Co-written by Bryian Revoner
I’ve been collaborating with Facebook activist Bryian Revoner on political writing and, while we agree more than we disagree, I’m parting company with him on one point he made in the Facebook note he tagged me in today. The topic of the day . . . Juan Williams, his racist, anti-Muslim statements, and his firing from NPR.
“This may spark a bit of controversy,” wrote Bryian, “but I have to admit that I’ve always liked Juan Williams. In my opinion, he was one of the most reasonable commentators, if not the most reasonable commentator, on Fox News. Juan Williams was in a minority of one when he talked on Fox News about the beauty of having a functioning, African-American 1st family in the White House, and I agreed totally with Williams on that point. I’ve agreed with some of William’s political points in the past; but nevertheless, I cannot agree with the statement he made to Bill O’Reilly, which was also the statement that got him fired from NPR News.”
Having scrutinized Fox News writing for News Hounds (visit News Hounds if you’d like to read more on Juan Williams), for a couple of years, I view Juan Williams as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I mean, he is the same guy who said that Michelle Obama has “the Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going” and painted her as some sort of Black radical. He’s supposed to be the “liberal” one on Fox News (like Greta van Sustern’s “liberal?” Ha!), the voice of reason in the cacophany of the right-wing noise machine. Juan Williams might pander a little to the left; Juan Williams might placate, he might pacify, he might occasionally say the right thing, but, in my opinion, what he said on NPR captured his truer idealogy. He’s more Fox than not Fox. And, I might add, his firing from NPR hasn’t worked out too badly; his consolation prize — or reward — for his bad behavior on NPR netted him a new $2 million dollar contract from Fox. His self-defense at this point looks more like Dr. Laura’s red-faced defense of her racist remarks (saying the N-word eleven times on the radio); “reasonable” commentator or not, Juan demonstrated remarkable insensitivity and, at bottom, a willingness to express racist sentiments.
Having said that, I’m more Bryian than not Bryian . . .
“Juan Williams said: ‘When I get on a plane, I gotta tell you. If I see people who are in Muslim garb, and I think that, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” Now, I don’t agree with this statement, because Muslims in full Muslim garb don’t make me nervous, not on a plane or anywhere else, but that’s my personal belief. I’ve worked with Muslims in full Muslim garb on numerous occasions, and I’ve never felt threatened or uneasy about it.The next question would logically enquire as to why I, Bryian R., am not afraid of Muslims, especially in full Muslim garb in some public place. I can only speak for me, but behavioral activities usually scare me far more than ideological proclamations. Whether the individual is dressed in religious garb or whether they are totally in the nude, I’m not going to necessarily fear for my life or become disoriented about the spectacle or the fashion statement, but when this individual actually does something that warrants my attention span, now that will be a totally different story! If I see flashing lights emanating from the crotch of the Muslim in full Muslim garb, not only will I become nervous, I will get personally involved! For that matter, if I see anyone with flashing lights emanating from their crotch or some other orifice, I will react the exact same way. In the end, it doesn’t matter if the person is in full Muslim garb or in a New York Yankees uniform. I would rather have clues to this person’s intentions, as opposed to clues about this person’s taste in fashion or religion. Think about it people. If there are two Muslims seated next to each other on a plane, both dressed in full Muslim garb, but only one of them has the red light, green light, yellow light, stop mechanism flashing and sending smoke signals from their crotch, it will be the out-of-season Christmas tree tucked away in some underwear that will pose the threat, not the Muslim garb, because the other person in full Muslim garb was light-less, bomb-less, and obviously not a threat. This is kind of like algebra, because the positive, Muslim garb and the negative, Muslim garb cancel each other out—leaving only the disco ball crotch to contend with.”
