Shocking Video Captures Brutal Shooting Near Brooklyn College, World news, US - Canada News , News, News

At New York Post, "McDonald's Shooting Caught on NYPD Camera":

Occupy Wall Street, 'Leaderless Resistance Movement', Gets Front-Page Treatment at Los Angeles Times, World news, US - Canada News , News, Punk Rock

The Times is jonesin' for news.

This is ridiculous. See: "Occupy Wall Street protesters driven by varying goals."

Actually, they have no goals. I'm reminded of Discharge, in any case, "Protest and Survive." These dudes are still protesting and surviving after almost thirty years. We're still on course for the savage mutilation, I guess:

The savage mutilation of the human race is set on course
Protest and survive, protest and survive.

It's up to us to change that course
Protest and survive, protest and survive...

BONUS: Well, perhaps they're actually serious about this protest and survive stuff. See Occupy Wall Street's, "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City" (at Democratic Underground and Memeorandum):

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known...

And at Firedoglake, "The Goal and Message of Occupy Wall Street."

Anti-American Glenn Greenwald Responds to Awlaki Strike on Democracy Now!, World news, US - Canada News , News, U.S. Foreign Policy

I linked Greenwald early this morning, freakin' ASFL.

And here's this, perfectly said, at Jawa Report, "If It Were 1945, Glenn Greenwald and the Left Would Be Lamenting the Death of Hitler":

But this a$$magot has nothing to write about the victims of al Awlaki and other terrorists. His only concern is that the terrorists didn't get 'due process'...

Sometimes there's a downside to the 1st Amendment, and it's having to listen to drivel like this. And yes, I will continue to cheer the death of terrorists, whether they were once a fellow American citizen or not.

Be sure to watch the interview, if you can, where Greenwald speaks so proudly of al Awlaki's radicalism and seemingly justifies terrorism in response to U.S. aggression in Iraq.

Greenwald hates America. He routinely attacks American policy as equivalent to the Nazis. What's amazing is how well his hate goes over. But that's the left for you.

RELATED: At National Journal, "No Due Process in Awlaki's Killing, Civil Libertarians Worry," and at New York Times, "Awlaki Killing Incites Criticism on Left and Libertarian Right."

Ron Paul Decries Awlaki Killing, World news, US - Canada News , News, Congress

It's just too predictable. Is there any use of force this clown won't decry?

At LAT, "Ron Paul criticizes Obama for U.S. role in killing of Awlaki."

Manager Terry Francona Out at Boston Red Sox, World news, US - Canada News , News, Sports

End of an era.

And was he fired? So far it appears that the decision was mutual.

At Boston Herald, "Terry Francona on leaving Red Sox: 'It's time for a new voice'." And USA Today, "Terry Francona, saying Boston 'wears on you,' out as Red Sox manager."

And from yesterday's Wall Street Journal, "Red Sox Self-Destruction Complete."

RELATED: At Palm Beach Post, "The craziest night in baseball history? This might have been it."

U.S. Jihadi Samir Khan Killed in Awlaki Drone Strike in Yemen, World news, US - Canada News , News, U.S. Foreign Policy

This really is an significant bonus to the story.

Background at WaPo, "A ‘proud traitor’: Samir Khan reported dead alongside Aulaqi":

A Saudi-born American of Pakistani heritage who was raised in Queens, N.Y., was reportedly among those killed in a U.S. drone strike targeting radical cleric and fellow U.S. citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi.

A self-proclaimed traitor to America, Samir Khan contributed to the efforts of al-Qaeda’s Yemen offshoot to promote itself among English-speakers. He was apparently a major force behind the widely-read English-language magazine Inspire, a mixture of ideology, first-person accounts of operations and do-it-yourself jihad advice. Copies of the magazine’s bomb-making and other sections have been found in the possession of several would-be attackers in the U.S. and Britain.

“I am proud to be a traitor to America,” wrote Khan, 25, in an article in the second issue of the online magazine, published in fall last year. He described his life as working in the “jihadi media sector” in North Carolina, before his beliefs turned him into a “rebel of Washington’s imperialism.” He believed FBI agents were watching him in America, including a man who feigned a conversion to Islam, and one who antagonized him, sparking a fist-fight about his online work.

And more background at this 2007 piece from New York Times, "An Internet Jihad Aims at U.S. Viewers."

