Not enough: DNC Chair apologizes (not really) for cheapening the meaning of domestic abuse

Posted by: ST on September 4, 2014 at 6:23 pm
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz

‘Sorry, not sorry.’

In an update to this post, the disgraceful, shameless Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, known for her insane, over-the-top, way beyond the bounds of basic civility, has issued a non-apology “apology” of sorts for her vile remarks likening Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) to a physically abusive husband:

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz says she used words she “shouldn’t have” in her attack against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, in which she said he “has given women the back of his hand.”

“I shouldn’t have used the words I used,” Wasserman Schultz wrote in a statement on Thursday. “But that shouldn’t detract from the broader point that I was making that Scott Walker’s policies have been bad for Wisconsin women, whether it’s mandating ultrasounds, repealing an equal pay law, or rejecting federal funding for preventative health care, Walker’s record speaks for itself.”

The DNC chairwoman slammed the Republican governor and the GOP during a round-table discussion in Milwaukee on Wednesday. Her remarks quickly sparked outrage.

“Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand. I know that is stark. I know that is direct. But that is reality,” Wasserman Schultz said, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

She continued, “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back. It is not going to happen on our watch.”

Sorry – her lame “walk-back” was not good enough. While it was refreshing today to see even some in the normally reliably left wing media take her to task for not just what she said, but how she said it, she really should have the decency to resign from her post as Chairwoman.  But she won’t because, as I noted this morning, this is exactly the type of in-the-gutter public discourse she gets paid to come up with.

So because she won’t resign, I’m calling on people to do exactly what prominent Democrats and their allies in the press would do had this been a Republican: Keep talking about it for the next couple of weeks at least (that’s about the normal timeframe for an MSM scandal cycle, right?). On social media, on your blogs, on political message boards, everywhere you can. Remind people Wasserman Schultz’s brand of “hardball is part of a larger Democrat party election-year strategy – one in which Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC), currently in a fierce battle to try and keep her seat, is also taking part - of blatantly trying to emotionally manipulate women with baseless, false, in some cases outright reprehensible political and personal attacks against their opposition … because they’re desperate to win in November.  Of course, this is something they do all the time, but this time around they’ve cranked up efforts to levels previously unseen for a non-presidential election year. 

Keep what’s happening, the stunts they’re trying to pull, fresh in everyone’s minds. Don’t let Democrats get away with throwing everything but the kitchen sink again.

 

DNC Chair cheapens meaning of domestic violence w/ despicable Scott Walker attack

Posted by: ST on September 4, 2014 at 9:29 am
Debbie Wasserman Schultz

‘I don’t know why I’m such a raging demagogue. I just am …’

Just when you think the left hadn’t stooped low enough this election year. Via The Week:

On Wednesday, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz used some fairly graphic language to describe Republican Gov. Scott Walker during a visit to Wisconsin.

“Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand,” Wasserman Schultz said at a roundtable discussion in Milwaukee on women’s issue, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. “I know that is stark. I know that is direct. But that is reality.” She added: “What Republican Tea Party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back. It is not going to happen on our watch.”

In response, Republican Lt. Gov Rebecca Kleefisch said she was “shocked” that Wasserman Schultz used language that would normally describe domestic violence, in reference to Walker: “I think the remarks were absolutely hideous and the motive behind them was despicable.”

The campaign of Walker’s Democratic opponent, businesswoman Mary Burke — whom Wasserman Schultz was attempting to boost — distanced themselves from the comments. “That’s not the type of language that Mary Burke would use, or has used, to point out the clear differences in this contest,” said Burke press secretary Stephanie Wilson, who also added: “There is plenty that she and Governor Walker disagree on — but those disagreements can and should be pointed out respectfully.”

The Burke campaign is right on the surface, even if they really don’t mean what they say. We’ve seen this all play out before, haven’t we? Wasserman Schultz makes inflammatory remarks that go wayyyy beyond what is acceptable in the political debate arena, the mainstream media – typically – gives her a pass on them (unlike how they’d treat this if the words came from the mouth of a Republican), the GOP calls her out on them and her left wing allies respond with muted “criticism” of what she deliberately suggested and then we’re all supposed to move on as if she never said anything.

