Amid Latest NY Terrorist Attack, It’s Still Politics as Usual


Katie lied, and Bloomberg tried.

Doubly so.

Sunday evening, May 2nd, amid the massive hunt for the Times Square Car Bomber, CBS’s Katie Couric and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg exchanged pleasantries:

Couric:  Law enforcement officials don’t know who left the Nissan Pathfinder behind, but at this point, the mayor believes the suspect acted alone.

Bloomberg: If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that, somebody—

Katie :  A home-grown.

Bloomberg:  Home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn`t like the health-care bill or something. It could be anything [but not Islamic extremists?].

At this point in the investigation, the Mayor, no doubt, wanted to take the lead of his predecessor Rudy Giuliani and keep this terrorist attack — designed to murder Americans in the heart of downtown New York City – apolitical.

Or did he?

By Sunday morning, law enforcement officials were already viewing surveillance footage pulled overnight.

After acquiring the VIN number from the engine block (get that, future terrorists?) at 7:30a, they immediately tracked down the Pathfinder owner and first interviewed her that Sunday morning, where she gave an accurate physical description of the terrorist.

A Connecticut newspaper reported:

Sources familiar with the investigation said the gray SUV was owned by Peggy Colas, a 19-year-old from Bridgeport.

Investigators first spoke to her on Sunday when she told them she sold the car for $1,300 cash to a man she described as being of either Hispanic or Middle Eastern descent.

CBS would report, via AP, that the registration holder of the car, Colas’s father, was questioned Sunday night, but failed to mention the Sunday morning interview.  

CBS would only mention the Sunday morning interview Tuesday night via a subsequent AP circulation that had taken hold in other prominent news organizations, long after the Times Square terrorist had been captured and the cat let out of the bag.

The key piece of information law enforcement would have culled from their first interview with Peggy Colas that Sunday morning would have been, no doubt, a physical description of their primary suspect. 

And that interview occurred before Bloomberg’s infamous interview with Katy Couric on Sunday evening.

So the questions are, Mayor Bloomberg and CBS:

Are you that inept?

Are you that disconnected from your law enforcement — during a national crisis — to not have the physical description, to not know who they were looking for, to not be able to share this vital piece of information with the public?

The public cannot be vigilant when vital information is withheld.

And they weren’t looking for a white male, angry about Obamacare.

If you didn’t have the facts, why offer this random opinion to the world?

As Mayor of New York, you were there to tell the public their government has a clue as to what the hell’s going on, not make wild assertions and spread inflammatory innuendo based  on what you know are partisan politics.

As President Obama recently reminded us, you’re entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

Crossposted at David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog and my blog.

The Stoning and Burning of Big Oil


Watching Big Oil Burn
Watching Big Oil Burn

In the spirit of "keep[ing] the boot on the neck of British Petroleum (BP)," per Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, CBS News and Politico are reporting the new Witch Hunt of BP and its cohorts, Transocean and Halliburton. 

The American public is about to witness a very public flogging, something reminiscent of a 17th century stoning of evil-doers by the mob before being dragged to a pyre to be burned alive. 

Something like what should’ve been done to that evil oil spill before it creeped its way to the Lousiana shore. 

BP et al will be facing hearings before:

BP and companies tied to the spill are also being sued for $5 million by commercial shrimpers Acy J. Cooper Jr. and Ronnie Louis Anderson in a class action lawsuit representing all affected Louisiana residents. 

Then there's the "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act," authored by Senator Robert Menendez, and co-signed by Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Bill Nelson, to up the $75 million liability cap to $10 billion for Big [Bad] Oil Company oil spills. 

And then Senator Nelson wants the media to remember the reports of Sex for Oil between Denver government regulators and oil company representatives who allegedly traded nooky for mineral rights. 

So far CBS and leftist Think Progress are the only ones to bite Nelson’s May 4th press prelease referencing the "all kinds of booze parties, all kinds of marijuana parties, and all kinds of sex parties" from 2002 to 2006 amongst greasy oilmen and hot government gals. 

