Reality Shifting

Anything to excuse a man from violently assaulting a woman.

At POWIP, video of the girl rushing to Rand Paul's car and, yes, assaulting him, by pushing a placard against his face.

Yes, that's assault and battery. You cannot just reach out and touch whoever you like. Particularly when you're doing so in a menacing manner -- like running up to an open car window while wearing a disguise to hide your appearance.

They allowed her to commit assault once -- how many times should she be permitted to commit? When she rushed him a second time -- her intentions already made clear by the first assault -- should she have been permitted to re-offend?

Let's see this "assault":



This sign never even makes it in the car, so how was he "assaulted". Well, I do suppose that attempting to hand someone a non-lethal piece of cardboard constitutes a terrorist action when it comes to the Tea Baggers.

But more to the point, if Rand truly was assaulted, why didn't he say so in his interview on Fox"News" regarding the incidents of that night?

The more conservatives attempt to deflect from the real crime of the evening, the more that they come off as the unhinged masses they claim the left is.

And where was this "second assault"?

The Narrative Has Been Flipped

Michelle Malkin once again proves the longstanding point that conservatives are more than willing to be unblushing hypocrites when the time is right.

Case in point, the recently released video footage of would-be Tea Bagger Senator Christine O'Donnell's admission that she dabbled in witchcraft.

Narcissism. Blackmail. Distortion. All wrapped in his trademark smirk of pallor. Yes, it’s tired old liberal “comedian” Bill Maher trying to get Senate GOP primary candidate Christine O’Donnell to come on his show by baiting her with a brief video clip in which she mentions having “dabbled” in “witchcraft” and hung around people who practiced it.

The left-wing blogs (and a few short-sighted rightie ones) are having a field day. What they all seem to have missed is the context for the discussion. The AP says the “context of what led to the comment is not clear.”

But after chiding Maher for doing exactly what Andrew Breitbart makes a living doing ( actually Maher was much more honest and forthcoming about the footage he has than the blubbery rage we expect from the man behind the website "BigJournalism" ) and in typical purse-lipped outrage, Malkin takes to O'Donnell's defense. But why is Malkin defending a clear and unchallenged admission? Could it be that she has to defend the Tea Baggers at all costs, prior standpoints regarding Democrats be damned?

So, she tried it. She rejected it. And she learned from it.

Somehow, this Maher-edited clip (which was never aired on TV, by the way) warrants a declaration from my friend John Hinderaker at Power Line that O’Donnell’s career is “RIP.”

Nonsense. She has nothing to be ashamed of — except, perhaps, for going on Maher’s show so many times. He promises to release 22 more clips until she sits down with him in front of the cameras and brags, in typical TV chauvinist fashion, that he “created her” and that she “owe[s]” him.

Does anyone recall how the blood-thirsty conservative masses - Malkin included - were literally wetting themselves over rank speculation at what Barack Obama may or may not have done in previous years? It was an all out brawl to see who could be the first and loudest with regards to literally every aspect of Obama's fabricated past.

But it isn't just Malkin that is upset at the vetting process when it comes to conservatives. They simply can't stand to have their own words read back to them, for them to be challenged on their statements and actions. I'm just counting down the moments until Malkin finally goes all in with her whining and forgetfulness of even recent history and starts shouting "sexism".

Conservative Gimmicks : Part 6743

In which we see someone that has an angle, but couldn't possibly see the rebuttal.



And while the crew at Hot Air quite predictably fall for the "manly" aspect of this, It should be pointed out that this "manly man" has some conservatives at a rolling boil because he was on "The Real World".

What could possibly come to mind when someone with these credentials decides to run for office....................?



'Nuff said

Unsourced Rhetoric

Leave it to the folks at HotAir to title a lead headline with an unsourced "quote" in order to connect Obama with the murders at the University of Alabama.

An article in the Boston Herald in the headlines section of the fringe-conservative site.



The article paints the portrait of a troubled woman, no doubt, but there are referenced quotations from those that new Amy Bishop - a woman who allegedly went on a shooting spree at the University of Alabama - that provide valid information to the report. It was toward the end of the article that this rather odd "quote" was referenced.

