Filed under: Comedy, Shorts, Fandom, Trailers and Clips

Continue reading Here's Why 'Twilight' is Popular

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: New Releases, Fandom, Trailers and Clips

Continue reading Cheesy Mr. T. Clip Advises You to "Table the Label"

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Aside from possibly race and identity-politics, there are few things more toxic and effective than the poisonous doctrine of class warfare - no matter how many times leaders may promise heaven on earth. In his April 7 speech at Harvard University, AFL-CIO leader (and corrupt money-laundering extraordinaire) Richard Trumka did his part to perpetuate fear and hate of conservatives - repeatedly inciting the "righteous anger" the "working class" should have against "servants of economic privilege" and "apostles of hate."

"There are forces in our country that are working hard to convert justifiable anger about an economy that only seems to work for a few of us into racist and homophobic hate and violence directed at our President and heroes like Congressman John Lewis," Trumka said. "Most of all, those forces of hate seek to divide working people -- to turn our anger against each other."  

Interviewed by Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney, Williams recently appeared on the network's "Varney & Co." and agreed with Trumka's message - income inequality is a threat to democracy, and more punitive measures must be taken against the rich.   

"The way I saw the speech was there's greater class division in American society," Williams said. "And Trumka makes the case that this has been fed that we have had tax policies that have benefited higher income Americans since the Reagan years and of course throughout the Bush years, and have been continued by Obama - and that there's need now to make investments in trying to repair that divide and to bridge it, to get people at the lower end of the economic scale in better position. For example he wouldn't oppose more taxes on the rich."

"You know what's coming down the pike, you can't tax the rich anymore," Varney interjected. "You've got to start taking money off of America's middle class - you've got to if you want these entitlements."

Williams acknowledged that additional taxes like the value-added tax should be considered along with other measures to "bridge" the inequality-gap - even though he acknowledged Varney's point that new taxes would hurt everyone.

"I just want to know where you think the administration stands on the political spectrum. Seems to me it's pretty far-left," inquired Varney.

"Well far-left in the sense of saying we have to do more for people who have been poor and left behind," Williams replied.

"You're a centrist-Democrat - are you happy with this Juan?"

"When I look at something like health care reform, I think of in terms of moral imperative I think it's important we not have people laying in the street or crowding our emergency rooms," Williams said.

"And when you talk about expanding regulation - gosh there's such anger at Wall Street these days and of course we're on the cusp of financial reform coming through the Senate right now. But what's driving that is populist rage at Wall Street. So I'm not sure I agree with the way that you're putting it. In fact I think there's lots of Americans who want to see some regulatory force and don't see it as taking us toward some European-style socialism."

But Matthews wasn't alone. A search of Nexis for "Bush regime" found other former and current MSNBCers using the term both before and after Bush's tenure in office in addition to liberal acolytes like Democratic strategist Steve McMahon, Senator Arlen Specter's challenger from the Left, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), and quadrennial Green Party standard-bearer Ralph Nader.

So I asked EyeBlast.tv video editor Bob Parks to compile a video montage showing just how fond the Left was of using the term "Bush regime" on MSNBC programming. You can check that out by clicking the play button on the embed at the right.

MIKE BARNICLE: In this age of the constant campaign, in an era of just hyper-partisanship, where everything is magnified out of proportion by this echo-box called cable TV, 24-hour cable news, how do you govern?

DAVID AXELROD: You know, it's obviously difficult.

Aww.
. . . .

BARNICLE: Even like, you know, the stories in the paper today when we were talking about it earlier: potential Supreme Court nominees. I think, you know, back at the deli in Chicago or wherever, at Mullins [sp?] in South Boston.  The story's in the paper: one Justice has resigned, the president has an appointment to make, and then you read in the sidebar story, Republicans are opposed to whoever is nominated.  I mean, how do you dot his?

Axelrod had earlier complimented Joe Scarborough on being a student of history.  Clearly the same can't be said of Barnicle.  Does Barnicle not remember that his late lamented friend Ted Kennedy was so savage in his attack on Robert Bork that the nominee's name became a verb?  Does Barnicle not recall the frontal assault to which Clarence Thomas was subjected, epitomized in the photo of the finger-jabbing attack by a certain senator from Delaware?  For that matter, can Barnicle reach back as recently as 2007 and remember that then Sen. Barack Obama voted against the superbly-qualified John Roberts?

Mike, come down and receive your Obama Parrot of the Week: you've earned it.

Everyone is still looking for a scapegoat for the financial crisis that precipitated the current economic malaise. And one of the popular targets has been former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan recently testified on Capitol Hill and was pressed about how he may have contributed to the financial crisis. According to Suze Orman, host of CNBC's "The Suze Orman Show," some of the blame should go to Greenspan for a 2004 speech he made to the Credit Union National Association.

