Fans of the late great comedian Chris Farley, take comfort — liberal radio host and MSNBC talking head Ed Schultz often bears an uncanny resemblance to one of Farley’s best-known characters on "Saturday Night Live," that of Matt Foley, motivational speaker.

Schultz has been on a Foleyesque tear of late, raging at Democrats as "spineless weenies" for not standing up to Republicans, despite holding the White House and sizable majorities in Congress.

Here’s Schultz on his radio show June 17, spewing his warped theory that Dick Cheney wants thousands of Americans murdered in another terrorist attack to help Republicans regain political power (click here for audio) –

SCHULTZ: Believe me, that’s where Cheney’s going. I’m the only guy with any balls out there that’s willing to call him on it! And God bless all of you people who backed me up with emails. If you sent me an email (makes kissing sound), I love ya!

On his radio show the following day, Schultz vents about Democrats’ lack of resolve in pushing for health care reform (here for audio) –

SCHULTZ (initially in whiny, mocking voice): We don’t have the votes. We just don’t have the votes. It’s the votes. We’re trying to create jobs. We don’t have the votes. No, you don’t have any guts! You do not have any guts, Democrats! Spineless weenies!

Later on June 18, Schultz described how he would converse with Obama and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanual (audio) –

SCHULTZ: If I’m a presidential adviser, if I am in the Oval Office, the first thing I’d do is turn to Rahm Emanuel and say, shut up!  ‘Cause I’m talking now!

More from Schultz on his mock conversation with Obama and Emanuel (audio) –

SCHULTZ: Mr. President, you need to stand now with the American people, the American people want you to stand up and give the finger to the Republicans! There’s only 40 of those bastards over there! And nail ‘em! (pause, lowers voice) OK, Rahm, you can talk now (followed by bizarre mimicking sound)

Schultz on June 23, disparaging GOP calls for bipartisanship (audio) –

SCHULTZ:  I’m listening to Shelby, Richard Shelby (Republican senator from Alabama), this morning again just on with Carlos (MSNBC anchor Carlos Watson) a little while ago, talking about (imitates Shelby’s accent), Well, you know, we got to have bipartisanship, you know, we got to work together, we haven’t done it yet, there’s always going to be disagreements and you know we got to get together and there’s things that we’re just not going to agree to and there’s things that they’re not going to agree to, but you know we got to get together and they said we’d get together and — Shut up! You lost! You lost! We don’t have to get together with you, Mr. Shelby! We don’t, we don’t have to have lunch with you. You know you don’t matter. You’re out of touch.

And on June 29, talking about how Democrats should respond to South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham’s unequivocal rejection of the so-called "public option" in health care reform (audio) —

SCHULTZ: I would have liked to have seen someone come out from the White House and say, Lindsey Graham has his head up his ass. That’s how you talk to him. Lindsey Graham has got it where it doesn’t shine.

One important difference, however, between Schultz and Farley — Schultz is humorless. Any laughter he prompts is unintentional.

There’s a joke about a woman who says she can’t be overdrawn on her bank account because she still has checks! In California, we elect our jokes to the legislature! (with apologies to the state of Minnesota!)
Case in point is Santa Rosa Democrat Noreen Evans. Noreen is a state assemblywoman (asssemblyperson?) who made the news recently with the following statement:

Well, there is this mantra out there - “live within our means” - and while that sounds really nice . . . and it sounds really responsible, it’s meaningless. Our means are completely within our control . . . We have just given away huge corporate subsidies in February; we have given away other tax reductions over many, many years; we’ve created tax loopholes; in good times, we routinely give away taxes, and then in lean times we never replace those tax deductions or close those loopholes. . . . So “live within our means” doesn’t mean anything. The fact is, we have a state with a population that have [sic] needs that we have a moral obligation to provide.

Did you get that? “Live within our means” doesn’t mean anything, it’s “meaningless”!
Keep in mind that the state of California is broke and handing out IOUs in lieu of cash these days! Not only does living within your means not mean anything, but according to this shining example of modern liberalism, we have a moral obligation to spend more than we take in!

What about a moral obligation to good stewardship of public funds? Could it be that in taking care of the needs of the population, one needs to be careful about other discretionary use of tax dollars in order to insure that there will be enough to take care of those needs?

How about the needs of people to have jobs and to keep enough of their own money that they do not become wards of the state? If you keep raising taxes on business, forcing employers out of the state, then there are fewer taxpayers to pay taxes. And more unemployed people.