And don't miss Michelle Malkin's post, "Second U.S. jihadi reportedly killed in drone attack; Plus: Refresher course on American bloggers vs. Samir Khan." She honors the work of Jawa Report, the blog that's been on the trail of Samir Khan for years, and whose publisher Rusty Shackleford was targeted by with death threats. See the post there: "American Traitor Anwar al-Awlaki Killed in Yemen! Upd: SAMIR KHAN, Threatened Rusty's Family, Dead! Obama Confirms, Awlaki DEAD -- Now with More Cowbell, M.C. Hammer Online Jihadis Confirm: Samir Khan Dead! Fingerprints Confirm!"

Anwar al-Awlaki Killed in Yemen, World news, US - Canada News , News, U.S. Foreign Policy

The Other McCain reports, "BREAKING: AL-QAEDA LEADER ANWAR AL-AWLAKI KILLED IN YEMEN -- ‘FACEBOOK FRIEND FROM HELL’."

Also at Jawa Report, "Anwar al-Awlaki Killed in Yemen." (Via Memeorandum.) And New York Times, "U.S.-Born Qaeda Leader Killed in Yemen":

SANA, Yemen — In a significant and dramatic strike in the campaign against Al Qaeda, the Defense Ministry here said American-born preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, a leading figure in the group’s outpost in Yemen, was killed on Friday morning.

In Washington a senior Obama administration official confirmed that Mr. Awlaki was dead. But the circumstances surrounding the killing remained unclear.

It was not immediately known whether Yemeni forces carried out the attack or if American intelligence forces, which have been pursuing Mr. Awlaki for months, were involved in the operation.

A Defense Ministry statement said that a number of Mr. Awlaki’s bodyguards also were killed.

A high-ranking Yemeni security official who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Mr. Awlaki was killed while traveling between Marib and al-Jawf provinces in northern Yemen — areas known for having an Al Qaeda presence, where there is very little central government control. The official did not say how he was killed.

Mr. Awlaki’s name has been associated with many plots in the United States and elsewhere after individuals planning violence were drawn to his engaging lectures broadcast over the Internet.

Those individuals included Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist charged in the 2009 shootings at Fort Hood, Texas in which 13 people were killed; the young men who planned to attack Fort Dix, N.J.; and a 21-year-old British student who told the police she stabbed a member of Parliament after watching 100 hours of Awlaki videos.

Updates forthcoming...

I was expecting this, but not this quick. From knee-jerk progressive anti-American Glenn Greenwald, "The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality." And from international relations expert Stephanie Carvin, "Anwar al-Awlaki and Targeted Killing: A quick, first, and uneasy reaction":

I must admit that I am somewhat troubled by this turn of events. Earlier this year I suggested that the targeted killing of bin Laden was acceptable under international law. He’s been linked to the financing and organising of terrorist attacks around the world and this was well established before his death.

But I have yet to see any reports that suggest that Awlaki has been tied to any material support for terrorist attacks. I think this changes the legal game substantially. It essentially is suggesting that *we* (whoever that is) are now targeting people for their ideas rather than they are actually doing. Pushed to its logical extreme, a person might unintentionally inspire others to commit violent acts. Should they be eliminated?

I’m no fan of Awlaki and I will certainly not mourn his passing, (really – he seems like a total jerk) but this raises serious questions about the targeted killing program, who is being targeted and why. Presumably, in the case of targeted killing, its important there is evidence BEFORE the killing, rather than a scrabble now to piece together a case, after the fact.

I hope there is evidence that he actually materially supported terrorism.

Well, the poor guy!

More, from Jake Tapper, at ABC News, "Officials Thought They Might Kill Awlaki on 9/11 Anniversary."

I Missed Jonathan Tobin's Post on John Mearsheimer..., World news, US - Canada News , News, Anti-Semitism

See Tobin's brief essay at Commentary, "Mearsheimer’s Vanishing Veneer of Respectability." This part is excellent:

The author of the book Mearsheimer admires is Gilad Atzmon, an ex-Israeli who not only doubts the truth of the Holocaust but also thinks the Jews persecuted Hitler and Nazi persecution of the Jews was justified. For Atzmon, any expression of Jewish identity is tantamount to racism. He believes Israel is worse than Nazi Germany. His hatred of his own people has even motivated him to claim medieval blood libels might have been true, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion provides historical insights about the Jews.

And:

The Israel Lobby was itself a typical example of anti-Semitic invective in the way it sought to delegitimize Israel’s American supporters and to single them out as sinister forces undermining democracy. But because its authors were two distinguished academics, they were able to cloak their prejudice in more respectable garb. One can only hope Mearsheimer’s endorsement of Atzmon helps to strip away that unjustified veneer of respectability that continues to attach to the authors’ work.

