The Politico had a story about Big Labor penned by Jeanne Cummings, the reporter famed for going after Sarah Palin’s Party purchased wardrobe during the 2008 presidential campaign, that was an abject lesson in Old Media bias. Her piece headlined “Labor helps kill its own top priority” is a great example of using language to subtly shade the arguments, in this case those of Big Labor, to elicit a positive view of the ideology contained in the issue. Her piece very subtly shades the goals of Big Labor in a positive light easily giving the reader a feeling that Big Labor’s goals are good and noble and is a perfect example of how the media creates emotional appeal for the left’s actions.

Because it is such masterfully crafted example of subtle bias, it deserves to be studied closely.

Cummings Begins her propping up of Big Labor by saying that Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts is “bad news for health care” and will mean that Republicans can “block the Employee Free Choice Act,” and so she immediately casts the possible actions of the GOP in a negative light at the outset. “Bad news for health care”? It is said as if the GOP was against “health care.” It isn’t. And of course “block” is certainly a negative action. In any case, she started by shrouding the GOP in negativity right away.

Cummings followed that with a quote by Tom Harkin, a Democrat Senator, saying, “I’ll never give up on it.” Immediately we get a positive emotion score awarded to Democrats in Cumming’s report.

Next Cummings paints Big Labor as a noble actor by saying it made a “bargain” in good faith with Democrats to put their EFCA plans on hold while health care is worked on. Score positive points for Big Labor.

Sadly for clarity’s sake, Cummings fails to mention that Big Labor didn’t have a choice on that noble “bargain.” This was the president’s requirement and a happenstance forced on Big Labor through the sheer politics of the matter. Big Labor wasn’t given a choice to be so noble as to put self-interest on the back burner for the good of the nation. Cummings similarly does not report that the EFCA was floated for a vote several times last summer and was found to have too many Democrat voices against it. This was long before Brown won his new Senate seat. But let’s not go worrying about facts, now. Cummings has a political side to pump up here.

From here Cummings notes that many union folks in Massachusetts voted against the Democrat Party and went for Republican Brown. She points out that sending Scott Brown to Washington makes it less likely that the EFCA will be as easy to pass as it may have been before.

Eventually Cummings gets to a short explanation of what the EFCA was supposed to do and boy does she play it fast and loose with the big picture.

As originally, drafted the bill would allow workers to sign cards to show their desire to unionize rather than going through a formal election process. That plank led to the legislation’s nickname: the card check bill.

Notice how this is written in a positive fashion in favor of unions? The EFCA would “allow” workers to sign a card, the card would “show their desire to unionize,” and the card would let them show this desire “rather than going through a formal election process,” as if that whole democratic election thing was such an annoying, unwanted bother to everyone. The whole explanation belies that there could be anything negative about the EFCA.

The truth of the matter is that the card check part of the legislation is not a positive thing for the workers. It is a positive thing for the unions, no question, but for the worker it takes away the right of a secret vote and opens that worker to systematic intimidation from union operatives because it will be made publicly aware if that employee doesn’t want to be unionized. This elimination of the secret vote will surely cause many workers to vote yes out of fear of becoming known as the anti-union worker and to avoid intimidation from union agitators. On the other hand, it could even open the worker up to intimidation by an employer too! It’s a two edged sword and draws blood from the worker with both edges. But Cummings does not report any of that.

Cummings adds another aspect of the bill to her piece:

The legislation also would beef up penalties for companies that retaliated against workers calling for a union and would force companies to negotiate with newly created unions.

Notice how she left out the worst part of the bill — the forced government arbitration. This bill forces both the union and the employer into a very short timetable to arrive at a contract. If that time limit is passed, the bill provides that the federal government will swoop in and force terms on both sides. This eliminates the power of both the employer and the union to arrive at their own terms. In essence, this part of the bill takes even more power away from the worker but Cummings didn’t mention any of this because it is just what Big Labor wants to have happen. After all, they think they control government and can get government to use their terms as the base for arbitration. But what happens when Republicans take over at some point? Will labor still be able to dictate what the government will do? Workers lose out all the way around with this provision and so do employers, with Big Labor itself putting itself in a possible loser situation. Bad all the way around…. Not that Cummings takes note of it all.

Next Cummings mentions that business and the Republicans are “unified in opposition,” but she never really takes any pains to explain why. She just paints them as opposers. Once again the GOP is clothed in negativity without given the benefit of explanation to the reader.

Cummings gives the final word to AFL-CIO political director Karen Ackerman.

“It’s a critical issue and we intend to keep on fighting for it,” she said. But “I think there has not yet been laid out a clear strategy of how to win on the Employee Free Choice Act.”