What I’d like to add here is that Williams has a history of ignoring the obvious practice of racial profiling. Williams, in fact, criticized President Obama for his comments in defense of Henry Gates, and against the police department, for what was obviously — to any thinking person — a clear case of racial profiling. Racial profiling — which Williams endorsed in his NPR comments — is simply making an assumption about someone based on skin color, or, in this case, religious garb. Bryian went on to say, “Williams also expresses his murky disdain at people who make a conscious effort to publicly identify themselves as Muslims—first and foremost. To me, this is the worst part of the entire statement, and I, again, do not agree with it on any level. How dare he be so judgmental about someone else’s identity? Who in the hell is he supposed to be—the identity Sheriff? Why can’t someone identify themselves, first and foremost, as a Muslim without being negatively judged because of it, by someone who knows nothing or very little about the Muslim culture—barring what they see on cable news shows? It sounds like Williams was saying that he doesn’t trust Muslims, and anyone who appears to be one deserves his scrutiny and probably the scrutiny of everyone else as well, which implies that whoever dresses to identify as a Muslim is guilty by a dishonestly perceived, ideological association, as mandated by the self-absorbed status quo! Look at it this way. If it’s so terrible to dress and identify as a Muslim, then it must be disgustingly terrible to actually be a Muslim and practice Islam, but by whose standards—Fox News standards?”
In fact, the terrorists who took down the Twin Towers were not dressed in “Muslim garb” at all, as I recall. In Williams’ world, they would have passed the profiling test simply because they were wearing American street clothes. Is this an anti-Muslim version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?”
Bryian concluded, “NPR had every right to distance themselves from Williams if they wanted to purse that route, and Fox News might want to consider distancing itself from William’s comments as well, because they definitely paint Muslims in a negative light, but who among us has the authority to authenticate such generalized portraits? Based on journalistic objectivity, I would say no one, and that’s why comments can get people fired! That’s just the world we live in. You can say anything you want, but that does not mean that you have to be guaranteed a specific forum to say it from. If the sponsors decided that Williams was now bad for business, then it was time for Williams to go. NPR is like any other business. Its goal is to make money, not to protect or uphold the First Amendment, which is just more of the world we live in. The only reason Fox News wants to defund NPR is to eliminate another source of competition; a source that is certainly beyond the indoctrinary, dialogue tactics of the big, conservative, truth-devouring machine. Remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks before you feel sorry for Williams being let go by NPR!
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Any First Amendment rights (which is not what this is, actually, because the First Amendment protests us against governmental interference in our freedom of speech) do not protect people from the consequences of their words. When people — such as Juan Williams, or Dr. Laura — throw themselves into the marketplace of public opinion, they are granted the right to say what they like . . . but the flip side of that is that the marketplace is also granted the right to reject what they say. NPR rejected Juan Williams’ words — and it comes as no surprise to anyone, I’m sure, that Fox would defend Williams’ anti-Muslim sentiments. As Bryian so aptly pointed out, Fox is in the business of culling the herd: From its vendetta against MSNBC to, now, NPR, Fox is like a hairdresser criticizing the previous hair stylist’s work.
Bryian has a personal relationship with racial profiling which I, as a white female, have never experienced — and he speaks to it eloquently:
“Personally, as an African-American, I know exactly what it’s like to be feared based on the appearance of my pigmentation. If I had a dollar for every time a fearful, purse-clutching woman watched the elevator doors open up, looked in and saw that it was only me, and refused to enter in hopes of a safer trip on the next one, I would be rich enough to buy Facebook. So allow me to give my stance. If there are people out there who are afraid of my brown skin, my Bryian R. garb, my religious ideology, my liberally left leaning lean or whatever it may be, I don’t have a problem with it. I guess that’s just you being honest, but if you incorporate that fear unjustly onto me or others like me, simply because we are us, to create a natural barrier to preserve the unwarranted fears of your separation from me, then that is just you being honestly racist! I’d rather learn about all of the things that I fear, instead of fearing all of the things that I could learn!”
Juan Williams deserved to be fired from NPR, but, more than that, he needed to be “outed.” I can’t imagine Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, another Black pundit who regularly appears on Fox, making such a statement. Williams shouldn’t be furious at his firing; he shouldn’t be shocked at his firing; he should simply go “home” to Fox where any anti-Muslim statement he cares to make will be embraced, glorified, and commended.