Prostitution charges were never filed. 

If old-news Pay-to-Play political sex romps are used to determine "whether oil and gas industry have exerted too much influence over regulators," does this mean that all old sexual trysts in the political realm are fair game? 

Who among them will cast the first stone?



Crossposted at David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog and my blog.

Child’s Play: Scott Brown and abortion

If Scott Brown runs for President in 2016, will Tim Tebow support him?


Next Sunday, Focus on the Family is scheduled to run an ad during Super Bowl XLIV, featuring the Heisman Trophy winner. The ad will also feature Tebow’s mother; as’s Brent Bozell III notes, the spot will focus on “the story of how doctors told her she should have an abortion, and she refused that exercise of ‘choice.’ Pam Tebow was a missionary in the Philippines and had contracted dysentery, and the medicine had a chance of causing birth defects.”


The upcoming ad has stirred up an unusual controversy: as Bozell notes, “…’[F]eminist’ groups have exploded in fury, demanding CBS censor the ad. The Women's Media Center wrote a letter signed by an array of feminist organizations. They projected the ad would be ‘disastrous’ for CBS, and it throws women ‘under the bus’ and ‘endangers women's health.’ They even suggested pro-life ads resulted in ‘escalated violence’ against abortionists…Words like these might make a scintilla of sense if Focus on the Family were running some kind of hardcore, negative ad with inflammatory abortion images. But that's not the message, and they know it. The Tebow ad is not far removed from the positive pro-life ads run by the Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation during the Clinton years with the slogan ‘Life. What a beautiful choice.’”


The protests against the ad are a tempest in a teapot: Bozell has a point when he asks, “Isn't it a little strange to see people who present themselves as ‘pro-choice’ get so upset when someone suggests their choice was to keep the baby?” However, there could be a real political tempest within the Republican Party in just a few years.


Let’s assume for the sake of argument that President Obama manages to secure a second term (we cannot forget that it’s still tremendously difficult to dislodge incumbent Presidents, despite the circumstances surrounding the 1976, 1980 and 1992 Presidential elections.) Let’s also assume that the Bay State’s vibrant young Senator wins a full term in 2012 (once he is sworn in later this month, Brown will fill out the remaining years of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s final term), and eventually emerges as the odds-on favorite to be the GOP nominee in 2016. Will there be any controversy over Brown’s moderately pro-choice stance—and will that controversy divide the GOP?


It would shock the conscience of many conservative Republicans to have a GOP Presidential nominee who was not explicitly pro-life. Even though Brown opposes late-term abortions and favors parental-consent laws, his overall support for Roe v. Wade may disturb some GOP primary voters.


However, it’s not clear that it would disturb all of them.  If Brown, as a Presidential contender, vowed to support reasonable restrictions on “abortion on demand” and appoint strict constructionists such as Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court, would pro-life activists really abandon him for a less electable alternative?


The courageous Bay State group Massachusetts Citizens for Life supported Brown in the 2010 special election, recognizing that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.  One hopes that if Brown emerges as a viable Presidential contender in 2016, national pro-life activists will demonstrate similar pragmatism.


Yes, the thought of supporting someone who does not completely disavow Roe might be a difficult pill for pro-life activists to swallow. However, if there is clear evidence that Brown can win the White House in 2016, and that a less charismatic pro-lifer cannot, these pro-life activists will have to think long and hard about the consequences of not supporting Brown—especially after eight years of Obama appointing judges who oppose any real restrictions on abortion to the federal bench.


This is highly speculative, of course. Yet time moves fast, and the 2016 elections will be here before we know it. Sure, Obama could lose in 2012 to an as-yet-unknown Republican contender, putting the Oval Office out of Brown’s reach for years. However, if Obama and Brown both win in 2012, the conservative from the Commonwealth will certainly be considered a championship contender four years down the line.


