Category: Politics

Mississippi/Alabama: Obama’s a Muslim

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics3 Comments

As I sat here this morning, contemplating my vote later today in the Mississippi Republican Primary, a story being covered on Talk Memphis, the Morning Drive Radio Program on WKIM 98.9, caught my attention.

Publicpolicypolling.com has the story:

There’s considerable skepticism about Barack Obama’s religion with Republican voters in them. In Mississippi only 12% of voters think Obama’s a Christian to 52% who think he’s a Muslim and 36% who are not sure. In Alabama just 14% think Obama’s a Christian to 45% who think he’s a Muslim and 41% who aren’t sure.

So, why do all these hard-working folks believe that President Barack Hussein Obama is, in fact, a Muslim?

For 20 years, Obama sat under the teachings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the Trinity United Church of Christ .  Let’s look at the background of Rev. Wright, courtesy of freerepublic.com, shall we?

What most people do not know is that Reverend Jeremiah Wright was a Muslim and a Black Activist before he became the founding pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, a Black Liberation Theology Church.

The rest, you already know.  As a reminder, though, Discoverthenetworks.org gives us the following summation of  Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

  • Longtime pastor and spiritual mentor of Barack Obama
  • Considers the U.S. to be a nation rife with racism and discrimination
  • Blames American racism for provoking the 9/11 attacks
  • “Islam and Christianity are a whole lot closer than you may realize,” he has written. “Islam comes out of Christianity.”
  • Embraces liberation theology and socialism
  • Strong supporter of Louis Farrakhan
  • Likens Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to South Africa’s treatment of blacks during the apartheid era

But, what is Black Liberation Theology?

Again, discoverthenetworks.org gives us the lowdown:

The chief architect of black liberation theology was James Cone, author of Black Theology and Black Power. One of the tasks of this movement, according to Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of blacks who have long been victimized by white oppressors. According to black liberation theology, the inherent racism of white people precludes them from being able to recognize the humanity of nonwhites; moreover, their white supremacist orientation allegedly results in the establishment of a “white theology” that is irrevocably disconnected from the black experience. Consequently, liberation theologians contend that blacks need their own, race-specific theology to affirm their identity and their worth.

“What we need,” says Cone, “is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Observing that America was founded for white people, Cone calls for “the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” He advocates the use of Marxism as a tool of social analysis to help Christians to see “how things really are.”

Another prominent exponent of black liberation theology is the Ivy League professor Cornel West, who calls for “a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers” — a dialogue that centers on the possibility of “mutually arrived-at political action.”

Matthew 7:16 tells us,

You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

In his book, Audacity of Hope, written by Bomber Bill Ayers, Obama said:

In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

On August 13, 2010, at the annual Ramadan Iftar Dinner, Obama said:

Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities – particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

On April 15, 2010, it was reported on Mediaite.com that:

The Obama Administration canceled the White House service to observe the National Day of Prayer, causing a big stir among those who may be looking for reasons or examples to question the President’s faith. It turns out that the President did not cancel the actual day, but rather the ecumenical service, a tradition that only started under the previous administration.

Writing for the LA Times, Johanna Neuman reports:

On the first Thursday of May, dedicated as the National Day of Prayer, President George W. Bush hosted an ecumenical service in the East Room, a big public endorsement of evangelical Christians. (This event is different from the National Prayer Breakfast, held outside the White House gates every year on the first Thursday of February.)President Obama opted not to have a service in the White House this year.“Prayer is something that the president does every day,” explained White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, adding that Obama will sign a proclamation to recognize the day. “I think the president understands, in his own life and in his family’s life, the role that prayer plays.”

That’s great.  However, the question remains for a lot of Americans, and not just those in Mississippi and Alabama, to Whom is he praying?

Obama Doubles Down on…Malaise

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

I put $20 worth of gas in my 1992 Buick yesterday. Don’t laugh.  My wife drives our 2009 Equinox because I’m a good husband…and well-trained.

Anyway, I noticed that it did not even fill up to half a tank, as the price here in DeSoto County, Mississippi is sitting at $3.59 per gallon.

Why is it that Democratic Presidents, who are supposed to be brilliant leaders, (just ask them) can’t control the price of a gallon of gasoline?