In the latest episode in Sarah Palin’s gaffe- and hate-filled world, she probably figured she was coming in on the side of the angels. You know, her little Facebook post that burning the Quran is a bad thing — or, “is antithetical to American ideals . . . .” I’ll give her this: Palin knows a LOT about the whole “antithetical to American ideals” thing.
Leaving well enough alone would have worked — but of course, the beauty of Facebook is there’s nobody to talk back, no cameras to snap your pic as you’re stuttering and stammering and reading notes off your palm, and, most of all, you can rewrite and redo as needed and block anybody who criticizes you. No wonder it’s Palin’s choice of forum. But I digress . . . . In any event, she didn’t leave well enough alone, and she went on to say, “People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation — much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.”
See how she does that? See how she likens a hate-filled event like a Quran-burning by “Christians” to a group of peaceful Muslims who want to build a community center near Ground Zero? And kind of slides in the slam against the New York mosque while beating the drum on how these “Christian” Quran-burners have a “Constitutional right” to do so?
The thing is, Palin has actively protested against the mosque near Ground Zero — on Twitter, of course (the scene of her classic “refudiate” gaffe) — but I didn’t see the Twitter Queen tweet anything about the Muslims who want to build the mosque having a Constitutional right to do so. She did use the phrase “unnecessary provocation” in both her prior Tweet and her latest Facebook message, one to refer to the book-burning, and the other to refer to the YMCA-like center the Muslims want to create. Kind of weigh the thing: One, the book-burning, is nothing but a tear-down, its only function hate; and the other is a creation of something useful, and meaningful.
And then, of course, with all her big talk, she sort of failed to mention that she herself sought to do the figurative “book-burning” at the library in Wasilla with the list of books she wanted to ban.
But, while the Wasilla library is safe from her narrow-minded bigotry, the rest of us aren’t. Somebody really needs to tell the Twitter Queen that when you act all Christian-y on one hand, and blow hate with the other, you just end up being wrong twice. And while the book-burners certainly have a right (if not a permit) to burn the Quran, the right to freedom of religion is one of the most important rights under the Constitution.
If Palin doesn’t quit using identical language to refer to two polar opposite missions, and start supporting the rights of the Muslims to build their mosque wherever they choose, she needs to burn her Blackberry . . . her rhetoric is “unnecessary provocation.”
Okay, I’m trying — I swear to the higher-power-that-isn’t that I’m trying. I’ve befriended, and accepted friend requests from, conservatives on Facebook. I try to look for anything positive coming from the right (is it my fault that there’s nothing there?). I try to debate civilly — even in the face of “Kenyan” and “where’s the birth certificate” and “Michelle Obama is immoral” — with the right. Conservatives that I befriend, when they discover I’m an uber-lib, are often convinced it’s an Obama plot to infiltrate their Facebook accounts with the end goal of spiriting them off to indoctrination camps. I’ve had such people accept my friend request and unfriend me in the space of one minute. A friend of mine recently asked me, “Is there anyone you won’t befriend?” Sadly, the answer is no. I’m entirely indiscriminate.
In return for what I consider valiant efforts, what I often get in return is “libtard” and other clever retorts. Here’s just an example of my recent debate with some batshit crazy right-winger who was, at one time, somehow my Facebook friend (and in this, I use the term “friend” very, very loosely).
Right out of the gate, he accused me of befriending him so I could harass him — and then went on to harass me. I vowed not to unfriend him, and I didn’t — he ended up blocking me in a rage-filled tirade.
I think I’m going to invent a Facebook dog whistle that calls liberals to my threads when the Palinites go nuts.
