Tuesday, 17 March 2009
TALK RADIO: A CHANGE IN THE (DEMOCRATIC) PARTY LINE
In his latest blog, Brian Maloney of www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com
is either laughing or sneering at the Democratic Party and its willing gofers at
the Los Angeles Times. The reason? A sudden about-face from claiming
conservative talk radio is the scourge of the planet to disdaining it as
irrelevant and on the way out.
Sound a little bizarre? Well, here's the blog. Decide for
Curious Shift In Coverage Of
Conservative Talk Radio
Radio's Impact, Dems, Media Suddenly Shift Gears
a remarkable coincidence,
a temporary shift away from the White House's anti-Rush
Limbaugh attack strategy has been closely
followed by a Los Angeles Times
"conservative talk radio on the wane" in the nation's most populous
Amazing, isn't it: just two weeks
ago, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of talk radio were a national menace, out to
destroy Barack Obama's presidency and with it, America's chance for "hope and
Democrats were so focused on Limbaugh that they cooked up an anti-Rush billboard advertising
campaign designed to convert West Palm
Beach's liberals into ... (wait, what exactly was that about again?) For weeks,
in fact, they could hardly talk about anything other than their
disdain for El Rushbo.
all of that was a false alarm. Talk radio, it turns out, really doesn't matter
at all, according to the Times. But in
taking a look beyond the headline, one sees the sheer dishonesty in their approach:
But for all the anti-tax swagger and
the occasional stunts by personalities like KFI's John and Ken, the reality is
that conservative talk radio in California is on the wane. The economy's
downturn has depressed ad revenue at stations across the state, thinning the
ranks of conservative broadcasters.
that and other reasons, stations have dropped the shows of at least
half a dozen radio personalities and scaled back others, in some cases
replacing them with cheaper nationally syndicated
Casualties include Mark Larson
in San Diego, Larry Elder and John Ziegler in Los Angeles, Melanie Morgan in
San Francisco, and Phil Cowen and Mark Williams in Sacramento.
the biggest in the business, Roger Hedgecock in San Diego and Tom Sullivan in
Sacramento, have switched to national shows, elevating President Obama above
Schwarzenegger on their target lists.
Another influential Sacramento
host, Eric Hogue, has lost the morning rush-hour show that served as a prime
forum to gin up support for the recall of Gov. Gray Davis. Now he airs just an
hour a day at lunchtime on KTKZ-AM (1380).
"It's lonely, it's quiet,
and it's a shame," Hogue said of California's shrinking conservative radio
world. "I think this state has lost a lot of benefit. I don't know if we can
grow it back any time soon."
The immediate question facing the state's
conservative radio hosts is whether they can wield enough clout to block
Schwarzenegger's ballot measures in May. They portray them as reckless
proposals that would hasten California's economic decline. The worst, they
say, is Proposition 1A, which would extend billions of dollars in tax
increases for an extra two years, even while it imposes a spending cap long
sought by conservatives.
In a special election likely to draw a dismal
turnout, they hope that those most upset by the $12.5 billion in new taxes
will be the ones most strongly motivated to cast ballots. Their inspiration is
Proposition 13, the 1978 ballot measure that capped property-tax
local talk radio is on the decline, because nearly-bankrupt broadcast operators can no longer
afford them. But the paper never explains
what those reasons might be, even though they are unrelated to talk's own
As we've been chronicling for
several years here at the Radio
Equalizer, talk radio is performing as well as ever, if not better,
but is suffering from deteriorating overall industry
conditions. Station owners are struggling
under huge debt loads
caused by overpaying for purchases at the peak of the market several years
In addition, music formats have been abandoned by many young people
and some corporate suits remain hostile to talk
radio, despite its unparalleled
Yes, that has thinned talk radio's local ranks, particularly in hard-hit
California. But is it really on the wane? Not exactly.
Also omitted from
the story is any mention of the almost complete collapse of liberal talk radio
in the Golden State. Not only have that format's local hosts been sacked,
several of its outlets have been shut down entirely.
While there's no question that conservatives
would be better suited with more local hosts covering area topics, the attempt
by the Times to mislead readers comes across as a bit on the shady side,
especially given a headline that suggests talk radio is down across the
To avoid inevitable public confusion, the left ought to get its
story straight: is talk radio a threat to America, or no longer relevant? When
they've come to a decision, it would be a good idea to inform the voting
Y'know, the Democratic Party and the LA Times should really be
more careful. Someone might just conclude they are in cahoots with
POLL NUMBER MUSINGS
I just took a quick look at the political research on www.pollingreport.com and came across
this series of questions from a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.