A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children - the youngest a third-grade boy - was a far-left political extremist who was “obsessed” with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.

But Mercedes Paz, a Brookline biochemist who also oversaw Bishop’s work in 1993, described her as a friend and a likable woman.

Notice how the unsourced quote was immediately followed by a detailed one?

I'm not entirely sure what the writers, Laurel J. Sweet, Jessica Van Sack, Jessica Fargen and Ira Kantor, were intending by putting in this specious piece of data, but it certainly fits into the conservative meme that Obama supporters are unhinged zombies ready to strike at a moments notice.

If these writers expect their reporting to be taken seriously, leave out the conjecture and stick with facts.

Shorter Ace Of Spades

Obama's Birthday Cake Demonstrates His Signature Modesty, Restraint

In a complete waste of time and bandwidth, I'm going to blatantly look like an asshat in order to talk shit about Barack Obama. And even though I'll temper my statement by saying that he didn't make the cake and that he has the ability to read, unlike that one Republican guy that I support for 8 years, I will talk shit about any and everything that Obama does even though it makes me look like a pathetic choad. Seriously, this guy could cure cancer and AIDS in the same week and I'd still be able to find some fault in it. After all, when you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, what more do you expect out of me?

When Political Affiliation Means Nothing - Except That It Does, Maybe

It's become a predictable situation, that hardline Republicans will either deny party affiliation when one of their own has been "caught in the act" of something. Either that, or they will create the illusion that the offender of of an "opposing" party is guilty in part simply because is "of that party".

The particular story that I reference here is in regards to the "Anthrax Mailer" and how the blog AceOf Spades is using this story to show that the fact that he was allegedly a "registered Democrat" helps prove his guilt.

So if you're wondering why Ivins' political affiliation has not been reported -- as many of you were certain would be the main storyline here, assuming he had turned out to be Republican -- there's your answer. Surely the MSM would be calling him a Republican in every report, but, alas, it turns out he's a Democrat, and hence no reportage on this aspect of his political beliefs whatsoever.

I wouldn't read too much into his political affiliation; his main party was of course "Crazy."

What is a conservative blogger, reporter, pundit, or commentator to do when a story about a "crime" is ran without mention of the criminals registered political party? Why, use that to show that those reporting it are biased, of course.

And, if said criminal is allegedly a registered Democrat, take it a step further and claim that "the left" will attempt to exonerate said criminal simply because of this.

Ivins Was an Out-and-Proud, Bona-Fide, Broken-Glass Democrat: Kudos to the Brad Blog for reporting it. I suppose it's sadly inevitable that, having found out the culprit was an out-and-proud partisan Democrat, the lefty blog immediately begins doubting he could have been the culprit.

So, my question is this - what does a person's voter registration status have to do with criminal acts they may or may not have commited? Is there a precedent somewhere that shows that a Democrat is more likely to commit a crime than a Republican?

The answer is, most likely, a resounding "no".

Though "Ace" attempts to mask the thesis of his story, it is clear that he is attempting to draw a direct correlation between being a Democrat and being a person that is likely to commit a "terrorist" attack.

And, while we are on the subject of Dr. Ivin's alleged guilt, there was an interesting discussion about this on last night's COUNTDOWN:



Though many - if not all - within the conservative-blogging-community will lambast me for even referencing this dicussion above, it should be noted that none of what was discussed on COUTNDOWN seems to be a topic of discussion anywhere else. Of course, knowing the conservative response to that would be that Olbermann is obviously a biased, left-wing, hack isn't going to stop me from referencing it.

****UPDATE****

Dr. Ivin's story is starting to get some traction.

If Dr. Ivin's was so "mentally unstable", why was he not removed from his job? It would appear that his employer would have known of this and either fired him or not hired him in the first place.

What about the fact that the Anthrax that Dr. Ivin's used to test out a vaccine with was in liquid and not "weaponized" form?

What about the fact that it took 7 years to find this man?

Perhaps it's my cynical nature, or my unwillingness to believe any and everything that my government and the media-at-large tells me, but there has to be more to this story than we are being told.

Olbermann's highlighting of this in no way makes me believe Dr. Ivin's is innocent, but at least he is asking the questions that others don't seem to be.