I laugh, because I know it’s true. You will, too.
I’m still trying to figure out if this is a satire, or a documentary.
I laugh, because I know it’s true. You will, too.
I’m still trying to figure out if this is a satire, or a documentary.
I’m not a fan of Trump (to say the least), but the sloppy work, bias, and outright dishonesty of “fact checkers” is something we shouldn’t tolerate.
And since several media outlets just produced their “fact-checks” on Donald Trump’s acceptance speech to the Republican convention, this is a perfect opportunity to see not only whether Trump was being dishonest but also whether media fact-checking is honest.
Here’s some of the “fact-checking” from NBC., with each indented example being followed by my two cents.
TRUMP CLAIM: Nearly four in 10 African-American children are living in poverty, while 58 percent of African-American youth are now not employed. Two million more Latinos are in poverty today than when the President took his oath of office less than eight years ago.
THE FACTS: Yes, 38 percent of African American children are living in poverty, according to Census data. But…
View original post 1,812 more words
Poland recently held elections in which the Right won a landslide victory: enough seats to govern on its own, and for the first time since 1989 eliminating any left-wing party from the Sejm (parliament).
I can only gather that the BBC was not happy with the results, because they headed the linked article with this image:
(Photo credit: AFP)
That’s Beata Szydlo, likely Poland’s next prime minister. Sure, she’s waving to the crowd, but just try to tell me —without laughing!— that the underlying message isn’t “conservatives are all neo-fascists!” a particularly egregious idea, given Poland’s recent history. I’ve little expectation that “the Beeb” would have run a similar photograph if the incumbent centrist coalition had won reelection.
At least it wasn’t The Guardian: they would have photoshopped a certain famous mustache on her.
via Alexander Macris
They apparently sent a crack (or is it “cracked”) investigative team out to look into the dark corners of Senator Rubio’s past to see what shameful secrets lurked within. What did they find? I… I almost can’t utter the words. Brace yourself, America.
Marco Rubio and his wife have speeding tickets!!! (Pardon me while I weep in hysteria)
According to a search of the Miami-Dade and Duval County court dockets, the Rubios have been cited for numerous infractions over the years for incidents that included speeding, driving through red lights and careless driving. A review of records dating back to 1997 shows that the couple had a combined 17 citations: Mr. Rubio with four and his wife with 13. On four separate occasions they agreed to attend remedial driving school after a violation.
Mr. Rubio’s troubles behind the wheel predate his days in politics. In 1997, when he was cited for careless driving by a Florida Highway Patrol officer, he was fined and took voluntary driving classes. A dozen years later, in 2009, he was ticketed for speeding on a highway in Duval County and found himself back in driver improvement school.
Things got more complicated in 2011 when Mr. Rubio was alerted to the fact that his license was facing suspension after a traffic camera caught him failing to stop at a red light in his beige Buick. His lawyer, Alex Hanna, paid a $16 fee to delay the suspension and eventually it was dismissed.
Yes, it’s true my friends: the race is over. Done. He has to withdraw now. Marco Rubio and his wife have a shared lead foot! Oh, the horror! I’m so glad the Times devoted the full weight of their journalistic prowess to uncover this scandal.
Like I said: Rubio must scare the tar out of the Times’ editors, if they’re desperate enough to run with this. Considering what the press did to Sarah Palin, I hope he has locks on his garbage cans.
Via Henry Gomez, who also relates the sordid story of the Rubio refrigerator.
I’ve updated the “What I’m reading” widget to the right to reflect the latest item on the Public Secrets lectern, Sharyl Attkisson’s “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.”
Attkisson is an award-winning investigative journalist who spent roughly 20 years with CBS before leaving in 2014. For her determined pursuit of the truth and information government and corporate officials would rather keep hidden, she’s been called a “bulldog,” a term she regards as a compliment. While Stonewalled deals with the scandals and evasions of the Obama administration and its allies, Attkisson has a reputation as a bipartisan bulldog — a pain in the tuchus to Democrats and Republicans, alike. This is what a good journalist should be.
I’m about half-way through Stonewalled and, so far, it’s been equal parts enjoyable, infuriating, and even frightening. Before discussing scandals such as Fast and Furious and the Obamacare rollout, as well as the almost equally scandalous supine attitude of mainstream journalism toward the administration, Attkisson opens with the story of her discovery that her work and personal computers, and her phone, had been hacked by a government agency during her investigation into the Benghazi massacre. Though she hasn’t yet identified in the book who she believes is responsible, I’ll note that she has filed suit against the Department of Justice and the US Postal Service. Discovery, as they say should be interesting.
