Well now that Obama is President, the morally superior artistic proletariat is free to express their rage against their most important target....Sarah Palin??
It has been just over a year since Palin was thrust onto the national scene, and has survived many a skewering by the artistic left on the perpetual motion medium that is TV. But I think we have what would be our first throw-away jab a Palin in a major Hollywood release (be sure to watch the trailer in Quicktime HD, I will explain why in a sec).
The film, staring Sarah Jessica Parker, is about an NYC yuppie couple wisked off into witness protection in Hollywood's stereotypical podunk town in Wyoming (look out for Dick Cheney and his shotgun!) There is one scene where a fine-looking brunette cowmama (Mary Steenburgen) racks a shotgun, and Parker's aghast yuppie declares, "Oh my God, It's Sarah Palin." Oh...so clever. I am guessing that line has been percolating in some writer's mind since before he was released from interment in the Ashcroft Artistic Gulags in late January.
This line is sure to elicit guffaws aplenty, and make all left-thinking patrons of this film feel superior at having laughed in the face of evil and survived! Congratulations Hollywood, you made it to safety after 8 years of purgatory. Let the smugness flow....
Now, if the left can be catty about Palin, I suppose its OK for us to be so in return as well. Thus I have one question...When did the 44 year-old Sarah Jessica Parker turn 60?!? Egads! HD is NOT kind to the SJP. Somebody call the Botox Emergency line....
U.S. racism 'everywhere,' says Dave Matthews
“CNN: President Carter said he thinks that a lot of the animosity directed toward President Obama is race related.
Dave Matthews: Of course it is! I found there's a fairly blatant racism in America that's already there, and I don't think I noticed it when I lived here as a kid. But when I went back to South Africa, and then it's sort of thrust in your face, and then came back here -- I just see it everywhere. There's a good population of people in this country that are terrified of the president only because he's black, even if they don't say it. And I think a lot of them, behind closed doors, do say it. Maybe I'm paranoid about it, but I don't think someone who disagreed as strongly as they do with Obama -- if it was Clinton -- would have stood up and screamed at him during his speech. (Shakes his head) I don't think so.”
I love the fact that Matthews' entire premise is based upon the rock-solid arguments of “I think…” and “I don’t think…”
Translation: “Those moderates/conservatives must be racist, even if they don’t say it or act it. It is so obvious, just look at them! I know a racist when I see it, and I see them everywhere.”
Additionally, CNN's obvious implication is that since Dave Matthews grew up in South Africa, he must be an expert on racism. Yeah, the Tea Parties and political opposition to the President are just like Aparthied.
Perhaps Matthews has some Breitbart-like undercover video of Freedomworks personnel and GOP politicians renewing their Klan memberships, but I think it’s more likely that the real prejudice here is held by Dave Matthews… Isn't that the way it usually is with liberals?
A missing graduate student, dirty water, and nicer treatment for terrorist detainees. And...if you look a little closer...you might notice the acknowledgment that "thousands" of people marched on the National Mall to protest many items being pushed by the Obama Administration.
While the CNN article makes absolutely no mention of crowd size, it has been estimated by some that it could approach 2 million people. That may seem high, but even if the crowd surpassed 1 million, it could arguably be the largest crowd ever to assemble on the National Mall. In fact it would be higher than the crowd for President Obama's Inauguration.
Even if it were simply close to being the largest ever, one would think that might merit the leading headline on a slow news Saturday. Alas no, but lets take a look at what was on the major news webpages this evening....
Not a whole loota Tea Party in there is there? At least the WaPo put a Tea Party slideshow up there.
But I suppose we should not be at all surprised that these news
STATEMENT OF STATE’S ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR BALTIMORE CITY RELATIVE TO THE ALLEGED BALTIMORE ACORN INCIDENT
Baltimore, MD – September 11, 2009 – We have received inquiries from citizens and the media asking whether the Baltimore City State’s Attorneys Office would initiate a criminal investigation for acts allegedly committed at ACORN offices located in Baltimore. The only information received in reference to this alleged criminal behavior was a YouTube video. Upon review by this office, the video appears to be incomplete. In addition, the audio portion could possibly have been obtained in violation of Maryland Law, Annotated Code of Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article §10-402, which requires two party consent.
If it is determined that the audio portion now being heard on YouTube was illegally obtained, it is also illegal under Maryland Law to willfully use or willfully disclose the content of said audio. The penalty for the unlawful interception, disclosure or use of it is a felony punishable up to 5 years.
Talk about ignoring the issue! I wonder if news organizations based in Maryland will come to the defense of this exposé, and thus there own right to do undercover reporting in their own state.
Just another example of Gangster Government, this time on the local level.
One of this posts made the following observation:
TOM CLANCY WAS RIGHT: And we're living one of his scenarios right now. Not much is known for sure, but it's obvious that the United States is the target of a major terrorist assault.
It is hard to argue with that, having read Clancy's books like Sum of All Fears (before it got 'white-washed' in the movie version).
But if the situation in 2001 was like living in a Clancy novel, I would argue that 2009 is much like living in a Vince Flynn novel.
"The CIA has detected and intercepted two terrorist cells, but a third is feared to be on the loose. Led by a dangerous mastermind obsessed with becoming the leader of al-Qaeda, this determined and terrifying group is about to descend on America.Hmmm....a political witch-hunt to hog-tie and punish those who would dare to protect the country?? A powerful, female, liberal politician arguing to afford better rights to captured terrorists than our own troops? Sounds eerily familiar, eh?
