Saturday, February 13, 2010

Rosie O’Donnell – “Your Feelings are MORE Important Than Your Facts”...









In case ANYONE needed any more proof that (A) liberalism really IS an emotional disorder and (B) that Rosie O’Donnell is a bona fide moron, there’s THIS from her own Sirius Sattelite radio show, talking with Janette Barber (her executive producer) about how she created Elizabeth Hasselbeck;
                                 
O'DONNELL: “Nobody ever really paid [attention to Hasselbeck] until I got on that show. It was me. I created that monster. Nobody really gave a s--t what she said before, right? So then I'm on there and I'm fighting with her, and then she got invited to the White House. I remember thinking when she told me that, 'Oops, the beginning of the end.' ”

JANETTE BARBER: “...Before you got there, every day was Desperate Housewives and 'Who wants to buy a new purse?' The nature of the show did change, and, I will say, very much for the better.”

O'DONNELL (imitating Hasselbeck): “'Can I just say one thing?' ”

O’Donnell (AS HERSELF): “'No' - That's what I always wanted to say... 'You can't say anything else, 'cause you're yelling and you're not that smart.' She wanted her facts. I kept telling her,
'Your feelings are more important than your facts. Anybody can Google your facts, Elisabeth, but you have to show your humanity. What are your feelings about this?' ”


THAT’S the problem with liberals, facts aren’t important to them, “feeeelings” ARE!

That’s why I call liberalism “emotional thinking.”

Rosie O’Donnell, 9-11 Truther (“This must be the first time in recorded history that fire melted steel” – FACT: Steel melts at appx. 2700 degrees Fahrenheit AND loses 80% of its strength at 1800 degrees F) and emotional thinker (“Your feelings are more important than your facts” - FACT: Not in the "fact-based reality we all actually live in).

What’s that Rosie said about Hasselbeck?...(“...you're not that smart”).

Maybe Rosie should look in the mirror a little more, at least while saying things like that.

Thoughts on James O’Keefe...








 





In my view, James O'Keefe (pictured top), in surreptitiously entering Mary Landrieu’s (pictured bottom, in red) Senate office in Louisiana, committed a tactical, but not a criminal error and despite being charged, he will, in all probability, eventually be cleared, since O’Keefe and his companions had no bugging equipment and, as citizens, they did have a right to examine the actions of their servants in government.

Certainly, O'Keefe should rethink and refine his strategies, but no public official should ever be free from the prying eyes of the public, let alone investigative journalists and sad to say, the ONLY real difference between James O'Keefe and our mainstream "investigative journalists" is that James O'Keefe doesn't work for a media company so in bed with the government that it exempts most public officials from its investigations.

For instance, 60 Minutes wouldn't dare investigate any elected official so vigorously, now-a-days.

IF Mary Landrieu's office DID indeed ignore calls from irate constituents, they and she, as public servants, had no right to do that and they SHOULD be held accountable for that. If members of Congress really are that unresponsive and unaccountable than there should be an army of James O'Keefe's working for a Congressional Oversight Committee.

Just as ACORN, as an entity receiving government funds had no right to privacy regarding their malfeasance and misuse of those funds, no government officials have any legitimate expectation of privacy concerning any of their questionable actions.

Today, cops are routinely video taped doing their jobs, in fact, most police cruisers are equipped with dash board cameras. If those public servants can be subjected to such scrutiny (and they legally CAN BE), than so can our elected officials and those entities, especially "non-profits" that rely on government funds for their existence.

What I don't get is so many self-proclaimed Liberal Americans, who appear to have such a huge problem with unaccountable and unresponsive corporate leaders, not only seemingly have little problem with unaccountable and unresponsive public officials, they actually often tend to actually bend over backwards to kiss government ass at every opportunity.

Abusive government is far more threatening than abusive corporations. The over 1 BILLION people murdered by various socialist governments throughout the last century proves that.