Oh, they can sure tell you what you need to do in order to cope with their poor leadership in this area, though.  For example:

Jimmy Carter delivered a televised speech, presenting his Proposed Energy Policy for the nation on April 18, 1977.  Here is an excerpt:

These are the goals we set for 1985:

-Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

-Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

-Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

-Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months’ supply.

-Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

-Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

-Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.

I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.

This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future.

Whether this plan truly makes a difference will be decided not here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home and on every highway and every farm.

I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people.

We have been proud of our leadership in the world. Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.

And we have been proud of our vision of the future. We have always wanted to give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we’ve had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don’t act.

I’ve given you some of the principles of the plan.

I am sure each of you will find something you don’t like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in our lives. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful — but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs, and to some greater inconveniences for everyone.

But the sacrifices will be gradual, realistic and necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden. We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies, so that we will know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits.

The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.

We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.

There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.

Carter’s Energy Policy stank on ice, and Ronald Wilson Reagan beat Jimmy Carter for the presidency in a landslide.

Is America experiencing Deja Vu…all over again?

WFTV anchor Greg Warmoth conducted a one-on-one interview with President Barack Hussein Obama, Monday in Washington, D.C.  One of the things they discussed was the skyrocketing price of gas:

Obama referred to the phrase, “there’s no magic bullet.” The president said any politician who says there is one is not being truthful.

Still, an ABC poll released on Monday shows Obama is taking the blame.

The poll shows two-thirds of Americans disapprove of his handling of gas prices, which is a record high for the president, and only eight months before the election.

“Well look, as long as gas prices are going up, people are going to feel like I’m not doing enough, and I understand that,” Obama said.

The president said his fight for a payroll tax cut last year will help Americans afford higher gas prices.

“Ultimately, though there’s no silver bullet. The way we’re going to solve this problem is what we talk about today in our energy report,” Obama said.

The president said America has had the highest domestic oil production in more than a decade.

The nation now exports more crude than it imports, reducing dependence on foreign oil, along with new fuel efficiency standards for cars and investments in alternative fuels.

“The bigger driver of these gas prices is speculation of war in the Middle East, which is why we’ve been trying to reduce loose talk about a war there,” Obama said.

Republicans on the campaign trail see gas prices as a political opening against Obama.

‘Your opponents say they can get gas to the $2.50 range. What do you think Americans should be OK with?” Warmoth asked.

“First of all, nobody believes that. They know that’s just politics. Anybody who says we can get gas down to two bucks a gallon just isn’t telling the truth,” Obama said.

Obama did not give Warmoth an answer as to how much Americans should pay for gas.

However, Obama said his energy advisor did not rule out tapping the country’s oil reserves.

In the latest version of the normally-Democrat-over-sampled New York Times/CBS Poll, Obama’s Job Approval Rating has dropped from 47% to 41%. Just a month ago, he was sitting pretty at 50%.

Carter on steroids…indeed.

 

“Game Change” Same Old Liberal Propaganda

On By kingsjesterIn Entertainment, Politics4 Comments

My bride and I dropped HBO a couple of years ago, to save money.  I’m glad that we did. The Liberals who run it have screwed up what used to be a very good movie channel.

They’ve turned it into a propaganda platform for their political ideology, featuring the misogynist rantings of the decidedly unfunny Bill Maher and made-for-HBO movies, such as Game Change, about the nomination of Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee.

The Weekly Standard has the story:

Nicolle Wallace was the onetime consultant to CBS News and media aide to George W. Bush who was assigned to work with Sarah Palin after the Alaska governor was chosen as John McCain’s running mate. It was Wallace who assured the McCain campaign that her dear friend Katie Couric, a committed liberal with a history of interviewing Republicans and conservatives in a quietly nasty way, was the right journalist to conduct a major early interview with the extremely conservative vice-presidential nominee.

Palin has only herself to blame for how horribly she came off, but as she was the most hotly sought-after interview in the world at the time, the McCain campaign could have picked and chosen and been cleverly calculating about which journalist would win the prize. Wallace was responsible for one of the great blunders in political advance work of modern media history.