This, my dear readers, is part of what this viper is paid to do – and why Democrats keep her in this position.  To say the worst things imaginable about the opposition, and then hope/expect the (glaringly phony) image they’ve painted of them will stick in the minds of enough voters that they’ll vote against them at the ballot box.  In essence, this is what you call “selling your soul” for political advantage. Wasserman Schultz didn’t think – and likely still doesn’t think – her disgusting broadside against Walker is wrong, in spite of the fact that it’s likely the case that she  knows women who have been real victims of actual, horrific domestic abuse, just like many others of us do.

Falsely insinuating domestic violence is in no way, not ever acceptable as campaign rhetoric (or any other rhetoric, for that matter), Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Many women have the life-long  emotional and physical scars, and some have even been murdered, at the brutish hands of men they thought loved them.  For you to cheapen their experiences, to water down the definition of the term “domestic abuse” in your attempt at partisan one-upping someone in the opposing party defines gutter tactics at their absolute worst.  Shame on you – not that you have any.

Read more via Memeorandum.

 

Glenn Beck: Hillary “will win” in 2016

Posted by: ST on September 3, 2014 at 9:15 am
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rahm Emanuel

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton embraces Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel during an appearance to promote her new book, Wednesday, June 11, 2014, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Stacy Thacker)

Prominent conservative talker Glenn Beck is making waves this week in like-minded & non-like-minded alike circles with his prediction that Hillary Clinton will win the presidency in 2016.  Via The Politico:

Hillary Clinton will be the next president, Glenn Beck said on his radio show Tuesday.

Beck said a friend of his spoke with “some Hillary people” about her 2016 campaign strategy and after he heard it, he realized the former first lady and secretary of state would become the next White House occupant.

“You guys are going to all be fighting on Benghazi and everything else,” Beck said his friend told him. “And here is what Hillary is going to do: ‘Do you remember when America was good? Do you remember when America, we had jobs and we were building towards a brighter future? And things were really happening? Clinton administration. We had it under control. Things were good, they weren’t great. We’re going to do better. But we’re going to replant our flag in the traditional things that you understand. But the traditional things in the Clinton administration. We could talk about Ronald Reagan all we want. … But the Clinton years were the golden years.’”

[...]

“While we’re talking about technicalities and the past, they’re going to be talking about a past that was brightly remembered, and they will talk about the America we will become,” he added. “She. Will. Win.”

As much respect as I have for Glenn Beck and his opinions on all things political, I’m not buying it. This is the exact campaign Hillary Clinton ran in 2007-08 against Barack Obama.  ‘Vote for me and we’ll return to the glory years you saw before President Bush was elected’, blah blah.  And she lost.  Granted, she wouldn’t be running against a slick talker like Barack Obama the second time around, but that doesn’t mean it’d be smooth sailing for her during the primaries, especially if Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has become a major darling in hard-line Democrat circles, throws her hat into the ring.  As much as the left would love to “coronate” Hillary as the first female president in US history, they want someone who embodies more of their core left wing values and Hillary is largely seen right now as conveniently “playing it safe” and “down the middle” rather than attempting to appeal to her party’s base – unlike Warren – also a woman, of course, and one who is unashamedly liberal.

There seems to be this growing sense of “inevitability” – even on our side – that Hillary will be elected the next president.  Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I don’t think her election is a done deal.  There’s still a lot of ground to cover – both for her potential Democrat and Republican challengers, and for Hillary as well – between now and the time everyone starts announcing their intentions, and in an era where the “fresh and new and different” kind of candidates seem to be more appealing to the masses, someone like La Clinton who has been a national political fixture since the early 1990s may end up struggling to make it into the top three in the primaries.

Of course, it’s early still – and anything is possible so, as they say, stay tuned …

 

Another US journalist beheaded by ISIS

Posted by: Phineas on September 2, 2014 at 1:57 pm

**Posted by Phineas

Murdered by ISIS

Murdered by ISIS

(Photo source)

The savages of the “Islamic State” have sent another message to the United States:

Dressed in an orange jumpsuit against the backdrop of an arid Syrian landscape, [Steven] Sotloff was threatened in that video with death unless the U.S. stopped airstrikes on the group in Iraq.

