Andrew Breitbart Introduces New Deceptive Website

Yesterday Andrew Breitbart unveiled his newest site - Big Peace. I thought the name was a bit deceiving, but considering the source, seemed quite appropriate.

Above is the header for the website.  For a site dedicated to peace, there sure are more symbols of war then there are peace.  Just look at the stories that the site featured in its first 24 hours of operation:

Frank Gaffney, a "birther," wrote an article about Shariah law (of course).  Gaffney is a regular in the anti-Islam circuit and has written nonsense for Breitbart's other sites as well, like a piece for Andrew Breitbart's Big Government, claiming that the redesigned logo for the Missile Defense Agency represented  an "official U.S. submission to Islam and the theo-political-legal program the latter’s authorities call Shariah" proving President Obama is a "crypto-Muslim."  It is also interesting that Gaffney writes for a site titled Big Peace despite being the president of a lobbyist group that advocates neoconservative national security positions.

Interestingly enough, according to the Wikipedia page for the Center for Security Policy, Gaffney's lobby also pushes a "Wilsonian" philosophy based on the Fourteen Points of Democratic president Woodrow Wilson - a popular target of Breitbart friend Glenn Beck.


Ned May wrote an article asking "who will protect us from NATO," writing that NATO is threatened by radical Islam.  Are yous tarting to see a trend?

Retired Brigadier General Anthony J. Tata wrote one attacking Ambassador Karl Eikenberry (which is funny because he is doing the same think McChrystal did with Rolling Stone).

Overall, this web page is another propaganda site featuring the same circle of authors found on other right-wing sites.  The name is only there to disguise the intolerance it stands for.

Bill Delahunt Proposes An End To Tax-Free Internet

I read this article from cnet news by Declan McCullagh regarding a proposal by Rep. Bill Delahunt regarding taxing internet sales.

The halcyon days of tax-free Internet shopping will, if Rep. Bill Delahunt gets his way, soon be coming to an abrupt end.

Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, introduced a bill on Thursday that would rewrite the ground rules for Internet and mail order sales by eliminating the option for many Americans to shop over the Internet without paying state sales taxes.

At the moment, Americans who shop over the Internet from out-of-state vendors usually aren't required to pay sales taxes. Californians buying books from Amazon.com or cameras from Manhattan's B&H Photo, for example, won't be required to cough up the sales taxes that they would if shopping at a local mall.

I personally think this is a bad idea.  While traditional retail locations may feel they are at an unfair advantage with online stores like Amazon.com, they forget to consider the cost of shipping into the price of the item (although many retailers do offer free shipping if you make certain qualifying purchases).

I also believe that it is a bad idea to try and create new tax revenue to fill existing budget gaps because eventually states will overspend and be back in the same situation.  Just look at the housing bubble - local tax bases jumped but intsead of keeping budgets the same and saving the extra cash, local governments funneled the money into numerous pet projects and when the housing market went bust, municipalities were scrambling to fund their stuff.

I also think that once you allow states to tax goods purchased in one state from another you open the door for more unnecessary regulation.  I would imagine taxing the internet would allow the federal government to evoke the Commerce Clause in the constitution and step in...

Happy 4th Of July!

Happy 4th of July from The Midnight Review.

National Enquirer Only Good For Democrats? How About Sarah Palin?

I thought this story was relevant despite being a couple years old - the National Enquirer posted a story back in September of 2008 detailing an affair Sarah Palin had with her husband's former business partner.

No less than three members of the man’s family including one by sworn affidavit have claimed that Sarah Palin engaged in an extramarital affair with hus­band Todd’s former business partner, Brad Hanson.

According to the article, Palin denied the accusations - maybe this is why she called Nikki Haley in support.  Palin supporters also denied the rumors, attacking the National Enquirer, with the McCain campaign threatening a lawsuit - the National Enquirer stood by their article stating their story had "several newsworthy revelations."  Some even claimed the Obama campaign planted the story.

Why do I bring this two-year-old story out now?

The National Enquirer had just published another infidelity story about a famous politician - Al Gore.  In a recent Al Gore article, the National Enquirer wrote about the former vice president attacking his massage therapist in a hotel.  Unlike the Sarah Palin article, the right-wing propaganda machines picked up on this story right away as a top story item - Andrew Breitbart even featured it on his Big Journalism propaganda site.

I find it interesting that when a story comes out about one of their own, the paper is not a reputable source and is threatened with lawsuits, but when they release stories about Democrats, like Al Gore or John Edwards, then the paper has some "damning details."

The right-wing media are a bunch of hypocrites.  If sites like Big Journalism are going to stand by the National Enquirer on the Gore and Edwards stories, then they should stand by the Palin stories, so as far as I'm concerned, Palin had an affair... and she faked her pregnancy...