Now, imagine you’re making a movie about the Palin story, one that demonstrates a modicum of sympathy for Sarah Palin’s excoriation at the hands of the media. (I know, I’m talking crazy, but go with me here.) In such a movie, Nicolle Wallace’s catastrophic guidance could have been portrayed in several ways. It could have been played as a simple goof, a wrongheaded political calculation. Or as an example of a kind of golly-gee naïveté, with Wallace being snowed by a seductive Couric. Or as a careerist move killing two birds with one stone, with Wallace seeking to stay in the good graces of her former colleague Couric despite several years of working for Republicans.

Needless to say, that is not how Nicolle Wallace is portrayed in Game Change, the new HBO movie based on the John Heilemann-Mark Halperin bestseller. No, indeed. Wallace is the movie’s heroine. She is the voice of reason, the increasingly alarmed witness to the evil McCain has perpetrated by foisting Palin upon the world. It is through Wallace’s interactions with the vice-presidential candidate that we see confirmed every bad thing anyone has ever said about Palin (save that she is not the mother of Trig—it steers clear of that Sullivanian filth). Wallace (played by Sarah Paulson) delivers screenwriter Danny Strong’s inadvertently hilarious Blue State zinger when, dripping with righteous scorn during a confrontation with Palin, she says with disbelief, “Yeah, you’re just like Hillary.”

Wallace’s deeply principled revulsion is mirrored by that of Steve Schmidt (Woody Harrelson), the McCain campaign chief whose initial excitement at Palin’s political skills and smarts is fast superseded by his awareness of her religious fanaticism (Schmidt gets a horrified look on his face when she says she sees the hand of God at work) and her ignorance.

Yes, if ever you wanted circumstantial evidence that the sources within the McCain campaign who spent October 2008 dumping on Palin anonymously might have included Wallace and Schmidt, you need look no further than HBO’s Game Change. The movie presents a moral case for the disreputable conduct of aides who, we can presume, fearlessly drop dirty dimes anonymously to save their own standing in the liberal culture from which they desperately wish not to be excluded.

Those closest to Gov. Palin, and the Arctic Fox, herself, aren’t particularly impressed by the movie, to say the least.

According to ABC News:

In response to the movie “Game Change” focusing on her historic selection as the GOP vice presidential nominee in the 2008 campaign, Sarah Palin says in an email to ABC News that the film doesn’t matter to her.

“I believe my family has the right priorities and knows what really matters,” Palin emailed. “For instance, our son called from Afghanistan yesterday and he sounded good, and that’s what matters. Being in the good graces of Hollywood’s ‘Team Obama’ isn’t top of my list.”

Palin’s allies have dismissed ”Game Change,” which is based on the book that described the former Alaska governor’s lurch onto the national stage, as a bundle of lies. Her former aide Jason Recher called it a “false narrative cobbled together by a group of people who simply weren’t there.”

Randy Scheunemann, who advised Palin during the campaign, said that “to call this movie fiction gives fiction a bad name.”

Other aides who worked on the campaign – campaign manager Steven Schmidt and top aide Nicolle Wallace – have said the film is a generally accurate portrayal of Sen. John McCain’s selection of Palin, whom they allege was emotionally and intellectually not up for the job.

Of course, Schmidt is now working as a on-air contributor for MSNBC, where Ms. Wallace is a frequent guest as a Political Pundit.

No agendas here.  Nope.  Nothing to see at all…literally.

Sandra Fluke, Anita Dunn, and Chairman Mao

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

The second week into the Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh dust-up, things are beginning to tumble like a house of cards, regarding this Democratically-engineered controversy.

Bill O’ Reilly reported the following on foxnews.com on March 8th:

As we reported last night, “The Factor” believes that the Sandra Fluke contraception controversy was manufactured to divert attention away from the Obama administration’s disastrous decision to force Catholic non-profit organizations to provide insurance coverage for birth control and the morning after pill. That might very well be unconstitutional.

Anyway, we’re having trouble tracking down just who is sending Sandra around to the media. It’s very strange. So far, the 30-year-old activist has appeared on eight national news programs where she was not challenged at all. Last week, we called Sandra on her cell phone and invited her on “The Factor.” She didn’t call back, very unusual. There was no other public contact for the woman, just her cell phone.

A man named Mike has booked her on a few programs, but we can’t even get his last name. And Mike doesn’t provide call-back numbers to those with whom he speaks. So Mike, who are you? And why the subterfuge?

Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor… a-ha.

