Saturday, December 14, 2013

If "I Was Raised Poorly By My Parents" is a Defense, then Put the Parents in Jail

People are responsible for their own actions.

I just saw a video on the white trash teen (yes, his parents are rich - but that doesn't make him any less white trash) who stole beer, got drunk, killed 4 people and injured 2 others - including one who is apparently going to be a vegetable for the rest of his life - and he gets probation because he's a victim of "affluenza," his parents never disciplined him when he was a kid so he didn't know that his actions were wrong and certainly musn't be punished for them.

Well then, if he doesn't have to go to jail for murdering 4 people and crippling two more, then send his parents to jail for raising him up to "affluenza."

In the two days since Texan teen Ethan Couch, 16, received an astonishingly light sentence for a drunk-driving accident that killed four people, outrage over the ruling has only deepened. Couch’s defense called the teen a victim of ”affluenza.” In case you haven’t heard, affluenza is apparently a disorder that goes something like this: because the boy’s parents were wealthy and careless to the point that Couch never understood that his actions have consequences, he couldn’t be held fully accountable for his crime. Couch was sentenced by Judge Jean Boyd to 10 years’ probation and an extended stay in a rehabilitation facility that Anderson Cooper described as a “spa.”
Back in June, Couch stole beer from Walmart with his friends, and crashed his car into a broken-down vehicle on the road. Four people died in the accident, and ten more were injured. Toxicology reports revealed that Couch was three times over the legal drinking limit, and had Valium in his system to boot. At sentencing, Couch’s defense team insisted that rehabilitation would be more useful for the teen than incarceration (Couch was initially up for 20 years), and the judge agreed. Couch’s parents will put up the funds for his stay in the rehabilitation clinic, which costs almost half a million dollars per year.
Judge Boyd hasn’t yet publicly commented on the outrage following her sentence, and was already planning to retire from the bench next year. The assistant district attorney and juvenile prosecutor in the case released an angry press statement: “We are disappointed by the punishment assessed but have no power under the law to change or overturn it.” Couch had elected to have Boyd sentence him herself.
At the sentencing, Boyd heard testimony that Couch had “essentially raised himself,” had an emotional age of 12, and had never understood consequence because his parents compensated with money when he, or they, did wrong — hence ”affluenza.”

Another member of Couch’s defense team noted that due to the lengthly probation sentence, Couch could be ”under the thumb” of the justice system longer than if he’d served jail time. (Which sounds a little fishy to us.)
As for the victims’ families, reported the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, there was a “lot of disappointment in the room.” Judge Boyd had said that no amount of time spent in prison could bring the victims back or heal their families’ suffering, an argument that Eric Boyles strongly contests. Boyles’ wife and daughter were killed in the crash.
On Anderson Cooper 360, Boyles explained: “For 25 weeks, I’ve been going through a healing process. And so when the verdict came out, I mean, my immediate reaction is — I’m back to week one. We have accomplished nothing here. My healing process is out the window.”
Cooper and Nancy Grace, amongst others, covered the case on their Wednesday night shows. Grace implored viewers to contact Texas governor Rick Perry about the sensational sentence.
Jacquielynn Floyd wrote in the Dallas News
It wasn’t the first screw-up for this model young citizen. According to trial testimony, he has been arrested on other alcohol-related charges. At one point, he was caught with an underaged girl, undressed and passed out, in his car… A psychologist hired by the defense testified, in an elegant rendering of courtroom logic, that because he has gotten off without serious punishment in the past, he cannot be seriously punished in this case either.
During the trial, Boyd explained that she doubted he will get the treatment he needs in the state’s correctional system. “Whether [Couch] needs to be introduced to the novel concept of punishment was not addressed.”
 I'm not a fan of civil lawsuits, but here's a case where every single victim of this idiot piece of dirt needs to sue his parents for everything they possess.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

If you don't like what they pay.... get a different job...

A couple of days ago, a live version of the play Sound of Music was aired on TV. Apparently Walmart sponsored the airing.

In reading a message board this morning, someone commented:

 I love that fact that Walmart, in way too many commercials, rammed down our commercial throats a large family saving money shopping at Walmart while their employees can't support their families on what Walmart pays.

 Okay, here's the deal.

Why should Walmart have to pay enough to make sure that someone can support their families?  Why does someone who has to work at Walmart have more family than they can afford to have?

It's just like people who work at fast food restaurants.

You're not supposed to be trying to support a family on minimum wage!!!

Minimum wage, and Walmart wages, are for students and people who want to get out of the house to earn money.

Once the workers have graduated from school - they then go out and get well paying jobs! That's how it work.

It is not Walmart's fault if some of their workers have 10 kids and no education so a job at Walmart is the best they can do.

Don't get me wrong, by the way. Just based on the hassle that fast food workers have to go through (I worked at both McDonalds and a Wendy's when I was young) they should be paid $20 an hour! And that kind of work isn't really easy - at least not working as a cook - especially with the lousy training provided - but the fact remains that you don't need any special skills to do the work, which is why you don't earn $15 an hour for doing it.

I'm actually not sure what Walmart pays its people -  but the same thing applies. If you don't like what they pay, get a better education and get a better job.  And don't saddle yourself with three or four or five kids while you're trying to get a better job. Your lack of planning is not Walmart's fault.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Rush on Obamacare

I don't have time to write much tonight, so I'm going to share a longer snippet of a transcription form Rush's site:

Will comment on this appropriately after Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving, all!

Well, here we are, folks, on November 27th, and the real turkey is nowhere near ready yet.  That's the Obamacare website.  In fact, it isn't gonna be ready on November 30th.  They said it would be.  They said it'd be fixed and then they said it would be ready for 80% load, and now they are saying that it's not gonna be ready on November 30th, and Kathleen Sebelius is now saying that she never said it would be.  So we just dreamed all that.

It's kind of like Mark Halperin of TIME Magazine.  One of these guys that goes on campaigns with candidates, gets a lot of information, and saves it all for a book after the election.  He learns things that could have impact on elections, but he saves them, and then he publishes them with his buddy, John Heilemann, in books that follow the election.  And Mark Halperin was on with Steve Malzberg the other day at in which he said that Obamacare has death panels and that are there people that are gonna determine who gets treated and who doesn't, that there will be rationing.
And everybody picked up on that because of course the Regime has been denying from day one that there were death panels, and Sarah Palin, of course, coined the phrase.  So now Halperin is saying (paraphrasing), "No, I never said that.  I never said death panels.  I never said that."  But he did, and he clearly implied it.  He's a highly reputed journalist within the realm of reputed journalists.

Now, we all heard the Regime say their website was gonna be ready on November 30th.  We all heard it.  We heard Sebelius say it.  We heard Obama say it, after he said he didn't know it wasn't working.  The fact of the matter is -- and there's even more documentation of this today -- Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News, the Regime knew in 2010 that everything that's happening was going to happen.  Yeah, Malzberg said to Halperin, " Alright, so you believe that there will be rationing, AKA death panels." And Halperin said, "It's built into the plan. It’s not like a guess or like a judgment. That’s going to be part of how costs are controlled."

Well, we've all known this from the beginning.  It's right in the plan, for anybody that's read it.  And Obama even admitted it. If you recall that woman at the ABC prime time special from the White House who stood up and asked the president if it'd be okay for her mom to get a pacemaker, she's a hundred years old. The woman wanted to know if Obamacare would pay for it because of her mother's spirit and will to live, and Obama said (paraphrasing), "Nope, nope, we can't take things like that into account. We can't accommodate for a will to live or spirit."  I'm paraphrasing. "At some point we're just gonna have to give 'em the pain pill and tell 'em to enjoy the rest of their lives."

I said this over and over.  I was literally stunned that in the United States of America a citizen was even asking anybody in government, much less the president, if her mother would be treated medically.  A citizen of the United was actually asking the president if her mother would get a pacemaker at a hundred years of age under Obama's plan.  Folks, no president ought to ever be involved in that kind of a family decision.  Government's got no business being there, but, boy, there was Obama just eager as he could to say nope, can't take that into account.  Will to live, spirit, too nebulous, too hard to measure.  Just give 'em the pain pill.

What he meant was, we can't afford to give 100-year-old people pacemakers, and that's the death panel, that's the rationing.  It clearly is there, and there's this board called the IPAB, and it's a bunch of people assigned by the health care act to actually make these decisions.  So after confirming, yeah, death panels, yeah, it's built into the plan, it's not like a guess or like a judgment.  That's gonna be part of how costs are controlled.  Now, Halperin knew this when the bill was being debated. 

This is my point. All these people in the media knew this.  This is one of the many ways they shielded Obama from any vetting or any scrutiny or his bill.  They knew.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

OT - ever wanted to start a blog?