In fact, there is no greater threat to democracy and more importantly to INDIVIDUAL Liberty than corrupt and abusive/over-reaching governance. We're all finding out the very painful reality that it is the PRIVATE sector that allows the PUBLIC sector to exist....and NOT the reverse.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

What’s Going On Over At MSNBC?...












MSNBC has long made its stock and trade in left-wing nuttiness, from Chris Matthews “tingling legs,” to his referring to West Point as “enemy territory,” to his inane State of the Union Address “post-racial” gushing, “It's interesting: he is post-racial, by all appearances. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour"...to David Shuster’s inane tweet directed at James O’Keefe “@JamesOKeefeIII a) you are not a journalist b) the truth is you intended to tap her phones c) it's a felony d) you will go to prison,” all the way to Keith Olbermann’s calling Scott Brown, the new Senator from MA., “a homophobic, racist, teabagging, ex-nude model,” and even more recently,  MSNBC has done its best to alienate mainstream America, while plumbing the depths of cable news depravity.


All of which is almost certainly why the most recent ratings scoreboard looks like THIS:

The Scoreboard: Monday, Feb. 8

By Kevin Allocca
Tuesday, Feb 9th, 2010
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_monday_feb_8_151592.asp


25-54 demographic: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 455 | CNN: 144 | MSNBC: 116 | HLN: 155

Prime:
FNC: 792 | CNN: 181 | MSNBC: 241 | HLN: 185

5p:
6p:
7p:
8p:
9p:
10p:
11p:
FNC
Beck:
Baier:
Shep:
O'Reilly:
Hannity:
Greta:
O'Reilly:

835
629
559
1154
734
478
448
CNN
Blitzer:
Blitzer:
Blitzer:
Brown:
King:
Cooper:
Cooper:

89
109
158
141
178
225
184
MSNBC
Matthews:
EdShow:
Matthews:
Olbermann:
Maddow:
Olbermann:
Maddow:

46
112
205
302
230
181
157
HLN
Prime:
Prime:
Issues:
Grace:
Behar:
Grace:
Showbiz:

119
97
129
245
167
155
143


It’s gotten so bad at MSNBC that even the business channels are speculating about the demise of one of its stalwarts. DailyFinance even asked, “Is America Getting Over Keith Olbermann?”

In that piece, it noted that, “Ratings for Olbermann's Countdown have been soft recently, and the 8 p.m. shows on CNN and HLN have narrowed the gap. In the important demographic of adults 25 to 54 - the group advertisers are looking to reach - Countdown was down 44% year-over-year in January. It averaged 268,000 viewers in that demo, only 3,000 more than Nancy Grace's show on HLN, and 12,000 more than CNN's Campbell Brown. Fox News's O'Reilly Factor dominated the hour with 964,000 viewers age 25 to 54, and was the only cable news show in the time period to increase its audience, by 55%.”

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/is-america-getting-over-keith-olbermann/19337944/


For his part, Olbermann responded with his typical aplomb, calling DailyFinance "a right-wing site" and accusing them of “cherry-picking” ratings data.

MSNBC’s far-left tilt was initially bankrolled by GE, but they’ve sold NBC and its affiliates to ComCast Cable and the dismal ratings at MSNBC can’t possibly sit well with a real media company!

Maybe GE’s Jeffrey Immelt would subsidize a televised version of Air America, but is ComCast Cable really going to do the same?

And why even bother?

Especially with “Countdown’s” pulling in only slightly more than a QUARTER of O’Reilly’s viewership.

All of this has had MSNBC president Phil Griffin forced to respond:

"Keith has been our tentpole," he says. "I watch the show every night. It's a great show. It's as smart and clever and fun as any out there, and I'm pleased with where we are."

Griffin claims to attribute Olbermann's January ratings slip to a news cycle in which international news, rather than domestic politics, was the No. 1 story. "On big, breaking international news, CNN tends to do better than us. They did a great job in Haiti, and I tip my hat to them," he says. "We're the place for politics, and there are times when politics does great, and there are times when it doesn't." Looking ahead to this year’s primaries and the coming midterm elections, he says, "I think we'll get our momentum back."

