The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has
Read that again.
NOT the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), but the campaign committee for the House of Representatives.
Why would House Democrats be spending their precious resources on someone running for the United States Senate? Because they know it would destroy Nancy Pelosi’s agenda to have Scott Brown in the Senate.
It also has federal campaign finance implications. It’s going to be interesting to see how the expenditure is disclosed.
This is rather unheard of. Couple it with the news that the DNC and DSCC are sending senior staff to Massachusetts to salvage the Coakley campaign and you can imagine just how worried Barack Obama is. He remembers what happened in 1993 and 1994 to Bill Clinton and he doesn’t want to have that happen to him.
If Scott Brown keeps Coakley down to a narrow victory — never mind Brown winning in a state that really does not like Republicans — it will send shockwaves throughout Washington, DC and probably expedite a wave of retirements and party flipping. Should Brown happen to win? To quote Moe, “DOOM.”
I’ve been fighting the urge: it’s Massachusetts. But let’s review the evidence.
- The latest Rasmussen poll: 49/47 Coakley/Brown. That’s +2 Coakley for likely voters. Definite ones? +1 Brown. The total shift is +7 Brown in a week.
- Internal Democratic polling (via AoSHQ) is saying Coakley +5. Last week? Coakley +14. +9 shift to Brown, in other words.
- They’re not just paying union members to hold signs for Coakley: they’re paying Brown-voting union members to hold signs for Coakley.
- And lastly: Coakley is scared. She admitted to being frightened in a conference call today at the way that Scott Brown has come out of nowhere to disrupt her coronation. She needs money. The campaign that bragged about the 5.2 million dollars that they raised last year needs money. That’s why the DSCC is throwing almost 600K into the race. So that Martha Coakley can maintain parity against the interloper.
It is observed that the liberal is dissatisfied with the condition of his own existence. He condemns his fellow man, surroundings, and society itself for denying him the fulfillment, success, and adulation he believes he deserves. He is angry, resentful, petulant, and jealous. He is incapable of honest self-assessment and rejects the honest assessment by others of himself, thereby evading responsibility for his own miserable condition. The liberal searches for significance and even glory in a utopian fiction of his mind's making, the earthly attainment of which, he believes, is frustrated by those who do not share it. Therefore, he must destroy the civil society, piece by piece.ReplyDelete
For the liberal, liberty is not a blessing but the enemy. It is not possible to achieve Utopia if individuals are free to go their own way. The individual must be dehumanized and his nature delegitimized. Through persuasion, deception, and coercion, the individual must be subordinated to the state. He must abandon his own ambitions for the ambitions of the state. His first duty must be to the state - not family, community, and faith, all of which have the potential of threatening the state. Once dispirited, the individual can be molded by the state.
The liberal's Utopia can take many forms, and has throughout human history, including monarchism, feudalism, militarism, fascism, communism, national socialism, and economic socialism. They are all of the same species - tyranny.
Every once in a while a combination of stories comes along in politics that is so bizarre you can’t believe you’re actually writing about it. This is one of those times. Fresh after taking a run at Fenway Park fans in a public interview yesterday, Martha Coakley decided today that she’d insult another institution nobody in Massachusetts gives a crap about: Nuns. Here she is discussing why Nuns shouldn’t be allowed to work in Catholic Hospitals - private institutions that have zero problem with accomodating the consciences of the nuns:ReplyDelete
Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.
Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.
Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
Martha Coakley: (…stammering) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.
Okay. So a private employee of a private company doesn’t want to perform a particular duty because of her religious beliefs, and her private employer has no problem accomodating that… and this somehow constitutes a violation of the First Amendment? I suppose it’s hypothetically possible that Martha Coakley is stupid enough to actually believe this manifest crap (and as this campaign goes on, it becomes more believable!), but the more likely explanation of course is that she finds the nuns icky and just wants them out of sight where she doesn’t have to look at them when she goes out in public. And believe me? Plenty of Massachusetts Catholics are gonna take that last sentence exactly that way. So, to review, in the last two days, Martha Coakley has, in public interviews, dissed A) Fenway Park and B) Nuns. Like my inestimable colleague Moe Lane, I am forced to wonder whether she has any public comments she’d like to share about clam chowder?
WAIT. THIS STORY GETS WORSE.
