Slut-Gate Hypocrisy

If offensive slurs are a problem for the left, why does Al Sharpton have a primetime slot on MSNBC?

The left has started a war against Rush Limbaugh — a war it cannot win. Limbaugh said something for which he later apologized, and rather than accept that apology, the left and its media allies decided to exploit the situation, turning it into a crusade to take an opposing voice off the air.

Even the White House has jumped on this neo-fascist bandwagon. Not the Obama campaign. The White House. The People’s House.

This is, pure and simple, a crusade to censor political speech disguising itself as something else, and it’s a crusade led by Media Matters for America, the Obama political machine, and the mainstream media.

And as a result….

Today, Obama sits at 41% in opinion polls — his lowest approval rating ever. Part of this poll collapse most certainly has to do with a stagnant economy and gas prices, but a lot of it has to do with the fact that Obama has started a stupid war against a nonexistent war on women (which is really Obama’s war against the Catholic Church and religious liberty), and the fact that he has once again been found hanging out with another divisive, radical racialist.

As a result, Obama now looks like a Chicago political thug and nothing like a President of the United States. This was especially apparent when he tried to draw Limbaugh into this war on women nonsense.

Obviously, Obama’s crusade is backfiring, and will continue to fail. In their fever to bring Rush down, Obama and the left have made a huge tactical error in setting a standard of which they themselves are the worst violators — especially in the fever swamps of MSNBC.

It’s been MSNBC that’s grabbed Media Matters’ anti-Rush talking points and run with them 24/7 on the network.

Yet their own Ed Schultz is the creator of the original Slut-gate, when he used that word to describe conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham. And let us never forget Keith Olbermann’s dehumanizing rant against Michelle Malkin, while he was still with the once-legendary Peacock Network. (Much more about MSNBC hosts’ attacks on women here.)

Breaking today at the American Spectator is more bad news for a network devoting so much of its airtime to creating a rule that says someone should be pulled off the air for anything he or she has said that might be considered offensive.

Read more here.

Get Ready For the Great ‘Obamacare’ PR Campaign

Last week, a study released by the journal “American Politics Research” found that The Affordable Health Care for America Act (i.e. “Obamacare”) cost Democrats their House majority during the November 2010 midterm elections.

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blak explains:

The study, by five professors from institutions across the country, looks at the health care bill alongside other contentious votes in the 111th Congress and determines that, more so than the stimulus or the cap-and-trade energy bill, it cost Democrats seats. In fact, they lost almost exactly the number of seats that decided the majority.

The study ran 10,000 simulations of a scenario in which all vulnerable Democrats voted against the health care bill and found that the rejections would have saved Democrats an average of 25 seats, which would have made the House parties close to a tie. (Republicans won 63 seats overall, but the study suggests around 25 of them would have been salvaged.)

“[W]e show that the roll-call effect on vote share was driven by healthcare reform. Democratic incumbents who voted yes performed significantly worse than those who did not,” study co-author Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College writes on his blog.

“We then provide simulation evidence suggesting that Democrats would win approximately 25 more seats if those in competitive districts had voted no, which accounts for the gap between the academic forecasts and the observed outcomes,” he adds.

Simply put, the November “Red Wave,” in which conservatives running for public office made unprecedented gains, was the result of voter opposition to “Obamacare.”

Even House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) admitted that “Obamacare” hurt his party when he told reporters: “It was clearly a liability in the last election in terms of the public’s fear.”

Therefore, perhaps in silent recognition of the report’s findings, the Obama administration has decided to mount a major public-relations campaign to promote the benefits of “Obamacare” and once again remind Americans why it’s such a great idea.

“The White House and its liberal allies are planning a comprehensive public-relations campaign for the second anniversary of Obamacare and the Supreme Court oral arguments that will take place later this month,” writes The Heritage Foundation’s Rob Bluey.

Read more here.

NYU Idiot Makes Case for ‘Human Engineering’ to Curb Manmade Global Warming

Most ideas to help mitigate so called manmade global warming involve changing habits or how we use products, such as increasing energy efficiency of electronics, reducing dependence on gasoline by switching to battery powered vehicles or something as simple as making the choice to go meatless on Mondays.