The idea that every state expenditure is necessary, or that every good idea has to be implemented by the state is not conducive to fiscal responsibility. The idea that the taxpayer is “morally obligated” to fund every want that the state legislature perceives as “need” is unrealistic.

That’s why there’s a budget, Ms. Evans. That’s why the state constitution requires that the budget be balanced every year. You probably took an oath to uphold that constitution when you assumed office. If you didn’t then you should have!

Responsible adults don’t regularly spend more than they make. On those occasions when they do, they’d better have a pretty darn good reason for it. Not just a warm fuzzy feeling about spending other people’s money!

I heard Ms. Evans on the radio, but thanks to real clear politics for a transcript of her remarks!
Cross Posted at Proof Positive

Read this post »

Network reporters swooned over President Barack Obama hugging a woman, who has cancer and lacks insurance, at his Wednesday “town hall” on health care, as both CNN — where Suzanne Malveaux heralded the hug as “a bold display of presidential concern” — and NBC failed to point out how all the questions (just seven in total) were pre-selected or from members of pro-Obama groups. Instead, NBC’s Savannah Guthrie showed a kid in a video (“My mommy and daddy have small businesses, and we need health care”) before she touted how Obama “solicited questions on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and in person, with a hug for a woman who says she cannot pay her medical bills,” while CNN’s Ed Henry related “he fielded questions from YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and a live audience.”

CBS’s Katie Couric showcased “an emotional moment” when “a 53-year-old cancer patient described her battle to get treatment she can afford.” Couric relayed how Obama “called her exhibit A in a system that’s too expensive and too complicated,” but at least, unlike NBC and CNN, Couric noted the woman “is a volunteer for Mr. Obama’s political operation Organizing for America” and “the White House invited her to attend.”

Filling-in as anchor on CNN’s The Situation Room, Suzanne Malveaux painted Obama as a combination of General Patton and Oprah as she set up Henry in the 6 PM EDT hour:

President Obama has a message for some critics. He will get his way. Today he made a bold promise regarding health care reform. And, in a bold display of presidential concern, the President comforted a sick and emotional woman.

Audio: MP3 clip of Malveaux (15 seconds)

ABC’s World News on Wednesday night only mentioned the event in passing during a story on increased obesity.

NBC anhor Brian Williams set up the report on his newscast by trumpeting the “big deal” of Wal-Mart’s support for Obama: “Today a big American name swung its support to President Obama. Wal-Mart has endorsed a key part of the President’s plan to overhaul health care. And, as U.S. employers go, that’s a big deal.”

Major Garrett, on FNC’s Special Report, pointed out how the forum presented Obama with “a pre-screened audience and pre-screened questions.” At the end of his piece he elaborated:

The Debby we just saw in that piece is Debby Smith. She’s a volunteer for the political arm of the President’s Democratic National Committee Organizing for America. The President took another question from a member of the Service Employees International Union and yet another question from someone who participated in a healthcare rally on Capitol Hill last week on behalf of the President’s program. Nevertheless, the White House denied it controlled today’s event.

After Malveaux’s intro, CNN’s Ed Henry reported: “The President was bullish about the prospects for health reform but warned critics are lining up to kill it. So he used a town hall in Virginia to urge the public to rise up as he fielded questions from YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and a live audience.”

Henry did note that Obama is “facing a skeptical public” as a new CNN/Opinion Dynamics poll found 51 percent favor Obama’s efforts, but 45 percent are in opposition.

From the CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: There was an emotional moment today during President Obama’s town meeting on health care reform in Virginia. A 53-year-old cancer patient described her battle to get treatment she can afford.

DEBBY SMITH: I’m no longer able to work, and I have no health insurance. Now I have a new tumor. I have no way to pay for it.

COURIC: Debby Smith is a volunteer for Mr. Obama’s political operation Organizing for America. The White House invited her to attend. The President called her exhibit A in a system that’s too expensive and too complicated. One of his solutions would change the way doctors are reimbursed. Here’s Wyatt Andrews.

Andrews provided a fairly favorable review of Obama’s wish to pay doctors for outcomes instead of for each service provided. He concluded: “So when the President calls for payment reform, almost every health care expert says he’s right. But the amount he can save, no one knows that for certain.”