While Nuns and Fenway Park are on Martha Coakley’s bad list, it turns out she has a good list. Know who’s on it? Pedophiles.
Read on below the fold…
When Martha Coakley was the Middlesex district attorney, her office prosecuted the Rev. John J. Geoghan based on an allegation that he squeezed the buttocks of a 10-year-old boy a single time at a public swimming pool. The highly publicized 2002 conviction won Coakley widespread praise for bringing the first successful criminal case against the widely accused pedophile, a priest many had called “Father Jack.’’
But seven years earlier, Coakley, then the head of the Middlesex child abuse unit, had Geoghan in her sights and took a dramatically different approach. Back then, three grade-school brothers told investigators that Geoghan had inappropriately touched them during numerous visits to their Waltham home, and had made lewd telephone calls to them. Rather than prosecute, Coakley agreed to grant Geoghan a year of probation in a closed-door proceeding that received no media attention at all.
Because of the deal, Geoghan faced no formal charges and no criminal record.
In sanctioning the 1995 probation agreement, Coakley, now the front-runner in a special election for the United States Senate, never pressed the Boston Archdiocese for any prior complaints against Geoghan.
Now, granted, I am not licensed to practice law in the State of Massachusetts, but down here prosecutors are not wont to grant such generous diversion for DUI tickets. Heck, I dunno, maybe up there in Massachusetts, the people don’t really care about folks getting off scot free when there are three eyewitnesses to child molestation. At the very least it suggests that a large part of Coakley’s entire narrative of a candidate - to wit, that she is “tough on crime” (and sex offenders in particular), is more or less crap. Well, at least when it comes to pedophiles. One wonders when she developed a soft spot for pedophiles, and how it can be that she harbors, at the same time, such disdain for faithful Nuns.
Levin very well said. Your words will hit the liberals deep in their souls.ReplyDelete
It’s worth recalling, as the Massachusetts Senate election approaches, that Martha Coakley is not just some bland Democratic machine apparatchik. She’s a bland Democratic machine apparatchik with a long record as a prosecutor that includes some very ugly things.ReplyDelete
Exhibit A is the notorious case, familiar to readers of the Wall Street Journal over the past three decades, of Gerald Amirault. The case, discussed in summary here, was a terrible miscarriage of justice involving fantastical accounts of sex abuse of children, exposed by Journal reporter Dorothy Rabinowitz; it was originally prosecuted by another politically ambitious Democrat, Scott Harshbarger. And then:
When Martha Coakley became district attorney of Middlesex County in 1999, the Amiraults were still in the news. But by this time hardly anyone believed they were guilty of the horrendous crimes they were alleged to have committed. In fact there was no evidence that anyone had abused any children in the Fells Acres Day Care.
But what did Martha Coakley do when the Parole Board voted unanimously (5-0) to pardon Gerald Amirault? She did everything in her power to see that he stayed in prison, including sending an assistant DA to oppose his release at the hearing. Coakley also went on talk shows to spout her views about his guilt. (Read about Martha Coakley’s involvement in Cheryl Amirault’s Plea Bargain also).
That alone should disqualify Coakley as a candidate for higher office. But there’s more.
Such overzealousness is why criminal-defense-minded writers like Radley Balko and Jeralyn Merritt - neither of them exactly a right-wing Republican - are opposed to Coakley. Both cite other examples as well (Balko notes that Coakley first came to prominence in the notorious “shaken-baby” case against British nanny Louise Woodward, in which Woodward’s murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter by the judge).
But overzealousness in questionable (or worse) cases isn’t Coakley’s problem. There’s also the opposite, her lenient treatment of a Somerville cop who raped his 23-month-old niece - yes, a toddler - with a hot curling iron. Coakley’s office let him out without bail pending trial; only under her successor was he convicted and sentenced to two life terms in jail.
It starts to be apparent that the persistent incompetence and tone-deafness of Coakley’s campaign may not be a new thing for her.
Wow, Mark Levin posts to your blog....lmao...ReplyDelete
its all a bunch of crap anyways. It doesn't hit in my soul, it makes me laugh my balls off. What a large piece of utter trash.
Hey Joe Why Your Picking UP Your Balls,OUCH,YOU Attacked the Messenger AGAIN,BUT once Again WHAT are the UBTRUTHS or as a LIB Would SAY CRAP!ReplyDelete
Gota admit JOE that Massecuettes WILL be Interesting. Even if she Wins it WONT be by MUCH and there LIES the LIB Problem. If Libs CANT Win Big in Kennedy Terratory PROBLEMS they BE Acoming!