That ties in pretty well with my remarks at "The Tragedy of John Mearsheimer." Both Mearsheimer and Walt are scholars I admired. But in the end my ignorance is inexcusable. I long viewed The Israel Lobby through the lens of pluralist political science, perhaps out of deference for these "two distinguished academics." But it's not looking good for Mearsheimer. Even hardline anti-Zionists are throwing him under the bus. It's devastating, as noted previously.

See also the update from David Bernstein, "John Mearsheimer and Gilad Atzmon Update." And earlier at Israel Matzav, "John Mearsheimer comes out of the closet." (Apparently not all the BDS types have bailed on Atzmon.)

Flyin' Saucers Rock 'n' Roll, World news, US - Canada News , News, Music

Here's the live clip with Brian Setzer:

But listen to Robert Gordon's version, with the incredible Link Wray on guitar. The song was first recorded by Billy Lee Riley and His Little Green Men, and here's this from Wikipedia:

In the early 1970s, Riley quit music to return to Arkansas to begin his own construction business. In 1978 "Red Hot" and "Flyin' Saucers Rock 'n' Roll" were covered by Robert Gordon and Link Wray, which led to a one-off performance in Memphis in 1979, the success of which led to further recording at Sun Studio and a full-time return to performing.

Rediscovered by Bob Dylan in 1992, who had been a fan since 1956, Riley played rock and roll, blues and country-blues.

His album Hot Damn! (Capricorn, 1997) was nominated for a Grammy Award.

That is so cool.

Zombie Covers Berkeley Affirmative Action Bake Sale, World news, US - Canada News , News, Civil Rights

One of his best ever!

See: "Racist Cupcakes? Berkeley Erupts over Affirmative Action Satire."

Zombie says that the "privilege" line is actually a class issue, not race. But not really, not for progressives. Race is class. Just look at those signs. Indeed, racism is all progressives have. Well, they had the antiwar movement too, but --- except for perhaps the most hardened communists --- they hypocritically abandoned it when the first black president took office. Amazing consistency. ASFLs.

Cornel West: Best. Interview. Ever.

Dr. James Joyner picks up on an interview with one of President Obama’s staunchest former allies, but also more recent critics, in the person of Professor Cornel West. Joyner titles his piece, “Cornel West is Crazy.” I’m not going to jump immediately to that point, but I’ve got to tell you, for a “highly sought after” guy with a doctorate from Princeton, this interview is… well, I suppose “remarkable” works.


What’s with the black suit, white shirt, black tie outfit you always wear? Do you have anything else in your closet?
I’ve got four black suits that I circulate, and they are my cemetery clothes — my uniform that keeps me ready for battle.

Your cemetery clothes?
It’s ready to die, brother. If I drop dead, I am coffin-ready. I got my tie, my white shirt, everything. Just fix my Afro nice in the coffin.

So for somebody who dedicated his life to getting Barack Obama elected, what turned things around?

So let me ask you: in 2007, you introduced Barack Obama as your “brother, companion and comrade.” But in May, you referred to him as “the black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs” and the “head of the American killing machine.” What in the world happened?
It was a cry from the heart. What happened was that greed at the top has squeezed so much of the juices of the body politic. Poor people and working people have not been a fundamental focus of the Obama administration. That for me is not just a disappointment but a kind of betrayal.

But you have also acknowledged that this is more than just political — you’ve said that after campaigning for him at 65 events, you were miffed that he didn’t return your phone calls or say thank you.
I think he had to keep me at a distance. There’s no doubt that he didn’t want to be identified with a black leftist. But we’re talking about one phone call, man. That’s all. One private phone call.

If you’re waiting for some sort of lesson from this media event or deeper meaning, I’m afraid I’m going to disappoint you. Aside from this being yet another symptom of far left elements jumping ship as Obama tacks toward the center in hopes of securing a second term, I don’t think there’s much more to be gained from it.

But, to quote Dr. Joyner, “it’s no wonder that Barack Obama feels more comfortable around sane Jewish brothers than this cat.”

That’s one crazy cat.

Norway, with a substantial rate of gun ownership, is normally noted for non-violence

The nation of Norway was an especially unlikely setting for a shooting rampage that left at least 85 dead. The country of 4.9 million residents has one of the lowest per-capita homicide rates in Europe.

Interestingly, however, gun ownership is relatively common in Norway, the Los Angeles Times reports.


Gun ownership in Norway is common, although strict gun regulations and limitations are in place on ammunition for certain kinds of guns.

According to GunPolicy.org, an Australian university-based website, the estimated number of guns held by civilians in Norway was 1.4 million in 2007, the most recent year for which the site has such statistics for Norway.

Citing the “Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City,” published by Cambridge University Press, the website give the rate of private gun ownership in Norway as 31.32 firearms per 100 people[.]

