Visit Counter

Friday, June 1, 2012

Edwards walks





The precedent so it seems has been set. So now when you send a politican money thinking you're helping with his campaign and he spends it on his mistress or Pampers for his love child that is perfectly legal. It's not a campaign contribution it "evolves" into a gift.



The real reason for a mistrial. Stupidity or political affiliation?
Maybe both.


Combined IQ 110




The jurors who sensationally found disgraced politician John Edwards not guilty of illegally accepting campaign funds yesterday have said they do not think the case should have even gone to trial.

Speaking out for the first time since the verdict, the jurors said there was not enough evidence to find the former North Carolina senator guilty. The judge also ruled a mistrial on his five other counts.

One juror, Theresa Fuller, told Good Morning America: 'I felt like the evidence just wasn't there. It could have been more - a lot more - than what it was.'

When asked if the case should have even come to court, she responded: 'Honestly, no, I don't think they should have bought it.'

But another juror told the early-morning show that she would have liked to see the former senator take the stand, as some questions had remained unanswered.

'I would've liked to her more about the money,' she said. 'More about his intentions. That would have done it for me.'

But of the acquittal, she added: 'He didn't get the money, so I just didn't think he was guilty.'

Another juror, Denise Speight, spoke out for the first time about earlier reports she had flirted with John Edwards while in the court room.

'I just thought it was the most funny think I had ever heard,' she said, insisting she had been smiling about the media's reaction to the jurors' colour-coordinated outfits.

'[I had] no intention of flirting with John Edwards and I don't think he had any intention of blushing or flirting with me.'





The interview, in which the jurors described themselves as 'one big happy family', came after Edwards's tearful acknowledgment of his acquittal outside the courtroom on Thursday.

It also emerged he is unlikely to be tried again on the charges that were ruled a mistrial.

The Justice Department refused to comment on the outcome after spending millions of dollars of taxpayers money on the prosecution of the former U.S Senator, but an anonymous source familiar with the case said that a retrial was not expected.

Legal experts lined up to back up that opinion, with Jerry H. Goldfeder, a New York campaign finance lawyer saying in the LA Times, 'It would be very surprising if the government went back to the well to try him again. I think this prosecution is over. It failed and it is over.'




Share/Bookmark

Monday, May 28, 2012

No words are fitting...


This Memorial Day I received some very moving photos from fellow Vets.

None more so then this one.






Share/Bookmark

Sunday, May 27, 2012

New Shirt




On a tip from Ed Kilbane


Get yours today call  1-800-Bar-Obama!





Ineptocracy







Share/Bookmark

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Obama: 'I'm Not an Over-Spender'



I am sometimes astounded either how stupid this man is or how stupid he believes we all are. 

At a fundraiser for his re-election campaign in Denver last night, Barry set out to upend conventional Republican wisdom that his administration has been defined by excessive government spending.

"I'm running to pay down our debt in a way that's balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law," he told a crowd of donors at the Hyatt Regency. "My opponent won't admit it, but it's starting to appear in places, like real liberal outlets, like the Wall Street Journal: Since I've been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that."


You know, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Click post title if it won't play

What's Carney going to say now? It was taken out of context?


When he took over, the debt "he inherited" as he likes to say, was $10.6 trillion. Bush doubled the debt in his 8 years as president. Nothing to brag about.

Now Barry comes along and states he will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Which means, as we approach November the deficit should be around $5.3 trillion. Lets say Barry missed his target but got it down to 6.3 even 7.3 trillion. I would be satisfied with that.  As usual Barry likes to say what people want to hear. The difference being it's all idle talk. Not only has he not cut the deficit in half, he did the opposite. He increased by 50%!!!!

As I write this the deficit is a whopping $15.7 trillion. Barry's gonna have a lot of work to do between now and November.

Think about it. Can you really spend your way out of being broke?





Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Shameless Bias by Omission




On a tip from Ed Kilbane.




By
Brent Bozell
5-23-2012


You'd think the largest legal action in American history in defense of religious liberty would be a major news story. But ABC, CBS and NBC don't judge news events by their inherent importance as relates to the future of our freedoms. They deliver the news according to a simple formula: Does it or doesn't it advance the re-election of Barack Obama?

If it doesn't, it isn't news.

On May 21, 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations sued the Obama administration over its ridiculously narrow idea of how a "religious institution" can be defined under the Obamacare law. Never has the Catholic Church — or any order, for that matter — undertaken something of this magnitude. It's truly jaw-dropping that ABC and NBC completely ignored this action on their evening newscasts, while "CBS Evening News" devoted just 19 seconds to this historic event.

No, let's be blunt: They spiked the news.

This is the worst example of shameless bias by omission I have seen in the quarter-century history of the Media Research Center. We recall the Chinese Communists withholding from its citizenry for 20 years the news that the U.S. had landed on the moon because it reflected poorly on their government. Never, never would the U.S. "news" media behave thusly — they just did.

This is not an honest mistake. It was not an editorial oversight by the broadcast networks. It did not occur too late for the evening deadline. This was a deliberate and insidious withholding of national news to protect the "Chosen One" who ABC, CBS and NBC have worked so hard to elect and for whom they are now abusing their journalistic influence. Even when CBS mentioned the suit — ever so briefly — like so many others, they deliberately distorted the issue by framing it as a contraception lawsuit when it is a much broader religious freedom issue — and they know it.

This should be seen as a very dark cloud on Obama's political horizon. The Catholic Church, with 60 million Americans describing themselves as Catholic, has unleashed legal Armageddon on the administration, promising "we will not comply" with a health law that strips Catholics of their religious liberty. If this isn't "news," then there's no such thing as news.

This should be leading newscasts and the subject of special, in-depth reports. So what trumped this story? ABC led their evening broadcast and devoted an incredible 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the sentencing of the Rutgers student who spied on his gay roommate with a web camera.

NBC aired an entire story on a lunar eclipse. Both CBS and NBC devoted their first 3 minutes and 30 seconds to prostate-cancer screening.

Catholic taxpayers who help fund National Public Radio were also ignored on the evening newscast with that sad joke of a title — "All Things Considered."

If only some deceased priest had been accused of sexual improprieties in 1953 ... then Catholics would be seen as newsworthy. These "news" operations can't argue these are more important stories than the loss of religious freedom in America.

The print press isn't much better. For the Washington Post, there was a little one-column story buried on page A6. That fish wrap known as USA Today had a really tiny headline and 128-word item at the very bottom of A2. The New York Times had a perfunctory 419-word dispatch on page A17.

Two pages later, the Times defined as "news" what it prefers to report on Catholics: "2 Philadelphia Priests Punished in Sexual Abuse Cases." The paper noted one priest has been suspended from ministry for two years and the other had been placed on leave in December based on abuse that occurred about 40 years ago. This wasn't really "news" as a current matter, but this is always and everywhere the bigoted narrative the Times prefers to perpetuate.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops used the word "horror" to describe what Team Obama is mandating. On the only broadcast show to give him coverage, CBS "This Morning" anchor Charlie Rose asked Dolan if the White House misled him on this issue. Dolan began by saying he hesitated to question the president's sincerity — even though anyone who heard Obama's 2009 commencement speech at Notre Dame about "honoring the conscience" of his opponents on abortion has proven he is completely insincere.

The cardinal said, "I worry, Charlie, that members of his administration might not particularly understand our horror at the restrictive nature of this exemption that they're giving us, that for the first time that we can remember, a bureau of the federal government seems to be radically intruding into the internal definition of what a church is. We can't seem to get that across."

He's not finding much help getting anything across from those supposed "mediators" of the national press corps.











Share/Bookmark