I had no idea it was a fake name. It still is great writing. I know very little of Mark Levin but I know a lot about Sandy Levin as he is my rep. and I have spoken with him about health care. Joe do you think the Democrats will push the illegal unconstitutional health care bill if Brown wins? And what do you think will happen the the Democrats if Brown somehow wins? You have to admite that the Republican party is leaning back to the right where they belong. And they are making a comeback like never seen before in my lifetime. Most on the left gave up on the Republicans just like they gave up on the war in Iraq long before it was over. Not only did the surge work in Iraq but it is working for the conservative Republicans as well. Do you all remember when Harry Reid told the world that "we have lost the war in Iraq"? And even with that anti American sentament ringing from the Democrats our soldiers fought back and beat the terrorist and brought us to were we are now. But that is what the Democratic Party has become.FilthyReplyDelete
"He is angry, resentful, petulant, and jealous."ReplyDelete
Wow, if that doesn't just fit those LIEberal Hypocrats to a "T"!
Why is this a bunch of crap Joey? I truly am interested. You know that Chris allows you to post whatever you like. Here you have a forum for explaining to us why what that guy said is crap, so please don't let us keep you from educating us.
Chris, a new poll from the Boston Herald shows Brown in the lead. I would not have believed it was possible a couple of weeks ago. The Hypocrats are in even worse shape than anyone could have imagined. Has anyone ever witnessed a political party self-destruct so quickly and so completely?ReplyDelete
How in the hell did we fall so fast? That poll must be wrong John. I am a Democrat,I mean independent now, and I took a good look at the healthcare bill. I would vote for Brown if it would save us from that bill. If they try to push this healthcare bill against our wishes, there will be a revolution within the Democrat Party that might destroy it. But this isn't the Democrat party I used to vote for. They are anarchist just like the Democrats that blog on here.ReplyDelete
Given the serial fiascoes of the Martha Coakley for Senate campaign - veering from gaffe (her claim that there are no terrorists in Afghanistan) to comedy (misspelling her own state’s name in an attack ad) to ham-handedness (a staffer barrelling over a Weekly Standard reporter trying to ask about the Afghanistan gaffe) to outright panic in her communications with national Democrats, who are now tapping into their House campaign fund to prop her up - you would think, five days before Election Day, that the second coming of Shannon O’Brien has run out of ways to hand Scott Brown an upset victory in the race for what was for decades Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat (but, as Brown has reminded us, remains the people’s seat to do with as they wish).ReplyDelete
But no! Coakley has managed, at this late hour, to diss New England’s most hallowed site - Fenway Park itself. And, for bonus points, to do so in the course of explaining why she’s above standing outside in cold weather (as if this is an unusual hardship for New Englanders) to ask for votes, when she could be getting to know connected people who know other connected people. As the Boston Globe reports:
There is a subdued, almost dispassionate quality to her public appearances, which are surprisingly few. Her voice is not hoarse from late-night rallies. Even yesterday, the day after a hard-hitting debate, she had no public campaign appearances in the state.
Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.
“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?” she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that. “This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [Salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.”
Brown supporter and Red Sox icon Curt Schilling is apoplectic, and I’ll let him do the honors:
[This statement] shows her elitism and arrogance unbelievably. Aside from the apparent feeling that the seat belongs to her just by virtue of her party, she just admitted that she doesn’t need to bother meeting with constituents because she’s meeting people like Kim Driscoll, and political leaders, and Democrat activists. I guess they’re the ones that matter, huh? I know it’s a “special election” and all, but that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t need to fight for this seat. Prancing around with this mindset of “Oh, I’m a Democrat, therefore Ted Kennedy’s seat just automatically belongs to me regardless of what the people think,” is idiotic. Acting as if she doesn’t need to give her constituents the time of day is ludicrous. She can make all the snide remarks about Scott Brown shaking hands with people in the cold that she wants, but that’s what you’re supposed to do when you’re trying to get elected. She seems to have forgotten that she’s trying to get elected in Massachusetts, and not in Washington D.C. - if she remembered that, maybe she’d spend more time trying to impress Massachusetts voters and less time rubbing elbows with the Democrat establishment, Big Pharmacy lobbyists, and union leaders. Most normal politicians, Republican or Democrat, do go shake hands with voters. Even if it means standing in the cold outside of Fenway Park.