I know I haven't posted here for a while - I've just been to busy with my writing career.

To that end I've founded Freelance Writer Magazine - first issue will be available digitally on December 1.

For now you can visit the website at, or its blog.

And if you're interesting in blogging yourself, and earning money from your blog, you can download a free 70+ page, fully illustrated guide to how to create a blog on Blogger, how to format it, add and format posts and add pictures, and monetize it.

Check it out at:
How To Start Blogging For Money

Monday, October 14, 2013

Why I dislike celebrations in football

I watched a lot of football yesterday, and every time someone on the defensive end made a stop, they celebrated. More often than not it was not a spontaneous, having fun celebration, it was a pre-choreographed 'routine' that the player obviously did every time he made a stop. So the guy's not really happy and celebrating with his teammates, he's making a concerted effort to show up the other guy and perhaps get a video of his "celebration" replayed over and over.

The same on the offensive side. When a guy gets a first down, even in the first quarter, more often than not he has to draw attention to himself by making the "first down signal" instead of just getting up and going back to his team.

But if he scores a touch down, once again - more often than not the player totally ignores his happy teammates attempting to congratulate him, he's got his pre-choreographed celebration routine to get through. Which means, again, it's not about his team, it's all about him showing off.

And kids being impressionable, as we know they are, they're going to learn that ignoring your teammates so you can show off to the fans is the way to go.

And that's why celebrations should be curtailed. It's not that the NFL should be the No Fun League, it should be the "fun" league, not the look at me as I gyrate around like I'm on the dance floor instead of the football field!

Saturday, October 12, 2013

The Media Has a Lot to Answer For

I've got another blog, Devolution Media, which I post in occasionally, in which I document the "devolution" of values - American or otherwise! - thanks to mass media.

I was just on my channel 2 - dont' know what the network is - but it was a commercial in between some kind of Spiderman cartoon.

It was an animated commercial, and shows a boy - of course - who "runs hard, plays hard" in his Skechers shoes. So he skateboards into the classroom, brushing past his teacher, jumps into his desk and places his feet on top of the desk, and immediately the girl sitting in front of him turns around, puts her hands under her chin and gazes at him adoring.

The message: Boys are athletic, and boys who are athletic get the girls and can be as rude as they want because that's cool.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Mike Lee's letter

Rush shared bits of it today - it makes interesting reading.

"Dear Fellow American,
The Obama Administration's behavior during the government shutdown has been the best argument against Obamacare anyone has ever made.
The American people do not want Obamacare, and they are demanding that Washington act to protect them from the harmful effects of this unaffordable and unfair law. The president's response has been to ignore them, allow the government to shut down, and then use his power to inflict as much pain as possible on the people by closing national parks and monuments, stopping payments to veterans, and cutting off cancer research."
And all of that's true.  The sequester did not create the result the Democrats and Obama wanted.  There wasn't enough pain.  They want people suffering when the precious government is somehow shut down or when it's deprived of money.  And they were hell-bent this time. There's a shutdown, okay, then people are gonna suffer. We're gonna make sure.  This is the active strategy of the president of the United States.  The active strategy is to make sure that there is pain, personal pain, such as 26 military families not being funded, getting benefits.  Such as the debacle involving illegal aliens and amnesty on the National Mall, which is closed. Such as National Parks being shut down. Such as cancer-stricken children not having access to the National Institutes of Health.
These were things that need not happen.  These were items chosen to be defunded after the shutdown by the president of the United States and his party, because together their purpose is to try to create a mind-set in as many people as possible that life is not worth living if there is no government in it.  If the government is shut down, if the government has to do with a penny less next year than it got this year, then they want people to actually feel pain, because their objective is this government getting as big as possible, taking as much capital from the private sector as possible and transferring it to government for power and control.
They want people as dependent on government as they can make them, and that includes inflicting pain on them during a supposed shutdown.  And Lee, in his letter to Americans, is pointing out that that very behavior ought to be sending up red flags to everybody. If we have a president and a party willing to inflict this kind of pain because they petulantly don't get their way in a shutdown, with this kind of power, we're gonna give 'em total control of the health care system?
The president's response has been to ignore people who oppose Obamacare.  His response has been "to allow the government to shut down, and then use his power to inflict as much pain as possible on the people by closing national parks and monuments, stopping payments to veterans, and cutting off cancer research."
And then Lee writes, "The President's actions show exactly why we should not expand the government's power over our health care choices. What power the government has, it will use - and misuse - to advance its own interests, even if that means punishing the American people along the way."
And there can be no doubt that the regime has attempted to punish people it considers its political enemies.  It has sought to inflict pain in the shutdown so as to create the impression that you and anyone else cannot possibly get by without government.  Without more government, without bigger government, without more powerful government your life would be absolutely disastrous.  That's the impression they want to convey.  And of course their rabid supporters are right in there furthering that notion.  Their rabid supporters who are gonna be among those really harmed by all this.
I'm talking about their voters, you know, the people that go to these websites and post comments at the blogs, just your average, ordinary derelict Democrat voter.  They're all-in for this. They're all-in for you suffering. They're all-in for you having pain inflicted on you.
Lee continues.  "The message behind the Administration's shutdown bullying is the same message sent by the IRS's abuses of power against the president's political opponents. This is the abusive, unaccountable bureaucracy that, under Obamacare, will soon be running America's health care system.  President Obama is not just using the vast powers of his office as leverage against Republicans - he is abusing his powers as leverage against the American people."
And he is.  There isn't any question.  There's a reason his approval numbers are at 37%.  There is a reason his approval numbers are falling.  It's a reality that is not reported upon.  It's a reality not commented upon practically anywhere inside the Beltway.
Now we have news, guess what?  The claims for unemployment insurance last week or this week, I forget which story, somewhere in the Stack, are so high, this just shocked everybody.  It's a California story. "Well, you know, it's because of the shutdown and because of the computer glitches and the California employment reporting system, and that's why the unreal and very unusual high number of people applying for unemployment."
No, it can't be that we're losing jobs left and right.  How in the world can private sector unemployment go up or not based on a government shutdown?  What are the things that are related?  They aren't.  Just because you've got a government shutdown doesn't automatically mean unemployment's going to skyrocket.  Not in the private sector, but yet that's the impression that is being conveyed in this story on joblessness that is out there.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Off Topic: Women aviation history as told through First Day Covers

Anyone interested in aviation history will like my Virtual Museum featuring women in aviation, as told through First Day Covers from 1929 to the present time. is the URL.

Lots of covers featuring Amelia Earhart  and Jacqueline Cochran, as well as Harriet Quimby and Bessie Coleman and many, many more.

Many of these covers are absolutely gorgeous, so if you're interested in philately or first day covers or just pretty pictures in miniature, I think you'll like it as well.

Monday, September 23, 2013

What is a Civil Society Roundtable?

This press release is from the government, September 6:

President Obama Holds a Roundtable with Civil Society Leaders

September 06, 2013 | 3:02 | Public Domain

President Obama meets with a range of civil society leaders, ranging from business leaders to youth leaders to environmental leaders, who are advocating on behalf of a free press, the rule of law, and contributing in one way or another to continuing to strengthen Russian society and helping to make progress on behalf of all people.

And here's a link to A More Civil Society Roundtable
except that's in Australia...

23 September, 2013, Monday, Pres and VP Schedules

President Obama's Schedule
11:25 am 
The President and First Lady depart the White House en route Joint Base Andrews
South Lawn
Open Press
Final Gather 11:00AM – North Doors of the Palm Room

11:40 am
 The President and First Lady depart Joint Base Andrews
Joint Base Andrews
Travel Pool Coverage Call Time
9:15AM – Virginia Gate, Joint Base Andrews 

12:35 pm 
The President and First Lady arrive New York City
John F. Kennedy International Airport
Open Press

1:45 pm 
The President holds a bilateral meeting with President Goodluck Jonathan of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
Waldorf Astoria
Pool Spray at the Top 

3:00 pm 
The President holds a Civil Society Roundtable
New York Hilton Hotel Midtown
Open to pre-credentialed media 

5:20 pm 
The President meets with USUN Mission employees and their families
Waldorf Astoria
Closed Press

8:50 pm 
The President and First Lady attend a reception for visiting Heads of State and Government
Waldorf Astoria
Closed Press 

Vice President

4:00 pm 
The Vice President, Governor John Hickenlooper, and FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate deliver remarks in Greeley, Colorado
Open Press 

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

18 Sept 2013, Wednesday, Sec of State Kerry and Staff Schedule


2:30 p.m.
Secretary Kerry hosts a swearing-in ceremony for Victoria Nuland as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, at the Department of State.
Pre set for video cameras: 1:30 p.m. from the 23rd Street Lobby.
Final access time for journalists and still photographers: 2:00 p.m. from the 23rd Street Lobby.