Don’t get me wrong — I have some conservative friends on F/B who are respectful, civil and willing to engage in debate that doesn’t involve words ending in “tard,” but they’re not the mainstream. The mainstream conservative contingent generally posts stuff like this on my threads:
My conservative friend Scott is a wonderful guy, who debates reasonably and backs his comments up with facts. I forgive him the fact that he uses Drudge as a source. My F/B friend Matt is a young conservative and, as long as I don’t beat the drum about the racist elements of the tea party, we get along fine. So yeah, I do a little bit of compromising, a little tempering of my comments here and there. With Matt, I pick different subjects than the tea party to debate. With Scott, I try to out-do his sources, and out-fact his facts. Those kinds of debates test my core beliefs and force me to defend them — and that ain’t bad. In fact, there are times when I find that the distance between some conservatives’ positions and mine isn’t as far as I thought it was — when cornered, everybody seems to get radical, but if I allow a little space between their backs and the wall, and they do the same, we’re all more willing to be reasonable. I can hold my ground on my beliefs without attacking the other side for theirs . . . although, I admit, it’s a difficult process.
So, I’ve been debating the way to handle the goofies. I could start calling them “right-tards” — which, if you think about it, has a much better ring to it than “libtards.” I could quit taking friend requests from anybody who has an American flag as his or her profile picture — that’s a dead giveaway, as we all know liberals are un-American and the hard right has a corner on the “I’m a flag-waving American” market.
No, I’ve come up with a better way to drive away the crazies — it’s what drove Rob into a frenzy before he blocked me. I’ll accept all friends, and civilly debate those right-wingers who truly want some dialogue. But when the other kind, the ones with talking points written on their hands, challenge me about what I like about President Obama — and I deem it not worth it to give them a “real” answer — I’m gonna give them the same response I gave Rob: He looks good with his shirt off. When pressed for a real answer, I’ll repeat that I think the President has a great upper bod, and that’s what I like about him.
The fun part is, both male and female libs can use this one: After all, if there’s one thing the right hates more than Obama-lovers, it’s gays.
And hey, let’s face it: He does look good with his shirt off.
My youngest son, rapper Mpulse, directed me tonight to this video. I watched it, and I felt my adrenaline pump, felt the now so far distant feelings of fear and anger and love and hate . . . the abusive situation — been there, done that. I watched this video over and over, and I couldn’t get over the feeling that it evoked, just as it hit me that this video is one of the most honest and powerful depictions of the domestic violence cycle of abuse I’ve ever seen. Ever.
As a feminist, I should hate Eminem’s music. His lyrics, particularly his older tracks, are violent and misogynistic. His anger is palpable — but his lyrics are honest and powerful.
Watch the video. It’s disturbing, fascinating, violent, chilling . . . and true.
“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” Vice President Cheney said in 2002 . . . Good thing — a $230 billion surplus left by Clinton turned into a deficit of over $1 trillion under Bush. But now . . . now, the Republicans are endlessly yammering about the deficit. They’re attempting to kill all of President Obama’s programs under the guise of gut-wrenching worry that the deficit will grow. Yeah, bet it really keeps them up at night. They’ve voted against extending unemployment benefits — can’t you just hear the floorboards creaking under their feet as they pace the floor every night, wringing their hands and worrying about the fate of the unemployed?
As Ezra Klein pointed out, “. . . there’s no evidence conservatives care about deficits when they’re in the White House.” If the Republicans were to regain the White House at any point, I think the word “deficit” would pretty much vanish from their lexicon. “Compassion” was never in it.
Republicans don’t care about the deficit, but they do care about holding tight to their hard right base who see the Americans who are unemployed, and losing everything, as unworthy of assistance. Just listen to the rhetoric: Harry Reid’s opponent, Sharron Angle, said the unemployed are “spoiled.” Arizona’s Republican Senator, Jon Kyl, seems to think that extending unemployment benefits encourages people to sit on their lazy asses and live off the largesse of the government.
