Big Government has this GREAT story, makes me happy to be a Verizon customer:
Verizon Communications has become the first of what many expect to be many, to sue the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to undo its voting themselves Internet Overlords on December 21st.
This is an FCC self-inflicted wound; they flung wide open the door to lawsuits aplenty with their dictatorial vote – and the sloppy, self-contradicting and unauthorized order on which they voted.
The FCC decided to again usurp authority over the Internet – so as to then impose Network Neutrality – in a manner similar to the one it attempted in 2007 with the Comcast-BitTorrent situation.
A manner which the D.C. Circuit Court last April unanimously said the FCC is not statutorily authorized to execute.
A manner which FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski himself – just two months before calling for the vote and casting an “Aye” – readily acknowledges he and the FCC don’t have the juice to execute.
For their outrageously outsized part – completely unqualified “Public Interest” Group (PIG) Free Press was cited in the FCC order a ridiculous 53 times – the Media Marxists were livid with the order, somehow asserting that the FCC didn’t go nearly far enough outside its clearly demarcated legal bounds.
Leftists, after all, never allow facts to get in the way of a good beating.
And these PIGish Media Marxists were caught utterly unawares by Verizon’s lawsuit, which (as an admitted non-attorney) I find to be some of the best lawyering we’re likely to see for quite some time.
In layman’s terms, Verizon claims in their suit that the FCC order alters wireless licenses (which it certainly appears to do). A clause in the 1996 Telecommunications Act stipulates that if the FCC alters someone’s wireless license and that someone sues, they are guaranteed an expedited hearing in – the D.C. Circuit.
NewsBusters has a great line up for their notable quotables:
First Impulse: Let’s Blame Conservatives
Arizona Daily Star columnist/cartoonist David Fitzsimmons: “I must tell you as a columnist who has covered politics in this state, it was inevitable, from my perspective.” Anchor Martin Savidge: “Why do you say that?”
Fitzsimmons: “Because the right in Arizona, and I’m speaking very broadly, has been stoking the fires of a heated anger and rage successfully in this state….The politics of the state does tend to be far to the right. I would say even rabid right.”
— Exchange at about 2:30pm ET during CNN’s live coverage of the Giffords shooting, January 8. Fitzsimmons later conceded his remarks were “inappropriate.”
[….]
The Tucson Shooting: Let’s Blame Talk Radio
“What’s been the role of talk radio in fueling the heated language?…People like Mark Levin, Michael Savage, for example who every time you listen to them are furious, furious at the Left with anger that just builds and builds in their voice, and by the time they go to commercial, they’re just in some rage, every night, with ugly talk. Ugly sounding talk. And it never changes. It never modulates…. They do see the other end of the field as evil, as awful. Not just disagreeable but evil. And they use that language, when they talk about the other side, isn’t that part of the problem? And my question is doesn’t that give the moral license to people who have crazy minds to start with?”
— MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Hardball, January 11.
“It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge….That whirlwind has touched down most forcefully in Arizona, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described after the shooting as the capital of ‘the anger, the hatred and the bigotry that goes on in this country.’”
— January 10 New York Timeseditorial, “Bloodshed and Invective in Arizona.”
vs.
“In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East. President Obama was right when he told Americans, ‘we don’t know all the answers yet’ and cautioned everyone against ‘jumping to conclusions.’”
— From a November 7, 2009 New York Timeseditorial after the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas.
I was in a conversation with Eric Dondero, who has an excellent site and is well worth frequenting. However, he is a birther. This is not a political evil in the grand scheme of things. A few of my “cyber friends” are, and I will challenge them as well. Apparently, Blogspot is not allowing the posts to be posted. So any misgivings I felt happened did not and I apologize. However, to make sure the post that isn’t being posted at LR is read by all who wish to read it, here it is:
Me:
Eric, With all due respect, and I mean that, it wasn’t Obama’s grandmother. It is “facts like this” that sully this discussion basically led by Philip J. Berg, a 9/11 truther. A couple of things, this was the wife of one of Obama’s fathers wives (he had a few wives). This is explained in this discussion already linked: Another Birther About Obama-If Obama Impeached… Then What — Biden President
Also, there is a mistranslation involved in this all too often used “fact”.