The MRC’s Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide a transcript of the story on the Wednesday, July 1 NBC Nightly News:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: And now to another big-ticket item — this nation’s health care system. Today a big American name swung its support to President Obama. Wal-Mart has endorsed a key part of the President’s plan to overhaul health care. And, as U.S. employers go, that’s a big deal. The President was out making the case on health care again today. Our White House correspondent, Savannah Guthrie, with us from there, with more on this tonight. Savannah, good evening,

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Good evening, Brian. With Congress in recess, the President’s trying to move this health care debate out of Washington. And today, he didn’t have to travel very far to do that. The President took his health care message out of town — Annandale, Virginia, near Washington, and online.

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL IN VIDEO: My mommy and daddy have small businesses, and we need health care.

GUTHRIE: The President solicited questions on YouTube, FaceBook, Twitter, and in person.

DEBBY SMITH: Now I have a new tumor. I have no way to pay for it.

GUTHRIE: With a hug for a woman who said she cannot pay her medical bills.

BARACK OBAMA: I don’t want you to feel all-

GUTHRIE: The President hoping this message will speak more powerfully to Congress than any other.

OBAMA: When the American people decide that something needs to happen, nothing can stop us. So I hope you’ll join me.

GUTHRIE: The President has launched a full-court press on health care. His old grassroots campaign machinery is mobilized, soliciting personal health care horror stories. And in contrast to 1993’s famed health care reform failure, industry is getting on board, promising to cut costs. And, in a letter to the President yesterday, Wal-Mart said it could support a government requirement that employers provide health care, a major change of heart for the nation’s largest private employer. Still, on Capitol Hill, it’s been a bumpy ride, even with a commanding Democratic majority. The battle lines are drawn over the President’s plan to have government offer an insurance plan. And with costs estimated at least $1 trillion, a key fight looms on how to pay for reform. White House advisors won’t rule out a tax on some health care benefits, potentially violating a key campaign promise not to raise taxes on middle class families.

ROBERT LASZEWSKI, HEALTH CARE POLICY ANALYST: This is a very pragmatic White House and a very pragmatic President, and we know that, to get health care reform, they’re going to have to give some things up. I think it’s too early to tell exactly which things they’re going to have to give up. You don’t want to start giving things up too early.

GUTHRIE: Well, the President has made his own suggestions on how to pay for reform without taxing benefits. The trick, of course, is getting Congress to buy in. Some members have been cool to some of his ideas. Either way, the White House wants to get health care reform done this year, Brian. The feeling is it’s now or never.

Sigh.

Here we go again:

Al-Qaeda’s North Africa wing threatened on Tuesday to take revenge on France for its opposition to the burka, calling on Muslims to retaliate against the country, the US monitoring service SITE Intelligence reported.

Earlier this month, President Nicolas Sarkozy said the burka, which covers the whole face, was not welcome in the strictly secular country.

And the response from Al-Qaeda is……

“We will take revenge for the honour of our daughters and sisters against France and against its interests by every means at our disposal.”

[...]

“We call upon all Muslims to confront this hostility with greater hostility, and to counter France’s efforts to divide male and female believers from their faith with a greater effort … (by) adherence to the teachings of their Islamic sharia.”

How’s that for dialogue? Hey! I have an idea…if things are so bad in France and they’re so mistreated, why not go back to the various North African and Middle East milk-and-honey-lands-of-paradise from whence they came? They can treat their women like animals there all they want and won’t have to worry about those pesky laws that want to protect them.

I wonder how long it wil take for the next “youth” riots to take place now that the calls for “revenge” have gone out.

Yeesh.

Read this post »

In the midst of pretty balanced ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscast stories on the Ricci reverse discrimination case involving New Haven firefighters, who were victorious, one quibble: CBS’s Wyatt Andrews framed the ruling as issued by the Supreme Court’s “conservative” justices and opposed not by liberals but by “civil rights leaders,” as if the majority of justices who ruled against the racial discrimination were not advancing civil rights.

Andrews announced that “in a close 5 to 4 decision, the court’s swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, sided with conservatives,” before he set up a soundbite from a representative of the NAACP: “Civil rights leaders also predicted an era of confusion over when minorities are protected and when they are not.” The NAACP’s John Payton declared: “I think it hurts the cause of having a discrimination-free workplace.”

Neither ABC’s Jan Crawford Greenburg nor NBC’s Pete Williams applied a conservative or liberal label.