As you can see, Cummings ends her piece telling us all that this is a “critical issue” but people are “fighting for it.” She tells us that people are working for a “clear strategy of how to win.” All positively shaded rhetoric meant to convey that the unions are trying hard to help people.

So, to sum up we find a story that uses negatively shaded rhetoric every time Republicans or business is mentioned but positive, happy-talk to drive the discussion every time Big Labor or Democrats are mentioned. The Democrat position is termed “fighting for” things and shows them as looking for a “win,” while the Republicans are “blocking” and creating “bad news for health care.” The EFCA will “allow” workers to do things and helps get them out of that gosh darn complicated and time consuming “formal election process,” while Republicans and business are “unified in opposition.” Cummings uses all positive rhetoric for the Democrats and nothing but negativity for Republicans.

Yes, this is a perfect example of shaded rhetoric meant to shore up good feelings for the left while painting the right as mean and heartless. It is the sort of subtle writing that reveals an underlying support for the left that fills reporting of the “news.” This sort of careful rhetoric doesn’t come right out with an in-your-face support of leftism but leaves the reader with a warm feeling for the reporter’s favorite side and at the same time causes a reader to see the enemy — the right side of the argument — as the meanies, the bad actors, the negative nellies.

Apparently Jeanne Cummings is a master of it.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The other day I was slapping Congressman John Boehner (R, OH) around for his absurd claim that there was no difference between the Tea Party movement’s principles and the GOP establishment’s principles (or lack thereof). Well, today I have to give our Congressional Minority Leader a pat on the back for his letter to Obama about healthcare.

For those unaware, Obama has offered to come have another one of his odious “summits” with the GOP. Obama is claiming he wants to “listen” to the Republican’s ideas and that its time to work together. It’s all a sandbag, though. Obama is a liar and doesn’t intend to “listen” to anyone. It’s a move for show, a bright shiny bauble that the Old Media wonder at like the lap dogs they are.

Obama’s played this lie out many, many times in the past. It was his common mantra when he was a State Senator here in Illinois. He’d make all sorts of soothing noises about “listening” to all sides and “working together.” Then he would ignore all offers of collaboration and all ideas offered as he would go on to propose a strictly, down-the-line socialist styled liberal agenda. He’s never once in his life ever included any ideas from the other side in anything he’s ever done in politics. The man is simply a liar. There just isn’t any other way to say it.

Anyway, Leader Boehner and the Republican Whip Representative Eric Cantor (R,VA) has issued a good letter to precede this supposed listening tour that Obama is pretending to launch. In it, the leaders say that they’d love to meet with Obama if he throws out Obamacare and offers to start over with a bipartisan effort.

Both Cantor and Boehner know, of course, that CommieObamie won’t agree to that. In fact, they know that Obama’s lies about “transparency” will also prevent him from agreeing to bills being posted for 72 hours on line, as well. Further Obama’s desire to hide as much of his plans from the American people as possible will prevent him from agreeing to any of the things the GOP is talking for here. So, this letter really highlights Obama’s hypocrisy.

Of course, I’d prefer that the GOP refuse to work with Obama on anything at this point. The man has made himself quite clear. He wants the U.S. economy laid low, he wants U.S. power dispersed, he wants unions to eliminate private industry, and he wants the U.S. Constitution thrown in the trash can. Any working with Obama is assistance with his destructive agenda.

Before I get to the letter here, I have one question: Obama wants to hear the GOP’s ideas now, does he? I thought he and his perverted party have been saying that the GOP doesn’t have any to hear (a knowing lie)? Gosh, if the GOP doesn’t have any ideas, what does Obama think he’s asking to hear?

Here’s the letter (bold in the original):

February 8, 2010

The Honorable Rahm Emanuel
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats.

Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses. Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process. Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.

Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.

Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion? As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills.

The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions. Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such “experts?” Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate?

Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one last month where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?

Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of openness and transparency?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.

These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks.

For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May. The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.

We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

There is no better example of how low intellectuals have fallen than the case of Bernard-Henri Lévy, intellectual, provocateur, member of the well-regarded French nouveaux philosophes and, it seems, all around gullible fool.

Bernard-Henri Lévy, better known to those in the know as BHL, has become a laughing stock of modern inteleckshoouls everywhere with the publication of his much anticipated book on philosopher Immanuel Kant.

Oh, there’s sharp criticism in Lévy’s new Kantallope, there’s bomb thrown name calling, and nose-up-turning galore. Kant, according to Lévy, is a “raving lunatic” and a “fake.” And to prove his case Lévy uses the anti-Kanti words of the famous 20th-century philosopher Jean-Baptiste Botul — known as the father of the philosophical school of Botulism.