In the wake of a shooting, after the initial shock and sorrow subside, two reactions predictably emerge — calls for greater civility in discourse and calls for greater gun control. Such was the case, at least, after Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (R-Ariz.) in January.

And, indeed, some have already begun to criticize the rhetoric in Europe that has supposedly contributed to the sort of climate of hate that would prompt someone to release fire as at Oslo:

The attacks in Oslo on Friday have riveted new attention on right-wing extremists not just in Norway but across Europe, where opposition to Muslim immigrants, globalization, the power of the European Union and the drive toward multiculturalism has proven a potent political force and, in a few cases, a spur to violence.

The success of populist parties appealing to a sense of lost national identity has brought criticism of minorities, immigrants and in particular Muslims out of the beer halls and Internet chat rooms and into mainstream politics. While the parties themselves generally do not condone violence, some experts say a climate of hatred in the political discourse has encouraged violent individuals.

“I’m not surprised when things like the bombing in Norway happen, because you will always find people who feel more radical means are necessary,” said Joerg Forbrig, an analyst at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin who has studied far-right issues in Europe. “It literally is something that can happen in a number of places and there are broader problems behind it.”

Perhaps the calls for increased gun regulations are not far behind. Both reactions are understandable. Natural to want to make sense of senseless violence and even more natural to want to forestall it by tempering tongues and enacting obstacles to gun ownership. But we must not seek solutions where they will not be found.

On some level, perhaps the wisest course is to remain a while longer in the spell of shock and grief that evil casts, allow ourselves to feel the full extent of its horror — precisely so we will realize that no carefully crafted words, no perfectly strategized policy will ever eliminate it entirely. Perhaps in that realization we will then awaken to a new realization — that evil will only fully and finally be overcome by something greater than ourselves.

Obama’s Fair Deal: Violate Your Tax Pledge So I Can Keep My Pledge to Reform Entitlements

This debt debate comes down to negotiables and non-negotiables for each side. Negotiables are things they are willing to put in play to achieve their goals. Non-negotiables are things they need to keep of the table at all costs. Both sides, not surprisingly have non-negotiables that involve keeping their chances alive for next year’s elections. Let’s start with those.

For their part, House Republicans refuse to raise taxes. That’s their non-negotiable and has been all along. Many of these folks were elected in a Tea Party wave that was all about limited government. Many of them made an explicit pledge not to vote for a tax increase. They simply can not raise taxes and expect to survive. Tax increases are off the table.

Meanwhile, President Obama has refused any short term deal which would force him to face this issue again next year. He knows he can’t negotiate with his re-election on the line, so he wants this off the table for 2012. Last week, Jake Tapper did a fine job of pointing out how transparently political this demand was. But the President repeated this demand again yesterday. Election year debt negotiations are off the table.

So those are the non-negotiables on each side. Here’s the difference. Speaker Boehner isn’t asking for a short term deal. In fact, he was asked this question yesterday and explicitly said he was not interested in one. In other words, he is not pushing the President on his non-negotiable.

Meanwhile, on Thursday the President demanded $400 billion in additional revenues which Speaker Boehner says would come from tax increases. The President does not deny that he asked for the additional revenue at the last moment. When asked a sharp question about moving the goalposts by Norah O’Donnell the President’s reply was halting:

What this came down to was…there doesn’t seem to be a capacity for them to say yes.

Well, when you’re asking people to negotiate their non-negotiables after you’ve already agreed to something else, they do tend to balk. And in case you’re wondering, there is no doubt the President knows just how non-negotiable this is for GOP House members. In fact, he talked about the tax pledge many of them had signed yesterday, saying this left them “boxed in.” Boxed in is just another way to say they made tax increases a non-negotiable.

And yet the President seems to think House GOP members should violate a pledge they made to their constituents, one which a) they believe in as a matter of principle and which b) helped get them elected. He just expects them to “say yes” anyway.

Here’s the most frustrating part. Obama has a pledge of his own in this debate, something he promised more than two years ago. Obama pledged to reform Social Security and Medicare from the earliest days of his administration:

President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare “bargain” with the American people, saying that the nation’s long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.

So while Paul Krugman and others on the far left may not like it, Obama will certainly claim the reforms that the GOP are demanding from him are a promise kept, not one he has broken. Entitlement reform isn’t a concession for him, it was a goal!