But a New York University philosophy and bioethics professor, who believes humans are the cause of global warming, wants to take it right to the source: the genetics of humanity itself. Matthew Liaoof NYU and two Oxford co-authors (Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache) are making the case for several ideas that they believe are less risky solutions to global warming compared to other ideas, such as geothermal engineering.

Their argument was presented in the academic journal Ethics, Policy and the Environment in February. The authors explicitly describe the idea as “human engineering,“ or the ”biomedical modification of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change.” It should be noted, that the authors are not stating that this sort of engineering should be adopted, but they merely want to make the case for it “alongside other solutions in the debate about how to solve the problem of climate change.” If human engineering were ever to be truly considered as an option, the authors state it should be voluntary with the potential for tax breaks as an incentive.

One of these ideas would be literally engineering humans to have shorter statures. For the past 150 years, the human race has been growing taller. In industrialized nations, the average height has increased by about 10 centimeters. Liao makes the argument that if humans were genetically engineered to be shorter, it would reduce their consumption of goods and subsequent effect on the environment — often known as the carbon footprint:

Human ecological footprints are partly correlated with our size. We need a certain amount of food and nutrients to maintain each kilogram of body mass.


As well as needing to eat more, larger people also consume more energy in less obvious ways. For example, a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person than a lighter person […]

The group suggests use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis to “select” for children that would be shorter or use a hormone to help control height during development.

Read more here.

Gore Says ‘Democracy Has Been Hacked’ at SXSW

In a wide-ranging talk about the Internet and government, Al Gore urged the techie crowd at South By Southwest to use digital tools to improve government.

The former vice president sat for a conversation with Napster co-founder and Web entrepreneur Sean Parker on Monday at SXSW in a flashy tete-a-tete that drew an audience of thousands at the Austin Convention Center and more viewers via a live stream.

“Our democracy has been hacked,” said Gore, framing Washington gridlock and the effects of special interest money in digital terms.

To fix what he called a no-longer functional U.S. government, Gore urged the audience to begin a new “Occupy Democracy” movement. He pushed for the creation and implementation of digital tools and social media to “change the democratic conversation.”

Gore talked of a “Wiki-democracy” of “digital flash mobs calling out the truth” and “a government square that holds people accountable.”

Parker, who was famously portrayed by Justin Timberlake in “The Social Network,” has gotten into politics by investing in Votizen, an online network of voters that leverages social networks to campaign for their issues. He also sits on the board of NationBuilder, which also seeks to organize political change.

Parker said he believes social media is only its infancy of what it can do to spur action. He cited the Internet rally against the Stop Online Piracy Act as a hint of the power of social networks. He called the protest “Nerd Spring,” alluding to the Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East.

Read more here.

Biden on GOP: “They don’t know what it means to be middle class

He actually said this at a $10,000 a head dinner. Yes, really.

Biden made the remarks at the Georgetown home of Senator John Kerry, where some 87 guests paid a minimum of $10,000 per couple to dine on char-grilled grass-fed New York strip steaks and white truffle mashed potatoes beneath a tent basked in soft pink lighting. Biden told attendees that he is confident about Obama’s reelection because Republicans are being open about their intent to cut programs important to a large swatch of the electorate — the middle class.

“These guys don’t have a sense of the average folks out there,” he said. “They don’t know what it means to be middle class.”

Pool reporter Tracy Jan of The Boston Globe noted some high-profile guests at the fundraiser, including “Elizabeth Bagley, former ambassador to Portugal and attorney specializing in trade and international law; Matthew Barzun, former Ambassador to Sweden who Obama has tapped to be his 2012 campaign finance chairman; Steven Green, former ambassador to Singapore; Bob Barnett, a Washington attorney who’s worked on eight national presidential campaigns helping candidates prepare for debates; Tom McMillen, former Maryland congressman; and Jack Manning, co-founder of Boston Capital.”

Obviously all those guests are members of the middle class, right?

Germany proposes a Drudge Tax

European politicians are on the hunt for new sources of revenue as the continent’s fiscal situation worsens. The level of desperation is clear in the latest move from German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition government to tap into the cash reserves of Internet search engine giant Google to bolster that country’s ailing publishing industry.

The second item on the coalition’s list of priorities released last week was a proposal to slap online news aggregators with a tax. “Online commercial vendors, such as search engines and news aggregators, should in the future pay a fee to publishers for the distribution of press products (such as news articles) on the Internet,” the document explains. Any business that links to a news article with a brief excerpt is subject to the scheme.