Maybe Coakley should come back when she has a little blood on her sock.
Very interesting post and comments too. Martha Coakley sounds like trouble and I'm glad the MA voters are catching on. I'm thinking that a lot of people all over the country are starting to think they may have goofed up in the last election!ReplyDelete
John, Al, how levins work is crap. Let me count the ways.ReplyDelete
First, it was written as "Statist" which some liberals are and some are not. The poster changed the words.
Second, its a bad sterotype based solely on the authors extremely biased opinion. He once again lumps all statist into a catagory they don't belong.
Thirdly, he incorrectly attaches liberalism to things that are not typically liberal policies, such as Facism, Monarchism, etc. He then misunderstand the and present a gross mischaracterization of some of the others such as socialism, communism.
and finally he takes the conditions of dehumanization and places it incorrectly on the shoulders of liberalism, which it doesn't deserve to be. There are policies and beliefs in both statism and anti-statism that can be construed as dehumanizing, but niether side owns a monopoly.
This could be the beginning of the end for the Democrats "DOOM".And the Democrats are running scared saying it doesn't matter.This is unbelievable and we are here to watch it all happen.I'm praying Brown wins.ReplyDelete
Joey, nobody is more fascist than lieberals. In my opinion. And really, liberal policies are socialist and communist. FAILk can't even say one thing that is wrong with Cuba or Venezuela. Now, that is not to lump you in with FAILk because I never asked you to name one thing wrong with those socialist/communist systems. But CAN you?ReplyDelete
No policies have led to more de-humanizing conditions than lieberal policies. What is dehumanizing about free-will, capitalism, and liberty? I can't wait to hear your explanation for this one. Because every lieberal policy, whether well-intentioned or not, is de-humanizing. In my opinion of course, but then we are all welcome to our opinions.
Thanks for your thought-out opinions. I might check this guy out, he sounds pretty interesting.
Joey, I'm interested in what you think about union workers being exempt from taxes on their "Cadillac" plans, but other people making the same amount but non-union are not exempt? Do you think this is fair? Also, this will create a $60 billion shortfall that will have to be made up somewhere, ostensibly in a new or increased tax on other people, most likely the same non-union "Cadillac" plan people or other middle-class people. Funny, I thought this was health care reform that wouldn't take care of the special interests, but it appears to be exactly the opposite.ReplyDelete
Just look at what liberal policies did to one of the richest nations in the Caribbean,Haiti.Haiti used to be rich and the people within it.That could be America in less then 30 years if we keep going on this liberal course.And it could all go south for the Democrats if Scott Brown wins. John,there is a classism with the Democrats that puts union members above us lowly non union middle class.Without we the people honoring the picket line the unions have nothing.If they strike would we the people honor it like we did in the past?Not if they are a protected class and part of the "Greedy" unionist.They are the American "brown shirts". "Workers of the world unite".I don't blame the unions for not wanting to pay for the health care reform that is all Democrats fault.; I don't want to pay for it either. I don't know anyone that does want to pay for it.It's a bad deal and needs to be dropped.The Democrats had more then enough time to make a good bill and they blew it.If the bill was as good as the Democrats made it sound then it would already be law.The Democrats are paying the same price the Republicans paid for not listening to we the people.We are right of center and they better start acting like it or we will vote them out.ReplyDelete
JoeC You Want Dehumanizing Drive into Detroit or ANY other Big City and SEE What the LIBS have Done to Them! How on Earth did all those FEEL GOOD Programs Fail! Programs were NEVER meant to Succeed,What would HAPPEN to all those VOTES if Indeed the POOR were able to Lift Themselves UP and Succeed! Even Now when Minoities SEE what Has been DONE to them by LIBERAL Agenda they Turn AWAY from the Party ofReplyDelete
KEEPING Minorities in there Place. Look at these Large Cities JoeC,SHOW me ANYTHING LIBS have DONE for the POOR Except in there OWN Way KEEP them POOR! If Indeed Joe You take a TOUR of Lib Programs take YOUR Cell Phone and Dial 91-!
