"You should not be reading this book. I should not have been able to write it."
Courting Disaster by Marc A. Thiessen
Few know more about these CIA operations than Thiessen, and in his new book, Courting Disaster, he documents just how effective the CIA’s interrogations were in foiling attacks on America, penetrating al-Qaeda’s high command, and providing our military with actionable intelligence. Thiessen also shows how reckless President Obama has been in shutting down the CIA’s program and releasing secret documents that have aided our enemies.
1.23.2010
1.22.2010
Score One for the First Amendment
here are a couple of excerpts from today's ruling that makes ridiculous Government intervention to trample free speech seem silly. Schumer, and Obama, they'll disagree loudly:“It’s poisonous. It’s poisonous to our democracy,” Schumer said. “This threatens the viability of our democracy.”
But those who support Democrats look carefully... these politicians want to prohibit free speech, except from those organizations they deem fit. Free Speech is for everybody! Even corporations (oh my!).
My excerpts:
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. If the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form. The Government contends that Austin permits it to ban corporate expenditures for almost all forms of communication stemming from a corporation. See Part II-E, supra; Tr. of Oral Arg. 66 (Sept. 9, 2009); see also id., at 26-31 (Mar. 24, 2009). If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books. The Government responds "that the FEC has never applied this statute to abook," and if it did, "there would be quite [a] good as-applied challenge." Tr. of Oral Arg. 65 (Sept. 9, 2009). This troubling assertion of brooding governmental power cannot be reconciled with the confidence and stability in civic discourse that the First Amendment must secure.
Political speech is "indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual." pg 33
###
The law's exception for media corporations is, on its own terms, all but an admission of the invalidity of the antidistortion rationale. And the exemption results in a further, separate reason for finding this law invalid: Again by its own terms, the law exempts some corporations but covers others, even though both have the need or the motive to communicate their views. The exemption applies to media corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news. So even assuming the most doubtful proposition that a news organization has a right to speak when others do not, the exemption would allow a conglomerate that owns both a media business and an unrelated business to influence or control the media in order to advance its overall business interest. At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue. This differential treatment cannot be squaredwith the First Amendment. pg 36
to learn more:
http://bigjournalism.com/f
But those who support Democrats look carefully... these politicians want to prohibit free speech, except from those organizations they deem fit. Free Speech is for everybody! Even corporations (oh my!).
My excerpts:
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. If the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form. The Government contends that Austin permits it to ban corporate expenditures for almost all forms of communication stemming from a corporation. See Part II-E, supra; Tr. of Oral Arg. 66 (Sept. 9, 2009); see also id., at 26-31 (Mar. 24, 2009). If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books. The Government responds "that the FEC has never applied this statute to abook," and if it did, "there would be quite [a] good as-applied challenge." Tr. of Oral Arg. 65 (Sept. 9, 2009). This troubling assertion of brooding governmental power cannot be reconciled with the confidence and stability in civic discourse that the First Amendment must secure.
Political speech is "indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual." pg 33
###
The law's exception for media corporations is, on its own terms, all but an admission of the invalidity of the antidistortion rationale. And the exemption results in a further, separate reason for finding this law invalid: Again by its own terms, the law exempts some corporations but covers others, even though both have the need or the motive to communicate their views. The exemption applies to media corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news. So even assuming the most doubtful proposition that a news organization has a right to speak when others do not, the exemption would allow a conglomerate that owns both a media business and an unrelated business to influence or control the media in order to advance its overall business interest. At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue. This differential treatment cannot be squaredwith the First Amendment. pg 36
to learn more:
http://bigjournalism.com/f
1.20.2010
Obama Spin of the Decade
President Obama said today that the anger that elected Brown is the same anger that elected him.
"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." LINK
And we know that "the past 8 years" is code for anti-Bush... think post-hypnotic suggestion, and triggered response, etc. This has to be the spin of the year (and there have been so many)... to tie the Brown victory into the same anti-Bush sentiment that got Obama elected. Bravo. Another great day for creative writing. In other words, Obama is just like Brown. The people's man. Never mind the fact that he was there campaigning for Coakley, and that Brown stands in opposition to Obamacare etc.
Also, may I say that simply voting for Brown doesn't indicate anger, or frustration. Could be that many people were voting calmly and in peace out of happiness to finally have someone to vote for who gets it. Would the same be said if most voted for Coakley? Would that be out of anger and frustration? Those that vote Republican are called "angry." More spin.
"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." LINK
And we know that "the past 8 years" is code for anti-Bush... think post-hypnotic suggestion, and triggered response, etc. This has to be the spin of the year (and there have been so many)... to tie the Brown victory into the same anti-Bush sentiment that got Obama elected. Bravo. Another great day for creative writing. In other words, Obama is just like Brown. The people's man. Never mind the fact that he was there campaigning for Coakley, and that Brown stands in opposition to Obamacare etc.
