I didn't want to do it.  I REALLY didn't want to do it.  I was so hoping that this would just go away.  I truly hate being awake at 1:15 am for no good reason, because I end up doing really stupid things.

Like researching Jimmy Carter.

If you've been living under a rock since last week, then you may be one of the fortunate few who didn't know that former President Carter came out with the ridiculous notion that, if you disagreed with the President's stance on health care--specifically, if you were Joe Wilson calling the President a liar--you're a racist.  Slap my bum and hand me to my momma!

At this point, I can only laugh at this.  I mean, the word "racist" is being tossed around so lightly nowadays that, if I were a real racist, I would be offended by all the poser racists.  But what Jimmy secretly hoped you forget when he made this statement is that he actually is a racist.  But he's racist against a group that, to the left, it's okay to hate.

Jimmy is pretty much an unabashed anti-Semitic.

Over at the Jewish Press, way back in 2006, a delightful fellow by the name of Jason Maoz wrote this:  http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/19957/Media_Monitor.html
At that time, Carter was out stumping for his new book, "Palestine:  Peace Not Apartheid," which, incidentally, he admitted was not a great name for the book because of the whole inaccuracy thing.  But since it's meant to "stir up the conversation," I guess it's okay.

My point (quickly, because I'm tired), is this:  Jimmy hates the Jews.  And that, if someone doesn't step in to stop the insanity, the word "racism" is going to lose its meaning.  And since, in WAY too many cases for me to care to count, that's the only card most Democrats can play to support their policies, if they don't change something fast, their policies will sink faster than the Titanic.

Links (other than the one already provided):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901541.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/12/13/cstillwell.DTL

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27248.html

Happy Rosh Hashanah!
 
 
UPDATE!!!!
Just today, the complete transcript and audio of the NEA conference all.  For some reason, the story is STILL being covered almost exclusively by bighollywood.  I wonder if Charlie Gibson knows about this story?
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/09/21/full-nea-conference-call-transcript-and-audio/


Every once in a while, whether I want to or not, I end up going on a "news break."  That means that I'm usually on vacation and refuse to watch/listen/seek out the information, or I just don't bother to turn on the radio.  That's what happened to me a few weekends ago, when all of a sudden I heard that Van Jones, Obama's "green jobs" czar, resigned his position.  I was listening to a CBS or CNN (can't remember now which, although they tend to be pretty interchangeable) news minute, and they mentioned that he had been criticized for some crazy-type things he'd said in the past.

If he had been criticized so much that he resigned from his cushy government job, why hadn't I heard about it?  I had only stepped away from the news for two days; had he all of a sudden gone on a tirade that made the people around him realize that he wasn't exactly qualified?  What had he done in that short, two-day span that would essentially force him to leave?

If I trusted only CBS or CNN for my news, I would still be asking that question today.  Don't worry, the answers to all those questions will be coming soon.

Then another thing happened that, had I relied on the Mainstream Media (CBS, ABC, NBC, et al), I still wouldn't know about.  That was the "reassignment" of the National Endowment for the Arts' communications director, after a scandal broke about them recruiting artists (who would directly, monetarily benefit from doing what the NEA says, and would suffer incredibly if they didn't) to "support" Obama's social policy with their art.  Where did this story come from?  I think I might have heard something on the radio about someone being reassigned, but it was glossed over and quickly passed.  What happened there?

If that weren't enough to shake my faith in the neutrality of journalism, there broke the story about ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) employees giving tax advice to a "prostitute" and her "pimp" on how to set up a brothel with 13-year-old illegal immigrant girls from El Salvador "legally." I wish I was kidding, and I wish I could say that it only happened at one place, and they were fired.  But they went to five different ACORN offices across the country!  If it was one place, I would say "stupid people."  With five different places in five different states, that's "stupid policy."  Worse, that's dangerous policy.

Did you hear about any of that?  You might have heard that the Census Bureau decided not to you use them in the 2010 census, or that Congress has voted to cut off all federal funding for the group.  Then again, you might not have.  Charlie Gibson didn't. 

Yesterday, Gibson was a guest on a radio station in Chicago.  They asked him why none of the major networks and hosts (like himself) were covering the story.  Gibson giggled a little, and admits he hadn't even heard the story.  What's really horrible is, when the show's hosts continue to press the question, Gibson says, "That's one you just leave to the cables."  Later, he gives the hosts a big ol' compliment by saying, "You guys are really up on the website."

Really?  What's his job again?