Paul Krugman accurately said that the nation is facing, in Republicans, “a coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused.” I would like to add self-invested, elitist and hypocritical to that description. And I don’t think they’re clueless or confused at all — they know exactly what they’re doing when they turn off the financial tap to the desperate people who can’t find jobs. To destroy the economy is, to them, to destroy President Obama — which is, in the end, their only agenda.
We shouldn’t have to wait until Tuesday to pass a compassionate measure to temporarily assist those who are jobless and financially dependent on the assistance the government provides. For Pete’s sake, that’s what unemployment benefits are for, and in a time like this, keep those benefits coming until the time when five people aren’t lining up for every job.
The Republicans have no excuse, they have no reason, and they have no shame. As long as they’re the “haves,” they don’t care about the “have-nots.” They can grow the deficit endlessly for war, but are suddenly concerned about the deficit when it’s about helping families.
A recent poll showed that 52% of voters think unemployment benefits should be extended, even if it means the deficit increases. Do Republicans really think the only voters who are unemployed are Democrats?
Update: Sarah Palin — in her typical junior-high-style retort — twittered a response to Emanuel:
Maybe it’s because I’m from Chicago, and, well, it’s just what we do here — but I love the way Rahm Emanuel plays politics. I like the arm-twisting, I like the colorful language, and I like the refreshing attitude of “I don’t give a f**k.”
Yeah, Rahm’s gonna get blasted by the right (so what else is new?) for his blatantly partisan comments on ABC’s “This Week” — but he is not wrong, my friends.
We’re going to be going ’round and ’round on Representative Joe Barton’s apology to BP and then apology for the apology for some time to come — he was right, he was wrong (of course, he was wrong) — but Rahm, as always, didn’t mince words . . . and took the opportunity to remind Americans why they voted for change in the form of President Obama.
“You could say it’s a political gift for us — and it is — but it’s dangerous for the American people,” Emanuel said.
He went on to say, “That’s not a political gaffe . . . Those are prepared remarks. That is a philosophy. That is an approach to what they see. They see the aggrieved party here as BP, not the fishermen . . . .”
And Sarah Palin’s guy, Rand Paul . . . Obama’s tough stance on holding BP’s feet to the fire to pay for the clean-up was viewed by Paul as “un-American.” Really, though? Emanuel had some harsh words for both Barton and Paul, saying that those views “are a reflection of the Republican party’s governing philosophy . . . They think that the government’s the problem . . . I think what Joe Barton did was remind the American people, in case they forgot, how the Republicans would govern.”
With John Boehner implying (before he walked it back) that taxpayers should somehow be made to pay for the clean-up, and Barton apologizing to BP for President Obama forcing it to pay for the clean-up — and requiring it to make a big, good faith down payment on it — you’re damn right, we see how Republicans would govern.
The Party of No to any progressive agenda would turn into the Party of Yes to big corporations.
If Washington doesn’t want him, we’ll take Rahm back here in Chicago. I kinda like the sound of “Mayor Emanuel.”
Update: Mitch McConnell joins the conservatives who are stepping away from Barton’s comments, saying on Fox News Sunday, “”BP doesn’t need an apology, they need to apologize to us.”
Update: Alabama’s Republican Senator Richard Shelby joined the chorus of anti-Bartonites, calling Barton’s apology “dumb.” Watch the video here.
As Media Matters reported, the big GO(B)P news of the day was Republican Representative Joe Barton’s apology to BP for the White House’s negotiated deal for BP to create a $20 billion fund to make people whole following the oil spill. As noted by Huffington Post’s Sam Stein, Barton pontificated, “I’m ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday . . . “I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown — in this case a $20 billion shakedown — with the attorney general of the United States . . . participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that’s unprecedented in our nation’s history . . . I do not want to live in a county where anytime a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, [it is] subject to some sort of political pressure that, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown.”
Yeah, sure, Barton later apologized for groveling at BP’s feet . . . but only after a meeting with House Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor in which he was threatened with the loss of his Energy and Commerce Committee Chairmanship if he didn’t apologize for his apology.
Hey, Barton: Bite me.
