Oh Noes: SC GOP Not Down With the AoSHQ Lifestyle

Attention morons - your ilk is not welcome to run in the Laurens County, SC Republican Party primary.

Because they have standards.

Standards that you can't possibly meet - well unless you have access to a time machine. And in that case we're gonna want to talk to you about why you've been holding out and not offering to do a little 2008 retconning.

Before you can join the Laurens County Republican Party in South Carolina and get on the primary ballot, they ask that you pledge that you've never ever had pre-marital sex - and that you will never ever look at porn again.

Last Tuesday, the LCGOP unanimously adopted a resolution that would ask all candidates who want to get on the primary ballot to sign a pledge with 28 principles, because the party "does not want to associate with candidates who do not act and speak in a manner that is consistent with the SC Republican Party Platform."

And what happens if you fall off the pr0n wagon?

The pledge, which all Republican candidates must sign if they expect to be on the Republican ballot, also says, in its introduction, that the local party will "... seek to hold me into account ..." if the candidate is negligent in upholding the principles set forth in the Pledge.

The process for "holding into account" is not specified in the document.

Also out: Thai tranny hookers - which are forbidden under no less than three provisions.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:53 PM | Comments (735)
Post contains 868 words, total size 11 kb.

Whatever Midas had? Yeah, Obama has something different.

A $100,000-plus Fisker Automotive luxury car died during Consumer Reports speed testing for reasons that are still unknown, leaving the struggling electric car startup with another blow to its image.

"It is a little disconcerting that you pay that amount of money for a car and it lasts basically 180 miles before going wrong," David Champion, senior director for the magazine's automotive test center, told Reuters.

...

The breakdown of the Consumer Reports car is more bad news for a company that already recalled some Karmas. Fisker also has changed its CEO and halted production over the past month as it seeks to renegotiate the terms of a $529 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy.

And when asked if he owned a Chevy Volt, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he didn't even own a car. At the moment.

This administration seems to have a very theoretical connection with reality.

If you've ever wondered what Government By Hippies might look like, now you know.

Put Me In Coach, I'm Ready

Now, from what I've gathered from cursory observation, the guy on the little hill is going to throw a ball, and I'm going to hit it, right?

Posted by: Ace at 03:50 PM | Comments (392)
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

Via Dan Riehl, this sure is funny.

Joel Pollack challenged Soledad O'Brien three times to provide a working definition of "critical race theory." She kept saying, basically, I don't want to define it, I just want to see if you can.

Eventually sheproduced a definition.

Soledad O’Brien: “Critical Race Theory looks into the intersection of race and politics and the law.”

Wikipedia entry on Critical Race Theory: “Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an academic discipline focused upon the intersection of race, law and power.”

But maybe she just had Wikipedia's brief definition memorized?

Maybe not.

Later in the video, O’Brien can be heard deflecting another question from Pollak, saying “You know what, someone was talking in my ear, so I couldn’t hear what you said.”

By the way, I denounce myself for calling Soledad O'Brien old. I'll be suspending my segment, Soledad O'Brien is Aging Poorly, until after this controversy blows over.

Posted by: Ace at 02:38 PM | Comments (245)
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

In the version dated January 31, 2012, the words "white supremacy" and "racial power" appear.

Although no set of canonical doctrines or methodologies defines CRT, the movement is loosely unified by two common areas of inquiry. First, CRT has analyzed the way in which white supremacy and racial power are reproduced over time, and in particular, the role that law plays in this process.

(Emphasis added.) However, the current version states the following:

Although no set of canonical doctrines or methodologies defines CRT, the movement is loosely unified by two common areas of inquiry. First, CRT has analyzed the way in which racial hierarchies are reproduced over time, and in particular, the role that law plays in this process.

(Emphasis added.) You can see both versions on this page. If you go to the revision page, it looks like a little war broke out today, with edits and re-edits. One participant commented that it had obviously been changed to match "Soledad Obrien's empty-headed explanation on television last night."

Busted!

Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 02:08 PM | Comments (142)
Post contains 189 words, total size 2 kb.

The media refused to comment on this at the time. Now it's a bit inconvenient. They want to talk Limbaugh, but there are some of these stinky poopies out there, and it just makes the attack a little blunter than it could be.