Sean Hannity, a man I admire but don't listen to that often because if you catch him once in a week, you can be pretty sure you know what he's going to be saying for the rest of the week, said that Journalism died in 2008.  If the biased coverage of the election wasn't enough to prove that to be true, this is.

The first story, about Van Jones, broke by Glenn Beck.  Beck first started dedicated coverage on him on September 1st, citing numerous examples of Jones' hate speech and general looniness.  (Here's the transcript from that day:   http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/)  All the way back in 2004, Jones allowed his name to be used as part of a petition to demand a hearing into "What Really Happened" on 9/11 (aka, BUSH DID IT!!!111!!1).  Why on EARTH would you do something like that, unless you really meant it?  However, once I finally did hear about his resignation form the MSM, they actually tried to EXCUSE him, saying that the petitioners used his name without permission, and that Beck and the others were using his words out of context.

Now, I don't know Glenn Beck, and I don't listen to him (he's on the same time as Rush Limbaugh, which is when I happen to be working), but I'm fairly certain he doesn't have time to sit there and parse random words together to make it sound inflammatory for 20 minutes.  Beck has a video posted (link above) that happens to be Jones' own words, and it's that long.  Of course, if you're too lazy to click on a link, you could always go to youtube and search for Van Jones.  They've got plenty on him.

The second story, about the NEA, broke on Bighollywood.  Here's the link:  http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/25/the-national-endowment-for-the-art-of-persuasion-patrick-courrielche/ 

At first it seemed a little innocuous; I mean, it seemed completely illegal and wrong and unjustifiable, but pretty much par for the course in terms of what we Conservatives have come to expect from this administration.  Nobody really thought anything would happen with the story because it had broken on some website that was noted for being full of conservatives in Hollywood.  But then the NEA responded via an article in the Washington Times, saying that the whole thing had been organized by a third party, and that the NEA was just another contributor.  The author of the original article returned the parry by producing the original email asking him to take part.  Here's the link:  http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/31/contradictions-are-revealing-politicizing-the-nea/#more-214754

Eventually, Yosi Sergant, Communications Director for the NEA was reassigned over the whole thing.  But there are still no answers about who's idea this was and why they still have a job.  In fact, here's the link to the most recent article:  http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/09/10/the-public-deserves-answers-from-the-nea/#more-221902

The final story is, of course, the most recent one.  It's the charming tale of an independent filmmaker, a pretty, talented actress, and the little Community Organizers that would, could and did.  Essentially, the two investigators decided to do an experiment.  They asked themselves, "What's the most outrageous situation we can think of?  What will happen when we take this outrageous situation and go to ACORN asking for help with taxes and buying a house?"

Their situation was that she was a prostitute wanting to set up her own brothel.  He wanted to run for Congress one day.  So they went to ACORN, asking how they could buy the house, when everyone in charge of giving loans was, "So judgemental."  They made sure to mention numerous times that the plan was to traffick in about 13 El Salvadorean girls under 16 and get them to work (what recession?).  The ACORN tax specialist in that office decided that, for tax purposes, prostitution and performing arts are the same thing.  Also, incidentally, that clothes and condoms were tax writeoffs.  She also gave them advice on money laundering to help him with that Congressional seat.

After coming to the sad realization of how dirty people can be, they decided to try their little experiment again.  And again.  And again.  In all, they've been to five offices:  Baltimore, D.C., New York, San Bernadino and San Diego.  Each time they've secretly videotaped the entire exchange, then posted it on Youtube.  They've also provided written transcripts of each.  Their first videos were up on September 10th.  Here's the link to the Baltimore sting:  http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/10/chaos-for-glory/#more-274  Here's the link for the DC sting:  http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/11/washington-dc-acorn-video-child-prostitution-investigation/#more-970  Here's the link to the New York sting:  http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/14/acorn-video-prostitution-scandal-in-new-york-ny/#more-1910  Here's the link for the San Bernadino sting:  http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/16/acorn-prostitution-scandal-san-bernardino-continued/ (this actually part 3; parts one and two are also up on the same website).  And here's the link to the San Diego sting:  http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/17/acorn-video-prostitution-scandal-in-san-diego-ca/  Lest I not give them credit enough, biggovernment.com has been the one blazing this particular story's trail.  It just launched last week, and of the three FULL pages of content on the site, only a dozen or so of the stories are not related to this ACORN scandal.