That’s where things stand. President Obama is demanding the GOP violate their non-negotiable pledge on taxes so that he can fulfill his pledge to reform entitlements. The President repeatedly called this a “fair deal” yesterday. Well, it certainly is fair to him.

from: hotair
by John Sexton

ABC News cheerleading for Obama more than Daily Kos pollster

ABC News Political Director Amy Walter and ABC pollster Gary Langer, shaking the pom-poms:

President Obama is holding onto a 7 point lead over his chief Republican rival, Mitt Romney, in the latest ABC News-Washington Post poll.

If the 2012 election were held today, 51 percent of adults said they would pick Obama compared to 44 percent who would support the former Massachusetts governor. (They were tied in early June.) Important to note, however, is that among registered voters, Obama’s lead over Romney narrows to 49 percent to 47 percent. No other Republican challenger fares as well as Romney in head-to-head matchups against the president. http://abcn.ws/nUXx7F
But there’s a bigger take away from the new numbers than just the 2012 horserace.
“Obama looks to have turned the budget debate to his advantage,” writes ABC pollster Gary Langer. “His position on the deficit is more broadly popular, he’s taking less heat than the GOP for unwillingness to compromise and he’s got a sizable lead in the view that he cares more about protecting the middle class.”

So what? Obama’s stance in the debt ceiling talks is all about his re-election campaign. The other metrics don’t matter unless they help Obama’s bottom line. And the bottom line is that the current GOP front-runner is within the margin of error in the head-to-head matchup with registered voters.
Of course, the head-to-head numbers themselves are not particularly predictive this far from an election. Rather, the spin being put out by Langer — and most of the rest of the establishment media — is all about framing a narrative for the race to come. Establishment media polling does not always have this agenda, but it is fairly blatant in this instance.
For example, Langer relies on his poll to claim Obama’s position on the deficit is broadly popular, when the White House boasts that Obama doesn’t have a plan. Meanwhile, CNN buries the overwhelming popularity of the GOP “Cut, Cap & Balance” plan in its own coverage. The WSJ/NBC poll (.pdf) asks whether the GOP should drop its opposition to “any taxes, including on corporations and the wealthy,” if it that is the only way to reach a deal, but fails to ask whether Obama should drop his insistence on roughly $1 trillion in new taxes if that is the only way to get a deal. Nor does the establishment media ask whether Obama should give up his trillion-dollar ObamaCare entitlement to get a debt deal. The answer to either question would likely not advance the establishment narrative of the “adult” president facing down an intransigent House GOP.
You know who isn’t narrative-building? Tom Jensen of PPP, the Democratic firm that polls for the Daily Kos. PPP has Obama and Romney tied at 45%, but that’s not the main reason why Jensen is concerned:

Obama’s numbers are worse than they appear to be on the surface. The vast majority of the undecideds in all of these match ups disapprove of the job Obama’s doing but aren’t committing to a candidate yet while they wait to see how the Republican field shakes out.

Jensen then allocates the undecideds based on their approval/disapproval of Obama, finding Romney would lead 52-48. Moreover, Obama would lead Bachmann only 51-49, tie Pawlenty at 50, lead Cain by only 51-49, and lead Palin 54-46. In short, Obama is already threatened by almost any GOP nominee (unless you can really tarnish his or her image, which will be the Obama/media approach in 2012).
But wait… there’s more. Presidential candidates have to win states to get those Electoral College votes. Reuters has noticed that Obama faces a tough fight in various key states, but the reporting is largely anecdotal. Thus, let’s look at recent state polling:

Florida (29 EV): Romney leads 46-42 [Sunshine State, 7/12]
Iowa (7 EV): Romney leads 47-44 [Mason-Dixon, 7/14]
Michigan (16 EV): Romney leads 46-42 [EPIC-MRA, 7/15]
New Hampshire (4 EV): Romney leads 46-44 [PPP, 7/7], Romney leads 47-43 [WMUR, 7/6]
North Carolina (15 EV): Romney tied 45-45 [PPP, 7/13], Perry leads 45-42 [Civitas, 7/18]
Ohio (18 EV): Obama leads 45-41, but voters split on re-elect 46-47 [Quinnipiac, 7/21]
Pennsylvania (20 EV): Romney tied 44-44 [PPP, 7/8]

If the economy remains about as weak as it is — and it seems like it will — Obama is going to have to scare a lot of undecided voters to get to 270 Electoral College votes in 2012. In that task, it seems that Obama will have an establishment media applauding loud enough to raise Tinkerbell from the dead.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.

from: hotair

David Wu accused of “aggressive, unwanted sexual encounter”

by Jazz Shaw 

Clearly too much time has elapsed since the Tales of the Ticklemaster and the Twitter Saga of Weinergate, so we’ll need to gear up for a fresh new round of sexual mischief in the lower chamber of congress. Just in time, David Wu (D-Ore) rides to the rescue.