I Thought Liberalism was Socialism JoeC, You Know Redistribution of Wealth, Socialized Health Insurance, and Of Coarse Mandating Citizens MUST have Insurance or Face Fines/Jail! To Me it Doesnt Sound Constitutional to ME. Private Sector Under Attack by Government JoeC,Does NOT sound LIKE the COUNTRY I Grew UP in How about YOU! I asked Bruce yesterday SO I Will ASK you, ANY Employer You Worked for and SIGNED your Pay Check, WAS He POOR! You Know That thingy about those EVIL Rich ACCORDING to Alinsky?
The first comment is taken straight from the pages of the book 'Liberty and Tyranny',A Conservative Manifesto by Mark R. Levin.
It is dead-on target from cover to cover and suggest ALL read it.
JoeC, you espacially should read it. You pick up on certain terms as did the commenter without putting them into the full context as the book does.
Chris, Footnote here,,,,ReplyDelete
Mark Levin has become one of the hot properties in talk radio today, and is now also one of the top new authors in the conservative political arena! Mark’s book "Men in Black" was released February 7, 2005, and quickly climbed to #4 in the nation on the New York Times bestseller list. When your book is endorsed by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, you know you have a winner on your hands. In a short period of time, Mark has become one of the most listened to talk show hosts in the nation.
Mark has been a frequent guest and substitute host on the Hannity show, and has also been an advisor to Limbaugh, who frequently refers to him on the air with the nickname "F. Lee Levin." He is perhaps more well known for his nickname "The Great One," coined by his friend Hannity.
Mark Levin is one of America's preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers. He's in great demand as a political and legal commentator, and has appeared on hundreds of television and radio programs. Levin is also a contributing editor for National Review Online, and writes frequently for other publications.
Levin has served as a top adviser to several members of President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet - including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington, D.C.
The Mark Levin Show airs weeknights from 8:00 - 11:00 p.m. on News/Talk 760 WJR.
levin sucks.and brown is a pervert child molester.ReplyDelete
jj, I didn't know that levin and brown were lieberal Hypocrats. Learn something new every day I guess.ReplyDelete
F U johnReplyDelete
Found a good article on the HuffPo of all places:ReplyDelete
Going to have to reference that first comment again, in response to libertard jj:ReplyDelete
the liberal is dissatisfied with the condition of his own existence. He condemns his fellow man, surroundings, and society itself for denying him the fulfillment, success, and adulation he believes he deserves. He is angry, resentful, petulant, and jealous.
John, The way i see healthcare reform happening, is typical fractured bi-partisan american politics. Its driven by the need to get backing and ends up being a Charlie fox (staying classy). At this point i am dissatisfied with both sides effort to provide meaningful legislation in this regard.ReplyDelete
The dems cobble whatever they need to get it passed because thats become more important than the bill itself
the right never wished to see a majority of americans get healthcare and wouldn't even play civil.
So now to get it passed and preserve the president from the rights attempt to "waterloo" him anything that needs to be given up to get support is. Its bullshit. Had the right done its job and worried about the health of its constituents this might not have happened.
This will be the end of the Democrat party for a long time. And the Republicans come out smelling like a rose.ReplyDelete
Charlie Fox? Not familiar with that term. (AH! I just got it! LOL ... C.F., a cluster yeah?)ReplyDelete
That's just not true what you say about the right not wishing to see a majority of Americans get healthcare Joey.
First of all, I think you are confusing health care with health insurance.
Secondly, a majority of Americans do have health insurance. Only about 30 million do not have it, and a majority of these do not want it (i.e. the young).
To suggest it is possible to play civil means to suggest that the other side even offers that option. Hypocrats jammed this down everyone's throats, and you are absolutely right that they will pass ANYTHING just to pass a bill.
The majority in Congress and the Executive branch, the Hypocrat party, have achieved the bill only they could, and that is a big payday for big insurance, big pharma, and now the union, and a big FU to their constituents. They care even less about our well-being, and more about their power-grab and paying off their special interests. That you can be sure of.
Hey, did you ever read that "Atlantic" article I was bugging you to read? Let me know if you need the link again.
BOSTON -- Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown has surged ahead of his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley, according to a new poll released Thursday night.ReplyDelete
Brown leads Coakley by a margin of 50 percent to 46 percent, the Suffolk University/WHDH-TV poll found. It is the first poll to show Brown, who had been thought a long-shot underdog, leading the race.
It raises the possibility of an historic political upset in Massachusetts.