6:30 p.m. Secretary Kerry attends the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition Board dinner, in Washington, DC.



Assistant Secretary Fernandez is on travel to Mexico for the U.S. – Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue.


1:00 p.m. Acting Assistant Secretary Pittman participates in a Google+ “Hangout at State” titled “The U.S. and the United Nations: The Case for Multilateralism.” To view the event: Please click here for more information.


2:00 p. m. Acting Assistant Secretary Zeya attends the swearing-in for Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, at the Department of State.


12:30 p.m.
Ambassador CdeBaca participates in a panel discussion at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Hispanic Heritage Month Program, at EEOC Headquarters.


Special Envoy Forman is on foreign travel to Oslo, Norway through September 19 and Warsaw, Poland; Paris, France; and Budapest, Hungary from September 22 through October 5 to attend International Anti-Semitic Conferences.

18 Sept 2013, Prez and VP Schedules

President's Schedule
9:45 am
The President receives the Presidential Daily Briefing
Oval Office
Closed Press
10:45 am
The President delivers remarks to members of the Business Roundtable and answer questions
Business Roundtable Headquarters, DC

3:30 pm
 The President and the Vice President meet with Secretary of the Treasury Lew
Oval Office
Closed Press
4:15 pm
The President and the Vice President meet with Secretary of State Kerry
Oval Office
Closed Press
Vice president's Schedule
11:30 am
 The Vice President meets with U.S. participants in the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue, incl. Secretary John Kerry, Secretary Penny Pritzker, Secretary Anthony Foxx, Acting Secretary Rand Beers, U.S. Trade Rep. Michael Froman and other officials
Roosevelt Room
Closed Press

3:30 pm
 The President and the Vice President meet with Secretary of the Treasury Lew
Oval Office
Closed Press

4:15 pm
 The President and the Vice President meet with Secretary of State Kerry
Oval Office
Closed Press

Monday, September 16, 2013

US infrastructure is crumbling...

Why are we letting our nation go to pot?

Too much dependence on the Federal government?
"The event marks the start of a week-long focus on the economy after a month of preoccupation with the crisis in Syria." So they're just making stuff up now.  What in the world are they taking credit for?  The only place where there's anything to crow about economically is Washington, DC, and the areas of the country where there is fracking for oil going on -- and a couple of other pockets.  But there are 90 million Americans not working.  The labor force participation rate has plummeted.
Unemployment? If the same number of jobs existed today as when Obama took office five years ago, the unemployment rate would be near 11%.  There is no economic recovery.  Try this. "Over 65,000 US Bridges in Need of Repair."  Again, the AP reporting.
"An Associated Press analysis of 607,380 bridges ... showed that 65,605 were classified as 'structurally deficient' and 20,808 as 'fracture critical.'" Of the 65,000 structurally deficient and 20,000 fracture critical, almost 8,000 were both.  Now, I read that, and I said, "Well, now that's impossible, because we did a stimulus.  We had the now-famous stimulus bill in March of 2009, two months after Obama was inaugurated, that dealt with this.  We rebuilt all the roads and bridges."
While we were at it, we rebuilt all the crumbling schools -- and while we were at it, we rebuilt some roads.  And then rebuilding the roads, we rebuilt the bridges.  What is this, 20,000 bridges are fracture critical?  After how many stimuli?  And the president's gonna run out there in the Rose Garden today, that's the plan, with a bunch of Americans that supposedly have benefited from his policies, claiming credit for a robust economic recovery.  This is all to set the stage (with the media helping, of course) to alarm anybody over the fact the Republicans might shut down the government.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Third day of rain in Cheyenne, Wyoming

On occasion I've woken up to a foggy day here in Cheyenne, and once in a while it would even rain for 6 or 7 hours straight - in the three years that I've lived here that's happened maybe twice.  Usually we get about 10 minutes of rain.

But today I woke up to the third straight day of rain here. I was talking with some folks yesterday who have lived in Cheyenne for 40 years and it has *never* rained more than 6 or 7 hours straight in all that time, certainly not more than a day and as for three days - it's a hundred year event.

Boulder, Colorado is getting the brunt of it, where was this rain when those wildfires were happening earlier this year?

In any event, I know this is off topic for the Rush Limbaugh Report, but felt I had to vent!

Anyone having fun with the Microsoft Office 2010 patch?

I'd been working on my laptop two days ago like I normally do, then turned it off because I had to go into town for a few hours. I was annoyed to see that it was installing automatic updates - I'd wanted to take it with me, but I didn't have time to wait.

So I left my laptop, confident in the fact that as soon as I returned home I'd be able to return to it right where I left off. After all, while I never knew what those stupid updates were for - they were obviously improvements of some kind to my system - why else would they do them?

Imagine my horror when I came home, booted up my computer, and found that all my Microsoft Word icons had turned bright orange. I tried to open a couple, only to be told that "the application used to create this file is not on this computer." and "download here."

I got home late, and after seeing that debacle was not in the mood to do anything but go to bed, but the next morning I started researching and discovered that the Microsoft Patches sent out the previous day had played havoc with thousands of people running Microsoft Office 2010.

Fortunately I found the Microsoft Community ( which had a thread on it, and the fix turned out to be an easy one - for me. Other folks were having  a harder time.

But this is just ridiculous. How could Microsoft send out these patches that  would discombobulate files the way they did? Talk about inept.

Normallly I'm not a fan of class-action lawsuits, but a lot of people who faced hours of downtime and stress because they couldn't get their software packages to work for 2 days certainly have a case here...

Monday, September 9, 2013

SoS Kerry and Staff Schedule, 9/9/2013

Secretary Kerry is on foreign travel to London, United Kingdom. He is accompanied by Acting Assistant Secretary Paul Jones, U.S. Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations Martin Indyk, Spokesperson Jennifer Psaki, NSS Senior Director for the Middle East and North Africa Prem Kumar and VADM Harry B. Harris, Jr., JCS. Please click for here more information.

8:30 a.m. LOCAL Secretary Kerry meets with UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, in London UK.

9:30 a.m. LOCAL
Secretary Kerry holds a joint press availability with UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, in London UK.

5:00 p.m. Secretary Kerry briefs members of the House of Representatives, on Capitol Hill.


Assistant Secretary Brownfield is on foreign travel to Thailand to discuss law enforcement cooperation and wildlife trafficking with Thai officials. Please click here for more information.


1:00 p.m. Assistant Secretary Jacobson meets with the Ecuadorian Ambassador to the U.S. Nathalie Cely, at the Department of State.

3:00 p.m.
Assistant Secretary Jacobson meets with the Argentine Ambassador to the U.S. Cecilia Nahon, at the Department of State.


1:00 p.m.
Assistant Secretary Jones participates in the Forum to Counter Wildlife Trafficking as Acting State Department Co-Chair of the President’s Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking, at the White House.

4:00 p.m.
Assistant Secretary Jones delivers remarks to the National Academy of Sciences Council on Science, at the Department of State.


Assistant Secretary Russel is on foreign travel to the Republic of Korea, Japan, Brunei, Indonesia, and China from September 5 through 14. Please click here for more information.


Special Adviser Rahman is on foreign travel in Costa Rica through September 11 to co-lead a delegation to the International Telecommunications Union’s (ITU) “BYND 2013” Global Youth Summit. She will meet with the Secretary General of the ITU Hamadoun TourĂ©, Minister for Science, Technology and Telecommunications, Alejandro Cruz, the local American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) and private sector representatives

President and VP Schedule, 9/9/2013

The President
10:15 am
The President receives the Presidential Daily Briefing
Oval Office
Closed Press

2:15 pm
The President and the Vice President meet with Secretary of Defense Hagel
Oval Office
Closed Press

The VP
(Nothing on schedule except the 2:15 pm meeting with Secretary of Defense Hagel)

Let's get this show back on the road

Sorry to have been sporadic for so long, but I've just been dealing with a lot of personal things.