Greenspan had said some might have "saved tens of thousands of dollars had they held adjustable-rate mortgages rather than fixed-rate mortgages during the past decade," but he did preface it by saying that wouldn't have been the case if rates adjusted upwards as they did. But Orman, appearing on MSNBC's April 8 "Morning Joe" contended he shouldn't have commented on those mortgages at all.

"Well, some blame should be placed on him," Orman said. "I was telling one of your producers, and I'm not sure I have this date exactly right, but I'll never forget around the year 2004, I think it was Feb. 23, to be exact, something like that. I was watching television and he goes on TV and he says, ‘Everybody, if you had gotten an adjustable rate mortgage 10 years ago, which would have made it 1994, you would have made so much more money on your mortgage and your home than if you had gotten a fixed rate mortgage.' And I'm sitting there, going, ‘No! No! Don't do that! Don't do that! Everybody's going to start getting an adjustable rate mortgage at the exact time they shouldn't.'"

Orman told viewers those remarks were what inspired all the exotic debt instruments traded on Wall Street - which aren't necessarily the same as an adjustable-rate mortgage.

"And sure enough, that's right around when you started to see mortgage companies come out with these negative amortization loans, no money down loans, opt-in, opt-out - all these different things that the Fed chairman said," Orman continued. "Loans like that, even though he didn't say ‘like that,' but when he said adjustable rate - what do people know? So, it was right around then that things started to turn around. And I'll never forget coming on television and saying to everybody, ‘What was he thinking? Why did he do that?' And to this day, I'll never understand it."

Ultimately she said the banks were at fault for the financial crisis, but Greenspan had to share the blame. However, she still didn't place any blame on the irresponsibility of the borrowers, which curiously is a theme of Orman's CNBC show.

"However, bottom line is, he's not the one to blame for this," Orman continued. "Maybe he had some responsibility, but, oh, give me a break. You had Lehman Brothers that had very sketchy accounting methods. You had Goldman Sachs that was betting against both sides of the market. They were betting on real estate going down, by insuring everything with AIG, at the same time, they were selling these instruments. They had a fortune to make. Believe me, it was far more than what Alan Greenspan did. You can blame Wall Street and the bankers for this one."

UPDATE (below the fold): The Washington Examiner's Byron York just posted a piece - Andrew Breitbart's coin challenge for evidence of the "N" word has been verbally answered by AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka.

--------

Editor's Note: Video of conservative being beaten down below the fold.

The media and the Left (please pardon the redundancy) continue to insist that TEA Party participants are engaged in racist and violent behavior - at the surreptitious and stealth "hate speech" urging of talk radio hosts and Republicans.

These have almost all been phantom charges.  They are leveled by liberals and Democrats, and the media immediately report them as if they were true.  They rarely bother to look for evidence, which works out because most times there isn't any.

On the weekend that health care passed, Democrat Congressman Andre Carson of Indiana asserted that the "N" word was shouted fifteen times at him and fellow black Congressman John Lewis. 

The media went right to print with it, reporting it as if it were true.  But several videos of the encounter between the Congressmen and the TEA Party-ers surfaced soon after.  And on NONE of them could the word be heard once, let alone fifteen times in the chanted fashion that Carson claimed. 

Internet media mogul Andrew Breitbart offered $10,000 to the United Negro College Fund - and then later upped it to $100,000 - for any evidence that the word was used at all.  He's still got his coin. 

And of course, no correction or apology was forthcoming from the media.  In fact, some are still reporting it as if it actually happened.

The examples of media TEA Party malpractice are in fact myriad.  So too are the examples of their continuing to report it wrong even after the truth is revealed.

Let us flash back to last August, when (amongst many other outlets) NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC all ascribed posters depicting President Barack Obama with a Hitler mustache to conservatives and Rush Limbaugh. 

But the posters had on them the web address for left-wing 7-time Democrat presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche.  On the site was the downloadable PDF file for the "Mass Distribution Poster" in question.

The media, however, are never ones to allow the facts to get in the way of a good ongoing beating.  To this day - eight months later - many members of the Jurassic Press still lambaste the TEA Party-ers as racist for having Obama-as-Hitler posters at their events.

Repeat the lie often enough, and it becomes a(n Orwellian) fact.

Of course when liberals depicted former President George W. Bush as Hitler, the media had no problem with it. (They in fact referred to the Bush-as-Hitler depiction as a "look-alike.")

So let us now revisit an event that actually, you know, happened. One that absolutely involves violence, and - one could indeed say - racism as well.  

As we first reported on August 7, black conservative Kenneth Gladney was beaten down by SEIU thugs at a town hall meeting in Saint Louis, Missouri. 