Sources: Young woman accuses Oregon Rep. David Wu of aggressive, unwanted sexual encounter

A distraught young woman called U.S. Rep. David Wu’s Portland office this spring, accusing him of an unwanted sexual encounter, according to multiple sources.

When confronted, the Oregon Democrat acknowledged a sexual encounter to his senior aides but insisted it was consensual, the sources said.

The woman is the daughter of a longtime friend and campaign donor. She apparently did not contact police at the time.

One person who heard the voice mail described the woman as upset, breathing heavily and “distraught.”

The young lady – who for obvious reasons will not be identified here – is of an “indeterminate age” but her Facebook page apparently indicates that she graduated high school last year and she registered to vote in California last August.

You may remember Mr. Wu from his campaign last year, described by some as one of the most bizarre in recent political memory. His staff was apparently so worried about his aberrant behavior that they cancelled most of his public appearances, ran the effort almost entirely on paid television advertising, and dismissed a large part of the staff before the election was even over.

This year, Wu experienced a high rate of staff churn over the winter, disclosed that he was getting a divorce and that he, “has taken medication for an unspecified mental condition.”

I was thinking that, just like the previous scandals, this one needs some sort of memorable catch phrase or tag line. I briefly considered, “Wu’s Woman Woes” but that doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, even with the merits of alliteration. I also debated “Teenage Wasteland” but I’m pretty sure a record company would sue us. Let’s open it up to the studio audience. I’m sure some of you can come up with a good name for this one.

from: hotair

Fear not! Weiner now in therapy

It wouldn’t be Friday without some high political farce, and who better to check in on than New York’s gift that keeps on giving, Anthony Weiner? I know you were all terribly worried about him, what with his untreated sex addiction problems and all, but fear not! The New York Post is reporting that he’s finally seeking treatment.


Weiner’s pal told The Post that although it took a while, the fallen former New York congressman recently finally hit rock bottom and is getting therapy for his compulsion to electronically send strange women obscene messages and photos of his body.

Up until now, Weiner “didn’t fully comprehend” how destructive his online exhibitionistic tendencies were, the friend said.

“He was totally in denial. He was saying he may be able to write a book. But to think that he’s in a position to write a book, there has to be a redemption.

“Finally, he did get it. He understood it,” the friend said. “He understood why there was no line of people waiting to hire him.

You know what they say… the first step to solving the problem is admitting you have one. Or something.

But the biggest hurdle he seems to be facing are the various women in his life and convincing them that’s he’s really turned over a new leaf. He mentions three in particular. Two of them you could probably guess, but the the other might come as a surprise.

The horndog ex-House member from Queens is telling friends that while he’s finally started therapy for his sex addiction, the really hard part of his “recovery” will be getting his wife’s boss to believe he’s through with his naughty habits.

“My problem is that I have three women I have to convince that I’m cured: Huma, her mother — and Hillary,” Weiner, 46, told a friend recently.

Weiner’s humiliated, pregnant wife, Huma Abedin, is a top aide to Clinton, whose own hubby, ex-President Bill Clinton, was disgraced by seamy sex shenanigans while in office.

Oh, my! That could be a bit of a tough sell, couldn’t it? Then again, one might think that Hillary would be used to that sort of thing by now…

from: hotair

[Giveaway] Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 License Keys for 3 Users

After long time, finally i am here with another Kaspersky Internet Security license key giveaway. This time i decided to give 3 license keys valid for 1 year for Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 version.


Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 is the latest version of Kaspersky Lab, which has lots of new features that will 100% secure your computer from all type of harm activities. Its new and cool interface allow you to full scan, critical area scan or vulnerability scan. Even you can drag a single file to scan for virus, trojans or malwares. The new Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 is awesome.

kis 2012 giveaway [Giveaway] Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 License Keys for 3 Users
How to Participate in this Giveaway?

1. Download Bnsofts Giveaway File [Download Here]

2. Follow the instructions mention in the file.

Rules for this giveaway is in the file, so make sure that you follow the instructing in order to get qualified for this giveaway and get 1 year license key for Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 version.

3. Post a simple comment with your valid email address and name.

3 Winners will be selected on 1 August 2011 for this giveaway, so participate now and get a free 1 year license key of KIS 2012.

Let me know if you have any question, Good Luck to all..!

Alan Grayson-- Not The Lesser Of Two Evils; A Champion For Peace & Prosperity

I've known Alan Grayson for quite a few years and one thing I can say about him is that he is refreshingly consistent. He's been a dedicated fighter for working families-- on a Bernie Sanders/Raúl Grijalva level of dedication.