So, Keith Olbermann, fooling no one at all, attempts to call a Mulligan on his own War on Women remarks.

The point of this is not to actually apologize; it's just to try to remove the inevitable rebuttal from the right.

He could have apologized at any time in the past few years had he believed a drop of this. He didn't. The "apology" is just tactical.

Oh, he's also suspending his Worst Person in the World segment. Again. If you remember, he suspended this when the left was making its last ridiculous PC attack, the "New Tone" attacks that followed the Gabby Giffords shooting. (Shot by a lunatic whose politics was chiefly concerned with subversion by grammar.)

He suspended the segment then -- for a short time --- only so the New Tone battleplan could go on without his nasty stuff complicating The Narrative.

And now he's suspended it again. It will be suspended only for about as long as the current War on Women tactic is useful; the moment it runs out of gas, the segment's back on, and so are the mashed bags of meat.

By the way, there's no actual apology in his "apology." He goes on the attack against Malkin and S.E. Cupp and defends his remarks.

But he's got that soundbite out there -- he "apologized." The attack can go forward again without his undermining The Narrative.

Oh: The guy who made a minor name for himself by histrionically calling everyone he disagreed with a fascist, Nazi, or mashed-up bag of meat now "challenges" all other commentators to "elevate their tone."

Just like he did a year ago.

Until he reinstated Worst Person in the World.

Keith Olbermann

His "civility" is in and out of retirement more than George Foreman.

Posted by: Ace at 01:37 PM | Comments (139)
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

Breitbart.com notes the passing of the great man, and let's the world know Breitbart's still here, in spirit.

The funeral was truly wonderful. I could only think about Andrew's lovely wife and his four young children. To the extent a funeral could help, I have to think his kids, at least, left knowing he wasn't just the big goofy guy they called dad. But a man who'd made a real mark on the world, and who'd become beloved by all who knew them.

He was a fighter. He had fire. And he was able to adapt to anything. I trust Andrew has bequeathed his kids some of that, and I hope it serves them well in the tough times.

One thought I had was that I'd wished they'd videotaped the speeches. Not just to memorialize Andrew -- though they did that very well -- but to remind people of the real humanity of the man, his warmth and affection and inherent goodness.

I have this thought as I watch the Media continue to attack anyone who dares to even disagree with one whom they have now clutched to their family bosom, Sandra Fluke. One cannot even disagree with Sandra Fluke without being attacked as engaging in "outrageously demeaning" slander, and yet Andrew Breitbart -- a far finer man than Sandra Fluke could ever hope to use a sponge with -- can be castigated by the media within hours of his death.

No one bats an eye. That's to be expected. The media knows who is human, and who is not.

I am remembering something I'm 99% sure Andrew said or wrote shortly before he passed. I think a commenter mentioned it, last week, before the sad day.

Breitbart said of the media: To them, we're not even human.

That is the essence of the problem. I have less of a problem with a Nancy Pelosi or a Bill Maher. They are supposed to be intense, nasty partisans who dehumanize their opponents.

But the media pretends to be a fair and neutral moderator of the national debate.

To them, it is outrageous to pick upon a poor (???-- will be very wealthy, shortly) 30 year old woman who makes laughable claims to a Congressional panel. She is a Human Being, and their protectiveness of her extends to attacking those who even politely disagree.

A great man, a great father, a great son and a great husband passes, and no one in the media even considers similarly scolding Matt Taibi, Matthew Yglesias, or David Frum.

Two of those men said they were glad he'd died. A third strongly suggested it.

The media is so acutely aware that Sandra Fluke is a human being who can be hurt by words.

Do they have any sense that Andrew Breitbart was not, perhaps, quite so invulnerable and he might have projected?

To the media, we're not truly human.

I do not want to mention any details of the funeral because I was there as a guest, not media. And in fact they made sure there was no media. But this is a very lighthearted thing, and I think it's okay to share.

Andrew Breitbart had a favorite joke. A joke he made his father in law, Orson Bean, tell everyone who he ever introduced him to. (I did not ever hear the joke, until the funeral.)

Mr. Bean thought it would be nice to tell Andrew's favorite joke, to his family and friends, one last time.