Let me show you the questions, people's responses to them, and give you some
insight of my own:
The first question, though
extremely broad, is pretty straightforward. Ok, people favor Mr.
Obama's handling of the economy by 59% - 40%. (I have a feeling that two
weeks ago it would have been substantially lower, but that's just me.)
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll.
March 12-15, 2009. N=1,019 adults nationwide. MoE
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is
handling the economy?"
"In general, do you hope that Barack Obama's policies will
succeed or do you hope that his policies will
"And in general, do you think it is more likely that Obama's
policies will succeed or more likely that his policies will
"If the economy does not improve over the next 12 months, whose
policies would you blame for that: the policies of George W. Bush and the
Republicans, or the policies of Barack Obama and the
The second question is highly amusing. I sense that it is CNN's way of
trying to "prove" that Rush Limbaugh is out on a limb(augh) when he says he
wants Mr. Obama to fail.
If so, there is a bit of a problem. Limbaugh did not simply wish
for Barack Obama to fail, he wished for failure in a specific context that is
not reflected in the question.
To make the question coincide with what Limbaugh actually wished
for, CNN would have had ORC word the question as
"Assuming you feel that Barack Obama's policies
will seriously damage the country, do you hope those policies will
succeed or do you hope that his policies will fail?"
But, then again, that wording would have generated dramatically different
results, wouldn't it? We can't have that, can we?
The third question is, of course, entirely speculative. But it is
written well and the answers are what they are.
Then we come to the final question of the series. This is the one
that really gets to me.
We have a Democratic President. We have a Democratic congress and
have had it for the past two years. But, according to the sample, if
our economy fails over the next year, by 54% - 32%, the culprits will
be President Bush and Republicans.
In other words, if these data are accurate a majority has been convinced that
if we have a failed economy in March of 2010:
-It will not be the fault of a President in office over a year and a
congress that has been run by his party since 2007.
-It will be the fault of a President who left office in January of 2009 and
a party that has not controlled congress since December of 2006.
I often talk about how many people have been made ignorant by
mainstream media. Read those data again and see what I
MORE EUROPE BS
Europe tosses around a lot of BS. Some of it involves pledges of money
for disaster relief - which, sad to say, often is never followed through
on. Here's another facet of European BS, this one related to the war
It comes to us via the following excerpt from an article in
today's International Herald Tribune:
Europe hedges on
European countries that have offered to help the
Obama administration close the detention center at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, by
resettling detainees have begun raising questions about the security risks and
requirements if they accept prisoners described by the Bush administration as
"the worst of the worst," according to diplomats and other officials on both
sides of the Atlantic.
The concerns, and a deep suspicion of whether the
American intelligence community will share full information on the prisoners,
are likely to complicate the resettlement effort, which is critical to President
Barack Obama's fulfilling his pledge to close Guantnamo within
The offers, from Spain, Portugal, Italy, France,
Belgium, Switzerland and other countries, have been widely seen as efforts to
win favor with the new administration by helping to close the camp in Cuba,
which was a contentious issue during the Bush years.
Still, with a first round of talks on the
Guantnamo issues scheduled for Monday in Washington between Obama
administration officials and a high-level delegation from the European Union,
several European leaders have recently emphasized that they can make no firm
commitments until they are given complete details on
"We'd have to study concrete cases," Mara Teresa
Fernndez de la Vega Sanz, Spain's deputy prime minister, said in an interview
Here is a very interesting, very sarcastic and very angry piece by Nicholas
Guariglia concerning Barack Obama's treatment of media - especially media which
dare to criticize his performance:
Welcome to Francis Ford Coppolas White
Corleone and his crew go after their enemies.
Just seven weeks into his presidency, Barack
Corleone Obama has gone to the mattresses. His administration has lunged
ruthlessly for the jugulars of its critics. His cabinet has more tax cheats than
McKellys in a Dublin phone book. Crackdown on lobbyists? Fahgettaboudit. Earmark
reform? We dont need no stinking earmark reform. Today, the new don
pontificates, I settle all family business e.g., nationalizing the energy
industry, socializing the health care system, and federalizing American
Obama has parasitically used a correctable housing
bubble burst and banking crises to power-grab and commit the country to more
spending than at any other time in our history. That upcoming Roland Emmerich
movie entitled 2012 is supposed
to be about the impending end of the world. But Hollywood doomsday may not be
necessary; if this keeps up until 2012, Tic Tacs will cost about $60.
