Archive for May, 2008 Page 2 of 9



The Conservative Pulse: Hillary marches on, and more

I went on a field trip today with my daughters class. We had great weather and the kids had a blast. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to post anything today. Here is a late Conservative Pulse. To me, the good news is that Senator Clinton may push the Democratic nomination to the convention. Run Hillary, Run. ;-)

Keith Olbermann spins his deplorable comments

I imagine that Keith Olbermann believes that he’s a pretty smart fellow and a rather clever linguist at that. It’s with apparent glee that he delivers his commentaries high on vocabulary and his personal leftist opinion but rather weak on any semblance of substance. And a deep hatred of our president does not equate substance. Sorry Keith.

In fact it seems that he believes that he is so clever, that he can attempt to twist the deplorable, careless, and broad comments that he made during his excruciatingly long 12 minute “Special Comment” diatribe to attack his critics saying that it is conservative talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin who actually hate our troops to even criticize Olbermann’s lazy and sloppy language. I’ll have to give him credit, that’s pretty audacious even by his own standards.

During his “Special Comment” he played lose with language like “cold blooded killers” in a way that most sensible viewers would regard them directed at the young men and women in our military. The entire transcript of his “Special Comment” is available online. Here is a central passage that I found personally offensive:

Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes “cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?” They are those in — or formerly in — your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.

Through your haze of self-congratulation and self-pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve your political objectives? “This ideological struggle,” Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country.

It is a struggle between Americans who cherish freedom, ours and everybody else’s, and Americans like you, sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like “Patriot Act” is a brand name or “Protect America” is a brand name.

Undoubtedly, the network that he works for MSNBC and it’s sister/parent network NBC received a fair amount of criticism. And I would venture a guess that most of it took offense to the comments that Olbermann threw around carelessly in a caviler manner like “cold-blooded killers.” So last night, likely under pressure, Olbermann issued an on-air clarification. Here is his “clarification” or blame shifting reply to his long winded diatribe, I mean special comment, against the Bush administration and the troops:

Let’s de-construct his clarification a little bit. In Olbermann’s words, the explanation is rather simple: it was likely that “reasonable viewers” were simply “confused” and that maybe a script would have helped us clarify his broad sweeping and lazy comments. Does anyone else find this to be rather insulting? He blames the viewers and not the speaker.

I would offer the following suggestion to Mr. Olbermann: if you can’t figure out how to clearly state your position in 12 minutes of air time, you should look for a ghost writer or better yet consider a new career. Maybe you can have your old job back at ESPN. Then again ESPN has constantly shown a higher level journalistic integrity than MSNBC and you may now be under qualified to even read the scores.

Wouldn’t you have thought that Olbermann would have apologized about his inability to clearly articulate his position? Would that have been too much to expect from the former sports reporter? Of course it was — this is Olbermann that we are talking about here and apparently he is above integrity and restraint.

How stupid does MSNBC and Olbermann think that Americans are to pull this kind of stunt? Olbermann, for once exhibit some journalistic integrity and be honest by admitting that you are truly full of hot air.

Additional Coverage:

The Olbermann Watch - Was Olbermann Lying Then, Or Is He Lying Now?
Hot Air - Olby: Why do Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin hate the troops?

Michael Yon calls Michael Moore on his illegal propaganda use of Yon’s photos

As mentioned earlier in The Conservative Post, Michelle Malkin has linked to Michael Yon’s article where he calls left wing zealot Michael Moore out on the illegal and “war porn” use of one of his famous photos of an American soldier holding a dying girl in Iraq. In Yon’s article he states the following:

A photograph can be a signal event in a war. Think of the flag raising at Iwo Jima, the naked Vietnamese girl fleeing her napalmed village, prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. These photos were not just important journalistically, but also strategically – each one literally shifted the course of a war. Photographs can be immensely powerful because they are single images, deep with meaning, able to resonate with disparate audiences, straight through language barriers, at an emotional, even visceral, level. A picture can tell a thousand words in a thousand languages, but placed in the wrong context, a photograph can be turned into propaganda, and the truth becomes a lie.

We need to know the truth about the wars we are currently fighting. That’s why I went to Iraq in the first place. Sometimes the difference between War Porn and the truth can be subtle, ambiguous, even subjective. But I know it when I see it. And if Michael Moore learned to respect not just my work, but other aspects of the truth, not to mention respecting his audience’s intelligence, he would better serve his own cause.