I'll try to not miss a day from now on.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

4 September 2013: Obama and Biden Schedules

President Obama
4:10 am The President arrives in Stockholm,
Sweden Stockholm-Arlanda International Airport,
  Open Press

  7:10 am The President greets Prime Minister Reinfeldt
The Rosenbad Building
Pooled Press

7:20 am The President holds a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Reinfeldt of Sweden
The Rosenbad Building
Travel Pool

  8:30 am The President and Prime Minister Reinfeldt hold a press conference
  The Rosenbad Building
Open to pre-credentialed media

  9:30 am The President participates in a celebration of Raoul Wallenberg and delivers a statement The Great Synagogue and Holocaust Memorial of Stockholm
Travel Pool Coverage

10:40 am The President tours an Energy Expo event Royal Institute of Technology-Campus Library
 Stockholm, Sweden
Travel Pool Coverage

  1:05 pm The President accompanies Nordic leaders for a family photo Sager House,
Stockholm, Sweden
Pool Spray

1:15 pm The President attends an official dinner with Nordic Leaders
Sager House, Stockholm, Sweden
Closed Press

VP Biden

1:45 pm The Vice President ceremonially swears in Tom Perez as Secretary of Labor Department of Labor
Open Press

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Can the Trayvon Martin/Christopher Lane cases be compared?

The Christopher Lane case - the white Australian who was shot in the back by three bored teenagers - 2 black and one apparently half-black - is being discussed on the Hannity forums.

Some folks compare it to the Trayvon Martin case and wonder where Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and President Obama are.

Others say the comparison isn't valid because *these* three shooters are in jail, whereas Zimmerman was questioned for three hours but then let free because the police didn't think he'd done anything wrong, he'd shot Martin in self-defense, and probably would have done so regardless of Martin's skin color.

I'm in the camp that compares this with the Trayvon Martin case, just because of the media scrutiny. Where is it?  Where are Al Sharpton, Jackson and the President on this issue?  What would their reaction have been if the victim had been black and the shooters white?

Obviously, there is white on black crime. But not all white on black crime is racist.  But it seems like when there is black on white crime, it is *never* considered to be racist. (By that I mean - the media never reports it that way, and Sharpton and Jackson never seem to point it out.).

How many innocent black folks have died in Chicago - killed by other black folks, since Trayvon Martin died?  What is being done about that?

Profiling apparently goes on in a lot of American cities, and the African-American community is outraged. But the thing is - more blacks than white are poor, the poor more often commit violent crimes, so it only makes sense to profile them.

(Having said that, since more whites than blacks have jobs, it follows that more white collar crime - crimes committed by people who don't *have* to steal to survive but do it just because they want more money for more luxuries) are committed by whites.  I'm not saying that *only* the poor commit crimes - we need only look to Wall Street to see that *that* isn't true!), just that when you're trying to combat crime certain methods are effective, if they were allowed to be used.

Want to stop profiling? Work within your community to stop it at the source!

As for stopping Wall Street Crime and white collar crime...well, who knows what solution there is there...perhaps no more country club prisons, for a start.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Where's the outrage over Christopher Lane's murder?

Christopher Lane was murdered by two black and one white bored teenagers.

Yesterday there was no mention of their race and no photos.

Today, still no mention of their race, or wondering if it was a hate crime, no, the teens were just "bored."   I suppose since one of the three murderers was white, that proves that it wasn't a hate crime?

If the situation were reversed, there'd be cries of racism, there'd be screams for the heads of these three teenagers...there'd be Time and Newsweek covers, etc. and etc.

Will we see that for this Aussie victim?

If not...why not?

Monday, August 12, 2013

Mocking a president who is black is still just mocking a president

If a clown at a state fair had put on a mask of Clinton and simulated sex, or a mask of Bush 1 and said, read my lips, etc. etc., there would have been no problems.

But he puts on a mask of Obama, who is black, so of course the mocking isn't due to Obama being mockable, no, it's because Obama is black.


Thursday, August 8, 2013

Obama administration using housing department in effort to diversify neighborhoods

In a move some claim is tantamount to social engineering, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is imposing a new rule that would allow the feds to track diversity in America’s neighborhoods and then push policies to change those it deems discriminatory.

The policy is called, "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing." It will require HUD to gather data on segregation and discrimination in every single neighborhood and try to remedy it.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan unveiled the federal rule at the NAACP convention in July.
"Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the zip code she grows up in. This is simply wrong,” he said.

Data from this discrimination database would be used with zoning laws, housing finance policy, infrastructure planning and transportation to alleviate alleged discrimination and segregation.
Specifics of the proposed rule are lacking. Now published in the Federal Register and undergoing a 60-day comment period, the rule, "does not prescribe or enforce specific” policies.
But one critic says it smacks of utopian idealism.

"This is just the latest of a series of attempts by HUD to social engineer the American people," said Ed Pinto, of the American Enterprise Institute. "It started with public housing and urban renewal, which failed spectacularly back in the 50's and 60's. They tried it again in the 90's when they wanted to transform house finance, do away with down payments, and the result was millions of foreclosures and financial collapse.”

Some fear the rule will open the floodgates to lawsuits by HUD --  a weapon the department has already used  in places like Westchester County, N.Y., where mayors and attorneys representing several towns, like Cortlandt, are writing HUD to protest burdensome fair housing mandates that go far beyond those agreed to in a 2009 settlement with HUD.

One letter written by Cortlandt town attorney Thomas Wood expresses a common dilemma.
"Cordlandt is mostly residential and has only a few vacant parcels that could be developed for commercial use," he writes. "In order to stabilize the tax base amongst the most affordable in Westchester County, the Town Board needs to encourage the development of commercial property for commercial use."

Rob Astorino, the Westchester County Executive, recently said, "What they are trying to do is to say discrimination and zoning is the same thing. They are not. Discrimination won't be tolerated. I won't tolerate it. Zoning though, protects what can and can't be built in a neighborhood."

Also troublesome to critics is that the HUD secretary, in announcing this proposed rule, blamed poverty on zip codes – rather than other socio-economic factors that studies have shown contribute to poverty.

Civil rights activists remain silent on Florida school bus beating video

From : Civil" style="color: #003399;">">Civil rights activists remain silent on Florida school bus beating video

A viral video showing the beating of a 13-year-old white boy by three African-American youths in Florida has left hundreds of thousands of viewers horrified, but critics say the case doesn't seem to be attracting much sympathy from self-styled civil rights activists.

In the chilling video, three 15-year-old boys repeatedly beat and kick a victim police said was left with a broken arm and two black eyes.

Although Florida came under fire in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting and George Zimmerman's acquittal by activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson - who called it an "apartheid state" - neither has spoken publicly about the bus incident. But one reason the case has not become as racially charged as other attacks may be that many news outlets have either not shown the first few seconds, before the victim goes down behind a seat, and others blur out his face to the point his race is no longer apparent.

The bus driver, 64-year-old John Moody, can be heard frantically calling a radio dispatcher for help, although he was criticized in some quarters for not physically intervening.

"No, you've got to get somebody here quick, quick, quick," Moody pleads on his phone as the assailants take turns landing windmill punches and vicious kicks on the cowering victim. "They about to beat this boy to death over here."
"They about to beat this boy to death over here."
- Florida bus driver John Moody

The attack took place July 9 in the St. Petersburg-area community of Gulfport. But the horrific cell phone and surveillance video only came out only recently. Police say the three youths, all African-American, attacked the boy after he told officials at their dropout prevention school that one of them had tried to sell him marijuana.

Most of the focus has so far been on Moody, who retired two weeks after the incident. Moody went on CNN earlier this week to defend himself.

"Me jumping in the middle of that fight with three boys, it would have been more dangerous for other students on the bus for as myself," he told Morgan. "There's just no telling what might have happened."

Moody stopped the bus, and police said the suspects used the emergency exit of the bus to escape. Joshua Reddin, Julian McKnight, and Lloyd Khemradj, all 15 years old, were arrested a short time later. All three were charged with aggravated battery and have since been released. Reddin is also charged with unarmed robbery.

Pinellas County school policy does not require a driver to intervene and prosecutors have said Moody will not face charges, but Gulfport Police Chief Robert Vincent told WFLA that Moody should have stepped in.

"There was clearly an opportunity for him to intervene and or check on the welfare of the children or the child in this case, and he didn't make any effort to do so," Vincent said.


Saturday, August 3, 2013

Does a Single "Slur" Make Someone Racist?

Riley Cooper is still in trouble for shouting the "N-word", once, at a bunch of African Americans who were vocally harassing him.

The sports outlets seem to be doing their best to make a Federal case out of this, going around asking African American athletes what they think about Riley Cooper. Apparently using the word once, to a bunch of guys harassing him, means he's a died in the wool racist who thinks that all blacks are inferior and need to be driven off the planet.

It's just ridiculous!

Surely any white kid who has been in a football program in college any time in the last 30 years has been surrounded by 80% black players. As we know from Rap and stand up comedians, blacks call themselves the N word all the time, both common place and as an insult.

Is it too much to think that someone like Cooper who probably spent 4 years in college heard all this going on, was friends with his teammates, and the word just slipped out when he was angry?

Is using that word a single time - not going up to two blacks in a restaurant calming eating their food, for example, and calling them the "n-word' but rather using it towards a bunch of guys who were *harassing him* even if only verbally - does he deserve to have to grovel and apologize and go to "counseling" before his teammates accept him back?