I’m reading her book in Kindle format; it’s also in soft (forthcoming) and hardcover. Regarding the Kindle edition, I’ve spotted just one lone typo and no formatting problems, which is very good for an e-book. Her writing style is straightforward, almost Hemingway-esque in its directness. If Ms. Attkisson reveals any ax to grind, it’s her firm belief that information paid for with taxpayer dollars belongs to the public, not the government.
I’ll post a review when I’ve finished.
PS: Why, yes. This is a shameless bit of shilling on my part. I like getting the occasional gift certificate that comes from people buying stuff via my link. Wouldn’t you?
Amazing. This claim was totally debunked, yet the Green Cultists are pushing it again. They must think the public has the memory capacity of an ant, or something.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Alarmists are busy recycling old debunked climate claims, in a desperate effort to build up momentum for the upcoming Paris climate conference.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald;
Glaciers in the Everest region could shrink at least 70 per cent or even disappear entirely by the end of the century as a result of climate change.
Researchers in Nepal, the Netherlands and France have studied weather patterns on the roof of the world and then created a model of conditions on Everest to determine the future impact of rising temperatures on its glaciers.
“The worst-case scenario shows a 99 per cent loss in glacial mass … but even if we start to slow down emissions somewhat, we may still see a 70 per cent reduction,” said Joseph Shea, who led the study.
The IPCC, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to…
View original post 112 more words
I swear by all that’s holy, I am so sick of the Left branding any criticism of their policies or philosophy as “sexist,” “racist,” “homophobic,” or whatever that I nearly break out in a rash when it happens these days. It demonstrates their barrel-scarping intellectual bankruptcy that they have to resort to smears, since their ideas have long since been shown to be miserable failures. And it’s not just the loony Left engaging in these nauseating campaigns, but supposedly respectable people and institutions.
The latest is The New York Times, which has an error-filled editorial accusing the Republicans of, naturally, racism in their opposition to President Obama, the latest case being criticism (1) of the nuclear “deal” with Iran. Here’s an excerpt:
It is a line of attack that echoes Republicans’ earlier questioning of Mr. Obama’s American citizenship. Those attacks were blatantly racist in their message — reminding people that Mr. Obama was black, suggesting he was African, and planting the equally false idea that he was secretly Muslim. The current offensive is slightly more subtle, but it is impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role in it.
Perhaps the most outrageous example of the attack on the president’s legitimacy was a letter signed by 47 Republican senators to the leadership of Iran saying Mr. Obama had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Try to imagine the outrage from Republicans if a similar group of Democrats had written to the Kremlin in 1986 telling Mikhail Gorbachev that President Ronald Reagan did not have the authority to negotiate a nuclear arms deal at the Reykjavik summit meeting that winter.
This is such bull-waste that I think I should have put on my hip waders before reading it.
Joel Pollack of Breitbart has a point by point rebuttal of this farce. Here’s what he has to say about the above quote on questioning Obama’s citizenship:
Another attempt to rewrite history. The first questions about Obama’s citizenship, and the first attacks on his faith, came directly from the Hillary Clinton camp in 2008. (2) No doubt the Times feels uncomfortable acknowledging that fact on the day that Hillary Clinton announces her new run for the presidency. The fact that a fringe of the GOP later embraced the Birther movement did not change the fact that it started with Clinton, nor make it the basis for Republican opposition.
Then, regarding the Republican open letter to the Iranian leadership, authored by Senator Cotton (R-AR)
The charge of racism is ridiculous, made more so by the example the Times chose. The Times also distorts the content of the letter. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) and his colleagues did not say Obama “had no authority to conclude negotiations.” It said he shared that authority with Congress, such that any agreement he did conclude would only be an “executive agreement” and would not be binding on future presidents. The fact that the Times has to lie about the letter is telling.
…The difference between Reykjavik and Lausanne is that Reagan was willing to walk away from talks at Reykjavik! And the fact is that Democrats in Congress undertook many actions that undermined President Reagan and other Republican presidents. There were Ted Kennedy’s overtures to the Soviets, John Kerry’s outreach to the Sandinistas, Nancy Pelosi’s coddling of Assad, and other examples. Does the Times really want to go there? No problem!