So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let’s run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group “Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice.” On February 9th, a group called “The Feminist Majority Foundation” arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama’s contraception mandate.

After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.

Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied. A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.

So it seems there is a powerful presence behind Sandra Fluke. And as the polls show the controversy has benefited the President of the United States, who is on the ropes with the church deal. This is all the more amazing because the controversy Sandra is embracing is completely bogus as I explained on “The View” today.

So, what kind of clientele does Ms. Dunn’s law firm handle?

On October 15, 2009, Michelle Malkin reported the following information:

Hat tip: Ace and HA.

***

More: Squier, Knapp, and Dunn — Dunn’s p.r. firm — has clients including:

*SEIU-National

*SEIU-Local 1199

*Ceres-Far Left environmentalists “for sustainable prosperity”

*American Rights at Work-Big Labor outfit chaired by David Bonior

And more from reader Dan:

1. Her firm did the ads for Rod Blagojevich in Illinois in 2002 and 2006. In other words, they used lies to help elect the most corrupt governor in Illinois.

2. She or her partner Squier have widely been speculated to be one of the figures mentioned in Blagojevich indictment as a Washington consultant on a conference call mentioned by Patrick Fitzgerald.

3. Dunn’s husband was also the personal lawyer of Barack Obama related to the Blagojevich matter. Remember, he was questioned by the feds.

And, Ms. Dunn’s personal ideology?  Well…

On October 21, 2009, John Fund, writing for the Wall Street Journal, posted the following:

Anita Dunn, the White House’s communications director who has declared war on Fox News, came under scrutiny herself last week when it was discovered she had told an audience that Mao Tse Tung was one of her favorite political philosophers and quoted Mao on how to “fight your war.” In her speech last June, after she joined the Obama White House, Ms. Dunn said the “two people I turn to most” were Mother Teresa and Mao Tse-Tung. She barely discussed the late nun, but waxed at length about the lessons Mao had taught her.

To call Mao a “political philosopher” is a stretch. As Roger Kimball of the New Criterion reminds us, the great Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski properly labeled the Chinese revolutionary “one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, manipulator of large masses of human beings in the twentieth century.”

Indeed, the Mao revelation prompted William Ratliff, an expert on China with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, to call her statement “outrageous and pathetic” given that Mao’s role in the deaths of some 50 million people “makes it impossible for any serious person” to view him as a great philosopher.

Ms. Dunn is now trying to pin her quote on a dead adviser to President George H.W. Bush. “The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don’t get my progressive friends mad at me,” Ms. Dunn told CNN.

She went on to explain that Fox host Glenn Beck’s criticism was off-base because “the use of the phrase ‘favorite political philosophers’ was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat — at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.”

Ms. Dunn’s lame explanation might have some traction if the videotape of her speech at the time displayed the slightest trace of irony. But it doesn’t. The videos show her speaking in complete earnestness.

So, where is the poor, deprived Sandra Fluke now?

She and her boyfriend, the son of long-time Democrat William Mutterperl, who is a heavy contributor to Democrat candidates, are currently living la vida loca, on Spring Break (at 30 years old) in California.

So, how is it that Fluke can afford a trip across the country, from Georgetown University to California, but she can’t afford to buy her own birth control pills?

Shoot.  I’ll be lucky if I get to drive across the river to West Memphis, Arkansas.

What a racket.

Obama Barters with Israel: A Bomb for Peace

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics7 Comments

Things are one again at the point of ignition in the face-off between America’s staunchest ally, and the barbarians in Iran.

Reuters.com has the story:

Israel has asked the United States for advanced “bunker-buster” bombs and refueling planes that could improve its ability to attack Iran’s underground nuclear sites, an Israeli official said on Thursday.

“Such a request was made” around the time of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week, the official said, confirming media reports.

But the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the issue, played down as “unrealistic” Israeli reports that the United States would condition supplying the hardware on Israel promising not to attack Iran this year.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, asked whether the Israelis had made such a request to U.S. officials during the visit, said “there was no such agreement proposed or reached” in President Barack Obama’s meetings with Netanyahu or his aides.

But when asked if the matter was raised with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta or other U.S. officials, Carney told reporters he had no information on that. “I would refer you to other officials,” he said.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that military capabilities came up in discussions between Netanyahu and Panetta but did not elaborate. No deals were struck during those talks, the official added.