“It’s a massive change in the political landscape,” David Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center, told The Boston Herald.
Paleologos told the newspaper that the poll shows high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of independents compared to Coakley’s 30 percent.
The poll has a 4.4 point margin of error, which means Coakley could win the race, Paleologos said.
Joseph L. Kennedy, the unenrolled candidate in the race, was preferred by 3 percent of those surveyed.
One other thing regarding your comment Joey. It's not Congress' job to give us all health care or health insurance. Their job is to clear the way to allow anyone to obtain that which they want to pursue, whether it be a cell phone, a house, or health insurance. That would included clearing all the bureaucracy and governmental f-ups. And market-distorting government programs. I don't know when people got to thinking that the government was supposed to provide all this stuff to us. That's socialism/communism B.S. Are you opposed to socialism or communism Joey? I am asking this in all sincerity. If you are not, then why?ReplyDelete
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — A passenger on board a small commercial plane was arrested Friday after making a bomb threat as the plane neared a northern Michigan airport, a government official said.ReplyDelete
No bomb was found, and the man was taken off the plane after it landed safely at Cherry Capital Airport in Traverse City, said the official, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Transportation Security Administration said the passenger had entered the bathroom of the United Airlines Flight 6036 from Chicago as it approached the Michigan airport Friday morning. The passenger was questioned after the flight landed, and the airport suspended operations for about 30 minutes, the TSA said.
Passenger David Boyer, 47, a Chicago attorney who has a home near Traverse City, said he was seated seven rows behind the man, who got up and went to the bathroom, stayed about five minutes and then sat back down. Boyer said there was no disturbance, no reason to believe anything was wrong until the plane landed.
Police came onto the plane and detained the man, who he estimated to be in his late 30s, and they took him off the plane. He was cooperative and didn't put up a struggle. The passengers were then taken to the airport fire department building where they were questioned by authorities, he said.
"Everything's fine. It's just a hair-trigger misunderstanding as far as I'm concerned. It's a non-event. It was a completely routine flight," he said as he was walking toward the terminal from the parking lot.
The incident comes as airlines and airports have boosted security in the wake of the failed attack on a packed Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas. A Nigerian man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, has pleaded not guilty to charges that he tried to blow up the plane using a chemical-laden device.
Friday's United Airlines flight was operated by St. George, Utah-based SkyWest Inc., the holding company for SkyWest Airlines. The medium-sized, twin-engine Bombardier CRJ-200 passenger plane had 11 passengers and three crew members on board, said Marissa Snow, a SkyWest spokesman.
United Airlines spokeswoman Sarah Massier said there was a "disruptive passenger" on the flight that departed from O'Hare International Airport in Chicago. She said the flight crew requested that law enforcement officials meet the flight once it landed but would not provide more details.
Associated Press Writers Joan Lowy in Washington and Michael Tarm in Chicago contributed to this report.
Shit is going crazy like it did in the Jimmy Carter term. Killings and suicides where is the "hope"? Who likes the "change"? What will the Democrats do now that they are losing power? Riot? Kill? Destroy? Detroit is on the verg of a "Great Riot" according to the AP.
JoeC I must have MISSED the Bi-Partisan Part of the Nobama Care Debate Unless they were bringing the Republicans to the CLOSED Door Meetings through Rear DOOR! News Flash Liberals/Democrats Do not NEED Republicans and by their Actions DONT want it! They COULD have Passed the Socialist Insurance BILL on their OWN but LACK the BALLS too,Pure and SIMPLE!ReplyDelete
Administration DOES not CARE That a LARGE Majority of FREE Citizens DO NOT WANT NOBAMA Socialized Insurance!The Bill itself will DO Nothing in LONG Term to LOWER ANY COSTs But DOES GIVE CONTROL to GOVERNMENT,Most Citizens DONT WANT that JoeC!
Public Opinion Favors Right Joe on this ISSUE and Come ELECTION time Im Believing LIBS will Find Out How RIGHT the RIGHT has Been on this ISSUE! Massachusetts SHOULD be A Cake Walk for Libs and it AINT. Joe did you think that a Conservative would Stand a CHANCE for KENNEDYs SEAT! Brown MAY not WIN but EITHER Way LIBS Do have a PROBLEM!