Gallup Shows Vocal Tea Party Not Majority, Overwhelmingly Backs Republicans

A recent Gallup poll indicated that many from the Tea Party overlap with the Republican base. While any idiot could have told you that, I thought the accompanying numbers were interesting.

Let's look at all the figures:

I thought that it is interesting that the image above separates Republicans into two categories and Democrats into three, but more importantly, it shows that while 44% of Americans are some kind of Republican, 46% are some kind of Democrat.  The figures also show that despite Tea Party claims that they are independent, they really are Republican.

These figures were interesting for two reasons - the first being the current right-wing narrative that Republicans are going to pick up some seats in November's elections and the second showing that out of all Americans, more want Democrats, not Republicans.  I think these numbers indicate The Spiral of Silence - the majority remaining silent while an overly vocal minority claims to represent the will of the people.  Of course conservatives are going to make some gains this fall but it has nothing to do with dissatisfaction with the Democrats - it has more to do with voter apathy.

Also, if you consider the constant attacks on Obama coming from the right, claiming his approval is at record lows, if you consider the numbers above, it shows that a majority of Americans still approve of his performance, and when compared to numbers indicating who Tea Partiers support, then it makes things pretty clear - the Tea Party is an extremely vocal minority (with the backing of national conservative media like Fox News).

Pelosi's numbers were also interesting - recent reports show Congressional approval ratings to be hovering around the low 20s, so if you think about it this way, Pelosi is ranked almost twice that of Congress.

Anti-Abortion Thugs Attack Jimmy Kimmel Production Crew

You hear of all those accounts from the right-wing sources how people from SEIU are a bunch of thugs who bully those who don't do what they say, but here is an instance of some Christian anti-abortion protesters who accost Jimmy Kimmel's production crew, grabbing his equipment but then yelling "assault" when crew members tried to remove the man from their property.

When the production crew told the protesters to stop filming and let go of their equipment, one protester said that they were in the right because they were on public property, claiming that the production crew's lights were "burning [their] people."

After the police took statements, they notified the protester who grabbed the equipment that they had witnesses that said he attacked Jimmy Kimmel's crew. He insisted that he wanted the other guy to go to jail too and stated he had video, but apparently he had no witnesses of his own and the police arrested him when he said he wanted to press the matter further.

From what I gather, the opinion from the protesters was that the hot lights from the crew was "assaulting" the children protesters and therefor the crew needed to be arrested. I thought it was interesting that when the protesters didn't get their way, they became confrontational with the police.

The anti-abortion protesters were just another bunch of self-righteous thugs.

Watch the video:

Palin's Walk Down Memory Lane

I thought this was funny enough to share - Jason Linkins wrote an article for The Huffington Post about Sarah Palin's recent keynote speech for a bowling trade show, in which Palin didn't totally bomb and her speech seemed to have been moderately accepted by those in attendance.  I'll have to admit that some of Palin's comments sounded pretty good and I imagine would have resounded nicely among those in the industry, but that is not the interesting part.  Linkins cited Andrew Sullivan from The Atlantic who made a pretty astute observation regarding Palin's speech.

Palin gave one of those touchy-feely kind of statements about how bowling played an important part in her life, recalling her youth back in Idaho when her father was part of a bowling league.  "My Dad was on a Thursday night bowling league," she said. "He bonded with his buddies. I have memories of that point of my life which mean very, very much to me."

As Sullivan points out, "Palin was three months old when she left Idaho."

Why would Sarah Palin lie about memories of her father bowling when she was only an infant, unless of course she really remembered those Thursdays daddy Palin remembered to bring the future half-term governor of Alaska with him (if he remembered to bring her at all)?

Palingates also thought Palin's lies were worth outing and had received a comment by Phil Munger of Progressive Alaska adding to the Idaho memory lie.

She also claimed in her speech, "There were a lot of cold nights where I'm from where after basketball games we would meet at the bowling center."

The Wasilla bowling alley, on the Palmer-Wasilla HWY, was completed in very early 1985. Before that, there were no lanes in Wasilla. By the time the lanes were in, she had given up basketball, and was somewhere between her 2nd and 3rd college.

While these comments may seem innocuous, this only further proves just how duplicitous and deceiving Sarah Palin really is, and it shows she doesn't really discriminate about what she lies about - she lies about the little things too!

Steele On Afghanistan: "This Was A War Of Obama's Choosing."