Netanyahu made clear to Obama at a White House meeting on Monday that Israel had not yet decided on military action against Iran, the White House has said.

Netanyahu has hinted that Israel could resort to force should Tehran – which denies suspicions that it is covertly trying to develop atomic bombs – continue to defy big powers’ diplomatic pressure to curb its nuclear program.

The risk of an Israeli-Iranian war troubles Obama, who is up for re-election in November and has cautioned against sparking greater Mideast turmoil, though he has also asserted that military action remains an option if sanctions fail. A Gulf conflict could send oil prices soaring.

A front-page article in the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv on Thursday said Obama had told Netanyahu Washington would supply Israel with upgraded military equipment in return for assurances there would be no attack on Iran in 2012.

Of course, the United Nations is urging Israel not to attack, Associated Press reports:

Three days of protracted negotiations held under the specter of war highlighted the diplomatic difficulties ahead for nations intent on ensuring that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

In a statement Thursday that was less than dramatic, six world powers avoided any bitter criticism of Iran and said diplomacy – not war – is the best way forward.

The cautious wording that emerged from a weeklong meeting of the U.N. nuclear agency reflected more than a decision to tamp down the rhetoric after a steady drumbeat of warnings from Israel that the time was approaching for possible attacks on Iran to disrupt its nuclear program.

Indeed, the language was substantially milder than the tough approach sought by Washington and allies Britain, France and Germany at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 35-nation board meeting. Agreement came only after tough negotiations with Russia and China.

That could spell trouble on any diplomatic path ahead.

Gee.  Ya think, DiNozzo?

According to the Washington Post, the majority of Israeli citizens do not want to attack Iran without our support:

Amid an escalating din among Israeli leaders about the threat of a potentially nuclear Iran, the Israeli public has displayed little enthusiasm for a solo preemptive military strike. A handful of recent polls have shown that ordinary Israelis are firmly against the idea of going it alone.

“Israelis are much more careful, much more cautious than their government,” said Ephraim Yaar, a Tel Aviv University professor who co-directs a monthly public opinion survey. This week, more than 60 percent of Israelis polled said they opposed an attack on Iran without U.S. cooperation.

In the will-they-or-won’t-they guessing game that discussion about a military strike has become here, few view public opinion as a predictor of outcome. Netanyahu is sharply attuned to public sentiment, analysts say, but he has repeatedly emphasized — most recently in Washington — that he is driven by an obligation to protect Israel even without U.S. blessing, though he clearly wants it.

So, too, do Israelis, though that is not out of deference to the United States, said Yaar, whose survey was conducted just before Netanyahu’s trip. Commentators and retired security officials have questioned whether the Israeli military has the capacity to carry off a solo assault. The Israeli public shares that doubt, the survey found — and believes that Iranian retaliation could kill more than 500 civilians, the figure estimated by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in November.

That may be a long time coming.

On June 4, 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama gave a speech at the University of Cairo to the Muslim world.  Here is an excerpt from whitehouse.gov:

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

Uh huh.

Last year, pajamasmedia.com’s Andrew Klaven presented the following solution to the problem of Israel, with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

As he himself says:

Now, why didn’t somebody think of this before?

Shalom!

Obama Refuses to Touch Out-of-Control Gas Prices

On By kingsjesterIn Politics22 Comments

During a speech given Wednesday in Mount Holly, North Carolina, at the Daimler Truck Manufacturing Plant, President Barack Hussein Obama remarked, as reported by The Weekly Standard:

Looks like somebody might’ve fainted up here, have we got . . . Somebody . . . EMS . . . Somebody . . Don’t worry about it: Folks do this all the time in my meetings. You always got to eat before you stand for a long time–that’s a little tip. They’ll be OK, just make sure–give them a little room.

If you haven’t heard about the whoppers he told in this speech, you had better sit down…you’re probably going to faint, too.

Here’s an excerpt from the transcript at whitehouse.gov:

Now, here’s the thing, though — this is not the first time we’ve seen gas prices spike. It’s been happening for years. Every year, about this time, gas starts spiking up, and everybody starts wondering, how high is it going to go? And every year, politicians start talking when gas prices go up. They get out on the campaign trail — and you and I both know there are no quick fixes to this problem — but listening to them, you’d think there were.