Over on the Hannity message forums, there's a thread about some white college kid who wanted to start a Whites Only group on campus - which he was doing in response to the fact that there's a Black's Only student's group on Campus, and a Latino Only student group on campus. So if they can be exclusive and restrictive, why can't he have a White's Only group?  But of course there was an uproar because *that* would be racist.

And someone on the Hannity boards, who *agreed* with that view, said "whites are under attack" in a joking manner. Since he apparently believes that it is only minorities who are under attack, and the whites that have all the power.

But really, do we?  If we did, then Riley Cooper wouldn't be twisting in the wind right now because he used the "n-word" once to a bunch of guys who were harassing him. Michael Roberts' career wouldn't be over because of his -admittedly tasteless - lynching joke to a black heckler. Brian Griese wouldn't have been suspended for a week because in calling a college football game, he dared to suggest that a Latino player might be hiding somewhere eating a taco. (If he'd said it had been a hotdog, probably there would have been no repercussions. But to dare to say that a Latino player might actually be eating a Latino piece of food - racist!)

Yet Charlie Rangel can call the Tea Party a bunch of white "crackers" and there's no need for him to go to counseling.  Rae Dawn Chong apparently called Oprah a "field N-word" and no one's calling her a racist because she's apparently a quarter black.

What is a "field-N-word" anyway?  An African-American who speaks in an educated way with a Northern accent, interacts with whites as an equal and has accepted middle-classness (or in her case, of course, riches) .

Apparently 41% of young African Americans are unemployed.  Is this because racist employers don't want to hire them, or is it because employers can't afford to hire people who can't speak properly, don't know how to do math, don't know any manners (a common complaint with all teenagers, admittedly), have tattoos everywhere, and go around looking angry all the time? (Although - it must be said that white teens are at 20% unemployment.)

There's a commercial on TV, some beer commercial, I actually forget the brand, but the black rapper Ice Cube, I think that's his name, is their spokesperson. Have you ever seen any of these commercials?  He's done at least 3 of them,and in each one he's got this furious look on his face and struts around like he's angry and contemptuous and I'm, like, what have *you* got to be angry about? You're a multi-millionaire.  Yet this is the guy, him and his vicious, angry attitude, that the beer companies are putting out there as normal behavior.

It may be one thing for a millionaire rapper to be able to go around looking like he'd like to stomp you into a coma all the time - he can still get a job apparently, but if a teenager does that, is it any wonder he's not going to get hired?

Friday, August 2, 2013

The Morals of America

There's been a lot of discussion and op eds and stuff in the news in the past couple of weeks, ever since Anthony Weiner was revealed to have continued to "sext" women even after he'd stopped down from his congressman position in disgrace.

Now, he is trying to become mayor of New York and even though he must have known he was going to try to re-enter politics, he had been sexting yet more women.

And now this is known and he's refusing to step down.

Now, I haven't read any of the guy's interviews, and I haven't read any of the articles about him - I've just read the headlines and some of the op ed pieces.

But come ON.

Even if a person's sex life is their own business, and has nothing to do with politics, surely politicians must be ethical in that they mustn't LIE. They mustn't be STUPID.

How can anyone in this day and age who "sexts" and who is a public figure, think that he can get away with not being found out?????

Anthony Weiner is a stupid man, and we've already got too many stupid people in politics.

What puzzles me is why anyone continues to support this man. How can they not look at him and picture him taking a picture of his "junk" and then sending it - unsolicited, mark you - to women.

According to a poll Rush read a few days ago, women age 18-20 still support Weiner. Now that is a very sad statistic. Even if you're used to being "sexted" yourself - and I venture to say women "sext" men more often than the other way around - don't they see how demeaning that is?

Sadly, they don't.

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Racist reaction or media-caused assumption?

A few days ago, some baseball pitcher, whose name I can't recall, was reported at to have been "jumped" by some folks in Cleveland. (The news has disappeared from the CBSSports site today and I don't want to go look for it.)

People who commented on the story did so under the assumption that it had been African Americans who had jumped the pitcher, who was white.

Why did they make that assumption?  Well, because the race of the attackers wasn't given, and it happened in Cleveland. When the media reports on assaults or other types of crimes, and does not mention the race - which they invariably do if the crooks are white - more often than not the perpetrators are minorities.

So a day or so later more news came out about this pitcher - actually he hadn't been "jumped," he'd been in a bar, got into a fight, and apparently lost. Again we weren't told the race of the person whom he'd fought and lost to, but *then* the assumption was made that it was someone who was white, and all the comments were, "where are all the racist creeps now who were saying he'd been jumped by a black person? Don't they feel stupid now."

Well, perhaps they may feel stupid, but should they?  Isn't it the politically correct media that is to blame whenever someone jumps t the conclusion that the attacker of a white person was black or Latino?  Because - that is the way they consistently report news, as I stated above - if it's white on minority crime they are very quick to state that it's white on minority crime - if it's minority on white or minority on minority, not so much.

Case in point, this piece of news:

The article shares several photos of the alleged perpetrator, who is clearly African-American, but nowhere in the written article is this stated!!!!!
All we get is this description:
"The new video shows the assailant buying a drink at a nearby store. He wore a black or brown golf visor and a white T-shirt over a sagging pair of blue denim shorts, officials said. He is believed to be in his late 20s, about 6-feet tall and 180 pounds."
Well, gee, that description is just so helpful, isn't it. He's also African-American, and at the time of the assault had a close-shaved beard. Shouldn't at least one of those factors have been mentioned???

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Who would still vote for Anthony Weiner?

Anthony Weiner was forced to resign a couple of years ago as congressman because he was sexting naked pictures of himself to women and was stupid enough to send these photos to his entire mailing list.

Then he *lied* and said his account was hacked before admitting that no, it was actually him.

(Why didn't he go to jail for lying about a crime - hacking is a crime!)

His wife forgave him, and stuck by him.

Then, he decided to run for Mayor of New York.

Surely it was in his mind all along to return to the political arena.

So you would have thought that he would have STOPPED sexting women!

If he needed an extra bed partner you would have thought he would have found one whom he could trust to be discreet. He'd pay her great sums for sex and in return she'd never come out into the open and ruin his political career. That'd be a risk, but it would be much less risk than CONTINUING to sext with women while you're working to get back into politics!!!!

On the one hand guys are guys. (And women are women). They have affairs. You'd think they'd be smart enough to handle their own birth control to ensure they don't impregnate their mistresses and thus have to spend the rest of their lives doling out child support for kids they'll never see. But that is apparently beyond most men.

Should a "cheating scandal" derail one's political career? Perhaps not.

But surely, SURELY, being STUPID should derail one's career.

Anthony Weiner was STUPID. He continued in the same behavior that got him caught before and he actually thought that the women he was setting wouldn't reveal all if they could get the right price from the National Enquirer?

As for his wife? Well..gee. If she wants to stick with that scumbag that's her business, but how anyone could respect her for being a doormat.... it didn't stop Hillary Clinton's rise to power and that has always puzzled me, I admit. But I've never had any respect for her and certainly have none for Weiner's wife.

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Zimmerman/Martin/Obama - Hannity Forums vs Huffington Post

It's interesting to see how people who have the exact same access to the exact same information can see things differently - and it can only be due to people's ideological beliefs.

Now, I didn't pay much attention to the Zimmerman trial, I admit. What I *did* see was that whenever the media showed a photo of Trayvon Martin, they showed one where he was 8 years old or so, not the 17 year old teenager he was at the time of his death. What I *did* see was the President of the US saying that if he had a son he could look like Trayvon Martin....etc. etc. What I did see was that Zimmerman, thanks to his name, was not characterized as a Latino but as a "white Latino."....etc. etc.

So, Zimmerman was voted not guilty - and I admit I don't understand why it was left up to only 6 people - and apparently all white women though I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere. I thought a jury had to have 12 people on it?

In any event, most folks - at least those posting on etc., see this as a fair verdict and are outraged that African-Americans are outraged and saying that Martin was the victim and it was a racist verdict, etc. and that the African American community sees nothing odd about castigating white America for the death of Trayvon Martin but don't say *anything* about the dozens of black kids killed practically every month in other blacks.

So the President didn't attempt to calm things down when he spoke a couple of days ago - he clearly thinks the verdict was an unjust one and that racism still exists in the USA - and of course to him and the African American community racism is only a "white" crime... and Hannity took him to task for that.

So I went to Huffington Post today which had an article about the "disgusting" things that Hannity had said about the President's speech - pointing out that 35 years ago Obama was doing drugs too - and every comment was agreeing with the HuffPo article that Hannity was out of line and that Republicans are racist and that the African American community is just one humongous victim of white America.