In short, Obama is scaring the hell out of
everyone. Every time he opens his mouth, the stock market nosedives. But he
worrying about those day-to-day gyrations because the stock market
is sort of like a tracking poll in politics; it bobs up and down. The countrys
net worth is plummeting by the hour largely due to the seeds of anxiety Obama
sewed into the market when trying to pass his porkulus spending splurge and he
speaks about the relative insignificance of the markets day-to-day gyrations
as if millions of Americans losing their portfolios and lifes savings was a
matter of Chubby Checkers The Twist.
Rome is burning, but how does the godfather
respond? By averting attention, of course. By bringing together his wartime
consiglieres to go after the Tattaglias, Barzinis, and Moe Greens of
his political universe. Theres Jimmy Ragin Cajun Carville, Paulie
Bag-a-Doughnuts Begala, and Rahm-bo Emanuel who knows all about making
with the fishes and Biden can be Fredo, I suppose.
And theyre mad. Oh boy, are they mad. You see, a
handful of journalists, television commentators, radio personalities, and
private citizens have the gumption to question President Corleones economic
policies. And thats a no-no. Never go against the family.
Rush Limbaugh is a mere broadcaster. For weeks
weve been told it would be quite anti-egalitarian, the mother of all infra
dignitatem acts, if we were to listen or give credence to such a bigoted,
homophobic, racist, and cruel miscreant. Yet do Limbaughs most eccentric or
controversial statements surpass anything uttered by senator-wannabe Al
Whats worse: Limbaugh mocking obnoxiously
hardcore feminists on his radio program we all know the type hes talking
about even if you dont have the onions to admit it or Sen. Dick Durbin
comparing U.S. troops to Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot? Why are the masochistic
rantings of old man Chomsky or the phony Ward Churchill considered intellectual
brilliance but Limbaughs politically incorrect tell-it-like-it-is take on
society the most egregious things said this side of Mein
The man has his opinions. Hes allowed to have
them. And while his opinions have made him who he is the countrys most
successful radio personality they are still just opinions, not sticks and
stones. Limbaugh never threatened Obamas safety and security, and therefore
should be of no concern to the Obama White House or the Secret
Limbaugh has, however, made it clear he wants
Obamas statism to fail an entirely understandable position for a conservative
to hold and, at last check, a totally legal opinion to have and in response,
President Obama first used Limbaugh as his own personal punchline and then sent
out his henchmen, guns blazin. Leave the capitalism; take the
It is beneath the office of the presidency to go
after a citizen on such a personal level, using political surrogates to mock a
mans weight and previous drug addiction all to align him with, and thus
undermine, your political opponents. Is this what Obama meant when he invoked
biblical scripture during his inaugural speech and proclaimed
the time has come to set aside childish things?
But despite the transcendent talk about
brotherhood and post-partisanship, this has been a constant theme from the Obama
posse. Remember when Obama sent his mafiosos to
kick reporters off his campaign plane all because their papers
endorsed John McCain? Remember the serial mentioning and quasi-obsession with
Sean Hannity, which continues to this day?
The Obama-journalist relationship has been a
one-sided love affair: the more they appease him, the more he disdains them. And
yet, still, many journalists are all too willing to bow their heads, kiss the
dons ring, and play the role of hit man, stuttering and stammering in the
presence of their boss like an overly eager Luca Brasi rehearsing what hes
going to say. Take David Saltonstall from the New York Daily News, who
a piece to his editor with a title encompassing the phrase Rush
Limbaugh is rich, nasty, followed by this excerpt:
Rush Hudson Limbaugh
3rd, 58, is a thrive-divorced, formerly drug-addicted college dropout who casts
himself as a working-class hero, yet drives his $450,000 Mercedes-Benz Maybach
57S home to a 24,000-square-foot Florida mansion every night (one of five houses
on the property).
Ive never heard of this Saltonstall fellow, but
he should step back and contemplate for a moment: this is what his petty career
has come to. He writes columns about someone he disagrees with politically, and
attacks the mans failed marriages, his former struggle with pain killers
(drug-addicted), his level of education (college dropout), and then, the
coup de grce, attacks his success in the face of it all!
In Saltonstalls Obamamania galaxy, an inner-city,
drug-selling, high school dropout, with three illegitimate children, who makes
his bones on the taxpayers dime with government programs designed for him
solely on the basis of demographic happenstance, is Richie Adlers Rags to
Riches. But a truly self-made man like Limbaugh? Well, hes fat, ugly, rich,
and I heard he doesnt floss, too. Why the disparity? Because Limbaugh believes
in creating private accounts for Social Security, of course. And because he
challenged the godfather.