As a country that has 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, but uses 20 percent of the world’s oil — I’m going to repeat that — we’ve got 2 percent of the world oil reserves; we use 20 percent. What that means is, as much as we’re doing to increase oil production, we’re not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices. Anybody who tells you otherwise either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or they aren’t telling you the truth.

Here is the truth. If we are going to control our energy future, then we’ve got to have an all-of-the-above strategy. We’ve got to develop every source of American energy — not just oil and gas, but wind power and solar power, nuclear power, biofuels. We need to invest in the technology that will help us use less oil in our cars and our trucks, in our buildings, in our factories. That’s the only solution to the challenge. Because as we start using less, that lowers the demand, prices come down. It’s pretty straightforward. That’s the only solution to this challenge.

And that’s the strategy that we’ve now been pursuing for the last three years. And I’m proud to say we’ve made progress.

Since I took office, America’s dependence on foreign oil has gone down every single year. In fact, in 2010, it went under 50 percent for the first time in 13 years.

You wouldn’t know it from listening to some of these folks out here — (laughter) — some of these folks — (laughter) — but a key part of our energy strategy has been to increase safe, responsible oil production here at home. Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than any time in the last eight years. Under my administration, we’ve quadrupled the number of operating oilrigs to a record high. We’ve got more oilrigs operating now than we’ve ever seen. We’ve opened up millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration. We’ve approved more than 400 drilling permits that follow new safety standards after we had that mess down in the Gulf.

We’re approving dozens of new pipelines. We just announced that we’ll do whatever we can to speed up construction of a pipeline in Oklahoma that’s going to relieve a bottleneck and get more oil to the Gulf — to the refineries down there — and that’s going to help create jobs, encourage more production.

So these are the facts on oil production. If somebody tells you we’re not producing enough oil, they just don’t know the facts.

But how much oil we produce here at home, because we only have 2 percent and we use 20, that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide, or here in the United States. Oil is bought and sold on the world market. And the biggest thing that’s causing the price of oil to rise right now is instability in the Middle East. You guys have been hearing about what’s happening with Iran; there are other oil producers that are having problems. And so people have gotten uncertain. And when uncertainty increases, then sometimes you see speculation on Wall Street that drives up gas prices even more.

But here’s the thing. Over the long term, the biggest reason oil prices will go up is there’s just growing demand in countries like China and India and Brazil. There are a lot of people there. In 2010 alone, China added nearly 10 million cars on its roads. Think about that — 2010, 10 million new cars. People in China, folks in India, folks in Brazil — they’re going to want cars, too, as their standard of living goes up, and that means more demand for oil, and that’s going to kick up the price of oil worldwide. Those numbers are only going to get bigger over time.

So what does that mean for us? It means we can’t just keep on relying on the old ways of doing business. We can’t just rely on fossil fuels from the last century. We’ve got to continually develop new sources of energy.

And that’s why we’ve made investments that have nearly doubled the use of clean, renewable energies in this country. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it. It also means we’ve got to develop the resources that we have that are untapped, like natural gas. We’re developing a near hundred-year supply of natural gas -– and that’s something that we expect could support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.

And that’s why we’ve worked with the private sector to develop a high-tech car battery that costs half as much as other batteries and can go up to 300 miles on a single charge. Think about that. That will save you some money at the pump. And that is why we are helping companies like this one right here and plants like this one right here to make more cars and trucks that use less oil.

Still trying to line the pockets of your “investors”, huh, Mr. President?  I’m all for future progress, but what you’re proposing does nothing to deal with the reality of average American not being able to afford to fill up their gas tanks, in order to make it to their jobs.

Americans need relief at the gas pumps NOW, Mr. President.

Remember these words you repeated, a few years ago?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Nowhere in the Oath of Office do I see the words:

“I will line the pockets of my friends and investors, now matter how it ruins America’s economy or impacts its citizens.”

P.S.  We don’t want to “be like Europe”.  We’re America!

Heck of a job there, Barry.