(This despite the fact that statistics show - if only those folks would read them - that 90% of all black deaths are not caused by whites murdering them but by *blacks* murdering them.  Why are Sharpton and Jackson and the President not talking about *that*?)

I don't remember seeing the statistics of what percentage of white deaths are caused by blacks as opposed to whites...that'd be interesting to see, too. (Which is not to say that whites don't go around killing each other, obviously they do - I'm just talking about percentages.)

Sure, there are whites who are prejudiced against blacks - if you read the CBS Sports message boards that's on display every single day - but there is no *institutional* racism - that is out the window. After all, how many educational institutions give black athletes chance after chance after chance after chance to make good, as long as they are good football players. (And white players too, of course, Johnny  Manziel (the idiot Heisman trophy winner who thinks that because he's 20 he should be able to get drunk whenever he feels like it, secure in the knowledge that because he plays football all of his pecadilloes will be glossed over ) being a prime example of someone who shouldn't have even been playing last year!). White firefighters can't get raises because not enough black firefighters did, test scores have to be lowered for various civil service jobs because not enough blacks were getting in so of course expecting them to know math was just racist....the list goes on.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Rush on Eric Holder and the division of America

RUSH:  The attorney general, Eric Holder, is moving on the stand-your-ground law.  I tell you, folks, these people... It is really sad.  I think it was the British historian Alistair Cooke (I think it was him) in his Letters to America who said that America would never overcome its "black problem." It was never going to happen.  I'm struck here.  We elected the first black president, and that was supposed to fix all of this, wasn't it, or at least make a huge dent in the race problem in this country?

Wasn't it?

The theory was that if America, with a vast majority white population and 12 to 14% black population, elected a black man president, "Why, that would speak volumes about how progressive and advanced America had become. It would go a long way toward healing the wounds that apparently remain from slavery and discrimination and all the other things."  But seems it's got worse, to me.  It seems that with the election of Barack Obama, racial strife in this country's worse than it's ever been since the Civil War.

Or as bad, at least.

Certainly it hasn't improved, let's put it that way.  It has not improved.  The country's more divided in more ways than I can remember in my adult lifetime, and I mean that.  I've thought about that.  I've gone back in my memory, and I've tried to remember when we may have been more divided on so many things, and I don't remember it.  What I do remember is everybody saying -- and many people hoping and a lot of people believing -- that the election of Barack Obama would end a lot of it, and it hasn't.

It has just made it worse.

RUSH: This is Eileen in Clinton, Tennessee.  Hi, Eileen. It's great to have you on the EIB Network.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hello.  Thank you for taking my call.  I'm honored. When you mentioned that... I'm not sure exactly what. You mentioned something that made me think of a study that I had heard about Hispanics assimilating better than we would have thought. You know, there's a lot of talk about the rising Hispanic population and people saying, "We're gonna look like Mexico. They're gonna take over," and there are enclaves where you have to be Spanish speaking to do business in whatever. But as a whole, according to social scientists who measure things like generations talking Spanish over speaking English, they're assimilating much like my grandparents. All my grandparents were immigrants, much like other waves of immigrants have --

RUSH:  Well, the Hispanics are, you're saying?

CALLER:  The Hispanics.  I'm wondering. I'm trying to understand this, because I don't think --

RUSH:  Okay, let me understand.  What you're saying is everybody's worried about immigration and amnesty and illegals because the Hispanics are not assimilating. But in fact, you read something that says they are and you also --

CALLER:  Right, and that's just one study.

RUSH:  Okay.

CALLER:  But I'm trying to apply this to...

RUSH:  Right.

CALLER:  Oh, I know what it was! You're saying that after Obama got elected we expected better race relations.

RUSH:  Yeah, everybody thought that.  Everybody thought... Well, not everybody.  I didn't.  I thought that exactly what has happened, was going to happen.  I thought racial relations would get worse.  I thought racial relations would be exacerbated.  I thought there'd end up being more friction in our society.  Because I know liberals, and I knew what was gonna happen. "Okay, we got the first black president elected but that's not gonna count for anything.

"It's gonna be chalked up to people who didn't really mean it. They were just voting for the black guy so nobody would think they're racist, but they don't really love Obama."  That was the first thing they were gonna say, and the next thing they were gonna do was this: Any time Obama's criticized, they were going to accuse the criticism of being racist in its orientation.  Well, folks, there hasn't been a president alive who doesn't get criticized.

Presidents are criticized by more people every day than anybody else in society.  But the left, the Democrats set it up so that any criticism of Obama had nothing to do with substance. It was all racist.  The objective here was at least twofold, if not multifold.  One was to silence any criticism by making those who would criticize Obama fearful of doing it, because they didn't want to be called racist.  The second objective was to be able to call people racists, because it does matter.
If somebody calls you a racist and it sticks, you have a problem, particularly if you're in politics and are seeking people's votes.  So that's why I think the next thing the Democrats are gonna do is try to find another first.  The first female president.  See, any criticism will be sexist.  It will allow them to continue the War on Women, or maybe they'll find an Hispanic to run on their side that they think could be elected.

So then we have the first Hispanic president, and every criticism will be anti-Latino, and that's how they set it up.  So it's twofold.  It's to silence any criticism, but that criticism that actually survives will be characterized as racist or sexist or bigoted or what have you.  And it's just a way... The overall purpose of this is for the left to silence and do away with any opposition, because that's their objective.

I was told that yesterday on MSNBC, they had a panel discussion, and the people on the show were literally having cows over my interpretation of them and their reaction to the Zimmerman verdict on Saturday.  I approached the Golden EIB Microphone on Monday and I told you that their reaction was really not about Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

It was just they are a bunch of children that didn't get their way.

They've been getting their way on everything.  In the last five, 5-1/2 years, they've gotten 99% of what they want.  They didn't get this, and they were bellyaching.  I accused them of having a temper tantrum.  You would not believe how that was purposely misinterpreted and then mis-analyzed, which is something they always do.  They limit all of the crucial context of any critic that they launch into.  So what it became was... Folks, I don't remember.  It was so insane, I don't remember how they interpreted it.

But I am a premier communicator.  I say what I mean.  I don't leave it up to chance. If somebody asks me a question, I answer it.  I don't speak in riddles, and I said that what really had 'em ticked off about this verdict was that they didn't get their way.  Somebody didn't let 'em have what they wanted.  They wanted a guilty verdict. For whatever reasons, they wanted a guilty verdict.  They didn't get it.  (crying)

And then they launched into, "The country's racist," just 'cause they didn't get their way.  Well, it... Eileen, I've not forgotten your question.  This is all sort of a setup for my answer to your question, because she has observed and she's read that it's not so much that the Hispanics are not assimilating. It's actually blacks who are not only not assimilating, they appear to be regressing. There's actually an opinion piece about this at PJ Media. 


RUSH:  My friends, I can't tell you the number of people -- recently and over the course of my sterling professional career -- who've said to me, "You know, Rush, it's a lose-lose proposition to talk about race, even seriously, the way you try.  You can't win.  All you're gonna do is get yourself in trouble, and it isn't worth it.  You ought to just leave it alone.  Just make it one of these things where, when something comes up, you just discipline yourself to ignore it don't go there."

I've been told this... Gee, I don't know. Since probably the first time I mentioned Jesse Jackson's name on the radio back in 1983 in Kansas City. I hear it from close friends, people who say, "Rush, there's nothing to be gained."  You know, my reaction to that's always been, "Why isn't there?" They may be right.  There isn't there anything to be gained?  Why is it a lose-lose proposition to discuss race?

I think it would be said not just of me but a lot of people who probably would be advised the same way. "Just leave it alone."  The problem with that is that when you surrender it, you're surrendering it to who?  Who are we letting discuss it and therefore shape opinion about it?  In my mind, the answer to that question is: The people who have made a mess of this country and this culture for way too long, and that is leftists.

Of all races, creeds, stripes, religions. I don't care.


There is an ideology that has slowly been eating away at the foundational fabric of this country.  I don't know whether it's race or whether it is any issue. I don't care what. I can't let it go.  I care too much about the country, and I care too much about everybody that lives here.  And I'm cursed.  I am.  I think I'm cursed.  I'm cursed with a... Well, I have a hope, a desire that everybody in this country love it, that everybody in this country enjoy the life they've been given and the opportunity they've been given to live that life in this country.

I can't tell you how disappointed I feel when I run across people that don't and can't enjoy their life, and I think that's what this really comes down to.  I mean, folks, the kind of anger and angst and tension on this and practically everything else that the American left cares about does nothing but make people miserable and nervous, and in some cases unhappy. Even the people they claim they're looking out for.