In the video distributed Tuesday and entitled “A Second Message to America,” Sotloff appears in a similar jumpsuit before he is beheaded by an Islamic State fighter.

As Bryan Preston of PJ Media points out, our leaders have once again been caught unaware. Maybe they’re still trying to figure out a strategy for dealing with medieval lunatics who are butchering Americans. If Obama and his team are having trouble doing that, let me offer a suggestion:

Hunt these swine down and kill every last one of them.

UPDATE: At the end of the video of Sotloff’s beheading, ISIS shows another captive, Briton David Cawthorne Haines. The implication is clear: unless the US stops its airstrikes, Mr. Haines will be slaughtered like James Foley and Mr. Sotloff.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

 

The most desperate, stupid #NCSEN attack line you’ll see this year

Posted by: ST on August 30, 2014 at 10:33 am
Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC)

Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) faces a tough re-election battle this year.

 

Let’s remember how #JamesFoley lived, but also how he was brutally murdered

Posted by: ST on August 23, 2014 at 12:58 pm
James Foley

Photojournalist James Foley

For those of you who were under the radar and missed this horrifying news from earlier this week:

In a horrifying act of revenge for U.S. airstrikes in northern Iraq, militants with the Islamic State extremist group have beheaded American journalist James Foley – and are threatening to kill another hostage, U.S. officials say. Even so, the U.S. military pressed ahead, conducting nearly a dozen airstrikes in Iraq since Tuesday.

[...]

Foley, 40, from Rochester, New Hampshire, went missing in northern Syria in November 2012 while freelancing for Agence France-Presse and the Boston-based media company GlobalPost. The car he was riding in was stopped by four militants in a contested battle zone that both Sunni rebel fighters and government forces were trying to control. He had not been heard from since.

The beheading marks the first time the Islamic State has killed an American citizen since the Syrian conflict broke out in March 2011, upping the stakes in an increasingly chaotic and multilayered war. The killing is likely to complicate U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Obama administration’s efforts to contain the group as it expands in both Iraq and Syria.

The group is the heir apparent of the militancy known as al-Qaida in Iraq, which beheaded many of its victims, including American businessman Nicholas Berg in 2004.

The video released on websites Tuesday appears to show the increasing sophistication of the Islamic State group’s media unit and begins with scenes of Obama explaining his decision to order airstrikes.

It then cuts to a balding man in an orange jumpsuit kneeling in the desert, next to a black-clad militant with a knife to his throat. Foley’s name appears in both English and Arabic graphics on screen. After the captive speaks, the masked man is shown apparently beginning to cut at his neck; the video fades to black before the beheading is completed. The next shot appears to show the captive lying dead. The video appears to have been shot in an arid area; there is no vegetation to be seen and the horizon is in the distance where the sand meets the gray-blue sky.

At the end of the video, a militant shows a second man, who was identified as another American journalist, Steven Sotloff, and warns that he could be the next captive killed. Sotloff was kidnapped near the Syrian-Turkish border in August 2013; he had freelanced for Time, the National Interest and MediaLine.

I was on Twitter when news of Foley’s murder broke.  The expressions of outrage towards his killers, the condolences posted to his family – all were understandable. For a brief moment, I joined in with the calls for people to always remember how he lived, and to put out of mind how he died.  It seemed fitting at the time. But as the week went on, and the more I thought about it, the more I concluded that – while it is indeed important to remember Foley’s work as a photojournalist, something he felt called to do in war-torn countries like Syria, Libya and Iraq, it was also vitally important to keep his murder fresh in people’s minds as a reminder of just how radicalized the “religion of peace” has become, and how we simply cannot continue the policy of appeasement towards Islamofascists that has taken place under the Obama administration.