Somehow I imagine that Yon’s excellent points are lost on Michael Moore and his sledge hammer approach to driving home his political agenda. I applaud Michael Yon for standing up for his work and preventing it to be used in a manipulative way by Moore.

The Conservative Pulse: “Get Back” GOP to where you belong, the hackery of Michael Moore, and more

NY City’s Anti-Gun Rights Lawsuit Dismissed

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the case of City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. The case before the court was a ridiculous attempt by the City of New York to hold a gun manufacturer liable for the illegal use of guns. The city attempted to bypass the legislative process and the will of the people with an appeal to what would have amounted to the worst type of judicial activism an attack against the Bill of Rights.

Given its absurdity, this case should have never been heard. If the court would have found in favor of the city, the real losers would have been the responsible owners of hand guns that have every right to secure and defend their property and loved ones with lethal force when under attack. How would such a win actually curtail crime? The attempt to transfer the responsibility for a criminal act from the criminal to the manufacturer dodges the real societal problems and instead looked for a convenient target — the gun manufacturer. Who would ever protect the gun manufacturer? Thankfully, this court did, and resisted the city’s urging for judicial activism.

Phyllis Schlafly covers the decision over at Townhall. She writes the following:

The lawsuit cited the harm from gun sales while ignoring evidence that the benefits far outweigh the harm. The trial court sided with Bloomberg, but the appellate court said “no” and put an end to the nonsense.

Congress had legislated the basis for this decision by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005. The PLCAA protects against a “qualified civil liability action,” defined broadly to include almost any lawsuit brought against a gun manufacturer or seller based on “the criminal or unlawful misuse” of a firearm distributed in interstate commerce. On the day it was signed into law by President George W. Bush, gun manufacturers moved to dismiss this case, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has now enforced the law.

The appellate court rejected an argument that this law denied access to the courts. New York City can and does sue all the time, but Congress properly rejected the ridiculous notion that the city could sue businesses over a typically beneficial product that was later used illegally.

Should General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. be held liable for crimes committed by drunk drivers, or baseball bat suppliers be sued for criminal beatings inflicted with their products? Of course not. It was an outrage that courts even entertained such actions against gun manufacturers and suppliers.

If Congress had not effectively withdrawn jurisdiction, gun manufacturers would be reluctant to produce guns and many might go out of business. This intimidation would deter the lawful sale of guns.

That’s exactly what gun-control advocates have long wanted: legislation from the bench that they could not persuade real legislatures to pass. A majority of legislators, who are elected, see the absurdity of gun control and recognize the valuable self-defense function of guns.

Obama would not meet with terrorist groups but would meet with the states that sponsor terrorism WITHOUT preconditions?

Barack Obama once again is showing his lack of substantive experience, especially in regards to foreign policy and national security. Just recently Obama tried to clarify his position by stating that he would not meet with terrorist organizations. To me that seems rather hypocritical and relies heavily on semantics because he has stated that he would meet with Iran and Syria without preconditions. The Wall Street Journal has the following written in the op-ed article titled “How to Enrage a Democrat”:

But Barack Obama is the party’s presumptive standard-bearer for 2008. Thus, let’s try to bring this dispute into sharper focus.

Mr. Obama asserted again yesterday that he will not meet with terrorists. He is, however, willing to meet with Iran or Syria. Virtually no serious person disputes that Iran has shipped weaponry to terrorists in Iraq and that Syria has provided safe haven to these terrorists and let them cross from Syria into Iraq. In turn, these jihadists have killed U.S. soldiers. At a minimum, one might expect that ceasing this lethal activity would be a “precondition” before committing the office of the presidency to meet with either.

If in the unfortunate event that Barack Obama, the rookie senator from Illinois, actually wins in the fall, I hope he would soon realize that appeasing Iran and Syria without preconditions is actually providing validation to states that provide safe haven and weapons to Islamic terrorist groups. The stakes are incredibly high and the senator’s sensitivity to this issue makes me wonder if he realizes that he’s advocating a indefensible and naive position to appease to the left-winger nuts like MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.

McCain on SNL

Senator McCain was great on Saturday Live this weekend.

He recorded an “advertisement” where he has fun regarding his age declaring that he has the “oldness” to be president. Watch it for yourself below:

Senator McCain also showed up on Weekend Update urging Democrats not to make a hasty decision. He suggested that perhaps they still should consider Edwards. Some funny stuff. Watch it below:

McCain has a great sense of humor which should help him on the campaign trail in the fall — Now if we can just get him straightened out on the whole illegal immigration issue.