Yeah. Big problem for BHL, though. Jean-Baptiste Botul is a fictional character made up as a joke in 1999 by a journalist. I mean, come on, if you didn’t see the joke in “the school of Botulism” what sort of bat do you need upside your head to see the truth?

But this is what I mean, here. This guy, this Bernard-Henri Lévy, is supposed to be the top of the intellectual food chain in France. Yet he was such a dunce that he built a historical case on the opprobrium of a fake philosopher? It’s bad enough that this supposed smartie was so gullible as to be taken in by a fake philosopher, but the error was compounded by the editors and publishers that also missed this easily discovered faux pas.

Even Wikipedia (French version translated) has it right for a change, and we know how bad Wikipedia is!

Of course, Bernard-Henri Lévy has been accused of “cutting corners” and intellectual laziness before, but still his fame and fortune shows that intellectual rigor is not a prized commodity in the realm of the intellectual. It shows that these guys are not as smart as advertised.

It’s been like this for a long time, sadly. Starting with Karl Marx, or folks like Charles Beard and John Dewey, all the way to poseurs like Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal, we’ve had empty suits promulgating nonsense and proffering contemporary political ideology as straight science, unbiased philosophy, historical investigation or high thinking.

The fact is our intellectuals are lazy leftists that aren’t worthy of the adulation they receive by the elites in academe. Solid research, learned, hard fought knowledge is not prized in the circles of our acclaimed intellectuals. Only a kitschy adherence to left-wing [political ideology is prized by these folks. Sadly, real intellect does not interest these people.
The simple fact is that today’s intellectuals only value newsearch and not research. These stuffed shirts only value “newsness,” and not well argued, researched truth.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Well I’ve now written six — this makes seven — articles criticizing certain failures of the Tea Party movement thus far. They are all meant to be constructive criticisms, though, not dismissive nor derogatory of them. It’s measured introspection I employ in each of these articles. No name calling, no laughing, no hate. There is just no logical way to construe what I’ve written thus far as hate against the Tea Party movement. But this whole Tea Party thing reveals several things to me. First of all it shows that there is still a lot of passion for them and that is a very good thing. I want the Tea Party groups to succeed and I want them to become a force that can teach the GOP a lesson. The other main thing it shows me is that too many people can’t read for comprehension these days.

The sad thing is that these days even the slightest criticism of a thing is seen by too many as outright hostility. Everyone is so hypersensitive that even a mild criticism meant as an exercise in introspection is seen as an over-the-top attack. It doesn’t just happen on the right, either. Look at what happened to all those Hillary Clinton supporters during the run up to the 2008 presidential elections. The constructive criticism that Hillary fans offered the Democrats was pounded down so hard by the left that many Hillary supporters found themselves aligned — and some permanently — with the side they thought they opposed; the Republicans.

Naturally there’s the name callers and nay sayers always floating around out there. I had one guy, for instance, say, “who asked you for your opinion” of the Tea Parties? This same guy then went on to give me HIS opinion of them evoking the obvious rejoinder of just who the hell asked him for his opinion, anyway? Obviously he wasn’t bright enough to “get” that concept!

Speaking of “getting” things, there were plenty of folks absolutely sure I wasn’t “getting” what the Tea Parties were all about. Naturally, they all went on to make assumptions about my points based on the “thought” coming out of their rear-ends, not based on anything I wrote. Such as the many that think I am saying that the GOP should co-opt the TP movement and the others, just as wrong, that say I am advocating for a third party. Neither of these concepts did I utter a word about, though.

There was also quite a few brain-dead comments claiming I was really just a guy “shilling” for the Republican Party. I was “sold out,” and I was a “stout apologist” for the GOP. Gosh. I am so glad these illiterate fools were able to tell me that I am a GOP insider, or else I’d have never known it. Of course, that would be news to the party I wrote THIS letter to way back in 2006 when I told them I was no longer part of their party! That would be news to the Tea Party folks I stood next to last year as we protested government overreach, too.

But the most important thing that this whole Tea Party discussion showed me is that many of the Tea Party folks themselves seem to have no concrete idea about what they are all on about. A particularly good example of that came from a well-meaning fellow from Florida. Even as he spelled my name wrong, here is what he wrote:

Mr. Warner Todd Houston….

Your motivation is good but I don’t think you get it. The tea party in my view is educational, not a party per se…. They are the passion of the millions of people who sit in front of their TVs and scream at the idiots in the government who are ignoring the constitution and bill of rights. Like that PRESIDENT FROM HELL OBAMA THE MARXIST…..