This action has far more to do with protectionism than protecting intellectual property rights. Websites such as the indispensable Drudge Report, Times 24/7, Real Clear Politics, Digg, Fark and Reddit collect news from sources spread across the Web. These sites are wildly popular because they draw the important stories together in one convenient place, fulfilling a very specific need among a news-hungry public.

Far from leeching off newspapers and print journalists, aggregators are essential to spreading the word about important stories. They drive significant traffic, which in turn generates revenue for content providers. It’s a win for both sides. For publishers that disagree, Google already includes a simple mechanism for websites to exclude themselves from search results. If the purported theft of content were truly the issue, that would end the discussion.

That it doesn’t shows this tax is not a matter of principle, but of old-fashioned crony capitalism. The new economy will be used to bail out the old economy simply because the new economy’s lobbyists aren’t as well-connected.

Read more here.

O’Keefe Video Exposes Voter Fraud-Friendly Policies in Vermont

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released a new video exposing just how easy it is to commit voter fraud in Vermont.

The video, a sequel to O’Keefe’s “Primary of the Living Dead” in New Hampshire, shows a Veritas agent entering various voting places around the state of Vermont, giving a different name each time. Each time, he is given a ballot without showing an ID, to his disbelief.

In the video, the agent repeatedly requests (but does not take) a Republican primary ballot. As he explained to “We wanted to remind viewers this is not a partisan issue. This is a situation wherein anyone — Republican or Democrat — can exploit the system.”

The new video follows in the wake of a highly-politicized media attack on Mr. O’Keefe after his exposure of voter fraud in New Hampshire. Those videos resulted in calls from the left for O’Keefe’s arrest. However, the videos soon resulted in the New Hampshire State Senate passing a new bill requiring voter ID.

O’Keefe’s new video from Vermont could not be more timely, coming the day after the U.S. Department of Justice’s civil rights division blocked a Texas photo ID requirement for voters–to the applause of the American Civil Liberties Union, which claimed that the law was “discriminatory” against “Latinos, African-Americans, elderly citizens, and others.”

As the Project Veritas video shows, the current system in Vermont discriminates against actual legal voters, who must face the prospect of disenfranchisement by those who would vote in their stead illegally, or have their votes cancelled out by those voting illegally in place of deceased voters who have yet to be removed from the rolls. If it is not discriminatory for Vermont citizens to be required to show ID to get married or buy alcohol, it is certainly not discriminatory to make them show ID to vote.

Read more here.

Dan Bongino for Maryland

Friends & Supporters,

This week we learned that Senator Cardin is about to spend $1 million on media advertisements. I asked myself, “Why does a Senator who’s been entrenched in public office for four decades need to spend that amount to win his own party’s primary?”

The answer to that question is, he doesn’t! He would need to spend that much in the primary; however, if his internal polls shows that he is weak going into the general election! These next few weeks, we will see Cardin commercials aimed at distorting and distracting voters from his true record of 44 years as an out-of-touch career bureaucrat that we only see when it is time for re-election.

For example, Cardin recently released a new video touting his achievements to secure federal funding for Chesapeake City. A town forced to pay for the duplication of public services due to the widening of the C&D Canal in the 1960’s. The real question to ask is why did it take Cardin almost 40 years to resove this problem in the first place? He couldn’t have fixed this problem when he was Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the state legislature during the 1970’s, as Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates during the 1980’s, or as U.S. Congressman during the 1990’s? No, it wasn’t until forty years later when he decided to seek re-election for the U.S. Senate that he finally got around to helping the people of Chesapeake City.

We cannot allow Cardin to have a free reign of the airwaves to spin his abysmal record unopposed. That is why on Thursday, March 15th, we are holding our “$20 on 20”. A single day online fundraising drive with 20 day left until the primary. Funds raised in this 24 hour period will go towards placing our own commercials and telling the rest of the story to fellow Marylanders eagerly awaiting a new direction and a fresh start.

We don’t need to waste a million dollars misconstruing our record like Senator Cardin. We just need to get our message centered on real change, on the airwaves and let fellow Marylanders take care of the rest. I ask that you join us on March 15th and help by donating and taking part in “$20 on 20.”


Dan Bongino