Barring a career-ending scandal, severe illness, or a loss of support from Massachusetts voters, Scott Brown will be a GOP superstar for years to come. He has the same qualities Ronald Reagan exhibited a generation ago. He’s already a household name, and clearly comes across as being of Presidential timbre. If, a half-decade from now, Brown generates real momentum as a White House aspirant, pro-life activists will have to decide if they are with him or against him.


‘Mainstream’ Propaganda Doesn’t Work Any More – Truth Reigns Supreme.

They don’t like it. They don’t really understand it either or they wouldn’t do and say the things they do. The ‘lamestream’ or ‘fringe’ media as we sometimes call them, are being increasingly marginalized by the nearly instantaneous transfer of information available to the average person at his or her computer keyboard today.

Back in the day when virtually the entire hard news output was controlled by major print media and the three large television networks, NBC, CBS and ABC, there was a virtual lock on opinions voiced outside of these increasingly politicized outlets. With a decidedly left-leaning message, Americans were hammered for decades with decidedly one-sided messages. What conservative voices there were on the right were marginalized and diminished as being eccentrics and somehow outside the norm of American politics.

The increasing preeminence of leftist thought in our journalism schools had really begun to be felt in the late 60’s and 70’s when I had returned from military service and entered college. The anti-war movement was in full bloom and the left’s grip on academia was pronounced. As a journalism student I had numerous clashes with professors or grad students objecting to the the conservative slant of many of my pieces. This didn’t do a heck of a lot for my grades in those classes, but even then I was stubbornly defending my position and pointing out the fallacy of the liberal Utopian redistribution of wealth model. As you can well imagine, I took a lot of heat for speaking my mind and standing up for conservative principles.

With the advent of conservative talk radio and the personal computer came a sea-change in the public’s access to varied points of view. The so-called ‘mainstream’ press, both print and television, had dominated the landscape for so long that they had taken a paternalistic attitude that the American people really didn’t know any better. We had to have our ‘betters’ interpret for us. Along with the information revolution came the ability of America and the world to access information from thousands of sources instantaneously.

America had not been sufficiently dumbed down despite the left’s best efforts. We began to see the fallacy and the inaccuracies in what the left was saying. We saw lies and stories created out of whole cloth to support their socialist aims. Furthermore, we clearly saw the symbiosis between the leftist press and their political allies in the Democrat party and in the entrenched Washington bureaucracies. We began to talk to each other and exchange ideas. Not necessarily the ideas of our own party leadership either, for we had found them wanting. We came together through our new-found information freedom fountain as never before. The Conservative revolution was born. The country awoke and its people felt the resurgence of hope that was birthed with the adoption of the greatest document in history, the United States Constitution, on March 4, 1789.

We now re-dedicate ourselves to the ideals of the Constitution and the principles of truth, freedom and individual responsibility that has made America the greatest country in history.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2009


One CBS Reporter Dares to Fact-Check Obama

It's important for conservatives to know where McCain stands on health care, because his policy positions are under attack. For example, do you know how to respond if someone issues this challenge: "McCain wants to tax your health benefits"?

Kudos to CBS reporter Wyatt Andrews, who dug a little deeper into Obama's No. 1 scare line about McCain's health plan. (text and video available here.)

Yes, health benefits would be taxed -- right before people are given a tax credit to offset that tax.

People who currently get health insurance through their jobs are already getting a tax break -- it's just invisible because their employers are the ones paying the insurance premiums. The average tax break for a family under the current system for job-based insurance is $4,200 per year.

McCain would offer families a $5,000 tax credit. They could keep their job-based insurance if they want, but they could also shop around -- across state lines, even, under his proposal -- for a deal that suits them.

Andrews consulted Len Burman of the Tax Policy Center, who said, "Families at all income levels would pay lower taxes, at least on average. On average, it is about a $1,200 tax cut in 2009."

Syndicate content