Read the rest to see the Times’ editorial thoroughly dismantled.
So, in the effort to support the president’s policies and convince people that they should support Democrats, all America’s once-premier newspaper has left are lies and slanders.
(1) Odd that there’s no mention of the strong resistance from Democrats, such as Senators Menendez and Schumer. Are they racists, too, O editorial board?
(2) So, the likely 2016 Democratic nominee is racist, n’est-ce pas?
From the Media Research Center:
There are exceptions, but so much of the MSM is corrupt, but in their minds they don’t think of it as corruption, because they’re “fighting for justice,’ which is more important than the truth.
They don’t give a damn about the truth.
Scott Walker was gone. Dropped out. And in the spring of his senior year.
In 1990, that news stunned his friends at Marquette University. Walker, the campus’s suit-wearing, Reagan-loving politico — who enjoyed the place so much that he had run for student body president — had left without graduating.
To most of the Class of 1990 — and, later, to Wisconsin’s political establishment — Walker’s decision to quit college has been a lingering mystery.
Not even his friends at Marquette were entirely sure why he never finished. Some had heard that a parent had fallen ill, or maybe there was some financial strain. Others thought he had simply had enough of school.
Get that? There’s something wrong about Scott Walker: he quit school, he wasn’t a good student, he was politically ambitious, and –my favorite– he may be religious:
Walker lost, 1,245 votes to 927. His friends say he handled it with grace, telling them the loss just meant that God had another plan.
What you see there is a liberal “dog whistle, meant to signal like-minded progressives that Walker’s “not one of us.” He’s one of “those people” — the religious. Who knows what other frightening and primitive things he might believe? OMG!! RUN FOR THE HILLS! VOTE DEMOCRATIC OR WE’LL ALL HAVE TO GO TO BINGO NIGHT!!! AAIIEE!!!!!
Does anyone else besides me see nothing noteworthy in the son of a Baptist minister dealing with his electoral defeat in a Christian manner? The. Horror.
Read the whole Post article, then read Walsh for its deconstruction. He’s spot on when he writes:
To the Kredentialed Klass, a college degree — preferably from an Ivy League school — is the sine qua non of life itself. Sure, a couple of very prominent media personalities lack one themselves, including the recently defenestrated Brian Williams; the current host of Meet the Press, Chuck Todd, didn’t graduate from college, either. But no matter: this is the presidency we’re talking about!
The effrontery of this rube, thinking he can rise from Flyover Country to join Our Betters on the East Coast!
Walsh brings up the example of Mitt Romney and how the MSM had to dig into his high school days to find anything bad about him, but I think there’s a better example: Sarah Palin. Remember the reaction from when John McCain introduced her as his running mate to her amazing speech at the Republican convention? The Democrats and the media elites (but I repeat myself) were beside themselves with fear and, once they had stopped wetting themselves, they set out to do everything they could to destroy her: mock her intelligence, her middle class origins, and even the way she speaks; set hundreds of reporters dumpster-diving through her records, looking for anything little thing that could be spun against her; get Alaska allies to file bogus ethics charges one after the other; and even question whether her Down-syndrome child was really hers. They were scared to death she could beat them, and so they set out to find anything they could to destroy her. And while they didn’t find anything, the constant drumbeat of accusation and innuendo itself did its work: she was forever tarred as a future candidate. (1)
Then there’s the “curious incident of the dog in the night-time,” the one that didn’t bark. For all that digging into Palin, Romney, and now Walker’s distant past —looking for anything!— let’s recall how closely the media in 2008 and 2012 looked into Barack Obama’s background.
Oh, you’re back already. Yep. The dog did nothing in the night-time. Almost no one in the MSM looked more than superficially into Obama’s family, his boyhood in Hawaii, his time at Occidental and Columbia, his law school years at Harvard, his years as a community organizer or his record as a state senator. Not into his actions or the people he associated with. Nothing. (2)
Good doggie. You just lie there and stay asleep. You’ll know what to do when a Republican shows up.
Walsh (and before him Rush Limbaugh) is right: the Democrats and their allies in the media will always tell you whom they fear most. Right now, Governor Scott Walker scares the tar out of them.
With good reason.