And maybe not just "even," but especially the people they claim to be helping. They claim to be the sole representatives. They claim to be the guardians. Those people that are under their wing are miserable, and that misery and angst and unhappiness is exacerbated by the left. It's amplified.  Anything other than that isn't permitted. That just... Well, it bothers me, and in some ways, it honestly does break my heart.  I have such a deep appreciation for the uniqueness of life.

We each only have one, and most people... Well, maybe not most. Way too many people don't even think about that for whatever reasons. They're too busy, too absorbed in things.  But I've always kind of been in awe of it, and the fact that there's only one, and the fact that all we have on the other side of it is faith that there's more? Nobody can prove that. That's just faith, and so this is it.  I've been very lucky with mine.

I've been extremely fortunate.  I don't think that I'm anything special or unique.  I think it's possible for everybody.  But then I look around, and I see so many people that basically look like they're just unhappy to be alive. They're just miserable and angry all the time, and I looked at people making them feel that way because they are the same way.  It infuriates me, so I just want to help.

I would like to be able to change attitudes and thinking in a positive way that would cause some people to reflect a little bit more deeply than they do, on the really rare opportunity that life in this country affords people.  So this latest racial thing, this Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case and all the actors in it, Rachel Jeantel, people say, "Rush, don't go there! Rush, they're not gonna understand when you're trying to be lighthearted and funny about it.

"They're wound too tight. Everybody's just waiting to be offended and they're just waiting to be mad 'cause they want to shut you up, and you shouldn't give 'em ammo."  I know all that.  I just can't help myself sometimes.  I just can't not talk about it.  Now, our caller, Eileen, said that she saw something recently, and I found out what she saw.  It's a Wall Street Journal editorial called, "America's Assimilating Hispanics."

The Journal claims that they have seen evidence that showed that Hispanics are following the path of earlier immigrants and are assimilating into a singular American culture.  Now, Eileen believed it. She read it. She believed it.  It's a 2007 editorial that is being re-circulated.  You have to keep in mind when you read it, though, that the Wall Street Journal is very much a pro-amnesty organization. Not just the editorial page, but the entire newspaper is what I call "open borders."

They want this influx of people.  They want the opportunity for cheap labor for whatever reason. "Can't find Americans to do the work. Too many are unemployed and not suffering from it so they don't want to work. They need the laborer labor pool."  That's the Journal's constituency, and so that's who they serve. At the same time as this the article, there was another article then points out that while Hispanics are assimilating, African-Americans born in this country aren't.

In fact they're not only not assimilating, they're regressing.  They are Balkanizing, if you will.  Now, both of those assertions are fascinating.  In the case of the first one, the Journal and the Hispanic assimilation, you do have to read that knowing full well that the Journal's in favor of amnesty and open borders.  If all that assimilating is taking place, then why do we hear even more often in our society, "Press 1 for English"?  Why is the audience for Telemundo and Univision, both those networks, growing?

Now, as to the other side, that African-Americans are regressing. Oh, yeah, yeah. I heard Eric Holder say we have to have the courage to talk about race.  Nobody has the courage to talk about race.  Everybody gets beat up for doing it, particularly if you happen to be effective or persuasive in changing people's attitudes that the left does not want them to have.  If you are able to talk people out of the mind-set the left wants them to have, then you are really a target.

Most people don't like being targets.  So Obama and Eric Holder are the first black president and first black attorney general. You know, it's interesting what's going on right now. The Congressional Black Caucus is having its convention.  I think NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucasians are having conventions either at the same time or back-to-back, and in both places Holder and Obama are being pressured to do something about this Zimmerman thing and the travesty of justice.

Now, you would think that President Obama would try to rise above this and do what everybody thought that he was automatically going to do by virtue of being the first African-American -- and that's unite everybody.  But he's not doing that.  He's got this constituency to serve.  He's got the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucasians. He's got the NAACP. Holder, the same thing.  They're out there, and they're dangling a carrot in front of these people.

"Don't worry, Zimmerman's not off the hook yet."

We just had a jury trial, and we just had a verdict, and we just had everybody involved say race wasn't part of it.  But because it didn't turn out the way the left wants, that's not the end of it. "No, we're not gonna stop until we get what we want.  If we have to put pressure on Obama," and I don't know how much it will really take. "If we have to put pressure on Obama or Holder to get what they want, what are Obama and Holder gonna do?"

I find it funny that Obama and Holder are being portrayed as just innocent bystanders here, but they're really under a lot of pressure.  The civil rights coalition makes a big move, a lot of pressure, to get Obama and Holder.  I have to laugh at that because Obama and Holder lead that movement.  They're not innocent bystanders waiting around to be influenced.  But, see, even saying that is risky.  Yeah, but Holder's out there saying we need courage to talk about race.

Let anybody try and see what happens.

They're lied about, taken out of context, mischaracterized, and people are set out to try to destroy them.  So everybody's afraid. It may not be number one, but certainly one of the top three reasons the Republicans don't exist in Washington is because they don't want to be called racists.  So the Republicans are caving on practically everything where Obama's involved 'cause otherwise they're gonna be called racists and the media's gonna pick up on it.

The lie will be spread far and wide, and the Republicans probably rightfully think there's nothing they can do about it.  They can't stop it. They can't change anybody's thinking, particularly in the black community.  The black community believes every Republican is racist, sexist, all that stuff -- and that's what's so frustrating.  Not true.  Nowhere near the truth.  In fact, I would venture to say that most of the racism in this country's on the left.

Most of the oppression in this country stems and originates from people on the left.  They're the ones that demand you think right. They're the ones that demand you behave the way they require. They're the ones who demand you live the way they tell you to live. They're the oppressors, if you will.


RUSH:  "What Do You Do When the Oppressed are Their Own Worst Oppressors?"  PJ Media, David Goldman.  He starts this way: "My earliest memory is looking up at a circle of black and white faces. I was seated in the living room of the family home in Edison Township, NJ, and the group I saw was the local chapter of the NAACP. My association with the civil rights movement goes back to the age of two. The year would have been 1953 or 1954, and my parents were left-wing activists, among the very few white people involved at the time.

"Their activism was deep. In 1950, my father drove from New York with a group of Columbia University students to protest the impending execution of Willie McGee, a black man convicted and eventually electrocuted for the alleged rape of a white woman in Mississippi. I followed my parents' example: in my senior year of high school I organized and led a student civil rights demonstration and marched next to Andrew Young. You can look it up. I believe in civil rights as much now as I did then.

"That's why it's painful to watch the degeneration of the NAACP with its silly petition to persuade the Justice Department to bring a civil rights case against George Zimmerman. The leaders of what used to be a civil rights movement want to talk about everything but the main problem afflicting black people in the United States. That is the breakdown of the black family. Just 29% of black women over the age of 15 were married in 2010, according to the Census Bureau's comprehensive Current Population Survey.

"That compares to 54% of white women. At all ages, black women were about half as likely to be married as white women. That is an astonishing number," he writes. "The percentage of out-of-wedlock births has risen from 18% in 1980 to 40% in 2010. Twenty-nine percent of white births were non-marital, against 73% for black births. That's nearly three-quarters of all black births," occur outside of marriage.

"Young black men without a high school diploma are more likely to be in jail than to be employed, reports the Pew Institute," which did the scholarly research. So Mr. Goldman gets to his real point here in the lead sentence of the next paragraph. "The worst oppressors of young black men are older black men who abandon their children. And the second-worst oppressors of young black men are other young black men -- 94% of black murder victims are killed by blacks.

"The accelerating decline of the black family portends a much worse situation in the future. Why have civil rights organizations and black clergy wagered their reputations on the Zimmerman case? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the issues that really concern African-Americans simply are too painful to discuss," and there it is. You just can't talk about it, Rush. "Five years after the ultimate boost to self-esteem -- the election of the first black president -- things are getting worse faster.
"If black leaders -- from Barack Obama and Eric Holder on down -- can't talk about the real problems, the prospects for the future are frightening indeed," and he has a postscript here where he says, "Conservatives should view African-Americans’ emotional response to the death of Trayvon Martin with empathy. What makes the incident so hard to bear is that so many young black men die every day through involvement in violent crime." However, it's 94% black-on-black crime.

Anyway, I read this, and, again: This has stuff that you're not supposed to say.

You're supposed to leave this alone.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

The African American Community Has its Priorities Messed Up

You'll hear this from Rush...maybe from Sean Hannity...and that's about it....

Chicago is the murder capital of the country...gang violence is rampant.... innocent bystanders are murdered every day.... but because it's black on black crime there's no "civil rights violations?"

And just what is wrong with "profiling?"