I’m posting on the appearance, though, because of something Liddy said during it: “You’ve got a deposition, which is a sworn statement, from the step-grandmother, who says, ‘I was present and saw him born in Mombasa, Kenya.'” Liddy got this particular myth a little garbled, but it’s a favorite of the Birthers’. I’ve covered it before, but it’s worth posting on now, I think, because cable news is just getting back to this story (there was some coverage late last year, when the Supreme Court declined to hear one of the Birther lawsuits) and hosts like Matthews don’t know all the crazy twists of the conspiracy theory well enough to knock them down. What Liddy was referring to is actually an affidavit filed by a street preacher named Ron McRae, who conducted an interview with Sarah Obama, the second wife of President Obama’s grandfather, through a translator. (Sarah Obama is not the president’s biological grandmother, but he calls her “Granny Sarah.”) In that interview, Sarah Obama does in fact say at one point that she was there for her grandson’s birth. But that was a mistake, a confusion in translation. As soon as a jubilant McRae began to press her for further details about her grandson being born in Kenya, the family realized the mistake and corrected him. And corrected him. And corrected him. (The audio is available for download here.) No matter, though, because people who believe in a conspiracy theory simply hear what they want to hear. So some Birther sites have posted transcripts and YouTube clips that end abruptly with the mistranslation and don’t include the corrections. McRae, for his part, included the full translation in his affidavit — he thinks it’s all just part of the conspiracy. (Salon)
(The rest of my post which was expunged via Blogspots quirkiness [which is legend as of late] follows)
Many birthers, such as Pennsylvania attorney Phil Berg, allege that Obama was born in Kenya and that his Kenyan grandmother is on tape saying that she was present at his birth there. Yet the tape circulated on the Internet doesn’t actually say that — and the full tape actually contradicts it. On the tape, the woman thought to be Sarah Obama is prodded by a Berg ally who’s a self-described bishop from the U.S. to affirm that Obama was born in Kenya. “Was she present when he was born in Kenya?” Bishop Ron McRae asks in the taped phone call. “She says yes she was. She was present when Obama was born,” says the voice of translator. The tape ends abruptly. Despite Berg’s assertions, the response didn’t actually confirm a birth in Kenya. Moreover, a longer version of the tape shows the elder Obama decidedly denying a Kenyan birth immediately after the first tape was cut off. “I would like to go by the place, the hospital where he was born. Can you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?” McRae is heard asking. “Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America,” the translator says after talking to the woman. “I thought he was born in Kenya,” McRae asks again. “He was born in America, not in Mombasa,” says the response. Another response later says, “Obama in Hawaii. Hawaii. She says he was born in Hawaii.” (Source)
I realize I am quoting a source not always enjoyed by us conservatives, but truth is not a monopoly of one side.
It is this same sort of shoddy thinking that once kept me involved in the conspiratorial view of history. I use to visit Ezola Fosters book shop/office here in southern California, and voted for her and Buchanan when they ran as Indi’s. I know the current very personally of the major sources of support for such persons (yes, Ron Paul as well) as I was intimately involved in the John Birch society for many years (which I explain partially in the beginning of the longest chapter from my book, beginning of page 4 under “Pros and Cons”).
This same thinking — e.g., “before officials shut her up from talking to the media” — use to permeate my worldview. Thousands of people must have been in on this conspiracy. Hospitals, nurses, doctors, flight attendants, family members, airlines, newspapers where birth announcements were printed, etc., etc. Now government officials are keeping all the above silent.
Eric, here is a question. Considering the translation error, and the fact that this grandmother was one of the polygamous wives of Obama’s father, and this is pushed by Democrat and 9/11 truther Berg the most forcefully, does this weigh on you using this “grandmother card” as forcefully as you just did? In other words, considering this new information (her saying something completely different), would you consider revising your position.
Take note as well that there is no real source for the polygamous brother (from one of Obama’s polygamous father’s wives) and his sister said he was born in Kenya come only from “affidavits” from Berg (remember, he is a 9/11 truther), no other source can be found for their beliefs (source). Are you willing to look into this claim and back it up with evidential arguments that would support you claim in a forceful manner like you would in quoting stats and figures to convince someone that Obama-Care is set to bankrupt our nation?
Here is some more critiquing of bad stats from MSNBC’s “smartest” host via NewsBusters:
….It appears Maddow must have been out of the country during Desert Storm when Patriot missiles were used to take out Iraqi Scud missiles aimed at Israel and Saudi Arabia. Although their success rate was a great source of debate at the time (see the July 1996 Center for Defense Information study), no one disputes that some Scuds were indeed shot out of the air.
More importantly, at least twelve countries are currently using Patriot technology as part of their missile defense programs.