Also, may I say that simply voting for Brown doesn't indicate anger, or frustration. Could be that many people were voting calmly and in peace out of happiness to finally have someone to vote for who gets it. Would the same be said if most voted for Coakley? Would that be out of anger and frustration? Those that vote Republican are called "angry." More spin.
1.19.2010
Coakley Polls
Main Stream Media Spin alert: if Scott Brown wins tonight, be assured that it'll be all about how Martha Coakley ran a poor race... in fact it has already been set up that way, despite the fact that her liberal speech is indistinguishable from any other Democrat in the Senate. And it will not have anything to do with Scott Brown and his talent in winning the debate and connecting with the actual people he hopes to represent.
Amazing but true, the media misses the mark in Boston. However, one can't forget the old "this election was stolen" angle. In case of a loss, don't accept the results.
Amazing but true, the media misses the mark in Boston. However, one can't forget the old "this election was stolen" angle. In case of a loss, don't accept the results.
“We have seen a number of disturbing incidents this evening that have called into question the integrity of this election,” Coakley campaign manager Kevin Conroy said.That'll take at least 6 weeks to sort out, eh? And then magically, Coakley, just like Pat Paulsen... er, Al Franken, will end up on top.
1.17.2010
Democratic Translation of Limbaugh's CPAC Speech now available
originally posted Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 2:35PM by me on a different blog
When Rush Limbaugh took off last Saturday on a passionate CPAC speech that laid out conservative principles, and explained many of the steps to take to build a strong future for the Republican party, I couldn't help thinking that if a Democrat were listening, they might be thinking "what the heck is this guy even talking about?" since many of the ideas of reducing the size of government, cutting taxes to help jump start an economic recovery, and personal freedoms through less government regulation, must have sounded like a foreign language to any liberals listening at the time. Fortunately, now that a few days have passed, the thinkers on the left have translated Rush's CPAC speech for easier consumption.
Here are a few excerpts from the speech with a good explanation, from a liberal viewpoint, of what the man was getting at:
1. We believe that a person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
2. You know what the cliche is, a conservative: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen of America. If you were paying attention, I know you were, the racism in our culture was exclusively and fully on display in the Democrat primary last year.
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
3. We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, its people -- its individuals -- must succeed. Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or her desire, whatever, with excellence. Trying to be the best they can be. Not told, as they are told by the Democrat Party: You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or you're a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you. You can't get anywhere. You need to depend on us.
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
4. Now, let me speak about President Obama for just a second. President Obama is one of the most gifted politicians, one of the most gifted men that I have ever witnessed. He has extraordinary talents. He has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass. No, seriously. No, no, I'm being very serious about this. It just breaks my heart that he does not use these extraordinary talents and gifts to motivate and inspire the American people to be the best they can be. He's doing just the opposite. And it's a shame.
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
5. The freedom we spoke of earlier is the freedom, it's the ambition, it's the desire, the wherewithal, the passions that people have that gave us the great entrepreneurial advances, the great inventions, the greatest food production, the human lifestyle advances in this country. Why shouldn't that be rewarded? Why is that now the focus of punishment?
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
6. Ladies and gentlemen, there ought not be any poverty except those who are genuinely ill equipped. But most of the people in poverty in this country are equipped for far much more. They've just been beaten down. They're told don't worry, we'll take care of you. There's nothing out there for you anyway; you'll be discriminated against.
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
7. Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of compassion. All politicians, including President Obama, are temporary stewards of this nation. It is not their task to remake the founding of this country. It is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image.
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
Etc. etc. you get the drift. Rush Limbaugh was, as they say, en fuego at CPAC, and you can get the whole transcript and see video of the speech online on Rush's Web site. The point I'm trying to make is that people on the left should be insulted by the way their leaders have tried to take what was a profound speech, a thinking person's speech, and boil it all down for their constituents into a talking point. The fact is that they assume you, the average Democratic voter, will not actually read the transcript for yourself. You won't read it, ponder it, and draw your own conclusions, no, you'll agree that Rush Limbaugh had the audacity to pray for Obama to fail.
CBS News obliges the administration by reporting on Rahm Emanuel's Face The Nation appearance using the headline: Emanuel: Rush Prays For Obama's Failure.