And, as a corollary, he's been very much opposed to aggressive war. I dare say he runs every political decision he makes through a screen that takes into account if it's pro-working family and if it's pro-peace. As you know, Alan is running for Congress again and Blue America has endorsed him. If you'd like to help elect one of the best progressive leaders in contemporary history, please consider making a contribution to his campaign through ActBlue.

This week he made a great case for his own reelection to an as yet undefined Orlando-area House seat. He came up with a way for the government to save two trillion dollars-- and in a way that is completely consistent with his guiding principles and progressive values.

There  are 23 million Americans who can’t find full-time work, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

There  are 50 million Americans who can’t see a doctor when they are sick, according  to the Centers for Disease Control.

There  are more than 15 million American families who owe more on their mortgage than their  homes are worth, according to Zillow.  That’s almost a third of all the families who own homes.

If I were in Congress right now, these  are the problems that I would be trying to solve.

But  instead, we see a bizarre preoccupation-- no, really, an obsession-– with  cutting federal benefits. Some kind of  weird contest to see who can inflict the most pain on the American people. With the proponent of each new sadistic plan announcing  proudly, “mine is bigger than yours.”

I’ll  be honest-- the federal deficit for the year 2021 is not something that I spend  a lot of time thinking about, these days. But let’s assume-- arguendo,  as they used to say back in Ancient Rome-– that for some reason, there were  some compelling, emergency need to work out how to cut $2 trillion from projected federal budget  deficits over the next ten years.

I  have an idea about how to do that. It’s  a very simple idea.  In fact, I can sum  it up in one word, with five letters:

PEACE.

Now, I know that peace may not be as popular as it used to be. The polling is very iffy. The focus groups are mixed. But let’s look at the facts.

Last year, we spent $154 billion in appropriated funds on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is in addition to the $549 billion in appropriated funds for the Pentagon-– you know,  just to keep the lights on. And the  non-appropriated cost of war was even higher-– especially when you include the cost of care for the 15% of all the American troops in Iraq who come home with permanent brain abnormalities. According to Nobel Prize winner Joseph  Stiglitz, the war in Iraq alone is costing us $4 trillion and  counting. That’s more than $13,000 for every one of us, and roughly 8% of our entire net worth as a nation.

The cost of war is enormous. So enormous  that, as I pointed out in H.R.  5353, The War is Making You Poor Act [see video up top], if we simply funded that cost through the Pentagon’s own budget, rather than through supplemental appropriations, we could eliminate taxes on everyone’s first $35,000 of income ($70,000 for married couples), and still reduce the deficit by more than $10 billion a year.

And  that was last year. Since then, the  number of wars has gone up by 50%.

This  is what Pat Buchanan-– of all people, Pat Buchanan-– said two weeks ago:

"The United States is strategically over-extended, worldwide. What are we doing borrowing money from Japan to defend Japan. Borrow money from Europe to defend Europe. Borrow  money from the Persian Gulf to defend the Persian Gulf. This country is over-extended. It is an empire and the empire is coming down."

You  say that you want to save $2 trillion in ten years? It’s simple: end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and end whatever it is that they are calling it now in Libya. I’d  rather do that than throw Granny from the train.

But  that’s just me.

Guns or butter. It’s not a new choice.

I prefer butter.

What  about you?

If your choice is butter-- or an appropriate vegan substitute-- help send Alan back to Congress so he can keep up the battle against the cronic overreach of a Military Industrial Complex that has gotten much, much worse since President Eisenhower warned the country about its power.

Labels: Alan Grayson, Blue America

A grateful nation turns its eyes to Al Sharpton

Before we dive any further into this, allow me to save some of the Hot Air faithful a few minutes of reading time by saying, yes… this is another MSNBC story. (This is your official emergency exit line in case you want to bail out right now.) But hey… I watch MSNBC so YOU don’t have to!


This important task reveals a new twist in the plot today, as news leaks out that the unwashed masses, crying out for a savior in the media wasteland, may finally receive an answer to their prayers. Reports are coming in that the Reverend Al Sharpton will transition from his occasional fill-in slot to having his own, regular evening show on the network.

Cenk Uygur was thrust onto the MSNBC schedule in January, when Keith Olbermann‘s departure set in motion several host changes on the progressive channel’s lineup.

Now TVNewser hears Uygur may be moved out of the 6pm hour, possibly to be replaced by Al Sharpton. When the host changes happened earlier this year, the 6pm hour was simply known as “MSNBC Live,” a telling sign that MSNBC was trying out Uygur.