I would NOT be SURPRIZED JoeC if Brown WINS, that there WILL be SOME Procedure PUT in PLACE that will make HIS VOTE NULL and VOID and if that HAPPENS the LEFT is DOOMED! Massachusetts and LIBS CANNOT PULL AWAY,BIG BIG TROUBLE JOEc
News is out that Obummer is going to Taxxachusetts on Sunday to campaign. This is getting good. Obummer is going to put the final nails in the coffin of Coakley's campaign. LOLReplyDelete
Coakley started the attack ads the other day and now she looks like a chump. The DSCC attacked him with an ad showing the World Trade Center of all things, and then quickly yanked it, but not before it was out there for the world to see ... and download.
This, folks, is how to sabotage your own campaign. It's like ... well, it's like nothing I've ever seen really. What a melt-down.
I'm with you though Al, (assuming Brown wins or it's clear that he will win) they will either jam this through before the election, or delay Brown being seated until they can jam it through.
It looks mighty bad for the democrats. America is seeing what the democrats had to offer and they think it sucks. I think Bruce will commit Hari Kari if Brown blocks health care. The Democrats should have made a bipartisain bill. And they will blame the whole thing on the Republicans.ReplyDelete
Hold on to your hoe. It turns out that the fruits and veggies used in a special edition of the popular Food Network TV show Iron Chef America featuring first lady Michelle Obama did not, in fact, come from the White House garden. Could there be a more deliciously fitting symbol of Obama White House fakery than Garden-Gate?ReplyDelete
Some may shrug at this tempest in a colander. But as we approach the one-year anniversary of the Hope and Change inauguration, the first lady's little horticultural hoax serves as a handy metaphor for a cornucopia of Obama fraud. They've stocked healthcare town halls with partisan goons and benefactors. They've provided lab coats to doctor donors to make their healthcare lobbying look more authentic. And they've treated soldiers, in President Obama's own words, as "pretty good photo ops."
Ringers are what's for breakfast, lunch and dinner at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
East Wing apologists are whirling like KitchenAid salad spinners over the Iron Chef-fuffle: "Due to the production delay between the shoot at the White House and the shoot at Food Network, the produce used in Kitchen Stadium during the 'Super Chef Battle' was not actually from the White House garden," admitted a Food Network spokeswoman. But, they stress, the replacement produce consisted of the exact same types of sweet potatoes, tomatillos, broccoli and fennel purportedly picked from the White House garden.
It's the haute cuisine version of disgraced CBS News fabricator Dan Rather's fake-but-accurate card. But this is just the latest Potemkin produce from a Potemkin presidency.
To wit: White House number-crunchers and Democratic fuzzy mathematicians have been cooking the books on stimulus jobs numbers and government healthcare takeover costs. They desperately ditched the "jobs saved or created" recipe for a jobs-funded concoction to salvage the illusion of economic recovery (see related article). They've inflated deficit reduction estimates and downplayed doctor reimbursement cuts. And they've done so behind a locked kitchen door.
Candidate Obama whipped up a nutritious package of transparency pledges that has fallen flatter than a one-egg soufflé. Open government, he told us, was good for Washington and good for America -- and the president promised to give us heaping doses of it on C-SPAN. But not a camera was in sight for the past week's backroom healthcare negotiations among the White House, Democratic leaders, and left-wing special interests.
Now, President Obama is poised to deliver juicy tax exemptions for unions while squeezing middle-class taxpayers, employers, investors and drugmakers to subsidize expanded government healthcare.
The liberal press became unhinged when former President George W. Bush posed with an artificial turkey on a surprise Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad in 2003. But on Thursday, when Obama served up a fake populist turkey of a $90 billion bank tax -- dubbed the "financial crisis responsibility fee" -- much of the press corps dutifully chewed and swallowed. Feigning outrage at the very financial sector that loaded his campaign coffers and provided him with crony Treasury appointees, Obama demanded "our money" back.
But the tax will not apply to the Enron-rivaling financial black holes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (it would "not be productive," says a White House filled with Fannie- and Freddie-enriched advisers). Or to the bailed-out auto companies. Or to the bevy of non-banks that have soaked up taxpayer bailout money. Gobble, gobble, gobble.
Nor will any of the incompetent or complicit financial regulators who practiced self-admittedly "inadequate" oversight before the meltdown and during the government bailout structuring be fined or penalized. (We're looking at you, Tim Geithner.)