A black person has been seen to commit a crime (and no, it's not only blacks that commit crimes, i'm just using this as an example- whites, Latinos, blacks they all commit crimes because people are people!) but a witness dare not say that the person who committed the crime was black because that would be racist, and the cops can't put out an APB on a black suspect because that would be racist, and news reporters can't say the cops are looking for a black suspect because that would be racist.... so of course the guy gets away... and the black community who may know that he is indeed the perpetrator wont' call the police because that would be snitching.

I think the black community has more of a problem with itself and the culture of victimhood and "don't tell the police anything," than with one "white Latino" who saw a black kid in an all-white neighborhood and dared to "profile" him.

And here's what Rush had to say today about the racial component - or lack of it:
RUSH: An entirely new perspective on this whole sordid incident was provided by Rachel Jeantel last night on CNN.  Everybody's been under the impression that Zimmerman was a racist, and that's why he went after Trayvon.  I went to great lengths yesterday, folks, to break this down and tell you what I think this was really all about. I'm not gonna repeat that but it is at  Essentially, it was about economics.
You've got a bunch of people in this community that are barely hanging on.  They've worked very hard to get where they are and there are all kinds of robberies and things, and they're just tired of being stolen from, and they've got a Neighborhood Watch and so forth. It's about the Obama economy.  But the media and everybody has been saying since this happened, "Zimmerman's a white racist!"

You know as well as I do they've been doing everything they can to portray this as Zimmerman chasing a guy because he was black.  Well, Zimmerman's the guy that got beaten up in this.  Everybody forgets that.  Zimmerman is the guy who got beat up.  Now we know why, from a witness for the prosecution who was on CNN last night, Rachel Jeantel.  Race wasn't even a factor.  When she was asked to define "creepy ass cracka," and "n-i-g-g-a," it wasn't racial.
Not one definition she gave for any of these terms being used had to do with race.
"Creepy ass cracka"?
That's "a police."
That's "a male."
You gotta say n-i-g-g-e-r to make it racist.  There wasn't any race.  The jury didn't deliberate race.  The race aspect was totally manufactured by the media.  So listen to Rachel Jeantel's answer to Piers Morgan.  The question, "But you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the 'creepy ass cracka' and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man -- you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man -- was pursuing him?  And he was freaked out by it?"
So Piers Morgan is asking Rachel Jeantel, "Why was Trayvon Martin 'freaked out'?"  Now, everybody has been led to believe that Trayvon was freaked out because some white guy was chasing him, but let's be honest.  Zimmerman's not a white guy!  It was raining. It's nighttime. He's of dark complexion. He's an Hispanic.  This "white Hispanic" is a media creation.  There wasn't any racial component here, folks.  This is what's crucially important.
The racial component is a pure media fabrication because of the existence of their narrative that this nation is still, essentially, a slave state.  But Trayvon Martin wasn't thinking about race, and we know this because Rachel Jeantel talked to him.  So, again, Piers Morgan's question: "But you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the 'creepy ass cracka' and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man -- you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man -- was pursuing him?  And he was freaked out by it?"
Why was he freaked out by it, Rachel?
JEANTEL:  Yes.  Definitely. After I say, "Might be a rapist."  For every boys or every man, every who's not that kinda way, see a grown man following them, would they be creep out?  So you gotta take as a parent. You tell a child, "You see a grown person follow it you, run away," and all that.
Folks, there's no race in there.
There's no inference.
You can't infer race from what she said.  There's certainly no racial implication that she made.  Well, here's what she said, "Definitely. After I say" to him... She's reporting and recounting her telephone call. (paraphrased) "Definitely. After I say to Trayvon, 'Zimmerman might be a rapist!'" I'm translating for you. "Zimmerman might be a rapist.  That makes him gay." He's a guy, folks. Male rapist. Rachel is telling Martin... This guy's chasing him. He doesn't know why he's chasing him.
Rachel, says, "He may be a rapist, Trayvon," and then she said, "For every boys or every man, every who's not that kinda way," that means who's not gay, "you see a grown man following 'em, you be creep out."  So she was saying, Trayvon is straight; he's got this adult male chasing him. She's put the idea out that this adult male might be a rapist, and Trayvon "be creep out" by being chased by a gay guy.

And then she went further. "So you gotta take as a parent. You tell a child, 'You see a grown person following you, run away,' and all that."
Grown person.
Not racial.  Not "white person."  "Grown person."  You, as a kid, "You see a grown person following you," as a parent, you tell your child, "run away."  Then she also said, "And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there." You need me to translate that?  Okay.  She has put in Trayvon's mind that Zimmerman is gay.  Zimmerman might be a rapist, and a predator.
What are we to think?  "Grown man." When she says Trayvon's a male, Zimmerman's a male, and she says rapist, what are we talking about here?  We're talking about a gay predator.  She has put the idea in Trayvon Martin's head that this might be a gay predator chasing him.  Then she said on Piers Morgan last night, "And people need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get..."
Trayvon's staying at his father's girlfriend's house, and she is saying people need to understand Trayvon didn't want Zimmerman, that potential rapist, "that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get," and then she paused, and said, "[M]ind you, his little brother was there." So she was saying that Trayvon wouldn't want this gay predator chasing him down to his house where there is a little kid inside.  Nowhere in any of this is race mentioned.
Jeantel also said this about Zimmerman being a rapist on the witness stand, under oath.  It wasn't just last night with Piers Morgan on CNN.  She also alluded to this.  So, folks, do you understand? We have been, the country has been entirely fooled.  (The jury wasn't, by the way.)  There was no racial component in this at all.  Rachel Jeantel didn't talk about race.  She wasn't talking about race at all.  She wasn't worried. She didn't tell Trayvon to run away from a white guy.  "Creepy ass cracka" is police.
So maybe, in their minds, Zimmerman is a gay male predator hiding behind a badge, which gives him access to little boys. I mean, this is the way certain people think, and we already know that she believed that Zimmerman was a rapist, or potential rapist, and put that thought in Trayvon's head, and Trayvon didn't run away.  He turned around and started beating up on Zimmerman.  Not because Zimmerman was "a white Hispanic." He didn't even know what he was!
I mean, it's dark and rainy. Zimmerman's of dark-complexion, too.  The race angle in this has been absurd from the get-go.  So essentially Rachel was saying... When she says,  "And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there," she is saying that this guy, this rapist, after finishing with Trayvon, might then go after his little brother.
She told Trayvon to run, run, run.
I thought, when I heard this last night, that that's all anybody'd be talking about today, because this throws this thing 180 degrees out of phase.  So now Trayvon Martin, who is the recipient of full-fledged, 100% victim status? It turns out could well be a gay basher, and the left has been defending him.  So what do they do?  They have two interest groups here that they represent and champion: African-Americans and homosexuals, and in this incident, the object of their affection (in this case, Trayvon Martin), might have thought he was being pursued by a gay guy and beat him up, or tried to.
I figured they'd be very conflicted today.
But that hasn't come up anywhere.
Now I think I understand why.  It's precisely because nobody wants to get near it.  Nobody wants to get anywhere near this.  Those words of Rachel's are gone, into the ether, never to be remembered until the EIB Network kicked off at noon.  Now, one sound bite here before we go to the Obscene Profit Break.  This morning on CNN's Newsroom, the anchorette, Carol Costello, is speaking with criminal defense attorney Mark NeJame about Martin's friend Rachel Jeantel's appearance on Piers Morgan Live.
This is one of the well-educated, pseudo-intellectual analysts that CNN offered today talking about how wonderful Jeantel is, and they were just filled with sadness that she had not appeared this way on the stand.  So Carol Costello said to Mark NeJame, "If the jurors had seen the Rachel Jeantel that was on Piers Morgan last night," explaining the definition of "cracka," explaining the definition of "n-i-g-g-a," the "creepy ass cracka," and all that. "If the jurors had seen the Rachel Jeantel that was on Piers Morgan last night, instead of the Rachel Jeantel at trial, could it have made a difference?"
NEJAME: It coulda made a difference.  This is just another failure on behalf of the state to properly represent Trayvon Martin.  That woman last night was a sweet, funny, engaging person.  That's anything but what people saw when she took the stand.  People need to understand that we do have a cultural divide, and in fact what the jurors saw, uh, when she appeared on the stand was because of her, in my opinion, her lack of preparedness by the state attorney who prosecuted this case!  That woman last night, if she had been on the stand, and the juror (sic) would have seen that, they would have come away with a completely different impression, in my opinion, about who Trayvon really was.
RUSH:  Yeah?
I'm gonna tell you something, Mark.
If you had really been listening to what Rachel Jeantel said on Piers Morgan, you would be reexamining the entire way you're looking at this event.