The Andrews story on the Monday, June 29 CBS Evening News, joined in progress:

WYATT ANDREWS: …The ruling focused on New Haven’s decision to throw out its 2003 promotional exam for firefighters when no blacks made the cut for promotion. The city then said no one gets promoted including the whites. In a close 5 to 4 decision, the court’s swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, sided with conservatives and wrote “this express race-based decision-making is prohibited” and even if the city was trying to protect minorities against an unfair test, Kennedy wrote, “there is no substantial basis in evidence this test was deficient.”

NEW HAVEN MAYOR JOHN DESTEFANO: A new set of rules was introduced.

ANDREWS: New Haven’s Mayor said he would respect the decision but complained the city was obeying 38 years of civil rights law forbidding anything that caused a disparate impact against minorities.

DESTEFANO: The city was damned if they did and damned if they didn’t.

ANDREWS: Civil rights leaders also predicted an era of confusion over when minorities are protected and when they are not.

JOHN PAYTON, NAACP: I think it hurts the cause of having a discrimination-free workplace.

ANDREWS: And yet, to the white firefighters, this ruling says discrimination works both ways.

FRANK RICCI, NEW HAVEN FIREFIGHTER: I think that this is just proof positive that people should be treated as individuals and not statistics.

ANDREWS: The ruling also cuts both ways for the Supreme Court’s nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Opponent called today’s ruling a legal rebuke of her lower court opinions that the whites had no case, but opponents say that she was on solid ground; she was following case law at the time.

In the midst of pretty balanced ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscast stories on the Ricci reverse discrimination case involving New Haven firefighters, who were victorious, one quibble: CBS’s Wyatt Andrews framed the ruling as issued by the Supreme Court’s “conservative” justices and opposed not by liberals but by “civil rights leaders,” as if the majority of justices who ruled against the racial discrimination were not advancing civil rights.

Andrews announced that “in a close 5 to 4 decision, the court’s swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, sided with conservatives,” before he set up a soundbite from a representative of the NAACP: “Civil rights leaders also predicted an era of confusion over when minorities are protected and when they are not.” The NAACP’s John Payton declared: “I think it hurts the cause of having a discrimination-free workplace.”

Neither ABC’s Jan Crawford Greenburg nor NBC’s Pete Williams applied a conservative or liberal label.

The Andrews story on the Monday, June 29 CBS Evening News, joined in progress:

WYATT ANDREWS: …The ruling focused on New Haven’s decision to throw out its 2003 promotional exam for firefighters when no blacks made the cut for promotion. The city then said no one gets promoted including the whites. In a close 5 to 4 decision, the court’s swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, sided with conservatives and wrote “this express race-based decision-making is prohibited” and even if the city was trying to protect minorities against an unfair test, Kennedy wrote, “there is no substantial basis in evidence this test was deficient.”

NEW HAVEN MAYOR JOHN DESTEFANO: A new set of rules was introduced.

ANDREWS: New Haven’s Mayor said he would respect the decision but complained the city was obeying 38 years of civil rights law forbidding anything that caused a disparate impact against minorities.

DESTEFANO: The city was damned if they did and damned if they didn’t.

ANDREWS: Civil rights leaders also predicted an era of confusion over when minorities are protected and when they are not.

JOHN PAYTON, NAACP: I think it hurts the cause of having a discrimination-free workplace.

ANDREWS: And yet, to the white firefighters, this ruling says discrimination works both ways.

FRANK RICCI, NEW HAVEN FIREFIGHTER: I think that this is just proof positive that people should be treated as individuals and not statistics.

ANDREWS: The ruling also cuts both ways for the Supreme Court’s nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Opponent called today’s ruling a legal rebuke of her lower court opinions that the whites had no case, but opponents say that she was on solid ground; she was following case law at the time.

Read this post »

The Rally on the Mall tea party, coming up this Thursday July 2nd from 6 - 8:30pm at the state capitol in Bismarck, is promising to be a huge event.  And as with any huge event comes questions like…where the heck am I gonna park?

Have no fear, the helpful folks down at the state capitol have us covered.  Here’s a handy dandy map showing the available parking areas at the capitol for the event.

By the way, if you’re in the Fargo area (or are willing to drive as far as Fargo to get to the event) remember that there are still tickets available for the Tea Party Express bus brought to you by Scott Hennen.  For $25 you can get a ride to and from the tea party, a meal and a chance to hang out with Hennen and Public Service Commissioner Kevin Cramer.  $50 gets you all of that plus an autographed copy of Mark Levin’s book Liberty and Tyranny.

Quite a deal.  Click here for information on ordering.

Will you be attending the Rally on the Mall?(online surveys)