How do we know all of these salient details?  Because the beating took place on video camera - and the SEIU thugs were wearing SEIU-emblazoned garb.  See, members of the Jurassic Press?  That's evidence.

The first man to start beating down Mr. Gladney was also black - and he "used a racial slur against him before" he incepted the pummeling.

So we had a twofer, did we not?  Violence AND racism in one incident.  The media should have been ALL OVER this story. 

And it should be a FACTUAL part of the ongoing TEA Party narrative, right?  The way the fraudulent, fact-free charges of racism and violence against conservatives are, right?

Of course not. I would imagine most of you reading this essay have never heard of this.  And you guys and girls actually put forth tremendous effort in pursuit of the truth.

Which is somthing that can not be said of the Lamestream Media.

UPDATE: The Washington Examiner's Byron York just posted a piece - Andrew Breitbart's coin challenge for evidence of the "N" word has been verbally answered by AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka.

York was posting his piece whilst I was writing mine.  From it:

In the question-and-answer session, Breitbart said there is no video or audio evidence of either event happening. Breitbart has, in fact, offered a $100,000 award to anyone who produces evidence that the racial insult actually occurred, and so far he has had no takers.

Until now. As Breitbart spoke, Trumka said he himself had seen the events in question. "I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word," Trumka said. "I witnessed it, I witnessed it. I saw it in person. That's real evidence."

I am quite sure Breitbart was calling for physical rather than rhetorical evidence, so I'm not sure he's on the hook to pony up. 

Trumka's undoubtedly desperate to make up the huge and looming deficit his union's pension faces; I'm sure he thinks he could use the coin, regardless of whether or not he deserves it.  

My question is: does Trumka appear in any of the myriad videos of the incident where the "N" word did not?

Peace through strength - that was former President Ronald Reagan's method of achieving sound foreign policy as leader of the free world. Reagan was able to win the Cold War by showing the Soviet Union the United States could have both guns and butter.

However, President Barack Obama has recently declared he would take a different approach to foreign policy, particularly in the area of nuclear proliferation. The President announced earlier this week he has worked out a deal to significantly reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles in an agreement with Russia. This has drawn the ire of many conservatives, but that has MSNBC's Chris Matthews perplexed.

Matthews, the host of "Hardball," complained on his April 7 program about Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., being outspoken on Obama's decision to give into potential adversaries on the nuclear issue and claimed that contrary to what history would suggest about former President Ronald Reagan, Bachmann was going against the ideas of Reagan.

"Here's Michele Bachmann critiquing President Obama on his nuclear policy," Matthews said. "I am confounded by why she's upset by his nuclear policy, since Ronald Reagan was one the great idealist about someday getting rid of nuclear weapons in this world. But here she is, let's listen to Michele Bachmann on this new conservatism."

Matthews played Bachmann speaking at a rally in Minnesota on April 7, which she explained peace is accomplished through strength in her estimation and not by backing down, especially with so many threats in the world.

"And then earlier this week, we found out that the President said that he was going to change the United States' strategy on dealing with nuclear weaponry," Bachmann said. "Did this shock everyone? So if in fact there is a nation who is compliant with all the rules ahead of time and then complied with the United Nations on nuclear proliferation, if they fire against the United States, a biological weapon, a chemical weapon, or maybe a cyberattack - well, then we weren't going to be firing back with nuclear weapons."

Matthews, obviously hung up on Bachmann declaring a cyber-attack a threat, dismissed her approach to national security. However, many qualified experts would argue a cyberattack from abroad is potentially a bigger threat to the nation's infrastructure than chemical or biological weapon. Still, Matthews diminished this threat to score cheap political points against Bachmann.

"I don't get that," Matthews declared. "I guess I'm waiting for the applause line there. But I guess I never thought of using nuclear weapons against somebody hacking into our system here, our computer system. Nuclear weapons are basically used in the context of the Cold War or at its worst, as counter to other nuclear weapons except in Europe."

MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan suggested there was some merit to having nuclear arsenals, but wasn't sold on the cyber threat either.
"James Baker told the foreign minister of Iraq if they use chemical or biological weapons on our troops in Desert Storm we would retaliate with nuclear weapons," Buchanan said.

And Ron Reagan, the liberal-leaning son of former President Ronald Reagan completely dismissed any reason to have nuclear weapons, including the cyberattack threat.
"Nuclear weapons have been used twice in all of history and we're not eager to use them again," Reagan said. "And no, we're not going to nuke somebody just because they hacked into our computers. That's not going to happen."

Make sure you check out CNSNews.com's detailed story on the inaccuracy of Rep. Wasserman Shultz's claim and her office's response.