Rush Goes Birther!

Well, Rush Limbaugh’s guest host, Mark Steyn goes birther in a perfectly sensible way which will no doubt make Obots’ collective heads… REJOICE!  And – it kills me to say this – I happened to agree:  Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President.  He was born in Canada of a British subject (his father, who emigrated there from Cuba).  Now, his mother is American, but “natural-born citizen,” as opposed to merely “citizen,” is the higher standard required for the presidency.

The Founders intended it very purposefully.  Why? Loyalty.  They did not want a whisper of divided loyalties.  They were a little sensitive about that, quite understandably.  You know, the whole Revolution thing.  Long train of abuses.  Usurpations.  Those things.  They were a little fussy about protecting that which they staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

So as much as I love Ted Cruz, and can brag that he follows me on Twitter (I know. I have no life.) the guy just isn’t eligible.  Ted Cruz Follow Me TwitterHe’s a citizen, yes. But he’s not a natural-born citizen.  So he can’t be President.  I know this is extremely controversial, and quite apart from Minor v Happersett, not yet addressed by SCOTUS, but gang, Cruz can’t be POTUS.


Here’s the 4+ minutes of audio.


"Well, Now We're Just Negotiating the Price"

UPDATE: Hah!  I just clicked over to NewsBusters and see they’ve done a piece on the same subject as this one!

Remember that old joke when you ask a woman how much it would take to sleep with her, and she starts out offended then by the time she’s told she’d be paid something over a million dollars (or some high price) she’s interested? She’s then reminded that a minute ago she was offended because she didn’t want to be thought of as a slut, so she remembers herself and shifts back to protest. Undeterred, the man keeps throwing out dollar amounts higher & higher while her protests grow louder & louder, then, finally, exasperated with her reconstituted righteousness, the man silences her by saying “Well, now that we know what kind of woman you are, we’re just negotiating the price.”  That’s the gist of it, though I relayed it rather ham-handedly.

Well, the left – like a memo went out – is UP IN ARMS about Rush Limbaugh building on that joke about Sandra Fluke.  I heard him do it live, then just heard both Chris Matthews and Alan Colmes devoting entire segments of their show to eviscerating him for saying that there’s a name for “wanting to be paid for having sex” i.e. having someone else pay for her contraception.

I thought it was rather clever.  There was no malice in his rant.  He did answer his own question by saying “she” would be called a “slut.”  I cringed a bit when he said that, but he was building on a theme.  Now, if I were his wife, I would have said “Honey – don’t go there.”  I would have said to leave the thing unsaid.  He chose to cross a line from clever to crude, and for that he should get a slap on the back of the hand, but not be fired which is what the lefties are calling for.

This is particularly ironic since Matthews shares a network with Ed Shultz who just last year called Laura Ingraham – directly – and just for having an opinion – a “conservative slut.”  And Colmes was just forced to apologize for making Mrs. Santorum cry – literally – because he didn’t like the way she mourned her dead son.

I’m perfectly willing to call out my own when they screw up.  And I can absolutely make an argument that Rush went too far and might want to just send Ms. Fluke a note telling her that if his riff hurt her feelings he certainly meant no harm, but his inference was once removed and indirect, and not meant to describe her, as a person, but rather her assertion that it was someone else’s responsibility – financial responsibility – to pay the freight for her sexual activity.  But this level of outrage?  From these people?  And fired?


Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck & SNARK

Before we deal with the headline, let’s deal with the matter that prompted it:

I am not normally a cheerleader for Sean Hannity (he annoys me*) but he’s on FIRE today.

He’s got this mash-up of absolutely sickening, over-the-top, just naked racism from talking-heads on NBC while discussing Herman Cain.

It’s so awful… I’m speechless. Truly. If I get a link (and remember to!) I’ll post it.

It’s breathtaking, truly.


Evidently he hates Glenn Beck.  Evidently he & his BFF Mark Levin (whose book Liberty & Tyranny is a treasure), both, in their BFF way, together, hate Glenn Beck.

Now, understand, I don’t care who likes Glenn Beck or doesn’t like Glenn Beck – Glenn Beck can take care of himself and doesn’t need me!  It’s just so obvious that he’s led the way these last 3 years on 90% of what we know about the ugly under-belly of this Administration that it’s really disingenuous to not give a nod when you use his research!

I’ve heard Hannity go on air with stuff I know he got from Beck.  There’s zero way he got it from anyone else – and 99.99% of the time, he has turned himself into a pretzel, to the point of even editing out Beck’s voice in a two-way interview, to avoid giving him credit!  It’s really unbecoming and childish!  And I can’t believe I’m the only person who has noticed.

When he really lost me was after 8.28.  I made a point to listen to him the Monday after 8.28 to see if he would congratulate his colleague on an astonishingly successful event.  Rush did.  Hannity did not, and I lost a ton of respect for him because of that one omission.  It was a big one. 