John, You should know by now that i support some very socialist aspects of government, especially single payer. I've been upfront about that and mentioned it before in other posts. Why? Because i feel that it is the correct thing for society to do and government is nothing but an aspect of the societal bonds we have.ReplyDelete
I am very social contract orientated in my thinking about governments. I don't believe in the rights limited role theories and judging by the way it is not practiced by the right, neither do they. As for communism, the manifesto is a good read, but hardly the best book by Marx. his ideas represent a impossible reality, but do shed light on the human condition and the drive for an egalitarian world. In its real world aspect communism can't exist, despite what other may say. You have to rely on everyone believing in the same level of the social contract and setting aside instinctual and intellectual doubts. Russian "communism" wasn't really marxism and showed the world that marx can not work other than theoretically. We were certainly correct to oppose it, as it contained too many dictatorial qualities.
I need you to resend me that link. Thanks
JoeC Socialism GOOD Communism Bad! Neither is WHAT made THIS Country Great!ReplyDelete
Depending on Government for Cradle to Grave Entitlements does have a FEW Large HOLES in IT like Loss of MANY Freedoms of Choice! As One Fore Father Said Giving UP Freedom for Security Eventually YOU will LOSE Both and I DO beleive that!
Private Sector would have a VERY Limited Role in Economy and as FAR as I can see of the Three Choices ONLY Capitalism has Worked and to this POINT Quite Well.
We as A Nation WE have ALWAYS taken Care of OUR OWN! Helping the NEEDY is NOT the Problem Helping Citizens that DO not want to MAKE it on their OWN however, I DO have a Problem with! Socialism BRINGS OUR Country as a WHOLE DOWN to OUR WEAKEST LINK and to me JOE that is NOT Exceptable!
The Majority Of Citizens will NOT sit by and LET this Administration HI JACK OUR System of Government,Citizens will NOT EXCEPT it Either!
Al, never said communism was bad, just as i never said socialism was good. There are aspects of them that are obtainable and good and aspects that aren't. Just like in capitalism.ReplyDelete
I am starting to wonder if you think only in the narrowest of terms and that clouds your thinking. Its always that bad, this good type of stuff.
I think your right about giving up freedom for security, and as such i opposed gitmo, harsh interogations, warrantless wiretaps, the patriot act etc. All taking away freedoms to attempt to preserve security, but that another argument.
All, your in reality only talking about the vocal minority, not the majority like you think.
JoeC Asked the Majority what they Think About Closing Gitmo,Harsh Interrogations, Wire Taps and Patriot Act. Dont Think if YOU are Going about your OWN way that ANY Freedoms are Encroached UPON! Start Talking to Places that HATE US about PLANS to Destroy US and THAT would be a PROBLEM! YOU would GIVE THAT up For Feel Good Reasons!ReplyDelete
Go Ask as POLLS have about Closing Gitmo and see the Reaction JOE Might Surprize Ya!
Narrowist TERMS I believe is the ONLY way to ACT when Nation and Citizens are THREATENED by Terrorist that want to KILL us!
al, thanks for proving my feelings correct. You and what you feel is the majority don't deserve freedom or security then. What is being done is wrong and done only in the name of supposed security. You seem loathe to admit it, but then contridict yourself by ranting about terrorists. You make my points for me.ReplyDelete
Al, don't pretend that your terms only apply to terrorism, you can tell from your posts towards me that you confine all of your thinking to those terms. Nothing like a closed mind huh?
I gotta love the whole "if your not guilty you have nothing to fear" thought your preaching. Nothing but the loss of our rights and freedoms.
JoeC A Closed MIND is Better than a OPEN Mind that doeas not THINK,So You Got me Joe!ReplyDelete
Your Idea of Security and Freedom is to give them to those that HAVE not EARNED it(TERRORIST) and that I guess makes you FEEL Good and Safe. You are Neither and to Blinded by FEEL GOOD to See it! The Terrorist Joe are Not are Freind and SHOULD NOT have ANY Protections At all and if Home Grown Terrorist, and that group is GROWING, PLOT Against OUR Nation YOUR Approach Would be to WAIT, Have Another Attack at which TIME have another FEEL GOOD Experience by GIVING them Criminal Trials.
Our Rights MUST not Get Confused with TERRORIST Rights JoeC and to that YOU are CLOSE MINDED!