I ask Democrats of this country to stop for a moment and realize what is happening. Your administration is assuming that you'll swallow this blue pill of a summary of the Limbaugh speech. They know that Limbaugh is a caricature in many ways and can be easily, mindlessly dismissed by people who have already made up their minds. If you think back a few months, you were sold Obama in much the same way. Don't think about it too deeply... just believe. I'm asking you - don't let your leaders insult you like this! Be smart enough, at least, to read and analyze the CPAC speech, and decide ... for ... your ... self. Read some books by conservative thinkers and then explain your positions. You don't think we're headed towards Socialism? Good for you... then explain how the Federal defecit increased 300% in Obama's first 6 weeks in office, and we're just getting warmed up. Let's reason together. You don't like Ann Coulter? Mark Levin? Try reading a book by either author, ingesting it, and then defend your position. Don't just take the blue pill and accept what everybody says. It's like being in high school all over again. You know how some people are considered to be really cool and they turn out to be jerks, and others are considered geeky and they turn out to be Bill Gates? Look deeper.
When Rush Limbaugh took off last Saturday on a passionate CPAC speech that laid out conservative principles, and explained many of the steps to take to build a strong future for the Republican party, I couldn't help thinking that if a Democrat were listening, they might be thinking "what the heck is this guy even talking about?" since many of the ideas of reducing the size of government, cutting taxes to help jump start an economic recovery, and personal freedoms through less government regulation, must have sounded like a foreign language to any liberals listening at the time. Fortunately, now that a few days have passed, the thinkers on the left have translated Rush's CPAC speech for easier consumption.
Here are a few excerpts from the speech with a good explanation, from a liberal viewpoint, of what the man was getting at:
1. We believe that a person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
2. You know what the cliche is, a conservative: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen of America. If you were paying attention, I know you were, the racism in our culture was exclusively and fully on display in the Democrat primary last year.
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
3. We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, its people -- its individuals -- must succeed. Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or her desire, whatever, with excellence. Trying to be the best they can be. Not told, as they are told by the Democrat Party: You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or you're a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you. You can't get anywhere. You need to depend on us.
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
4. Now, let me speak about President Obama for just a second. President Obama is one of the most gifted politicians, one of the most gifted men that I have ever witnessed. He has extraordinary talents. He has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass. No, seriously. No, no, I'm being very serious about this. It just breaks my heart that he does not use these extraordinary talents and gifts to motivate and inspire the American people to be the best they can be. He's doing just the opposite. And it's a shame.
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
5. The freedom we spoke of earlier is the freedom, it's the ambition, it's the desire, the wherewithal, the passions that people have that gave us the great entrepreneurial advances, the great inventions, the greatest food production, the human lifestyle advances in this country. Why shouldn't that be rewarded? Why is that now the focus of punishment?
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
6. Ladies and gentlemen, there ought not be any poverty except those who are genuinely ill equipped. But most of the people in poverty in this country are equipped for far much more. They've just been beaten down. They're told don't worry, we'll take care of you. There's nothing out there for you anyway; you'll be discriminated against.
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
7. Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of compassion. All politicians, including President Obama, are temporary stewards of this nation. It is not their task to remake the founding of this country. It is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image.
DEMOCRATIC TRANSLATION: Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.
Etc. etc. you get the drift. Rush Limbaugh was, as they say, en fuego at CPAC, and you can get the whole transcript and see video of the speech online on Rush's Web site. The point I'm trying to make is that people on the left should be insulted by the way their leaders have tried to take what was a profound speech, a thinking person's speech, and boil it all down for their constituents into a talking point. The fact is that they assume you, the average Democratic voter, will not actually read the transcript for yourself. You won't read it, ponder it, and draw your own conclusions, no, you'll agree that Rush Limbaugh had the audacity to pray for Obama to fail.
CBS News obliges the administration by reporting on Rahm Emanuel's Face The Nation appearance using the headline: Emanuel: Rush Prays For Obama's Failure.
I ask Democrats of this country to stop for a moment and realize what is happening. Your administration is assuming that you'll swallow this blue pill of a summary of the Limbaugh speech. They know that Limbaugh is a caricature in many ways and can be easily, mindlessly dismissed by people who have already made up their minds. If you think back a few months, you were sold Obama in much the same way. Don't think about it too deeply... just believe. I'm asking you - don't let your leaders insult you like this! Be smart enough, at least, to read and analyze the CPAC speech, and decide ... for ... your ... self. Read some books by conservative thinkers and then explain your positions. You don't think we're headed towards Socialism? Good for you... then explain how the Federal defecit increased 300% in Obama's first 6 weeks in office, and we're just getting warmed up. Let's reason together. You don't like Ann Coulter? Mark Levin? Try reading a book by either author, ingesting it, and then defend your position. Don't just take the blue pill and accept what everybody says. It's like being in high school all over again. You know how some people are considered to be really cool and they turn out to be jerks, and others are considered geeky and they turn out to be Bill Gates? Look deeper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)