So what happened to Cenk? For that we turn to a reliable source, Verum Serum. It seems that Cenk might have been a wee bit too tough on President Obama and some folks became unhappy. (Be sure to click through the jump for videos from Cenk explaining his position… or lack thereof.)

According to Cenk, his numbers at MSNBC were good but the management expressed other concerns. Or perhaps the more accurate way to say it is, the management relayed the concerns of others…

Did Phil Griffin relay a message from “Washington” that they didn’t appreciate the tough talk [on Obama]? That sure seems to be the story. Then again, maybe they fired Cenk for taking 17 minutes of air time to tell a simple story at the end of which you still have to refer to the NY Times account to know what happened. That could be it as well.

Borrowing a page from our president here… “Let me be clear.” What MSNBC does with its lineup is absolutely their business, and they should do whatever they can to expand their viewership as much as possible beyond me, Ed Morrissey and the seven other people who watch it. But seriously… Al Sharpton?

I’m not saying he’s not an influential voice in liberal politics and minority issues. He absolutely is. But I have now watched the man’s performance too many times not to raise an eyebrow here. It’s not that his message is wrong for the network or that he doesn’t have the connections, but…

Here comes the tough part. I’m going to write it anyway, but I just want to set you up in advance for the fact that I know full well that this is going to draw the exact kind of fire I don’t need. As my friend Monster from The Ed Morrissey Show would say, I’m obviously about to be branded a raaaaacist. (That’s always spelled with five A’s by the way. Just check with Monster.) But let’s just plunge ahead into the void anyway, shall we?

Al Sharpton is, for all intents and purposes, unwatchable when doing free format commentary or conducting an interview. He may be aces when he delivers a prepared speech, but for this sort of environment he’s simply not up to the task. When he’s not on a set script he frequently loses track of where he was heading and stumbles into long sequences of umms and errs and hemming and hawing. His spontaneous delivery is scatter-shot at best and his follow-up questions to guests tend to wander to the point where the subject can’t even muster an answer. For a person hosting a show on a major news network, delivering information and interviewing high profile guests, the ability to keep up a steady, on topic flow of comments and questions is simply a requirement. This is who will be hosting a prime time news and politics show with this sort of format?

Send out the hounds with my blessings. I can hear the complaints already. People will imply from this that my critique must be based on the color of his skin. You’re wrong, but I know you’ll be saying it anyway. But the fact is, a position like that requires a concise, focused delivery and communication style, and Al simply doesn’t reach that bar.

Break out the pitchforks and torches and enjoy yourself.

by Jazz Shaw
from: hotair

An executive order in the old Chicago tradition

This is one of those issues which I foolishly thought had died on the vine, but it seems to be rearing its ugly head again. Plans are apparently still afoot for an executive order which would effectively build an end run around the Citizens United decision by forcing all government contractors to reveal their political donations before they could be considered in awarding contracts. Dozens of members of the House tried to squelch the idea back in May.

“This Executive Order is a cynical attempt to inject politics into federal government contracting under the guise of transparency and accountability,” said Rep. Rokita. “It will create an ‘enemies list’ that the Administration and their liberal allies will use to punish private citizens and their employers. As a former Indiana Secretary of State who oversaw elections, I find this to be an outrageous overreach by the President. I call on the President to withdraw this Executive Order and inform him that should he decide not to, members of the House are prepared to take legislative action to prevent it from taking effect.”

The American Enterprise Institute has a new paper out covering the subject. A few of the key points of the paper are:

* Following a defeat in Citizens United, the Obama administration is making an unprecedented assault on free speech through a proposed executive order requiring federal bidders to disclose their political giving during the previous two years as a condition to being considered for a federal contract.
* Under the guise of “transparency” and “accountability,” the order curtails constitutionally protected speech rights and opens the door for retaliation against those not supporting the administration politically.
* Neither the media nor defenders of free speech are challenging the administration’s actions, but anonymous political speech should remain a cornerstone of American democracy.

I find this proposal simply baffling. Not only doesn’t it sit well at first glance, when you pause to think about it, it actually promotes the precise opposite effect than the stated intent of the president. If you want to “keep the money out of politics,” then that’s fine. But by making contractors declare what donations they’ve made, not only do you open the door to a crony contract award system, but you actually encourage contractors to dump more money into the political sphere in the hopes of landing contracts.

It’s also short sighted thinking, even if you’re trying to game the system as this order appears to do. What happens when you lose the next election and a member of the opposite party takes control? All of your friends are now out of jobs and a new set of patrons come in the revolving door. Isn’t this exactly the opposite of what you were hoping to accomplish?

Bad policy and an ill conceived scheme if you ask me.

by Jazz Shaw
from:hotair