Okay, I’m impressed. This is how you demolish the Democrats’ fiscal cliff narrative

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

I mean, it’s an all too rare occurrence when a news anchor actually challenges the Democrat script, but when it’s done before a cheering audience, that makes it extra special:

“That’s all you want to do. That’s it. It’s your way or the highway. Raise the rates on the rich. No other way. Your way or the highway. That’s it. That’s where we are. Thank you, Senator.”

That’s how CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo finished her interview with Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) last week as the two went back and forth over the fiscal cliff negotiations in Washington DC. It was the first time a Democrat has really been challenged over their lack of leadership in the negotiations.

Conventional wisdom (and therefore the dominant narrative in the media) focuses on Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans being intransigent and not meeting President Obama and the Democrats for a “balanced approach.” Bartiromo exploded that narrative by challenging Cardin on ANY alternative type of revenue stream that doesn’t include raising tax rates. Cardin would not agree to any of them, thus destroying the idea that Democrats are embracing the “balanced approach.”

“So how come you’re not moving forward? What’s the problem? Because the American people are so tired of this, and they are really tired of the lawmakers thinking that the American people are stupid. You can’t keep coming on the show every week saying the same thing: ‘It’s not a balanced approach.’”

“You’re talking about $1.2 trillion in revenue, but you’re not prepared to put anything on the table. People are not stupid!”

You can read the rest and watch the video at Breitbart. In the background you’ll see floor traders cheering Bartiromo on as she dismantles Cardin. Too bad the rest of the MSM won’t take her lead when confronting Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and the rest of that rapacious crew.

By the way, can someone explain to me how this time-serving tool, Cardin, beat Dan Bongino last month?

via RBPundit

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Merry Christmas, global warming skeptics. Now, die!!

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Ignore the facts! The science is settled!

Accept the consensus or burn, heretic!

Well, there’s the Christmas spirit for you: A music professor in Austria (musicology professors being known experts in science) has decided that skeptics of anthropogenic global warming (1) are so endangering the planet that, if they do not recant, they should all be executed:

Prof Richard Parncutt says:

“I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases…”

“Even mass murderers [like Breivik] should not be executed, in my opinion.”

“GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.”

Consequences

If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives.

Take note: the killer of 77 adults and children in Norway does not deserve death, but skeptics who question the existence of a phenomenon about which there is serious doubt must die, because they are responsible for the deaths of millions who do not even exist yet.

And they call us “loony.”

But at least you get a fair trial before a jury of qualified scientists! “Qualified,” of course, means “accepts the orthodoxy of the Church of Climate Change.”

Galileo would recognize this in an instant.

Oh, in case you’re wondering, the professor (or his bosses) have already taken that page down. You can read all about it, however, at JoNova.

via WUWT

Footnote:
(1) Guess I’d better report myself…

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Gun control hypocrite of the week: #MTP’s @DavidGregory

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Yeah, I know – shocking, right? /sarc Via Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper (hat tip):

David Gregory mocked the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre for proposing that armed guards be at every school in America. But the NBC host seems to have no problem with armed guards protecting his kids everyday where they attend school in Washington, D.C.

“You proposed armed guards in school. We’ll talk about that in some detail in a moment. You confronted the news media. You blamed Hollywood and the gaming industry. But never once did you concede that guns could actually be part of the problem. Is that a meaningful contribution, Mr. LaPierre, or a dodge?,” asked Gregory.

Later the host suggested that guns don’t prevent violence in schools (he cited the mass shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech). “But you would concede that, as good as an idea as you think this is, it may not work. Because there have been cases where armed guards have not prevented this kind of massacre, this kind of carnage. I want you would concede that point, wouldn’t you?,” Gregory pleaded.

The NBC host would go on the rest of the segment to suggest that armed guards might not be effective in preventing mass murders at school. Which is perhaps an interesting theoretical argument.

But when it comes to Gregory’s own kids, however, they are secured every school day by armed guards.

The Gregory children go to school with the children of President Barack Obama, according to the Washington Post. That school is the co-ed Quaker school Sidwell Friends.

According to a scan of the school’s online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed.

And even if they aren’t armed, the fact that Barack Obama’s kids (and Joe Biden’s grandkids) go to the same private school means there are many heavily armed Secret Service agents nearby.  With automatic weapons.

Anyone who watched Gregory’s “interview” with LaPierre yesterday got a quick lesson in blatant (and disgraceful) advocacy journalism. There was no attempt at being “fair and balanced.” No attempt at entertaining any counterpoints (nor any attempt at putting facts on the table – such as his false argument about the armed deputy at Columbine). Gregory, like most agenda-driven mainstream mediots after gun massacres, had a self-righteous gun control argument to get out there and a scapegoat to blame, and the President of the NRA was invited on to be his whipping boy. Contrast that “interview” with the one Gregory did with staunch gun control advocate Mike Bloomberg, and you’ll see that the differences in how each were treated could not be more stark.

As I’ve said before, this debate deserves serious consideration and and thoughtful discussion of all options on the table, not emotion-driven arguments and “gotcha” questions designed to push a specific false narrative, drive up media ratings and appeal to certain audience segments. TRIED and TRUE  journalists understand this – unfortunately there are few of that caliber left in this country.

Power Line’s Scott Johnson calls the left’s two-faced nature on the gun control issue “The Gregory Doctrine”:

Glenn Reynolds is still awaiting answers from gun-control advocates Rupert Murdoch and Michael Bloomberg about the guns used by their security details in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre. The silence is telling, for the political and media hysteria whipped up in the wake of the killings is mixed with equal parts bad faith and magical thinking. A healthy dollop of misinformation is overlaid on the bad faith. The magical thinking operates in its own reality without any need of the misinformation to support it.

John Hinderaker adds:

There is much to be said on this issue, but the hypocrisy of the politicians and celebrities who themselves rely on armed security, while assuring the rest of us that the value of guns as weapons of self-defense is a myth, is one remarkable aspect of the story.

Indeed.

On a side note, how much do you want to bet that Gregory, also like Obama, is a strong advocate of the public school system while denouncing the voucher system – even though his kids are in private school?  There really is NO issue of national importance that liberals are not somewhere along the lines found to be gigantically hypocritical over.   Elitist snobs.