But Limbaughs not alone. The Obama administration
after CNBCs Rick Santelli for challenging Obamas economic
proposals. They have attacked
the apolitical stock analyst Jim Cramer for disagreeing with their
spend-spend-and-spend theories. And remember the dual Obama camp-media onslaught of Sam
Wurzelbacher, a private citizen who, upon seeing the Democratic presidential
nominee campaigning in his neighborhood, had the audacity (pun intended) to
ask Obama an economics question a question simultaneously simple and yet sadly
the toughest of Obamas campaign?
Did the purportedly fascistic Texan ogre George
Bush behave like this? Did his administration go after Bill Maher, for instance?
Or Maureen Dowd or Keith Olbermann? What about that
guy who called Bush a tyrannical murderer at a town hall meeting? As
the crowd booed, Bush implored his supporters to let the man speak and then
answered the mans grievances. Was this private citizens life uprooted by
administration officials and media investigative research? Does he owe any
taxes? Does he tip well at restaurants? Does he have an ex-wife and does she
You can see how absurd this kind of behavior would
be if one were to replace the word Obama with Bush. But this is Obamas
coordinated strategy, to go after straw men with whom he disagrees to divert
popular anger and angst away from him. Its entirely Nixonian or, depending on
the continent, Mugabian. Michael Goodwin, also of the Daily News, addressed
this phenomenon in a recent column:
Obama has expressed
little interest in prosecuting those who cooked the books to make billions and
undermined the financial system. Nor is he interested in rebuking Congress,
including leading members of his own party, who fostered destructive lending and
borrowing policies. He seems comfortable with his aides, including those who saw
nothing amiss in their former roles as Wall Street players and
class-war language, most of it written into prepared speeches, looks like
selective anger, calculated to stoke public emotion to build support for his
expansive agenda. That agenda, which revolves around a dramatic increase in
Washington power, relies on tax hikes on the same successful businesses and
individuals he denounces.
First he demonizes
them, then he taxes them. And always, he makes liberal use of bogeymen but
never mind. Being president means you dont have to let facts get in the way of
a plan to divide and conquer.
It hasnt even been two months and we now know,
with absolute empirical certitude, that Barack Obamas pledge to bring civility
and post-partisanship to Washington was a bunch of baloney. This is the Chicago
machine all over again.
From the get-go, Obama has had some trouble with
moral clarity. Hamas and Hezbollah have legitimate
claims, but his domestic critics and fellow countrymen do not? He
thinks he can make nice with the moderate
Taliban, but wont engage some of his political opponents in a
mature dialogue? Obama seems more worried about the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Joe
the Plumbers of the world than the Khameneis, Assads, Jong Ils, Ahmadinejads,
and Rafsanjanis more concentrated on his domestic opponents than on our
countrys foreign adversaries. All hail the
To go after private citizens, journalists, and
people on radio and television with such vitriol is unprecedented in
contemporary American politics. This is not how a man who occupies 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue is supposed to conduct himself. Michael Corleone once
assuaged his brothers fears by saying, It isnt personal. Its strictly
President Corleone seems to think its just the
Is he right? What do you think?
NY TIMES: LYING FOR OBAMA
There is no way to pretty this up. The New York Times is lying for
It's not like the paper hasn't done it before, but this one is pretty
Today's lie concerns David Hamilton, who apparently is Mr. Obama's
choice for the federal appeals court.
Clay Waters of www.newsbusters.org
gives us the details. Please pay special attention to the last paragraph,
which I've put in bold print:
False 'Moderation' from NY Times
Legal Reporter Neil Lewis
Liberally slanted legal reporter Neil Lewis has a scoop-let on President Obama's
anticipated first court appointment, the "moderate" Judge David Hamilton, to the
federal appeals court in Chicago ("Moderate Is Said to Be Pick
Lewis saw this upcoming move as a "signal" Obama's
future appointees would be "moderate" as well. But how truly moderate is David
Hamilton, federal trial court judge in Indiana and former board member for the
Lewis provides no evidence, only the vague
assertion that Hamilton "is said by lawyers to represent some of his state's
traditionally moderate strain." But that seal of approval has a certain
"strained" quality itself; if Hamilton is "said" to "represent some" of
Indiana's moderation, then he's not all moderate, but something else as well.
Probably something liberal. Why?
For one, the liberal Obama picked him. For
another, his only memorable rulings, according to Lewis himself, were two
anti-conservative ones. In one case, he sided with the ACLU on prayer, a ruling
later overturned. Third, Hamilton clerked for a liberal judge. Lewis's assertion
is contradicted by factual evidence from his own story.
President Obama is expected to name his first
candidate to an appeals court seat this week, officials said, choosing David
F. Hamilton, a highly regarded federal trial court judge from Indiana, for the
appeals court in Chicago.