So not to be too excited about the Tea Partiers not winning elections, they have no interest in themselves winning elections. Only to educate the millions of previously ignorant electorate who are finally getting busy and learning about thier(sic) country and the electoral system we used to have, and how incredibly easy and simple it was to have their country taken away from them in one single election cycle…..They are really scared now, and alert…..

At least this fellow didn’t call me a shill for the fetid GOP! But I think this letter shows that too many of these people have no idea what to do with their power as a movement and no idea what others intend with their efforts. Yet they are all cock-sure they know the whole story and everyone else doesn’t “get it.”

Here was my reply to the fellow from Florida:

Sir,

First off I want to thank you for the letter. I think you sort of prove my point that the Tea Party groups have some major problems ahead of them.

Actually, I think it is you that doesn’t “get it.” YOU might think the Tea Party groups are “just educational,” but that would be news to all the Tea Party groups (like those in Ill. I wrote about) that endorsed candidates and worked for their campaigns!

If these groups are supposed to be “just educational” like you think they are supposed to be, then your beef is with them, not me! After all, when you endorse candidates and work for their election you have left the world of mere “education” and joined the world of politics.

My evaluation is based on how they acted in this election. If all they want to do is educate, then they should not be working on campaigns.

Still, I find your position less than gratifying even if all they are trying to do is educate people. What good is all this educating on politics if no one heeds the education, if no one is actually guided by it?

My chief concern is that in the long run these Tea Party groups will end up making people even more cynical about politics, make people feel they aren’t paid attention to, aren’t listened to, make conservatives feel even more distanced from politics than they already do.

I want the TP groups to succeed. But to do that they will have to become a force that will make people sit up and pay attention.

Again, I think you are the one not getting it. You said: “So not to be too excited about the Tea Partiers not winning elections, they have no interest in themselves winning elections.”

Clearly you are completely wrong about them not having an interest in winning elections. A dozen of these Tea Party groups here in Illinois DID work for campaigns. They did endorse candidates. They did push candidates. That is nothing like this blase assumption you seem to have of having “no interest” in elections!!

But, let’s even think about this claim of yours about “having no interest in winning elections.” If you have no interest in elections, yet claim to have an opinion on politics… isn’t that a contradiction? Why have an opinion at all if you have no interest in winning?

Sir, I thank you for the email and am glad you took the time to write. But if you are an example of the average Tea Party goer I think you are an example of how confused and ineffective Tea Party groups are going to be going forward! I think many Tea Party supporters are very misinformed about politics, completely unaware of what to do once involved, and will find themselves frustrated and just as powerless as they feared they were when they went into the whole thing.

I can only sadly shake my head at the trouble for our side that might come out of this.

Thanks again for the message

Yours,
Warner Todd Huston (not Houston)

Lastly, I need to say this… are all Tea Party groups a failure? Certainly not and I am not proposing that they are. I am aware of many of them — in Ohio, the East Coast, even in southern Illinois, Tennessee, and other places — that are doing great work. I cheer them and support them. But if more don’t start stepping up and start organizing on a greater level by the 2010 elections the movement risks causing more cynicism about politics than ever in the very people we need to enflame with political passion. And if the movement itself doesn’t start to find a more concrete message and a more unified direction we might see come of it more trouble for our side then for the enemy’s.

So, you nimrods that want to think that I hate the Tea Party movement and that I’m all for the GOP can gripe all you want. I want these groups to succeed and my writing about the movement is meant to spur a more concerted effort and greater success. We need to focus Tea Party groups for the long haul. That is what I hope to help spur with these articles. Maybe I’m making them mad at me, but I hope they take that anger and channel it to success. And, no, nobody asked me. Who asked you? And isn’t that the POINT of the Tea Parties? To stick your 2 cents in places where the party bigwigs and left-wingers want you to stay out of?

My Other Tea Party Movement Discussions

Illinois Shows Limitations of Tea Party Movement

Anatomy Of A Tea Party Pooping Endorsement

Book Review: What Are These Tea Parties About, Anyway?

Old GOP Doesn’t ‘Get’ Tea Parties

Tea Party Debate Continued: My Reply to Steve McQueen of BigGovernment.com

Tea Parties: The Biggest Mistake We’ll Make in 2010

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On 3rd., I wrote (scroll down) of “A Reuters journalist who will be looking for a new job soon”. Guess what?

“Journalist Whose Article Was Retracted Leaves Reuters

The journalist who wrote an article on Monday that turned into an embarrassment for Reuters and a cause for some conservatives has left the wire service, the company said Friday. A Reuters spokeswoman declined to say whether the journalist, Terri Cullen, left voluntarily, or why. “I can’t really go into any detail,” said the spokeswoman, Courtney Dolan.