Can the GOP muppet Michael Steele get any more absurd? Steele has made a name for himself with his silly little antics and mismanagement of the Republican National Committeee, but I think he just stopped caring about who he is around anymore when he makes these ridiculous comments.  Recently, he opened his trap criticizing the president and spouted some more of that Steele wisdom, but seriously, who takes Michael Steele seriously?  He certainly doesn't and his comments are proof of that:

"This was a war of Obama's choosing," Michael Steele said at the event. "This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

Steele also accused Obama of "demonizing Iraq while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan."

"Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan, alright, because everyone who's tried over a thousand years of history has failed," Steele continued.

You know who Steele reminds me of right now?  Vizzini from The Princess Bride.




Steele made one giant mistake with his comments - he admitted the war in Afghanistan is futile. Read his comment again: "The one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan, alright, because everyone who's tried over a thousand years of history has failed."  I guess that means the Republicans knew war with Afghanistan was a losing fight.  Is Steele saying that his party's support for the war has been wrong all these years and that they purposefully misguided Americans into believing otherwise?

Also, Steele must have forgotten his statements that he released back in December of last year after the president's Afghan speech, in which Steele openly supported the increase of troops and the idea that this was "a war we have to win."

“Although this decision took far too long and it should not have, I am glad the president will finally provide General McChrystal with the troops he needs. However, tonight’s speech must be the beginning, not the end, of the case President Obama makes to the American people as to why this is, as he said during the campaign, ‘a war we have to win.’ If the president remains committed to this crucial fight, Republicans – and the American people – will stand with him. But sending mixed signals by outlining the exit before these troops even get on the ground undermines their ability to succeed.”

How about this quote:

"If the president remains committed to this crucial fight, Republicans and the American people will stand with him. But sending mixed signals by outlining the exit before these troops even get on the ground undermines their ability to succeed."

Sounds like Steele is going back on his promise to "stand with" the president.

Steele had also criticized the president in the past when he did not focus on the war.

Right-Wing Consistently Claims Democrats Attempting To Increase Voter Base

I find an interesting trend among conservatives - they are constantly coming up with these far-fetched ideas President Obama is doing everything, from health care to immigration reform, to increase the Democratic party base, because as the right-wing believes, Obama is a one-term president and is unelectable come 2012.

I was reading an article on Big Government by Palela Gellar that discussed Obama's immigration speech. This is what she had to say:

I understand why he must ram immigration through now. And why he is taking this issue on now after destroying the American healthcare system. He has no shot of re-election without a base of amnestied illegal immigrants voting for Democrats. It is his only motive — but I digress.

It sounds very similar to comments made by Conservative Examiner Robert Moon regarding Puerto Rico:

Not only is Puerto Rico already a fully-functioning democracy, but it has also repeatedly rejected attempts to turn it into a U.S. state, for decades.

But still, desperate to create new Democrat voters and elected officials, the left is now aggressively setting the stage for the creation of a 51st state.

Due to its dense population of poverty-stricken minorities, Puerto Rico can be counted on to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and all their handouts, and their representation will also consequently outnumber that of 25 other existing U.S. states.

How about the words of Independent Examiner Arthur Bruzzone regarding health care reform:

Health care reform has lured the past three presidents as a overwhelming political prize, one that would insure a strong re-election campaign.

It seems that the general consensus among the right is that everything Obama does is to get reelected.  I think of the above mentioned articles and then I think of these other ones that like to mention Obama and low approval ratings in the same sentence, like this one from TownHall.com that insists that 39% of Americans won't reelect the president.

If you rewind back to 2004, right before the election, you would see that at the time 46% of the people disapproved of President Bush.  If I wrote an article stating that 46% of the people wouldn't reelect Bush, I would be wrong. 
 

The Right's Attack Against Kagan And The 2nd Amendment

Every time I read an article from a right-leaning source regarding the Elena Kagan nomination hearings, I can't help to notice that most of those sites, if not all, claim she is lying about her 2nd Amendment position and either point to Justice Sotomayor's comments during her nomination hearings and her recent siding with the dissenting opinion in the gun ban case or they point to statements written by Kagan over 20 years ago.  It is my opinion that the right-wing would not have been happy unless they got someone repeal all gun laws.

First, looking into Sotomayor's opinion, I can understand where the right is coming from with their argument, although I see Sotomayor's response to have been very precise - conservatives are using a general opinion regarding the 2nd Amendment to blanket any case involving the 2nd Amendment.  They argue that the dissenting opinion regarding the gun ban contradicts what Sotomayor said last summer.  In the ruling, the dissenting opinion had written that the 2nd Amendment was not created "in order to protect a private right of armed self defense."

Sotomayor said last summer that she understood "the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." And, "I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans."

There is one problem with the right's comparison to Sotomayor's statements last year - what exactly Heller involved.  In the case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to bear arms in a federal enclave, not the states.  The case did not address the issue of whether or not the Constitution extended to the states.