The funeral was so touching and so heartfelt and so sad, and yet, like Andrew, also so full of life. It was a wonderful moment to have the sadness pushed away for a moment, for this one joke.

When a eulogist begins a joke, "An old man picks up a hooker," you know you're in for something special.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (243)
Post contains 705 words, total size 4 kb.

A professor at Rochester knocked Limbaugh's choice of words, but then made this observation:

[W]hile Ms. Fluke herself deserves the same basic respect we owe to any human being, her position — which is what’s at issue here — deserves none whatseover. It deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered. To treat it with respect would be a travesty. I expect there are respectable arguments for subsidizing contraception (though I am skeptical that there are arguments sufficiently respectable to win me over), but Ms. Fluke made no such argument. All she said, in effect, was that she and others want contraception and they don’t want to pay for it.

Note that the attacks on Limbaugh were due, supposedly, to his "misogynistic" language.

So this professor rap his language -- but goes on to say her position is ludicrous and worthy in itself of mockery.

So, no problem, right?

Wrong, of course.

Turns out that disagreeing with her was the problem all along.

Protesting students entered LandsburgÂ’s room at the beginning of his mid-afternoon class.

“They formed a line between him and the class. And he continued to lecture,” said UR spokeswoman Sharon Dickman, who noted a couple of University Security officers were on the scene but didn’t need to take any action.

After about 15 minutes, the protesters left but returned about 45 minutes later for the end of the class, which Landsburg dismissed about five minutes early.

The president of Rochester did not tell the students to stop disrupting class. Rather, he attacked the professor:

UR President Joel Seligman sharply criticized the professor, Steven Landsburg. Seligman’s statement, which was included in a Wednesday email of college news sent to faculty and staff, said that he is “outraged that any professor would demean a student in this fashion.”

Am I to understand that attacking the position -- the position, not the person -- of a student is "demeaning" to the point of "outrage"?

Apparently so, apparently so.

Although the professor, Landsburg, has tenure, Instapundit notes that all non-tenured professors are now put on notice: Endorse and propagate Fluke's childish belief system or face consequences.

Compare this typical leftwing crap, and all the national coverage of it, with this genuine example of hatred (apparently inspired by a teacher's hatred) and the absolutely zero coverage of it.

Posted by: Ace at 10:58 AM | Comments (244)
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

Real unemployment jumped up to 19.1%.

19.1%. Remember when Bush's unemployment rate of 5.5% was being knocked because the real unemployment rate was something like 8%?

The government releases its own numbers tomorrow.

I'm very curious. I think they'll be at something like 8.3%. Then someone has to ask the question.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:44 AM | Comments (286)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

It wasn't pretty.

O'Brien took the position the video of Obama and Derrick Bell wasn't a bombshell, but she did so in a dismissive manner and with a heavy dose of attempted sarcasm. This went well beyond journalistic skepticism; it was advocacy. Or attempted advocacy. Pollak, Breitbart's editor-in-chief, demolished the panel--with the exception Amy Holmes, who wondered why the information didn't surface in 2008. Unlike O'Brien, Pollak remained polite and appropriate the entire time. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 09:08 AM | Comments (449)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

Hi. Using the Open Blogger pass until I can get my computer (with its saved passwords) running.

I'm sure this has been covered, but forgive me, I'm behind, and this is something I'm afraid of.

Imagine if Obama wins. He will in all likelihood not have the House. That means there is a negative check on him. Congress can, in theory, check him through inaction, through refusing (per its Constitutional power) to pass this law or that resolution.

The House, however, does not have the power to govern affirmatively. It can't replace the President. Even if that would be preferable.

So Obama continues to dream up new "authorities" by which he can rule using what he claims is the implicit tyrannical power of the executive itself.

He has claimed he can appoint people to posts without Congressional approval, by claiming he can declare when Congress is adjourned. He claims that he can change the law by using the administrative agencies to rewrite the law -- claiming direct changes in the meaning of the law are just "regulations" to be fixed by bureaucrats.

And now even regarding the most important political check that exists-- the Constitution requires Congressional approval for war?

Obama finds that part of the Constitution no longer operative.

This will, of course, continue and worsen. No tyrant has ever drank of the poisoned well and decided he'd whetted his thirst for unchecked power enough.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 08:31 AM | Comments (199)
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.