Like many, I have not been impressed AT ALL with the “official response” communicated by the Obama administration to Foley’s brutal murder, because there is a continued insistence by them and other dangerous liberal moral relativists that terrorists like ISIS simply “pervert” the Islamic faith.  There’s the implication that if we stop and try and “understand” these inhumane swine who behead innocents in the name of “Allah” and bury alive rape victims as punishment in countries like Iran then maybe we could all just “get along”, sing “Kumbaya” and all that.

No.  I wrote this in 2010, and I still believe it to this day:

For a brief time long ago, I used to subscribe to the belief that there was a “moderate” element to Islam. I don’t anymore. Yes, there are Muslim Islamists out there who are not hateful, who are respectful of the religious beliefs and faiths of others, etc, but my opinion is that these Muslims are not full-fledged Islamists – and that’s a good thing. There is hope for that minority of Islamists that they can turn away from the evil “religion” we know as Islam.

That is, if they’re not murdered first.

No, Mr. President – I will not be “tolerant” of this religion, not in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Doesn’t mean I’ll get violent, but it DOES mean that I will speak out strongly against it, loudly and often. Islam, which is the law of the land in many Muslim countries via the use of the Koran as their “standard,” stands for everything we’re supposed to be against. Secularists and non-secularists alike can see this. It’s a crying, outrageous shame that you and so many of your fellow “enlightened” liberals do not.

If Foley’s sickening, torturous death does not wake people up as to the horrors of radical Islam, perhaps the ongoing persecution of non-believers by ISIS will:

Reports coming in from Sinjar, a small town that was once home to Iraqi minority community, Yazidis, suggest that the Islamic State militants are carrying out a “genocide” in the town.

For the Sunni militants, the Yazidis are a race of “devil worshipers” and killing them would only amount to a “holy act.”

The 4,000-year-old religious group has faced persecution for centuries for its unique belief and practices.

Earlier on Sunday, the Islamic State captured the town after driving away the Kurdish forces in the region. Witnesses claim that the militants are executing dozens of Yazidis for refusing to convert to Islam.

The Gulf News report claimed that 67 young men were shot dead by the militants. Besides executing the Yazidis, the Al Qaeda offshoot, is also reportedly taking Yazidi women for “jihad” marriage.

Mohammed al-Khuzai, an official with the Iraqi Red Crescent Society told NYTimes that ISIS took more than 100 Yazidi families to the airport at the nearby town of Tal Afar, where it executed the men.

“ISIS killed all the men,” Khuzai said, “and are planning to keep the women for jihad marriage.”

Reports have also come in claiming that the Islamic State militants have forcefully taken away a large number of children from the Yazidi town. A resident told McClatchy DC that militants were taking away young children from their families. 

Several Sinjar local government and municipal workers also have been executed by the ISIS. 

And then there are the Iraqi Christians. And the Syrian Christians.  I could go on and on, but you get the disturbing picture.

It’s time for world leaders to stop being silent, time to stop sitting back hoping the problem will just “go away.” Time for “leaders” here at home to stop largely ignoring the issue or downplaying because it’s “not happening here.”  Time for dangerous left wing moral relativists like the President, Reps. Keith Ellison, and Sheila Jackson Lee to stop playing the religious equivalency games.  Condemn it, call it out, STOP making excuses for it, stop rationalizing it. Stop putting it “in its proper context.”  9/11 wasn’t the first time radical Islam used its might to kill innocents in its quest to punish “infidels”, and James Foley’s beheading won’t be their last radical act of cold, sickening brutality, either. Pretending otherwise on all counts will only ensure that more will die.  

 

Goodbye, Robin Williams

Posted by: ST on August 12, 2014 at 10:08 am
Robin Williams as Mork

Robin Williams as Mork on the ‘Mork and Mindy’ show.

Like everyone else on the planet, I was stunned and saddened to read the news last night of comedian Robin Williams’ death:

Oscar-winning actor and comedian Robin Williams, who dazzled in such wide-ranging dramatic and comedic roles as alien, nanny, therapist and cartoon genie during a four-decades long career, was found dead in his northern California home in a suspected suicide Monday. He was 63.