Now, to be fair, the MSM has been covering this story.  In fact, here's the video for their takes:  http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/16/bertha-lewis-media-blitz-acorn-chief-organizer-says-were-gonna-go-after-this-videographer-and-fox/.  Keep in mind, these interviews are from yesterday.  Which means that, for six days, ACORN was giving tax advice to hookers and sex/child-abuse traffickers, getting fired, crying racism, losing a cushy gig with the Census Bureau, and getting their federal funding cut off WITHOUT the mainstream media reporting it.

Think I'm lying?  Here's a link to the radio interview mentioned before with Charlie Gibson:  http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/15/charlie-gibson-on-acorn-scandal-i-dont-even-know-about-it/.  Before you ask, "Who's Charlie Gibson?  Why is it his job to know that?" let me just remind you of this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTyaPxfoeFc.  That's his interview with then-Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, to whom he asked, "What is your stance on the Bush doctrine?"  Now, if he's so "up" on the Bush doctrine (of which there have been four, lest you need to be reminded), why is he so willing to let the internet "backbenchers" to do all the work for him?  I mean, I know he's retiring, but give me a break.

Woodward and Bernstein were on the very edge of breaking news.  They broke the Watergate story with little more than a list of names, including the one known as "Deep Throat."  But they were there, reporting on what needed to be reported:  political corruption and scandal.  25 years later, that drive was shown by none other than Matt Drudge reported on his website that Newsweek was sitting on the story, not wanting to run it and taint the president.

Things in the Mainstream Press have only gotten worse.  Consider the amount of coverage the death of Michael Jackson received.  The months of, "new information" and, "Michael's dying words" and, "Oh noes, who's the real baby daddy?".  Now think about how much coverage these stories have gotten.  The amount of TV, Radio, and Newspaper articles done about them.  Give me a year and I might catch up with the Jackson coverage.  Give me a day for the rest, and what will I do with the other 18 hours?

We have a free press.  It's part of the Constitution, and thank God for it.  The press are supposed to be the ones to really keep the government in check; they're that "fourth branch" that keeps the whole thing out of major trouble.  What happens when that fourth branch becomes the branch that props up the others?  Worse, when it becomes the stick used to beat the American people with?

I check Drudgreport.com, bighollywood.breitbart.com, and biggovernment.com every single day, to make sure I keep up on the world.  What do you do?
 
 
Welcome to 9/9/09!  That auspicious day that will go down in history...for...this:
Now, I don't mind that the guy who did it, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) is going to get reprimanded so bad it will feel like he's been punched in the groin, because it wasn't the time or place for that.  But man, I wish he were my representative.

Think about it.  No one else in that entire room that I can think of would ever have the cajones to call the President a liar, much less to his face!  Which, by the way, according to HR 3200, the most often quoted health care reform bill, is a lie.

I love the site Bighollywood.  Like, check it everyday and read almost every article love it.  Over there, they looked into this very subject a little bit, and here's what a "Big X" had to say:

"Let’s take a look at the text, shall we?  The provision he cited is located on page 143 and reads as follows: 

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS 

Wow.  Can’t get much clearer than that!  It looks like the Big O is right: Undocumented aliens are excluded from collecting benefits under the plan 

But… hey, wait a cotton-pickin’ minute!

On page 50, SEC. 152 explicitly prohibits discrimination under the act with “regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.” 

In other words, undocumented aliens are not only eligible for ObamaCare, but their coverage is mandated.

So what’s up, Big O?  Quit jacking us around!  Are they covered or not? 

A further reading of Section 246 reveals that the plan only disallows “Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” 

“Affordability credits” are federal subsidies that offset the cost of monthly health plan premiums for low income earners. 

So, in short, undocumented aliens are eligible for the plan under Section 152, but ineligible for premium subsidies. 

Now, let’s do the math:

  1. Though illegal aliens will be prohibited from receiving Federal premium subsidies, they are not prohibited from participating in the plan.
  2. Every benefit dollar received by the participant in excess of premium paid represents a deficit against the plan; and…
  3. The plan is funded by tax dollars and benefits are paid by the Fed."
So, who's the liar now?  And what else is Obama blatantly lying about?  I could only stomach watching this speech for a few minutes (I'm sorry, but Obama's speeches make me seasick...stupid teleprompters), but it sounded just like all his other speeches, especially his campaign speeches:  a lot of lofty ideas, middle-of-the-road, pie-in-the-sky "approaches" to problems, and very little actual meat.  And what meat was there, was factually faulty at best.

For the life of me, I wish I knew who the representative was at the end of the clip.  Either he's making a statement about the fact that Obama's pushing a bill that has yet to be written, or he doesn't realize that 5 bills are actually in existence, with HR 3200 having passed in Henry Waxman's committee just before the August break.

Any questions?