(1) Yes, I know: “She resigned!” And that stained her image, too. No doubt. But, without going into a long explanation, I think a whole lot of people have no idea what they’re talking about in this case.
(2) There are good books about Obama’s background, but they came out either too late for the 2008 election (and were overwhelmed by the financial panic) or years later and were mostly read by a specialized audience. Three I’ll recommend are The Case Against Barack Obama, The Communist, and Radical in Chief. I reviewed the latter two here and here.
Looking at the ferocity of the Jordanian response to ISIS’ atrocities, he notes:
You know what question I’m not hearing? Is the Jordanian response to terrorism “proportionate”? Only Israel gets that one.
— Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) February 7, 2015
Funny how that works, isn’t it? Almost as if there’s a double-standard in play, with the loser happening to be Jewish… Nah. Couldn’t be.
Global warming is like the monster in a bad 1950s science fiction movie: there is nothing it cannot do. Nothing.
The stupid, it burns like a magnesium flare.
Now, you can add yet another problem to the climate change hit list: volcanoes. That’s the word from a new study conducted in Iceland and accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.
Iceland has always been a natural lab for studying climate change. It may be spared some of the punishment hot, dry places like the American southwest get, but when it comes to glacier melt, few places are hit harder. About 10% of the island nation’s surface area is covered by about 300 different glaciers—and they’re losing an estimated 11 billion tons of ice per year. Not only is that damaging Icelandic habitats and contributing to the global rise in sea levels, it is also—oddly—causing the entire island…
View original post 926 more words
The nonpartisan data analysis company Crowdpac decided to research the political leanings of various professions to see which were more liberal and which were more conservative. The results overall are interesting, and I recommend the article at Business Insider, but one chart showing the leanings of the newspaper and print MSM is just amazing:
The X-axis shows how liberal or conservative a respondent is, while the Y-axis gives the number at each level. Not only does print journalism skew Left, but the vast majority of the industry’s liberal members fall into the three most-liberal grades.
And yet liberals scoff when we complain of “media bias.”
This is not a healthy situation, just as it wouldn’t be if the vast majority of journalists leaned Right. When news media is so skewed in one direction, it loses any sense of other perspectives or opinions on important issues, or even what qualifies as an “important issue.” And this limited perspective is transmitted to its audience, which winds up being under- or misinformed. Or they dismiss the MSM altogether, having realized thanks to alternative media that there is so much they aren’t being told, if not outright mislead about. And that isn’t healthy for the print media, as their crashing circulation numbers attest.
Mollie Hemingway* at The Federalist gives several examples of why people hate the media (including TV), beginning with the recent resignation under fire of Elizabeth Lauten, an obscure Republican congressional staffer who said some unkind things about the Obama daughters on Facebook. But she doesn’t stop there (there are oh so many examples to work with) and includes a rant from Florida’s Rick Wilson that’s worth quoting:
Republican media operative Rick Wilson went on a beautiful rant last night about this embarrassing Lauten debacle. You can read the whole thing here. This is edited down but he wrote, “Reporters and media folks wondering, ‘Why don’t people trust us?’… The last couple weeks should be clarifying for you… But the endless, agenda-driven games are repellent to readers/viewers. Your sins are of omission and commission both… You used to be able to claim news judgement and ignore stories you hated. You still do, but now people see it, and you loathe it… So you’ll do one piece on Gruber, then pretend you dug in hard. But god forbid a staffer dings the Obama kids. Then you flood the zone… You pick and choose when to provide context… I love pros in the business. Love them. And most of you ARE pros. Most of you DO work stories, look for interesting angles… But you tolerate (and your editors tolerate) a lot of outrageous, absurdly bad practices. Gruber? Unforgivable… the frustration Americans feel about media isn’t getting any less acute, and some introspection might go a long way…”
This speaks to a media driven by an agenda, one formed by a self-reinforcing ideological monoculture — the fabled “echo chamber.” But the health of the Republic depends on an honest news media that contains a wide range of viewpoints, one that makes intellectual diversity a higher priority than that of skin color or gender.
Maybe it’s time for an “affirmative action of the mind?”
*hat-tip for the chart and BI article, by the way.
Well, my,my,my. One of the oracles of progressive “right-thought” is quietly axing its coverage of “climate change.” Can there be any clearer sign that the skeptic argument is carrying the day? I wonder how long it will be before Paul Krugman denounces NPR as “traitors to the Earth?”