Hardly a ringing endorsement, eh?

Sounds more like what you hear when a sports team is looking to unload an aging player.

For the final word, Keith Olbermann retreated, appropriately enough, to the Daily Kos, where he wrote, “Let me cut to the chase (since this is besides the point, except insomuch as it contradicts the meme): the show isn't about to be cancelled. It isn't slumping. MSNBC isn't worried about it. NBC isn't worried about it. It is making them a - damned fortune, in fact (and they'd owe me a - damned fortune if they did cancel it, which they aren't going to).”

TRANSLATION: “Alright the jig appears to be up, but MSNBC’s going to pay through the nose for firing me...I sure hope Sports Center’s saved a spot for me...Dan?...Dan Patrick???...Hey bud...How ya doin’?”

At any rate, I have three questions for old "Red Bell Bottoms" Olbermann; (1) When your station's President has to acknowledge that a competitor "does international news stories better than we do," isn't that a cause for concern?...(2) Would you please define "damned fortune" for us?...and (3) "Tentpole?" That sounds waaay too close to A$$hole, doesn't it?!

Recent Rasmussen's Polls Tell a Fascinating....and Hopeful Story....







Last Summer, liberals were shocked at the Gallup Poll that showed there were almost twice as many self-identified Conservatives (40%) in America as there are Liberals (21%), but three recent Rasmussen Polls show where the majority of the American people stand on things even clearer.

In one, titled, Politically Speaking, Populist Isn’t Popular, But Conservative Is, Americans prefer the affiliation “Conservative by a very wide margin, when compared to populist, progressive, liberal or libertarian!

In fact, that poll breaks down like this;


Affiliation   POSITIVE  NEGATIVE

CONSERVATIVE    40%       16%

Progressive     22%       35%

Libertarian     18%       31%

Liberal         14%       39%

Populist         8%       36%


The ONLY affiliation with POSITIVES over 30% is CONSERVATIVE, likewise the ONLY affiliation with NEGATIVES UNDER 20% is CONSERVATIVE!

The affiliation with the 2nd HIGHEST positives was “progressive” with 22% (nearly half that of Conservatives).

The affiliation with the 2nd LOWEST negatives was LIBERTARIAN with 31%.

The affiliation with the HIGHEST negatives was LIBERAL with 39%, followed closely by both “progressive” and “populist” at 35% and 36% respectively.

Populist was the ONLY affiliation with POSITIVES under 10%!

That would seem to be VERY good news for Conservatives and VERY BAD news for the Left...no matter what they call themselves!

Still another Rasmussen Report, titled, 75 Percent Are Angry At Government’s Current Policies, declares that a national telephone survey “shows that 75% of likely voters now say they are at least somewhat angry at the government’s current policies, up four points from late November and up nine points since September. The overall figures include 45% who are Very Angry, also a nine-point increase since September.

“As the economy continues to stumble along, 59% of voters believe cutting taxes is better than increasing government spending as a job-creation tool, but 72% expect the nation’s elected politicians to increase spending instead.

“Looking back, most voters still don't approve of the multi-billion-dollar government bailouts of the financial industry and troubled automakers General Motors and Chrysler.”

Seemingly proving that voters voted in Democrats in 2008 to CUT spending and reduce the deficit, and are angry that they chose to do the reverse!

And in yet a third recent Rasmussen Report entitled, Americans Reject Keynesian Economics, there is even more bad news for left-leaning, Keynesian Liberals.

“John Maynard Keynes would say it’s best to increase deficit spending in tough economic times, only 11% of American adults agree and think the nation needs to increase its deficit spending at this time. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% disagree and say it would be better to cut the deficit.

“In fact, 59% think Keynes had it backwards and that increasing the deficit at this time would hurt the economy rather than help.
To help the economy, most Americans (56%) believe that cutting the deficit is the way to go.”

As far as what’s causing our current problems (too much government SPENDING and intervention), the voters seem very well informed.