The Marin County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement that Williams was found unconscious and not breathing in his home around noon. The statement said the investigation into Williams’ death is ongoing, but the coroner “suspects the death to be a suicide due to asphyxia.”

The Marin County coroner’s office said Williams was last seen alive at home at about 10 p.m. Sunday. An emergency call from his house in Tiburon was placed to the Sheriff’s Department shortly before noon Monday.

A representative for Williams said in a statement the actor had been battling “severe depression of late.”

“This is a tragic and sudden loss,” Mara Buxbaum said. “The family respectfully asks for their privacy as they grieve during this very difficult time.”

Williams’ wife Susan Schneider said in a statement she is devastated and asked for privacy.

“This morning, I lost my husband and my best friend, while the world lost one of its most beloved artists and beautiful human beings,” she said. “I am utterly heartbroken. On behalf of Robin’s family, we are asking for privacy during our time of profound grief. As he is remembered, it is our hope the focus will not be on Robin’s death, but on the countless moments of joy and laughter he gave to millions.”

Williams publicly struggled with addiction during his career and most recently went to rehab in June to “fine tune” his sobriety, his rep said at the time.

Naturally, Twitter erupted, and his fellow celebrities expressed their shock, sadness, and condolences over the loss of this remarkable, unforgettable man who touched the lives of so many.

The death of someone is never easy to handle, but when you read it’s from apparent suicide, your heart just absolutely breaks, and you wonder “what could I have done that maybe would have led to a different outcome?”

If you’re in a position in your life where you think hope is lost, IT ISN’T. Reach out and talk to someone. If you want it to remain anonymous, call the Suicide Prevention Hotline.  1-800-273-TALK (8255).  You are never alone, and please always remember that people care about and love you.

My thoughts and prayers go out to Williams’ family.  It goes without saying that although he is gone, he will not be forgotten.

 

Announcing: Summer blog break

Posted by: ST on August 7, 2014 at 8:16 pm
NC Coast

Coastal NC. Photo taken by ST.

Hey y’all,

Just wanted to take a few minutes to let you know that, starting tomorrow, yours truly will be taking the next three weeks off from blogging as a bit of a “summer break.”  If anything super-hot breaks that I feel the urge to write about, I’ll check in but other than that I’ll be away from the blog. Phineas may post here and there but it will likely be light posting.   As much as we’d both like it to, our writing does not pay the bills so we have offline responsibilities that must take priority. Because of that, sometimes the amount of content here isn’t what we’d like it to be.

I’ll be using my time away from the blog to, in part, consider its creative direction, and its future.  I’ve been blogging consistently since October 2003, and while  I appreciate loyal readers who keep coming back, readership is not growing, and it needs to grow if I want this to be a successful blog that generates ad revenue and tip jar contributions that can help me sustain it and perhaps one day turn it into something I can do on a more regular basis.

All that being said, I will not be totally off the radar. You can still catch me daily on social media (my Twitter / Facebook / Phineas’ Twitter account). For the time being, it’s just easier for me to partake in social media posting and commentary than it is for me to blog during the week.

Anyone who needs to contact me can do so via social media, or via the “contact” link at the top of this page.  I appreciate, in advance, your understanding. Later, gators. :)

 

Govt watchdogs team up, slam Obama admin’s lack of transparency

Posted by: ST on August 6, 2014 at 6:19 pm
Obama says shh!

Shhh!

Enough is enough, they say. Via Fox News:

Dozens of government watchdogs are sounding the alarm that the Obama administration is stonewalling them, in what is being described as an unprecedented challenge to the agencies they’re supposed to oversee.

Forty-seven of the government’s 73 independent watchdogs known as inspectors general voiced their complaints in a letter to congressional leaders this week. They accused several major agencies — the Justice Department, the Peace Corps and the chemical safety board — of imposing “serious limitations on access to records.”

The inspectors general are now appealing to Congress to help them do their jobs uncovering waste, fraud, and mismanagement.

“Agency actions that limit, condition, or delay access thus have profoundly negative consequences for our work: they make us less effective, encourage other agencies to take similar actions in the future, and erode the morale of the dedicated professionals that make up our staffs,” they wrote.

