
display his remarkable level of ignorance and ineptitude. Yawn....same
old same old for harry reid.
Democrats (and Republicans too, for that matter) can shun Senator Roland
Burris if they care to. They can treat him like the 2009 version of
Jefferson Smith from the great Frank Capra movie "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington",
or even worse. But I don't see how they can prevent him from being
Is rod blagojevich a corrupt scumbucket? In my opinion the answer is
clearly yes. But - and this is the big question - has he been
convicted of any wrongdoing? No he has not.
In the eyes of the law rod blagojevich is a Governor in good standing, no
more or less so than any other Governor of any other state. As such, he
has a perfect right to appoint Barack Obama's successor -- which he has
And, as pointed out in my blog yesterday, blagojevich has cleverly
selected a Black candidate to replace Mr. Obama as the one and only Black member
of the senate. For Democrats to reject Roland
Burris is for Democrats to favor a senate without any Black
This is exactly the same strategy used by the first President Bush, when he
proposed Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, for the Supreme Court
in 1991. Voting against a conservative meant also voting in favor of an
all-White Supreme Court.
I don't know Justice Thomas, but I have a feeling he is belly-laughing his
way through this one.
ROD BLAGOJEVICH....MEET DAVID PATERSON
As Democrats and media have a collective cow over rod blagojevich
appointing Barack Obama's senate replacement, I find it fascinating that they
remain 100% mute about New York Governor David Paterson being able to do
the same thing - in his case, replacing Hillary Clinton.
It is true that blagojevich stands accused of corruption and attempted
But if that is a good reason to prevent him from naming a senate replacement, what
should they be saying about someone who admitted to illegally taking campaign funds
for personal expenditures -- and returned them only when he couldn't hide it any
What am I talking about? Well, here is a story from the New York
Post of March 22 of this year which explains it:
HOT-SHEETS GOV PUTS $$ BACK 'INN'
REPAYS 2002 ELECTION FUND FOR MOTEL
By MAGGIE HABERMAN
March 22, 2008
Gov. Paterson is
reimbursing his state Senate campaign for stays at a Manhattan hotel, as his
aides revealed he'd also improperly used the account to buy suits, furniture and
a dinner with his dad.
The new revelations came
during an hourlong briefing with reporters, in which the aides struggled to
explain numerous questionable charges to Paterson's accounts from campaign
Those include payments to
a Quality Inn on the West Side where Paterson has admitted to bringing an
extramarital lover - and to sometimes using his campaign credit card when his
own didn't work.
Paterson is repaying $252
for two of the Quality Inn stays - on Nov. 9, 2002, and April 20, 2003 - because
he can't remember who stayed there, campaign lawyer Henry Berger said at the
But the new Democratic
governor also used his campaign account for other personal expenditures - a
practice that is illegal - and then reimbursed the fund several months late,
The lawyer said he found
the repayments after a limited internal review.
* A $1,430.04 check
Paterson wrote in June 2004 to cover more than $1,000 worth of clothes at the
Men's Wearhouse, and a roughly $350 tab at the club Den.
The items were listed as
"constituent services" in Paterson's filings, and there are no receipts
available, Berger said.
It is also a violation of
state election law to falsely label the reason for the campaign expenditure.
* A $637 check in July
2004 for roughly $470 worth of furniture at Taft Furniture Warehouse, an Albany
Crowne Plaza hotel bar bill and about $40 at another men's store.
* A $70 check in February
2004 to cover a post-Christmas dinner with his dad at Docks restaurant on the
* Paterson himself
reportedly said he paid a woman identified as his former lover, Lila Kirton,
$500 as a reimbursement for a donation for another candidate. But Berger
yesterday said that upon further review, it turns out there was an extensive
reconfiguration of his campaign database and she was paid wages.
Officials refused to say
whether Kirton was still romantically involved with Paterson at the time.
* After initially
refusing, Paterson aides provided late yesterday a copy of a canceled check for
$1,000 to Luiza Vizcarrando, a New Jersey woman who told The Post she barely
knew Paterson, never worked for him and didn't get paid.
The check was for "list
management," and Berger said she also did work on the database for "two weeks."
Vizcarrando couldn't be reached for comment.
Election law expert
Lawrence Mandelker told The Post, "You're not supposed to be using campaign
resources for totally personal expenses."
He added that usually
when it's reimbursed, it's "no harm, no foul," but added, "It's not the best
Paterson admitted - years after the fact and only under duress - that he illegally used thousands
of dollars of campaign funds for personal reasons. And then we
have that $1,000 check to Luiza Vizcarrando, who says she doesn't know a thing
about the money she supposedly got.
At this point it would be a good idea to post the definition of
"embezzlement". According to www.criminal.findlaw.com:
Embezzlement is defined in most states as
theft/larceny of assets (money or property) by a person in a position of trust
or responsibility over those assets.
Would you say Paterson's actions fit that description?
And just in case you think Paterson learned his lesson, read this. It
is excerpted from an
article in today's edition of The Buffalo News:
Paterson campaign funds to pay for Caribbean
Despite state savings,
critic raises questions
Paterson notes that he is financing the trip with
his campaign money instead of taxpayer dollars even though it is billed as
mostly government- related, with some politics tossed in.
But the use of campaign funds also has raised
In June, Paterson proposed limiting campaign funds
to expenditures directly related to promoting the nomination or election of a
candidate, said Blair Horner, of the New York Public Interest Research Group.
The measure, introduced late in the State
Legislatures session, was not approved.
Call us crazy, but we think campaign
contributions were raised for elections, not to subsidize lifestyles of elected
officials, Horner said. It may be a working vacation. But its not an election
swing. I know of no enclave of [New York expatriates on] St. Maarten.
So tell me; when do you suppose Majority Leader harry reid will threaten not to
seat any replacement senator selected by David Paterson?
When do you suppose the rest of the Democratic senators will demand that Paterson not pick a replacement?
When do you suppose our wonderful "neutral" media, which finally had to
notice blagojevich's corruption only after the telephone tapes made it
impossible not to, will also notice that David Paterson has no more scruples
than blagojevich does?
When will they demand his resignation, or removal from office, as they have