Judge Hamilton, who is said by lawyers
to represent some of his state's traditionally moderate strain, served as
counsel to Senator Evan Bayh when Mr. Bayh was the state's governor; he is
also a nephew of former Representative Lee H. Hamilton of Indiana.
A senior administration official said Judge
Hamilton would have the support of both Mr. Bayh, a Democrat, and the state's
other senator, Richard G. Lugar, a Republican. He will be nominated for a seat
on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, based in
The administration official said part of the
reason for making the Hamilton nomination the administration's first public
entry into the often contentious field of judicial selection was to serve "as
a kind of signal" about the kind of nominees Mr. Obama will select. The
official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the nomination had not
been officially made.
Lewis doesn't name any of the "lawyers" who
vouched for Hamilton's moderate brand of judgeship.
Judge Hamilton was named to the bench by
President Bill Clinton in 1994. As a trial judge largely bound to the rulings
of higher courts, he has had few opportunities to demonstrate any ideological
He did receive attention for two
rulings striking down actions of conservatives in the Indiana legislature.
In 2005, he made news by ruling that the legislature was prohibited from
beginning its sessions with overtly Christian prayers.
And the third clue Hamilton might not be
Judge Hamilton graduated from Yale Law School
before serving as a law clerk to Judge Richard D. Cudahy of the Seventh
Circuit, who is generally viewed as a liberal jurist.
Why is this important? Because the Times has
traditionally emphasized the false "moderation" of Democratic Supreme Court
appointees while insisting Republicans are appointing hard conservatives to the
bench. The paper laughably insisted in a June 1993 headline that
ultra-liberal Clinton appointee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former chief litigator for
the Women's Rights Project of the ACLU, was a "Balanced Jurist at Home in the
Middle." A July 2005 headline portrayed Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts
as "An Advocate for the Right."
So far, the Times looks to be protecting the
Obama administration in the same fashion.
To cap it off, Wendy Long
at National Review's
Bench Memo's blog reports that Hamilton is "a hard-left political
activist," a fundraiser for ACORN, and also "served as vice president for
litigation and a board member of the Indiana ACLU." Some
Unbelievable. David Hamilton was an ACLU
board member, he fundraises for ACORN..... and the New York Times touts him as "moderate".
Using Hamilton as
a "moderate" baseline, the Times must think Ted Kennedy is a wild-eyed
Or, maybe, the paper is just lying on behalf of Barack Obama. Again.
I think we both know which it is.
ELITE LEFT WING CONSPIRACY?
It isn't vast. It is pretty elite. Is it a left wing
Here, excerpted from an article by
Michael Calderone at www.politico.com,
is part of the evidence. You be the judge:
Interesting. A group of
likeminded bloggers and mainstream media writers, unto itself, that they have
made sure virtually no one knows about, eh?
For the past two years, several hundred
left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks
and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record
online meeting space called JournoList.
Proof of a vast liberal
Not at all, says Ezra Klein, the 24-year-old
American Prospect blogging wunderkind who formed JournoList in February
2007. Basically, he says, its just a list where journalists and policy
wonks can discuss issues freely.
But some of the journalists who
participate in the online discussion say off the record, of course
that it has been a great help in their work. On the record, The New
Yorkers Jeffrey Toobin acknowledged that a Talk of the Town piece he
wont say which one got its start in part via a conversation on
JournoList. And JLister Eric Alterman, The Nation writer and CUNY
professor, said hes seen discussions that start on the list seep into the
Im very lazy about writing when Im not getting
paid, Alterman said. So if I take the trouble to write something in any
detail on the list, I tend to cannibalize it. It doesnt surprise me when
I see things on the list on peoples blogs.
Last April, criticism
of ABCs handling of a Democratic presidential debate took shape on JList
before morphing into an open letter to the network, signed by more than 40
journalists and academics many of whom are JList members.
But beyond these specific examples, its
hard to trace JLists influence in the media, because so few JListers are
willing to talk on the record about it.
POLITICO contacted nearly
three dozen current JList members for this story. The majority either
declined to comment or didnt respond to interview requests and then
returned to JList to post items on why they wouldnt be talking to
POLITICO about what goes on there.
In an e-mail, Klein said he
understands that the JLists off-the-record rule makes it seems
secretive. But he insisted that JList discussions have to be off the
record in order to ensure that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff
analysis and instant reactions.
One byproduct of that
secrecy: For all its high-profile membership which includes Nobel
Prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman; staffers from Newsweek, POLITICO,
Huffington Post, The New Republic, The Nation and The New Yorker; policy
wonks, academics and bloggers such as Klein and Matthew Yglesias JList
itself has received almost no attention from the
What does that sound like to you? And if it's just an innocent little
debating society, how come this bunch has made so sure it has been a secret for
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them
CHRIS DUDD: A PROTECTED SPECIES & HIS BONUS BONER
No one in congress gets away with doing more things wrong, that do more major damage to the country, than
Senator Chris Dudd (D -CT). He was neck-deep in Enron.