The letter to the chairmen and ranking members of relevant oversight committees in the House and Senate claimed agencies are withholding information by calling it “privileged.”

In the letter, they said this interpretation poses “potentially serious challenges to the authority of every Inspector General and our ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner.”

Gotta hand it to IG’s willing to put their name to the complaints in this letter. After all, we’ve seen what happens to inspectors general in this administration when they run afoul of the President’s do as I say, not as I do agenda.

“Transparency” you can believe in! At least many in the mainstream media aren’t even falling for it anymore. Baby steps ….

 

#StuckOnStupid: Schakowsky says Marino’s criticism of Pelosi was “sexist”

Posted by: ST on August 5, 2014 at 7:48 pm
schakowsky-pelosi

Birds of a feather …

When all else fails for Democrats, the “VICTIM” card must be played!  Via The Hill’s Briefing Room blog:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is calling the attack during the immigration debate on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) “sexist.”

On MSNBC’s “Politics Nation” late Monday, Schakowsky was asked to react to Rep. Tom Marino’s (R-Pa.) comments toward Pelosi in which he suggested she bore some of the blame for the border crisis.

“I would say that it’s sexist and that it was patronizing. ‘Do the research, Madam Leader.’ And he got exactly what he deserved. And then for him to claim, ‘I was the tough guy. I’m a street fighter.’ Really? On the floor of the House?” she said.

Before the House passed the new version of the GOP border bill on Friday, Marino broke floor protocol and called out Pelosi directly. 

“I did the research on it,” he said. “You might want to try it. You might want to try it, Madam Leader.”

Um, correction.  Marino didn’t “break floor protocol” – it was Pelosi who did so by leaving her side of the aisle and marching over to his to confront him, as the video clearly shows. That’s why he said to her, “I did the research,” etc.

Continuing from The Hill’s report:

“And talking to her in that condescending way. I’m really offended. And I was proud of her for marching over,” Schakowsky said.

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was on the House floor at the time, said Pelosi walked across the aisle to Marino and said, “You’re insignificant.”

“You know, you’re not supposed to direct comments personally, and he did just that. He deserved what he got and shouldn’t be proud of it,” Schakowsky added.

If Schakowsky had ANY shame whatsoever, which she doesn’t, she’d either not comment on this at all or at the very least say both sides got heated. I know there’s no way in hell she’d actually admit the truth, which is that Pelosi got WAY out of line in her Friday chase-down of Marino.  Escalating disagreement personally like what she did simply isn’t done on the House floor, shouldn’t be done.

You wanna know what the infuriating thing is about Schakowsky’s bull sh*t comments on Pelosi’s meltdown?

1) That she’s trying to have her cake and eat it, too, on the “sexism” card. Marino was “sexist” for defending what he was saying and not backing down from her, but he’d have also been “sexist” had he been the one who walked across the aisle and confronted her.  Don’t you just love how liberals enjoy having it both ways?

2) Schakowsky is knowingly lying about the instigator of the “personal” attack.  Marino called out the other side of the aisle for not doing much of anything on immigration when they had control for the first two years of Obama’s presidency. Pelosi came over to him and tried to “correct” him and then went personal by calling him “insignificant.” Again, imagine the howls of outrage from “feminists” had he said and done the same to her?  Furthermore, why is Marino “insignificant” to Pelosi? I would love to hear an answer to that one.

3) Schakowsky is doing exactly what “feminists” of yesteryear deplored – in effect, being the opposite of a true feminist – by giving Pelosi the fainting couch treatment, suggesting any disagreement with female political leaders in positions of power by men are, by default, outrageous and sexist and therefore any response the “attacked” woman decides is “appropriate” and should not be questioned nor criticized. Or …., you got it, sexism!

4) I think of all the legitimate claims of sexism in this country from years past and current, where women have actually been real victims of sexually hostile environments, and then I read Schakowsky’s completely watered down definition of it and it makes me sick. As usual, the left dumbs down words to the point they have no real meaning anymore except what they decide it is at the time – for political advantage, of course.

Infuriating.