You know, I don’t have to personally like the people with whom I agree politically. But I would like to be able to regard them with some measure of respect beyond their political principles.  The snarky nature of the way Hannity & Levin deal with Beck just bugs me.  We need to be able to give ‘atta-boys’ to like-minded countrymen when they do good right now.  It’s critically important. There’s too much at stake.

I hope someone, maybe his wife, can broach this subject with him.  Like I said, I can’t be the only one who has noticed it.

PLEASE click the ‘Like’ or ‘Tweet’ buttons below if you agree, and maybe this post will find it’s way to Hannity or Levin!

Sanctimony on OVERDRIVE… and WRONG

I try to do my due diligence and watch “the other side” to see what they are saying in the hope that I might actually learn something or at least be better able to focus my side of the debate, but I never learn anything, and usually end up drowning in the sewage of emotion they think is reason. I literally had to change the channel last night when Crazy Larry was doing this piece it was so over the top wrong. The sanctimony needle was pinning way to the right and damn near burst the glass… Thank GOD Michelle Malkin was able to stomach it to write what needed writing here…

Doing the health care anecdote-vetting the Left won’t do

By Michelle Malkin  •  March 16, 2010 11:27 PM
Here is Larry Scary O’Donnell — who can usually be seen frothing at the mouth with bulging neck veins as he melts down on MSNBC — sloooowly reading a teleprompter as he chastises me, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck for “attacking” 11-year-old Marcelas Owens. Nice to see your Valium is working Larry:

As usual, he gets basic facts wrong — like accusing Rush and me of being “desperate to catch up” with Beck. Actually, he’s got the timeline upside-down, as the enraged Media Matters chronology correctly lays out here.
My syndicated column raising inconvenient questions about Owens’ case appeared was published on March 10 and my follow-up post on Harry Reid hiding behind Owens was published on March 12.
Rush addressed the Democrat exploitation of Owens on March 12.
Beck then discussed the case on March 15.
Also wrong: At 3:28, O’Donnell falsely claims I called the parents of S-CHIP poster child Graeme Frost “spoiled brats” — a misattribution which he alsoregurgitated from Media Matters.
Also moronic: At 6:45 in the video, O’Donnell says conservatives can’t find a single person on Medicaid or Medicare who is unhappy with his/her coverage. Ahem, meet NYTimes columnist Nick Kristof’s favorite health care poster boy, John Brodniak.
Facts, schmacts.
At 7:25 in the video, liberal columnist Chris Hayes of the Nation decries the tendency of conservative pundits to “raise questions and point out errors.” God forbid we do that. Doing the health care anecdote-vetting the Left won’t do? FASCISTS!!!
O’Donnell dubs our analyses of Owens and his left-wing activist grandmother’s claims “childish attacks.” But it’s immature demagogues like O’Donnell who refuse to grow up. I repeat what I said about the NYTimes’ shoddy, gullible, unquestioning coverage of the story four days ago:
The Times fails to mention that Owens’ grandmother and family have been longtime activists for the left-wing, single-payer advocates of the Washington Community Action Network or that the boy and his grandmother traveled to Washington with sponsorship from the Astroturf lobbyists of the Health Care for America Now outfit, which characterized Marcelas as an “insurance abuse survivor.”
Never mind that there is not a shred of evidence that any health insurer ever “abused” Marcelas. Never mind that the family has made no claim that Marcelas himself has survived without insurance (in Washington state, low-income children have been covered either through Medicaid, SCHIP, or the SCHIP expansion program Apple Health for Kids). Newsbusters is also covering the MSM’s soft-shoe coverage of the Democrats’ use of the Owens’ kiddie shield herehere, and here.
The usual hyperventilating from the Left — horrible conservatives “targeting” poor, innocent kid! conservatives “assault” poor, innocent kid! — just proves my point. Despite President Obama’s repeated admonition that health care reform is a “complex issue that can’t be reduced to snippets,” it’s exactly what Reid, Murray, Schumer, and his Owens’ grandmother propped up young Marcelas to do. Anyone who questions the narrative and absolute moral authority of the kiddie human shield is a heartless, right-wing stalker who should be vilified, if not arrested.
As always, the current ruling majority is incapable of holding an adult discussion on the costs and consequences of its plans.
Attacks on Fox News for vetting President Obama’s Ohio poster patient, Natoma Canfield, in 3, 2, 1…
Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama’s push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told
Natoma Canfield’s battles with cancer and with insurance companies have become a centerpiece of President Obama’s campaign to pass a health care system overhaul.
Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama’s push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told
Though Canfield’s sister Connie Anderson said her sibling is afraid she’ll lose her house and Obama warned at an Ohio rally Monday that the patient is “racked with worry” about the cost of tests and treatment, she is already being screened for financial help.
Lyman Sornberger, executive director of patient financial services at the Cleveland Clinic, said “all indications” at the outset are that she will be considered for assistance.
“She may be eligible for state Medicaid … and/or she will be eligible for charity (care) of some form or type. … In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something,” he said, adding that Canfield should not be worried about losing her home.
“Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home,” he said.