He was neck deep in the sub-prime loan disaster. And now he's neck
deep in the AIG bonus scandal.
How can media not feature Dudd's name when decrying the bonuses being paid to
AIG representatives? HOW?
Read this excerpt from
the article at www.foxbusiness.com
and see for yourself. Please pay special attention to the two paragraphs
I've put in bold print:
Amid AIG Furor,
Dodd Tries to Undo Bonus Protections He Put In
Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International
Group bonus recipients so the government could recoup the $450 million the
company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the
idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus
While the Senate constructed the $787
billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly added an executive-compensation
restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an exception for contractually
obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009, which exempts the very AIG
bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final
version and is law.
Also, Sen. Dodd was AIGs largest single
recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100,
according to opensecrets.org.
Dodds office did not immediately return a request
One of AIG Financial Products largest offices is
based in Connecticut.
Dudd, in other words, is trying to posture himself as an anti-bonus
crusader, when it was his exemption that GAVE them the bonuses.
Who else is reporting this? Was it on the network news last
night? Was it on Today this morning? I sure as hell didn't catch
It's certainly not in my copy of the New York Times. The Times has a comprehensive timeline in
its news section, headlined "Bailouts, Bonuses and Outrage" that doesn't
so much as mention Dudd's name. Nor, at quick glance, does its
major article on the subject.
This is how people like Dudd get away with it. The
same media which spent years investigating whether George Bush missed
a couple of national guard meetings in the early 1970's, does not think it is
important enough to report that Chris Dudd personally saw to it that AIG could hand
out hundreds of millions of dollars of our bailout money in bonuses just last month.
A few questions: Why do they intentionally keep you ignorant? Would
they do the same if the senator pulling this crap was a Republican? Will
they respond by sneering out more attacks on Fox, the only venue that seems interested
in telling you the truth about what happened?
Think about it.
Oh, by the way: after Chris Dudd, the US senator who got the most campaign
donations from AIG - and the only other senator to receive over $100,000 or anywhere near
it - was......
That's another little something you probably won't be getting from your
mainstream media source.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them
ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER DIES YOUNG
From ABC News in Tampa:
professional wrester Andrew "Test" Martin
TAMPA, FL -- A former
professional wrestling champion was found dead inside his Tampa apartment
Friday night, just days before his 34th birthday.
Andrew "Test" Martin,
who wrestled for almost 10 years, mostly for World Wrestling
Entertainment, was found dead inside his apartment on Harbor Place
Drive around 8 o'clock.
Officers found his body after a
neighbor called police, saying she could see Martin through an
apartment window and that he hadn't moved in several hours.
play is not suspected, investigators said.
will be performed to determine how the former wrestler
Martin debuted in the WWE in 1998. He retired last December
but had just returned from working in Japan and was planning to leave for a 2
week trip to Europe this Monday, the day before his birthday, Martin said
on his MySpace page.
Sorry to say, this is not much of a news story.
Professional wrestlers die young all the time.
I'm not talking about the old-timers, the ones who wrestled before steroids
(among other things) turned professional wrestling into a complete freak
show. Those guys, to the best of my knowledge, performed their scripted
little good guy-bad guy vignettes with little other than pain
I'm talking about the steroidal freaks who wrestling's current "state of the
art" have generated. The ones whose bodies break down from the combination
of incredible physical demands and the drugs that make them look superhuman in
size and shape.
Despite being fake (i.e. non-competitive; the outcome is determined
beforehand) professional wrestling is about as gruelling an athletic
event as there is. The wrestlers perform almost every day of the
week, often traveling to a different city each time. And their
routines - the jumps the falls, the inherent physical abuse they sustain - would
test athletes in any legitimate sport to the nth degree.
Add to this the demand that they physically resemble comic book characters,
and you get the serial steroid users who destroy their bodies and die early.
How bad a problem is this? Well, here, from www.prowrestling.about.com, is a
list of wrestlers since 1985 who have died before they hit their 50th
birthday. As you read it, keep in mind that at any given time there are
maybe 1,000 - 2,000 professional wrestlers working in the entire country.
Famous Wrestlers That Have Died
Since 1985 Before the Age of 65 (please read this
FAQ before making any assumptions...)