Ms. Cullen stepped down less than a month after being hired for the newly created position of wealth management editor. She had worked for more than a decade for The Wall Street Journal Online.

Her article said that President Obama’s budget amounted to a backdoor tax increase for middle-income and even lower-income people, based largely on the scheduled expiration of income tax cuts passed in 2001. But the president had actually proposed keeping those cuts in place for all but high-income families.

After a complaint from the White House, Reuters withdrew the article, stating that it was inaccurate.

Source

Whether the article was inaccurate or not is not what interests me here. What I would like to know is how many articles Reuters withdrew in response to requests from the Bush White House? Should ANY White House be pressing news organizations to withdraw articles? What happened in this instance sounds to me very much like censorship, albeit censorship with a willing accomplice.

You can read the censored article here. A blogger caught it before it disappeared.

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

For users of non-Windows operating systems (such as the various versions of Linux), however, it’s a different ball-game. If Linux users have any difficulty, they should probably try different browsers until they find one that works (or maybe use Debian instead of Fedora etc.).

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). See EYE ON BRITAIN

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A new report by the International Planned Parenthood Federation is advocating that children as young as 10 be given extensive sex education, including an awareness of sex’s pleasures.

This latest push to sexualize 10-year-olds provides yet another opportunity for moonbats to open fire on Christianity, which they once again equate with Islam. Complains the federally funded abortion mill’s report (PDF):

Young people’s sexuality is still contentious for many religious institutions. Fundamentalist and other religious groups the — Catholic Church and madrasas (Islamic schools) for example — have imposed tremendous barriers that prevent young people, particularly, from obtaining information and services related to sex and reproduction. Currently, many religious teachings deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex and limited guidelines for sexual education often focus on abstinence before marriage…

Understandably, since abstinence does not produce costumers, Planned Parenthood disapproves of it — even among children.

According to PP, their 10-year-old potential customers are “sexual beings” in need of “comprehensive sexuality education.” Therefore sex ed should present sexuality as a “positive force for change and development, as a source of pleasure, an embodiment of human rights and an expression of self.”

Michelle Turner, president of the Maryland-based Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, notes that once again progressives are trying to shove parents out of the picture, the better to impose their social engineering. Ed Mechmann, spokesman for New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, observes that PP is attempting to undermine traditional values — and that PP makes money selling contraception and abortion.

Remember when moonbats launched a jihad against Joe Camel for allegedly tempting children to become smokers? Maybe old Joe should be brought back to advance a cause liberals seem to believe in — indiscriminate premature sex. The sooner kids get started, the more abortions they can have — and that means more profit for Planned Parenthood.

On a tip from Mega. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Residents in King were fumed over the weekend after a state of emergency declaration restricted the sale of alcohol and the carrying of firearms in vehicles.

King Police Chief Paula May said she’s received hundreds of threats related to the restrictions, which banned driving from 12 a.m. Sunday to 5 a.m.

The state of emergency for King was declared by members of the City Council after Stokes County authorities also declared a state of emergency.

Under North Carolina law, May said, when a state of emergency is put into place that includes a ban on driving, the carrying of firearms in vehicles is also banned. The King city curfew banned the sale of alcohol.

Actually, it is a bit more than that

“I think there’s been some misinterpretation that I personally have declared martial law and taken away people’s right to bear arms and that’s erroneous,” May told WXII reporter Jermont Terry. “By law, statute 14-288.7 automatically went into effect. And that law which goes into effect when there’s a state of emergency prohibits the transportation, purchase sale and possession of firearms other than on one’s own premises.”

Obviously, the people who wrote that law never actually read that wonderful document, The Bill Of Rights. By all means, they can ban driving. That is a privilege, not a Right. The sale of alcohol is a bit trickier, at least from private businesses that sell beer and wine (hard liquor is sold only at government run stores in North Carolina). However, restricting the purchase and possession of firearms except at your own home? Yes, that would be unconstitutional, pure and simple, which begs the question “will the ACLU get involved?” Will they stand up for the Rights granted in the Constitution, or, just the ones they happen to agree with? After all, the main point of the 2nd Amendment was not so that people could have guns for the heck of it, but, for the ability to protect themselves from a repressive government.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Internet chatter had led to speculation that it might be an urban myth — nothing more than clever digital trickery spreading via the Web.

But our friend Bob Collins at Minnesota Public Radio assures us he’s seen it with his own eyes:

There is a billboard along I-35 near Wyoming, Minn., with a huge photo of former president George W. Bush and this question: “Miss Me Yet?”

Now, the push is on to find out who paid to have it put up.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post