NPR has cut back on the number of staffers focused solely on the environment and climate change.
Earlier this year, the news outlet had three full-time reporters and one editor dedicated to covering the issue within NPR’s science desk. One remains—and he is covering it only part-time. A few reporters on other desks occasionally cover the topic as well.
The move to shift reporters off the environment beat was driven by an interest to cover other fields more in depth, said Anne Gudenkauf, senior supervising editor of NPR’s science desk.
“We’ll think of a project we want to do and the kind of staff that we need to do it, and then organize ourselves that way,” she said. “One of the things we always do is change in response to the changing world.”
Gudenkauf also said…
View original post 107 more words
I never knew Chicken Little was the editor of one of the oldest and most prestigious medical journals in the world:
Deaths from Ebola infection, tragic and frightening though they are, will pale into insignificance when compared with the mayhem we can expect for our children and grandchildren if the world does nothing to check its carbon emissions. And action is needed now.
So stand aside, you wretched deniers! This is for the children!!
Sigh. This is so typical of academic elites, yet still so distressing. Ebola is a real disease, currently ravaging Africa in a massive epidemic, and it has now appeared in the United States. People are suffering hideously and dying from it every day. It could easily get worse before it ever gets better.
Yet here we have Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of the BMJ, asserting that, nope, you’re all wrong:
global warming climate change is the far greater threat — an existential one. She declares this to be true, in spite of the fact that there has been no warming for 18 years; that the dread hot spot in the in the atmosphere, which was supposed to be a sure sign of catastrophic warming, has never appeared; that the atmosphere seems far less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought; and that new glaciers are forming in Scotland. In spite of all the empirical evidence (1) that provides no support for the theory of catastrophic man-caused climate change and plenty of support for the idea of natural cycles of warming and cooling, the head of a respected journal of medical science has decided her publication must take an anti-scientific stand.
I hope this isn’t indicative of the intellectual rigor of the medical articles she runs.
via James Delingpole
Not that anyone in recent years has accused the Los Angeles Times of objectivity, but this descent into politically correct Newspeak is particularly risible:
Informal workers are growing part of California’s economy — a shift keenly felt in the construction industry, where 1 in 6 workers is either off the books or misreported, new research has found.
Do “formal workers” show up at the construction site in black tie and tails?
“Illegal aliens” is a perfectly good and accurate phrase, considering that a) these people are from other countries, making them alien to the United States, and b) they have entered the United States in violation of its laws. That is, “illegally.”
But, in the world of our progressive media elites, the phrase “illegal alien” is “insensitive” –a high crime in their book– and so we must find something soft and gauzy that obscures reality. Not only is “informal worker” more sensitive toward the feelings of those who broke the law to get here, but it also serves to lull the senses of readers who might otherwise react badly to illegality and demand something be done about it. Can’t have that.
Orwell’s Minitrue lives on at 202 West 1st street.
We really did. In 2008 and 2012, we on the Right tried to tell America that Obama was an empty suit, a man unqualified for the presidency. Lulled by a largely fawning media, not enough of the nation listened at either time, but now the scales are finally starting to fall from the eyes of the MSM itself. To set the stage, here’s Michael Goodwin in the New York Post:
Sometimes a round of golf is just a round of golf. And sometimes it reveals the essence of a man.
President Obama’s decision to hit the links and yuk it up with pals immediately after speaking about the beheading of James Foley was no ordinary mistake. Nor was it a simple gaffe.
The decision continues to cause an uproar because, like an X-ray, there is no escaping the image. It shows there is no there there.
With even his media praetorian guard appalled, the golf outing is sparking a wider understanding that Obama is hollow, empty of the routine qualities Americans expect from their president.
Simple decency and respect for Foley’s horrified parents should have been enough to sober him. If that didn’t do it, the realization that the Islamic State had declared war on America in the most gruesome fashion imaginable should have sounded a call of duty in his head.
Instead, Obama continued with his vacation and was photographed looking as if he didn’t have a care in the world. Suddenly, that megawatt smile that often charmed voters wasn’t so charming. It was vacuous.
He looked like an empty-headed frat boy, numb to the world.
Maybe that’s not just an appearance. Maybe it’s the truth. Maybe that’s all there is.