Media Matters also reported that “conservative media figures apparently found the use of the term wholly appropriate and have since reached a consensus that the escrow account amounted to a ‘shakedown.” Some of the big radical right-wing names who were happy to jump on the “Chicago Style Shakedown” bandwagon were CNN’s Erick Erickson, Jim Hoft, Newt Gingrich, Laura Ingraham, Limbaugh, The Wall Street Journal, Georgia Republican Representative Tom Price, crazy-as-a-bedbug Minnesota Representative Michele Bachman, and Former Republican Representative and now a money-collector for the Tea Party movement, Texan Dick Armey.
There were, though, also some conservatives who nailed Barton (at least publicly) for his idiotic ass-kissing:
Minority Leader John Boehner, in addition to threatening Barton with a loss of a prestigious Committee Chairmanship, publicly stated he disagreed with Barton’s “shakedown” comment, and said he was glad that BP is “being held accountable.” Indiana Republican Mike Pence joined with Boehner and Cantor in their trip with Barton to the woodshed.
Florida Representative Jeff Miller (whose constituents in Pensacola have been hugely affected by the oil spill) condemned Barton’s remarks and said that Barton “should step down as ranking member of the [Energy and Commerce] Committee.'”
Said Florida Republican Senator George LeMieux, “I don’t think we need to be apologizing to British Petroleum.”
Politically, I’d like to see conservatives continue to defend BP and attack the Obama Administration as a group of hustlers forcing poor, benighted BP to pay up — it can only be good for liberals, and Democrats, for the right to take such a nationally repugnant position. Personally, though, I’m glad to see that not all conservatives guzzle the right-wing Kool-Aid — it doesn’t really matter whether it was out of political expediency or simply some semblance of a conscience, the conservatives who slapped Barton down deserve some credit for doing it.
When Glenn Beck called our President a racist, with a hatred for white people — and colorofchange.org subsequently launched a successful boycott of of advertisers on his Fox News show — Glenn Beck spent months whining about what a victim he was.
“ . . . the boycott attempts are the most transparent AstroTurf attacks I have ever seen or ever heard of.”
“Where’s the media? Do the rest of you in this business think it’s gonna stop with me? Really? Once they get me what happens to you? Is there absolutely no chance whatsoever that you might be a target at some point in the future? What is that poem…First they came for the Jews and I stayed silent…”
Then came Chris Matthews and his series on the ugly underbelly of the Tea Party movement, the “Rise of the New Right” . . . and it seems that Beck, when the target is a left-winger, might have changed his tune about the whole “boycotts of media personalities are bad” thing. Despite his ostensible altruism toward others “in this business” who “might be a target at some point in the future,” when Matthews became a “target” of the “transparent Astro Turf attacks” — this time an (unsuccessful) attempt by the extreme right-wing tea party people to get advertisers to boycott Matthews “Hardball” show — Beck remained silent. And in an even greater bit of hypocrisy . . . FreedomWorks, one of the proponents (along with the tea partiers) of the Matthews boycott, is now a sponsor of Beck’s radio show.
So let me get this straight: Beck whined for months — as his advertisers dropped like flies — about what a threat to our very freedom boycotts of the media represented. And yet, he accepts the very entity that is helping to stage one of those freedom-threatening boycott as an advertiser on his radio show.
Desperation — not a pretty thing.
According to a report by foxnews.com, conservative Nevada senate nominee Sharron Angle wasn’t always, what is she now, a “tea party candidate?” She’s flopped around politically more than a fish on land. From 1984 to about 1988, she was even a registered Democrat — but that’s only, according to her campaign, because she was supporting a “conservative Democrat.” Based on her recent political idealogy, even a “conservative Democrat” would be damn near socialist.
But okay, so she flies around with the political wind. No shocker there. What I found shocking, though, was what I learned about the Independent American Party, which Angle was a member of for about a year in 1996. I wandered over to the website, and found some nuggets that would have Phyllis Schlafly salivating.