That is almost certainly why politically, no matter how you spin it, more Americans are angry at their government, more are opposed to government spending and larger deficits and perhaps most promising of all, by an overwhelming margin favor candidates who affiliate with the term CONSERVATIVE than any other. In fact Conservative and Libertarian had the two LOWEST negatives, while “populist” was the only affiliation to have positives UNDER 10%!

Like that information or not, it would seem to be vital data when pondering the next election, coming up in about nine months.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Is New Jersey a Warning to Oregon?...







With Oregon’s voters recently passing two referendums that hiked both the corporate tax and the income tax on the highest earning individuals there, they may just want to look east to see where those policies inevitably lead.

New Jersey is one example.

Not long ago, New Jersey was, by most measures, “the richest state in the nation,” but over the past half decade that state has seen a mass exodus wealth!

Between 2004 and 2008, more than $70 BILLION in wealth has left the state. That’s a complete reversal from the period between 1999 and 2003 when the Garden State saw an influx of $98 BILLION.

What happened?

The tax structure changed in the mid-2000s, when a “millionaires surtax” was placed on “wealthy individuals.” With that surcharge, high income earners are paying 10% of their taxable incomes to the state alone! Coupled with sky-high property taxes and high sales taxes, the state is simply less and less appealing to those who produce the most.

Incredibly enough, this loss of wealth is occurring even as New Jersey adds population. The reason its losing wealth is that those leaving, the most productive and entrepreneurial are worth an average of 70% more than those coming into the state.

As an IBD editorial noted, “This, of course, should be a lesson for lawmakers everywhere: Keep taxes low. If you don’t, the wealthiest among us, who tend to be the most productive, will find more favorable places to put their talents and energy to work.

“Too many lawmakers never seem to understand this. They keep raising taxes to redistribute the wealth and miss the evidence before their eyes: The rich and the productive increase wealth across the full spectrum of an economy...They create jobs. They drive consumer spending. Wealth – not stimulus spending or any other redistributive schemes – begets more wealth.”

Look away at your own peril Oregon. New Jersey's recent fiscal decline would seem to portend the following for Oregon;

1. Oregon will LOSE a significant number of its businesses and attract few, if any to take their place.
2. Oregon will see a significant loss of its "wealthier" people, its "investor class."
3. Revenues from these tax increases will fall far short of projections, leading Oregon's state government to extend the tax increase to lower brackets to make up for the shortfall.
4.
Oregon's unemployment rate will rise appreciably.
5. Other Blue States may follow Oregon's misguided lead, as it's always easy to get people to raise taxes on OTHERS.

The Left’s Virulent Corruption of Contemporary SCIENCE...






Perhaps the ONLY way to “clean up” the current rash of junk science is to bar those who hold left-wing views from holding positions of responsibility within the scientific community


By now, virtually everyone’s familiar with ClimateGate, the scandal that effectively destroyed the Global warming Movement.

How bad was the scandal that originated out of East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (the CRU)? The British government concluded last week that the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit violated the nation's freedom of information act, although the violations occurred too long ago for prosecution.

A few decades down the road, most who’ve followed the Anthropomorphic Global Warming Movement (AGW) believe that people will look back and wonder how so many government, corporate and media leaders were taken in by propaganda that was based on such shoddy and dishonest evidence, not to mention being taken in to the point that they advocated devoting trillions of dollars to a cause that turned out to be completely based on flagrant dishonesty and dissembling.

The scandal has gotten so huge, so uncontrollable that the leader of England’s Greenpeace has demanded the resignation of the chairman of the IPCC!

Recently the London Times reported that John Sauven, the head of Greenpeace UK has demanded that Rajendra Pachauri resign as chairman of the IPCC.

As John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK put it: “The IPCC needs to regain credibility. Is that going to happen with Pachauri [as chairman]? I don’t think so. We need someone held in high regard who has extremely good judgment and is seen by the global public as someone on their side.”