[Mitch] Rapp needs the best on this assignment, and Nash, who has served his government honorably for sixteen years first as an officer in the Marine Corps and then as an operative in an elite counterterrorism team run by Rapp is his choice. Together, they have made careers out of meeting violence with extreme violence and have never wavered in the fight against the jihadists and their culture of death. Both have fought the war on terrorism in secret without accolades or acknowledgment of their personal sacrifices. Both have been forced to lie to virtually every single person they care about, and both have soldiered on with the knowledge that their hard work and lethal tactics have saved thousands of lives.
But the political winds have changed in America, and certain leaders on Capitol Hill are pushing to have men like Rapp and Nash put back on a short leash. And then one spring afternoon in Washington, DC, everything changes."
So once again I have to ask, if 2009 is like living in a Vince Flynn novel....Whereforartthou Mitch Rapp??
OMG. Yesterday was the date of my meeting with SAG regarding my nefarious (and unpaid) participation in a mini-DV short film, back in friggin’ 2002 (yes, the 2002 that was seven years ago), a film on which no money was spent nor made. I had expected to walk in and, once they realized that no money was made on this film (”Martine,” directed by Mark Gantt), I’d be dismissed with an apology for having been brought in at all. Wrong.
I sat down in a conference room at the SAG building opposite two lawyers, some SAG executive, some actress I didn’t know, and none other than Elliot Gould and Adam Arkin...
At one point, Gould lost it and yelled at me: “Your loyalty is to US! Your UNION! Not your friend in the middle of the night, whoever he is! To US! And What we’re FIGHTING FOR!”
"The group collectively lamented that the Right discovered Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” “It’s kind of scary! They have learned all of the tricks,” said Sue Esty, the assistant director of American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Maryland."
Two thoughts on this....
1) This of course is just more proof that what the left has been portraying all along (esp with the Unions) as 'Grassroots' have been "tricks", e.g. Astroturf.
2) Insomuch as the Right has discovered "Rules for Radicals", is has been mostly to finally understand the Left's gameplan, and not to use to formulate their own tactics. The high-level organization and coordination of the Tea Party movement has been somewhat minimal, unlike the coordinated political theater of the Left. Perhaps that, and other tactics, will change as "Rules for Radicals" is read for the first time by many on the Right. But for now, the "tricks" remain on the Left. One can almost see the Trial Lawyers gearing their patent infringement lawsuits now....
I am offended! I am not 'white', I am 'pigmentally challenged'...
Can you see America, this is what they meant by 'Hope & Change'. They can't be held responsible that you didn't read the fine print on the contract...
Watch the other vids at the Powerline link as well.
YAY! It's 'tough choices' time!
"The Obama administration has insisted that the pledge will stand. But the president's top economic advisers have refused to rule out broad-based tax increases to close the yawning gap between federal revenue and government spending and are warning of tough choices ahead."
But wait, I thought we already made 'tough choices' earlier this year. I mean that's what President Obama told us when speaking of his budget at one of his prime time
"And in this budget, we have made the tough choices necessary to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term – even under the most pessimistic estimates."
Let's see, 6 months ago when things were really bad, the 'tough choices' were made by President Obama and things would get better because of them. But now, back in the present, when the economy is looking better than those "most pessimistic estimates", we are being warned that their are 'tough choices' ahead? How is this possible in the land of hope and change?
So, was the President blowing smoke up our rear-ends back then to appear the savior, or are his advisers playing us for rubes now, hoping that we will forget their boss' earlier braggadocio??
I vote for both.
But in the end this 'tough choices' wordplay is only so much overacting in the political theater of Washington DC. While this venerable line may have worked in the past, in this summer of discontent, it is more likely to draw a fusillade of rotten tomatoes.
Most people aren't buying the BS anymore. They saw the all-you-can-eat pork barrel pig-out during the first 6 months of this administration, so they know that 'tough choices' means that they are going to be asked to pay for someone else's indiscretions, and they don't like it...
Steny Hoyer's Town Hall via Mark Hemingway over at The Corner:
"...when I arrived for the town hall being held by the congressman from Maryland's fifth district last night at a high school in Waldorf, I was two hours early, and the place already looked like Calcutta on Free Malaria Shot Day....[Hoyer's] speech was made up of such canned Democratic talking points that it would normally have been unremarkable, except that when you hear all the current Democratic health-care talking points assembled in one place, it's kind of hard not to notice how breathtakingly disingenuous they are."
But the best lines of the night came from Hoyer himself:
"After he repeatedly assured everyone that this bill was fiscally responsible, another questioner asked somewhat incredulously how this bill would save money. Hoyer responded, "I didn't say the bill would pay for itself, I said it would be paid for." The angry crowd didn't like that bit of sophistry one bit. And when another questioner asked how he could assure the bill's fiscal responsibility when Social Security and Medicare were bankrupt, Hoyer responded by saying, "Indeed, I don't know if they are going bankrupt . . ." and had to wait to continue because of the riotous laughter that ensued."
I would think that politicians should fear for their proposals, and perhaps their futures, when they are openly mocked by their constituents.
I think that may be my nomination for political line of the year.... "I didn't say the bill would pay for itself, I said it would be paid for." Now that is ballsy....