Chris Von Erich - 21
Mike Von Erich -
Louie Spiccoli - 27
Art Barr - 28
Gino Hernandez - 29
Youngblood - 30
Rick McGraw - 30
Joey Marella - 30
Ed Gatner - 31
Buzz Sawyer - 32
Crash Holly - 32
Kerry Von Erich - 33
Peterson - 33
Eddie Gilbert - 33
The Renegade - 33
Chris Candido -
Test - 33
Adrian Adonis - 34
Gary Albright - 34
Bobby Duncum Jr. - 34
Owen Hart - 34
Yokozuna - 34
Big Dick Dudley - 34
Pillman - 35
Marianna Komlos - 35
Pitbull #2 - 36
The Wall/Malice -
Emory Hale - 36
Leroy Brown - 38
Mark Curtis - 38
Eddie Guererro - 38
John Kronus - 38
Davey Boy Smith - 39
Johnny Grunge - 39
Vachon - 40
Jeep Swenson - 40
Brady Boone - 40
Terry Gordy - 40
Bertha Faye - 40
Billy Joe Travis - 40
Chris Benoit - 40
Larry Cameron - 41
Rick Rude - 41
Anderson - 41
Bruiser Brody - 42
Miss Elizabeth - 42
Big Boss Man -
Earthquake - 42
Mike Awesome - 42
Biff Wellington - 42
Adams (Crush) - 43
Ray Candy - 43
(Woman) - 43
Dino Bravo - 44
Curt Hennig - 44
Bigelow - 45
Jerry Blackwell - 45
Junkyard Dog - 45
Hercules - 45
Andre The Giant - 46
Big John Studd - 46
Chris Adams - 46
Davis - 46
Hawk - 46
Cousin Junior - 48
Dick Murdoch - 49
Tsuruta - 49
Rocco Rock - 49
Yes, a number of these deaths are not steroid or even wrestling
related. But most of them are.
Why does professional wrestling exist in this manner? Because of
unscrupulous, uncaring promoters who convince young wrestlers to
become human deathtraps. The wrestlers can get some fleeting fame and
fortune and risk losing half or more of their lives. The promoters get
fabulously wealthy. Great deal -- for one side.
You might want to keep this in mind the next time you come across
young boys - maybe your own - taking this fake, high-mortality sport
seriously and watching it every chance they get.
CHUCK (SCHUMER) AND BILL (OF ATTAINDER)
Senator Charles "Chuck" Schumer is a Harvard-educated lawyer. I assume
he knows what a bill of attainder is.
I therefore conclude that he could not care less about the constitution of
the United States.
Let me explain by first showing you the beginning of a
Reuters article in which Schumer threatens the AIG employees who got
bonuses. No one else who got bonuses at any other company, only AIG:
Sen. Schumer threatens huge tax on AIG
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior U.S. senator on Tuesday warned American
International Group Inc. employees to return bonuses they are receiving or
face being slapped with a major tax on those payments.
"They should voluntarily return them (the
bonuses). If they don't we plan to tax virtually all of it," Senator Charles
Schumer, a member of the Democratic leadership, said in a speech on the Senate
With me so far? Good.
Now, from www.techlawjournal.com, here is
the definition of a bill of attainder:
Bill of Attainder
Definition: A legislative act that singles
out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United
States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of
Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
Notice any commonality with what Schumer is threatening and what a bill of
attainder is? Like 100% worth?
I assume he does too.
So I conclude that Schumer - along with many of his fellow Democrats - just
doesn't care. Why let the constitution get in the way of a great rant
followed by a great photo op?
Now, do our wonderful "neutral" media care? Do they care enough to tell
their readers/viewers/listeners about this?
Or are they still in "Keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em"
SOCKING IT TO OUR INJURED MILITARY
If President Bush had ever proposed this "idea", he would have been
skewered on the front page of every newspaper and disdained in the lead story of
every network news show.
But this is Barack Obama. So read the following article, which I
picked up at Yahoo News, and then think about how much publicity the
obamadoring mainstream media have given it. The bold print is mine:
The American Legion Strongly Opposed to
President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment
To: POLITICAL EDITORS
Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office,
WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is
"deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today
to discuss a proposal to force private
insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who
have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama
administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to
reimburse the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) in such cases.
"It became apparent during our discussion
today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,"
said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is
looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments
about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by
The Commander, clearly angered as he
emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent
with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that
the United States government
sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance
companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not
support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service
connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique
need of America's veterans!"
Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior
officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House
Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of
defense spending at the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at
The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the
President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the
heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no
logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the
VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties
this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the
men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is
Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week
in testimony to both House and Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion
believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that
VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United
States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not
private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to
reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an
adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The
Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions
involved, maximum insurance coverage
limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition
alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that
many health insurance
companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered.
Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover
service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the
veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate
more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion
also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be
reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the
negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company
health care benefits.
"I got the distinct impression that the only hope
of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative
plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue.
The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the
treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's
financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with
White House Chief of Staff
Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.
"I only hope the administration will really listen
to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the
President is imagining," concluded the
Damn those military people!
-Isn't it bad enough they volunteered for service?
-Isn't it bad enough they risked their lives in places like Iraq and
-Isn't it bad enough that they
have clearly won the war in Iraq and are now having great success
in sustaining the post-war peace there?
-Isn't it bad enough that Iraq has become a model for other Arab/Muslim
states in the region, and its success can make it that much harder for
groups like al qaeda and the taliban to recruit?
Do we have to pay when they're treated for military-related injuries? It's an
If the above looks insane to you, remember please that I am not stating it as
personal opinion. I am reflecting on what the thought process in our
current administration must be to float this kind of policy regarding
injured military personnel.
We elected him. We gave him a Democratic congress, run by
hardliners. And this is what we're getting.
I suggest you sit back and enjoy it, because it will be almost two more years
before you can do something about it.
From the New York Post web site:
NATASHA RICHARDSON IS BRAIN DEAD
CRITICALLY INJURED IN SKIING ACCIDENT
By MICHAEL RIEDEL
updated: 2:46 pm
March 17, 2009
Posted: 1:19 pm
Actress Natasha Richardson is
brain dead - after falling in a ski accident in Canada - and is now on sad
journey home to New York, friends told The Post today.
Richardson, who was being
treated at a Montreal hospital, is being transported to New York this afternoon
so her mom Vanessa Redgrave, two children and other loved ones can say goodbye
before she's taken off life-support, friends said.
Liam Neeson, husband of the
Broadway and screen star, left shooting of his movie in Toronto to rush to
Richardson's side in Montreal and now on the trip home.
Richardson, 45, fell during a private lesson at Mont Tremblant resort yesterday
and allegedly told resort employees she felt fine.
But an hour later, she
complained of an extreme headache and was rushed to a nearby
Richardson was on a
beginner's slope and reportedly not wearing a helmet when she fell - although
headgear is not required.
"She did not show any
visible sign of injury but the ski patrol followed strict procedures and brought
her back to the bottom of the slope and insisted she should see a doctor," said
a statement from the resort, which is almost 80 miles northwest of
"Approximately an hour
after the incident Mrs. Richardson was not feeling good."
Richardson was initially
taken to the Centre Hospitalier Laurentien in Sainte Agathe and was later
transferred to Hopital du Sacre-Coeur in Montreal.
The actress - who is the
elder daughter of Oscar-winner Vanessa Redgrave and late director Tony
Richardson - comes from a long line of noted British players.
Michael Redgrave and Rachel Kempson, uncle and aunt Corin Redgrave and Lynn
Redgrave are all actors.
Sister Joely Richardson
currently has a recurring role in the FX show "Nip/Tuck."
Natasha Richardson was
mostly recently on TV as a guest judge on the Bravo hit "Top Chef."
She also appeared in the
1994 movie "Nell" alongside future husband Neeson. They were married a short
time later and they have two sons.
The elder son, Michael,
13, was with Richardson on the trip, while the younger Daniel, 12, was here in
New York when the accident happened, friends said.
Richardson reached her
Broadway peak in 1998, winning the Tony for playing Sally Bowles in
What an ugly, ugly story. I hope against hope that Ms. Richardson's
condition is, in the words of Mark Twain, greatly
THE CATERPILLAR FRAUD
From the "Ace of Spades" web site:
March 17, 2009
Money Well Spent
President Barack Obama, February 12, 2009:
And I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our
plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid
off. And that's a story I'm confident will be repeated at companies across the
country -- companies that are currently struggling to borrow money selling
their products, struggling to make payroll, but could find themselves in a
different position when we start implementing the plan. Rather than
downsizing, they may be able to start growing again. Rather than cutting jobs,
they may be able to create them again.
That's the goal at the heart of this plan: to
Business Insider, today:
What infrastructure boom? If there is
one, Caterpillar (CAT), whose CEO promised Obama that the stimulus would allow
it to keep more employees, isn't seeing one.
The company just announced another 2,454 layoffs
in three states. This is the company's third round of layoffs in just a few
Why, it's almost as though the stimulus package
was just a payoff to Democrat constituent groups rather than a serious attempt
to help the economy!
Hello, mainstream media? Will you be reporting this? Or is
it going to be another instance of "Keep 'em ignorant, and you own 'em"?
Me? I'm giving odds.