While Goodwin was never an Obama “true believer,” as I recall, what he wrote seems to be representative of a revelation taking place for journalists on the left (which is most), if the reactions of the liberal New York Daily News (via) and MSNBC’s tingly Chris Matthews are any indication. It’s a shame it took nearly five years for the truth to finally start sinking in, however shallowly.
We tried to tell them.
h/t Power Line
PS: Yeah, I know. Give it a few days and they’ll be back to playing “praetorian guard” for Obama. And soon they’ll transfer their ardor to another devotional object, in all likelihood Senator Elizabeth Warren. They never learn.
My goodness, but these climate cultists are sensitive types. I guess that’s what happens when all the empirical evidence turns against your preferred truth. Click through to see what I mean. (With the standard bad language warning.)
You know of the “Gore effect“, Wikiepedia describes it as “…an informal and satirical term which alleges a causal relationship between unseasonable cold weather phenomena and global warming activism”, so it was appropriate to apply to the situation where the Gore’s Climate Reality Project group tried a political ploys that looked stupid: “I’m Too Hot” trucks and offers of free ice cream to this week’s Environmental Protection Agency hearings on power-plant emissions…when it was 58 degrees and raining. Obviously, CNN’s Bill Weir doesn’t understand satire, much less how to be a professional journalist.
It’s safe to say CNN anchor Bill Weir is not a fan of climate change deniers.
On Thursday, the Twitter account for Fox Nation, a blog run by Fox News, tweeted a link to a post headlined, “Climate Doesn’t Cooperate With Al Gore’s Group’s Visit to Denver EPA Hearings.”
View original post 208 more words
Yes, my friends, it’s time once again for one of our favorite games, “If it had been a Republican…”
Remember, how, back in the 2012 campaign, the press and the Democrat support groups (redundant, I know) hounded Republican nominee Mitt Romney over supposed misstatements and gaffes while on a foreign tour? I can recall one incident in particular, when Romney was in Poland and his campaign wanted to deal US foreign policy issues, a reporter chased after him shouting “What about your gaffes??” The purpose, of course, was to plant the idea with the public that Mitt’s minor faux pas showed he wasn’t qualified to be president.
In which case, I eagerly await Hillary being pestered about her foot-in-mouth moments:
The former Secretary of State, who’s been heavily promoting her new book “Hard Choices” in a likely precursor to running for president in 2016, appeared to state the Conservative and Tory Parties in Britain were rival political parties during a BBC interview.
“Tory” is in fact another name for the Conservative Party in Britain.
Asked by the host what she thought of the “Special Relationship” between the U.S. and Great Britain, Clinton declared it was “very special between our countries.”
“There’s not just a common language, but a common set of values that we can fall back on,” she said. “It doesn’t matter in our country whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat or frankly, in your country, whether it’s a Conservative or a Tory. There is a level of trust and understanding. That doesn’t mean we always agree because, of course, we don’t.”
As the article points out, Hillary was our Secretary of State, who had to deal with our close allies in the UK on a nearly daily basis, and yet she didn’t know “Tory” and “Conservative” were synonyms? It reminds me of the recent Obama ambassadorial appointee who didn’t know his soon-to-be host country, Norway, has a king and not a president.
For supposedly being so much smarter than everyone else and for all their claiming to know what’s best for us, progressives sure are ignorant of the wider world, no?
Of course, it could easily have been a simple slip of the tongue on Hillary’s part, saying “Conservative and Tory” when she meant “Conservative and Labor,” the kind of mental backfire we’re all subject to from time to time.
But not all of us are (probably) running for president, an office that has almost sole control over US foreign affairs, including relations with one of our closest allies.
And so I expect the MSM to grill Hillary mercilessly over this gaffe, hounding her incessantly with questions about her competence and knowledge
Just as soon as she becomes a Republican.
(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)
Jonah Goldberg listened to an NPR story about the defeat in the Senate of radical Leftist lawyer Debo Adegbile to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Per NPR, a “handful of Southern Democrats” (1) voted with the Republicans to defeat Adegbile. Here’s the roster:
Apparently I’m not as knowledgeable about US History as I thought; I completely missed Pennsylvania and Indiana joining the Confederacy, and I didn’t realize the South butted up against Canada.
NPR: “National Public Reactionaries.”
(1) Hint to the Morning Edition producers — Jim Crow ended a long time ago.
(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)