So even the leadership of Greenpeace UK understands that low scientific standards and reckless disregard for the truth are destroying the credibility of the global warming community, and John Sauven has had the courage and integrity to speak up about it.

Unfortunately, Al Gore, who shared the Nobel Prize with Rajendra Pachauri and the increasingly discredited IPCC, and has a special relationship with and responsibility to environmentalists to clearly state that poor science and flawed judgment have no place in the leadership of the movement to stop climate change, has to date, said nothing.

As a result, no less a figure than Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations has said, "The global warming movement as we have known it is dead," adding, “The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics."

Journalists from all over the world have also weighed in with scathing criticisms. David Warren of the Ottawa Citizen recently wrote, “To my survey, there is not a single aspect of the ‘anthropogenic global warming’ hypothesis that has been left standing by recent revelations, and more shoes drop every day.”

SEE: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Resisting+temptation/2515360/story.html

But it’s gotten far worse than that; Sir David King, the British government's former "chief scientist," has even had to abandon his arguably paranoid claim that "highly sophisticated" foreign intelligence services and/or wealthy rightwing Americans were behind the e-mail leak from the University of East Anglia, that touched off the bottomless "Climategate" scandal in November. For as he admitted to the Guardian on Monday (a generally reliably Left-wing newspaper), he had simply failed to follow the story.

All the e-mails were hacked through a single server. They included e-mails saved from as far back as 1996, and various data sets that fatally undermined the credibility of the whole international "anthropogenic global warming" research effort - by illustrating conscious selection of statistics, and direct manipulation of reporting in scientific publications, by major players.

Again, David Warren weighs in, “From what I can see, I doubt Sir David was dishonest. He had simply averted his eyes from inconvenient truths. This is a very common human foible, and scientists are, I insist, human beings. Had he been following the story he would have grasped that everything came through one server, that the information had not been cherry-picked by some nefarious spy agency over 14 years.

“I might almost say the same for the disgraced Dr. Phil Jones, the former boss of the East Anglia operation, now implicated in various cover-ups, attempts to intimidate and silence skeptics, and purposeful breaches of Britain's freedom of information act. I'm sure he "believed" in what he was doing.

“Like communist apparatchiks in the good old days, a global warm-alarmist may "honestly" think he is serving a higher purpose, that he is on "the right side of history," that he must cut a few corners for the greater good, that the end will eventually justify the means. Read Dostoevsky on this. The book is Crime and Punishment, and the character is Raskolnikov. By subtle increments a failure of candour degenerates into major-league crime.”

That’s why it’s no exaggeration at all to claim that not only has the entire edifice of AGW imploded, but its foundation has been completely eroded by the ongoing CRU scandals.

As David Warren’s investigations showed, “Not only all the numbers, but all the assumptions behind "AGW" - not "most," but all - have depended on the manipulation of facts by persons who had an interest in manipulating them. Often the specific incident is small, but the falsehood is cumulative. Investment in the illusion grows, the stakes become too large to forfeit. Yet the reality remains: that we still don't know any more about long-term human influence on climate than Punxsutawney Phil can know by observing his own shadow.

“This should have been obvious to climatologists from the beginning. At the simplest level, they could observe that global temperature estimates depended on a slur of constantly changing thermometer locations and time sequences. NASA's recent admissions are the more pathetic for that reason: from the top down, these were men who should have known better than to think they could fly beyond the end of such a limb.”

Again, as David Warren has noted, “Perhaps now, more people will finally understand what many have known for years: Man-made climate change was never really a problem - but rather, a solution.

“For just as the science of the IPCC has been exposed as fraudulent, so have its apparent motives. The true ones became strikingly evident when the negotiating text for the "last chance to save the planet" International Climate Accord, put forth in Copenhagen in December, was found to contain as many paragraphs outlining the payment of "climate debt" reparations by Western nations under the watchful eye of a U.N.-controlled global government as it did emission reduction schemes.” SEE: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Resisting+temptation/2515360/story.html

But the CRU’s scandals aren’t the only examples of politics, predominantly Left-wing, Big Government politics infecting and debasing science by rewarding those who push “solutions” that advocate the expansion of government.