With that being said, it is my opinion that Sotomayor did not lie to Congress last year.  I don't agree with the gun ban, but unlike the teabag minority, I can understand the intricacies surrounding the events.

Now on to Kagan's comments and why the right-wing fringe believe she is lying.  In a RedState article by Brian Darling, Darling points to a memorandum dated August 27, 1987 from her to Justice Thurgood Marshall in the Sandidge v. U.S. case, in which Kagan wrote the following:

A jury convicted petr of carrying a pistol without a license possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition The CA affirmed. Petr’s sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearm statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear Arms.’ I’m not sympathetic.

Did Darling even read the memo?  Kagan wrote that the firearm was unregistered and that they unlawfully possessed ammunition.  At the time, the District of Columbia operated a ban that was not lifted until 21 years later, in the Heller case!  Darling wrote that Kagan's inclusion of the last line proves that she has a "personal hostility" to the Constitution.

Darling also points to two other reasons why Kagan hates America:

When Kagan served the Clinton Administration, she showed a strong hostility to gun rights.  The L.A. Times reported on may 11th of this year that Kagan “drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles.”  Kagan’s political activism in implementing a gun control agenda was a political act, yet this nominee has yet to explain her constitutional justification for that executive order.  The L.A. Times further reported that “gun-control efforts were a hallmark of the Clinton Administration.”  Many conservatives would argue that an individual who works diligently on gun control efforts evidences a hostility to the right of all Americans to defendthemselves with a firearm.  Another gun control initiative by Kagan was her drafting of ”an executive order that required all federal law enforcement officers to install locks on their weapons.”

According to the Wikipedia page, the gun ban "barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms arbitrarily deemed to be "assault weapons" as well as any semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and which has two or more of the following features: A telescoping or folding stock, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, and a bayonet lug."

I am unaware of anyone who needs to exercise their right to bear arms with a grenade launcher...

Also, regarding the installation of lock on weapons used by federal officers, I can understand how the initiative could be permitted - the guns are deemed an extension of the federal government, and can therefor be regulated.

The right-wing is just upset because they want to carry around rocket launchers and machine guns in the back of their pickup trucks without risk of being stopped by authorities. I wonder who that reminds me of...

Sharron Angle: Unemployed Are "Spoiled"

Teabag whack job and Republican senatorial candidate for Nevada Sharron Angle had some words for what she thought of the unemployed yesterday. In an interview with Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston, Angle was asked how she would have voted on the bill that was intended to extend unemployment benefits. Here was Angle's response:

I would have voted no, because the truth about it is that they keep extending these unemployment benefits to the point where people are afraid to go out and get a job because the job doesn't pay as much as the unemployment benefit does. And what we really need to do is put people back to work. So if you want to ease people back into work, what we need is an unemployment benefit that pays part. You know, you go to work, you have something of a safety net, in unemployment. But just to give them full unemployment benefits and then extend those for two years or more gets them not only out of the working class but it also depreciates their skills, so they're not actually able to go out and compete in that workforce, so what we really want, is we want something that stimulates a group of people to go back into what we know as that free market.

I partially agree with Angle's response but then Ralston played an audio clip of a previous comment made by Angle regarding unemployment, in which Angle said that "we've put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry."  This is where Angle the politician comes out to play.

Rolston called Angle out on calling the citizenry spoiled and all Angle could say is "come on."  Angle tried to explain away her previous comment stating that unemployment had spoiled the citizenry, which is different then stating the citizenry are spoiled.

I understand Angles initial response to Ralston, but I think she is over-generalizing, which tebaggers are really good at doing.  While there are probably some who are lazy, there are also some who may not be able to afford accepting just any job because the effects of losing benefits may be far more damaging then if they continued to collect.  Imagine if accepting a job that paid less meant losing one's home because they could no longer afford to pay their mortgage.  The economic impact would probably be greater then if that person remained on unemployment for a little bit longer.

Angle didn't make it better for herself either.  During the interview, Angle tried to do some damage control, claiming she doesn't think all unemployed people are lazy, but insisting that the jobs are out there and the unemployed simply aren't looking hard enough.  According to Pat Garofalo, "there are nearly five workers actively searching for work for every job available."  If that is the case, then there is only a job out there for 20% of the unemployed.  Where are the jobs for the rest of the unemployed that Angle stated were out there?

Jason Linkins summed it up best at the end of his article:

Another thing that Angle might want to get hip to is this new trend in employment, where in order to get a new job, you have to have a job already. Of course, I say that as if Angle is at all interested in fostering employment. As she famously said, "As your US Senator, I'm not in the business of creating jobs."