Maddow was either oblivious to these facts or was being disingenuous with her argument.
But that wasn’t the MSNBCer’s only miscue in this brief discussion, for she clearly didn’t understand why the Reykjavik Summit fell apart. Even the liberal website Wikipedia agrees with Moore’s view:
In 1986 Reagan had proposed banning all ballistic missiles, but wanted to continue research on the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that could potentially be shared with the Soviets. Yet Soviet suspicion of SDI continued, and U.S.-Soviet relations — already strained by the failure of the Geneva Summit the previous year[citation needed] — were further strained by the Daniloff-Zakharov espionage affair.
At Reykjavík, Reagan sought to include discussion of human rights, emigration of Soviet Jews and dissidents, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. However, Gorbachev sought to limit the talks solely to arms control. […]
Gorbachev, however, citing a desire to strengthen the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty(ABM Treaty), added the condition that any SDI research be confined to laboratories for the ten year period in question. Reagan argued that his proposed SDI research was allowed by any reasonable interpretation of the ABM treaty, and that he could not forget the pledge he made to Americans to investigate whether SDI was viable. He also promised to share SDI technology, a promise which Gorbachev said he doubted would be fulfilled, as the Americans would not even share oil-drilling technology. […]
The talks finally stalled, Reagan asking if Gorbachev would “turn down a historic opportunity because of a single word,” referring to his insistence on laboratory testing. Gorbachev asserted that it was a matter of a principle, and the summit concluded.
As such, Moore was quite correct that the failure of this Summit was over SDI, and Maddow was once again wrong.
And this is supposedly MSNBC’s most intelligent prime time commentator.
Okay, she got some stuff wrong, typical and expected. However, she is correct in part — even though she wasn’t referencing this aspect of modern missile defense. Two things, first the bad news: the newest missile our Pentagon boys are worried about is the “Carrier Killer,” or the the Dong Feng 21D. One commentator mentions this in regards to this new threat:
….This new ballistic missile (flies up, falls down from close to orbital height with limited or no guidance on the way down) goes hundreds of miles and can carry a tactical nuclear warhead, and is not really defensible (moves too fast, detonates too high, etc.) beyond taking it out before it’s launched with pre-planned Tamahawk strike, tactical nuke strike, etc….
So this is the type of missile that Patriot missiles are useless against. So even though Maddow wasn’t even talking about this (or knows about it), she is technically right. Which is why missiles on missiles may not be an only option for future defense, although a part of it. The Dong Feng can be fired from 900 miles away, which is why this (the second point — which is good news) is one of our up and coming defenses, the first successful test was in February 11th, 2010 (see video).
This is the type of stuff that will defeat “Carrier Killers” and ICBMs. All traced back to Reagan’s insights, and not Maddow’s, or, Madcows!
Comedienne Joan Rivers revealed she once ditched a joke about First Lady Michelle Obama from her stand-up routine – because she feared she’d be accused of racism.
Recalling the wisecrack to shock Jock Howard Stern, the comedy legend said: “We used to have Jackie O now we have Blackie O!”
Following the link to THE DAILY CALLER, Chomsky is referring to the scare tactics of the left while using scare tactics to describe the right:
The problem? The new members of Congress aren’t on board with the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
“One of the reasons is because they’re global warming deniers,” he said. “Almost all – that means the powerful House committees, like science and technology and so on, are in hands of people who think there’s nothing to it – or at least claim that they think that, but what they actually think is another story.”
He pointed toward the United States’ stature in the world as to why it means the entire downfall of humanity.
“If this was happening in some small country, in you know maybe Monaco or something, it wouldn’t matter much, but when it’s happening in the richest, most powerful country in the world – it’s a danger to the survival of the species,” Chomsky said. “Nobody else is going to do much if the United States doesn’t do a lot, not just some but take the lead. So we’re essentially saying let’s kiss each other goodbye.”
Rachel Maddow gets it wrong again. No wonder progressives hate the right! They build false or misleading story lines (straw-men), and then attack this lie as if it were a truth:
According to the Census Bureau, the median income for men in 1980 was $12,530 per year. This grew to $20,293 in 1990 – a 62 percent increase. For women, this figure went from $4,920 in 1980 to $10,070 in 1990 – a 105 percent jump.
This means that the median income for the entire population in that decade rose at roughly the same rate as Maddow claimed the income for the top one percent did.
Makes you wonder just how often this MSNBC commentator so badly misrepresents economic data on her show.