In 2006, Britain’s once prestigious Medical Journal, Lancet published a study that found that an additional 650,000 people died in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation...it subsequently turned out that the study had been funded by George Soros and that its data were false.

As explained by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan in a must-read column in today's New York Post, Lancet in 1998 published a supposedly scientific, peer-reviewed paper by the now discredited physician, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, which claimed that standard childhood vaccines cause autism.

Despite the fact that Dr. Wakefield’s paper was contested by other scientists, many parents were influenced by it not to give their children vaccines, and a number of children have died as a result. Now, 12 years later, Lancet's editor finally admits the article was junk science and has retracted it. He has not, however, resigned or been fired.

As the great Lawrence Auster wrote, “Our age could be called the Age of Rebellion against Truth. Ideological zealotry - an attitude that often combines material greed with the spiritual kind - has now infected science and medicine as well as other, softer fields. In this instance, it appears that an ideology of "anti-vaccinism" got started somehow, and, in pursuit of it, truth and science and human well-being got thrown out the window.”

Most of those who’ve paid any attention over the past decade have realized that the Lancet has lost much of its former prestige and standing since it’s become infamous for running faked statistics on, among other things, Iraqi casualties.

Recently, Phyllis Chesler, the feminist author of "The New Anti-Semitism," called out the absurd Arabism of the Lancet, as seen in a piece where they blame endemic domestic violence in the "Palestinian Territory" on Israel. In a critique she sent to the Lancet and posted online, Chesler writes:

“Their study is titled: "Association between exposure to political violence and intimate-partner violence in the occupied Palestinian territory: a cross-sectional study." And yes, they have found that Palestinian husbands are more violent towards Palestinian wives as a function of the Israeli "occupation" - and that the violence increases significantly when the husbands are "directly" as opposed to "indirectly" exposed to political violence.”

It would seem that virtually EVERY subject touched by “scientists” who hold Left-wing agendas has been tainted by their penchant for flawed logic and made-up “facts.”

If there’s another solution to this problem other than vetting scientists by the ideologies they hold, it’s difficult to see what that might be.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Chicago Looks to Take What Oregon’s Giving Away...







Ironically enough, in the wake of Oregon’s voters hiking that state’s top personal income tax rate by 22.5% (from 9% to 11%) and its corporate tax rate over 19% (from 6.6% to 7.9%), Chicago’s Democratic Mayor (Richard Daley) noted that Oregon’s mistake “will help our economic development immediately,” adding, “We’ll be out in Oregon enticing corporations to relocate to Chicago.”

Of course, despite the fact that Illinois’ top marginal income tax rate is a mere 3% (1/3 of Oregon’s original top tax rate), Mayor Daley’s city is burdened with sky-high property taxes and a very high (10.25%) sales tax.

Richard Daley is right in saying, “What happened in Oregon is not good news for Oregon. They believe that anybody who makes $125,000 or more [annually] or businesses or anyone who makes $250,000 — they’re gonna start taxing them. They call them ‘rich people,’ ” the mayor said.

“I’ve always thought America stands for [rewarding success]. You finish high school. You work hard, go to college and you hope to succeed in life. I never knew it’s a class war—that those who succeed in life are the ones that have to bear all the burden. I never realized that. It will be a whole change in America that those who succeed and work hard [that] we’re gonna tax ‘em more than anyone else.”

Chicago’s Mayor finished with, “It will help our economic development immediately. You’d better believe it. We’ll be out in Oregon enticing corporations to relocate to Chicago. I’ll be very frank. I make no bones about that. If those states want to do that, so be it,” he said.

SEE: http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2017137,mayor-daley-trade-shows-012810.article

Daley’s stance shows that even many hardcore, mainstream Democrats eschew the Obama administration’s flirtation with Carteresque Keynesianism.
American Ideas Click Here!