“On Family” . . . “Fathers and husbands are leaders, providers, defenders — and have the respect of their families. Wives and mothers of young children are stay-at-home moms, homemakers, and oft-times home school teachers — nurturing their families.”
It appears, from her biography, Angle was a teacher in 1996 . . . straying a little, it seems, off the IAP’s stay-at-home-women path. I’d guess that Angle’s naked political ambition wasn’t a good mix with the IAP’s agenda for women in 1996 — which would explain, I suppose, why she left the IAP just a year later, in 1997. Political expediency above political idealogy, I guess.
But moving on . . . what else does the IAP endorse?
“As a nation, we discourage all forms of family disruption — such as separation, divorce, illegitimacy, homosexuality, and abortion — by religious, social and legal sanctions.” (emphasis added) Yup, as I suspected — the party of “anti.”
“There is an all-out assault,” the website reads, “by pornographers, abortionists, feminists, homosexuals, pagans, many educators, the entertainment media, and other elements in our society to weaken or destroy the Christian concept of family.” Feminists. Yikes. What about all those “mama grizzlies” out there, i.e., self-proclaimed conservative “feminists” like Sarah Palin? Would she not be welcome in the IAP?
Is this a Party that even Sarah Palin is too liberal for?
The site goes on to work the fear around divorce, claiming that it drives kids to suicide. In fact, the site cites the erroneous statistic that “suicide is the second leading cause of teenage deaths, next to auto accidents.” (Actually, suicide is a fairly distance third, preceded by auto accidents and homicide.)
So this is Angle’s former political party. And you know, even though Palin didn’t officially endorse Angle as a candidate (although she did offer this on her Twitter feed: “”@SharronAngle Great job Sharron!Reid’s overspending will blow up r economy.Stay strong;People see through the spin&sparks.Do well 4 America!”), and would probably be an unwelcome member (given her super-dooper un-God-like career path and the fact that her daughter behaved immorally by having an “illegitimate” child), she appears to have adopted some of the IAP’s language. Some of her talking points appear to have been swiped directly from the IAP website:
“To return the control of government back to the people as intended. ”
“To advance the principles of freedom, patriotism, and traditional family values.”
“To identify and defeat all efforts to undermine and overthrow the Constitution.”
“To unite the independent votes, the silent majority, grassroots organizations, and other patriots and lovers of liberty under one umbrella . . . .”
In April, Angle introduced herself at an event by saying, ” “You know, I feel a little lonely today, I usually bring Smith and Wesson along . . . .”
As political endorsements go, I can’t imagine how Palin missed this one.
Charles Krauthammer appeared on the All-Star Panel on Bret Baer’s Special Report today (along with Steve Hayes and Mara Laisson) to discuss President Obama’s activities around BP’s clean-up of the oil spill.
Krauthammer, a harsh but at times reluctant Obama critic, believes that now it’s okay for President Obama to cut some kind of deal with BP to clean up its mess. As Krauthammer pointed out, the cap for liability under the law at present is $75 million, but the President wants $20 billion.
Krauthammer said approvingly that the White House lawyers “create loopholes in the law or they find them, or they give Obama ammunition. . . by saying . . . our lawyers have looked at this and there are 18 possible laws that you may have violated and the penalties would amount to a lot more than the $20 billion escrow – how ’bout we make a deal?”
Although Krauthammer doesn’t believe the President has the authority to order BP, “I think he has the leverage to make BP to do it . . . very politically smart . . . that really puts him in charge of BP, at least as to restitution and compensation.”
Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com
Hmmm . . . isn’t this the same Krauthammer who criticized the White House for its statement concerning Joe Sestak, which Krauthammer disapprovingly called “unbelievably lawyerly” and “deceptive?” Sounds like he’s criticizing the White House lawyers for looking for those famous “loopholes” in the law — the loopholes which Krauthammer now thinks are a-okay when dealing with BP. (Although, to his credit, Krauthammer also said that the Sestak “job offer” was much ado about nothing.)