A Split Decision on Super Tuesday. A Conservative Light on the Horizon?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

As I sit down to write this blog, Super Tuesday has turned out to be the split decision everyone thought it would be.  Romney won his “home state” (another one?) of Massachusetts, along with Vermont, Virginia, and, barely, Ohio. Santorum took North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.   And, Newt Gingrich won his only home state of Georgia, decisively

Per the Associated Press:

Romney won at least 212 Super Tuesday delegates and Santorum won at least 84. Gingrich won at least 72 delegates and Texas Rep. Ron Paul got at least 22.

So far, Romney is winning 54 percent of the Super Tuesday delegates; Santorum is winning 22 percent.

A total of 419 delegates were up for grabs in 10 states Tuesday. A handful were left be allocated.

In the overall race for convention delegates, Romney leads with 415, including endorsements from members of the Republican National Committee who automatically attend the convention and can support any candidate they choose. Santorum has 176 delegates, Gingrich has 105 and Paul has 47.

It will take 1,144 delegates at the party’s national convention this summer to win the Republican nomination for president.

Does any one else see a regional pattern developing here?  Romney is hardly beloved in the Heartland, is he?

While Mitt Romney may very well be “inevitable”, due to his unrelenting support for the GOP Establishment and his never-ending supply of Campaign Funds, he is hardly a “Consensus” Candidate.

Gosh, I wish that there was a candidate out there, who was a Reagan Conservative, who could relate to average Americans, and was so down to earth that they would even stop their campaign bus at a Walmart to pick up diapers for their baby.

Oh, wait…

Stand by for this “live” (last night) interview from CNN:

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Our Paul Vercammen is up there in Wasilla, Alaska. Remember, Wasilla, we heard a lot about Wasilla only a few years ago. Paul Vercammen is standing by with a very special guest – I’ll give you a hint, the former governor of that state. Paul, talk to her.

PAUL VERCAMMEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I will, Wolf. By the way, Sarah Palin says hello. She just voted here in Wasilla. They expect 1,000 people to come through here.

And I think, Sarah, a lot of people are asking, who did you vote for tonight? Who would you like to see emerge as the GOP frontrunner?

FORMER GOV. SARAH PALIN, R-ALASKA: I would not tell you who I voted for in this presidential preference poll. I want to say hi to Wolf, though, and thank you guys for being up here in Wasilla and covering this, because every vote counts, and every district, every state matters. And that’s why I wanted to see this process continue because I want more people to have a say in who the nominee should be.

VERCAMMEN: But while you won’t say who you’re leaning for, are there any trends or is there something that you think is extremely important to the GOP platform this year that you want to see come to fruition?

PALIN: Yes. I want to see the process continue, more debate about who it is who can bust through the Orwellian Obama rhetoric and pandering that we see in the incumbent, who can bust through that with facts, with history, with logic, with common sense, in order for American voters to understand we do have a choice. There is a contrast between the incumbent, Barack Obama, and any of the four on the GOP ticket. Who best can bust through that rhetoric and express their ideas and their solutions to get our economy back on the right track, that’s the nominee I want to see forwarded (ph).

VERCAMMEN: Is there any fear that if this drags on for a long time, you are going to sap war chests and you’re going to cause a situation where the party becomes too divided?

PALIN: I am not a believer in that, not at this point. I do believe that competition makes all of our candidates better. Remember, there are five men running for president, and I think Barack Obama is the worst choice, is the last choice. So the four in front of him, as they duke it out in the arena of ideas and solutions to propose, the more of that, the better.

VERCAMMEN: Sarah Palin for president 2016, is it possible?

PALIN: Anything in this life, in this world is possible. Anything is possible for an American. And I don’t discount any idea or plan that at this point isn’t in my control. Anything’s possible.

VERCAMMEN: But would you seriously consider a run?

PALIN: I would seriously consider whatever I can do to help our country to put things back on the right track. Our economy, the foreign policy, proposals that we have to see put forward in order to secure our homeland, and the Americans, especially our brave fighting men and women who are overseas right now in places that perhaps we shouldn’t be right now. Anything that I can do to help, I will be willing to help.

VERCAMMEN: OK, one more question, from Wolf, if I can hear him. Let me try to relay it to you.

BLITZER: All right, Paul, I know there’s a delay between me and you, but thank the former governor, the Republican nominee for all of us. A quick question for her. I’m just curious how she’s been reacting to this whole Rush Limbaugh controversy with this Georgetown University law student, because there were some vile words that were uttered by some liberal Democrats as far as Sarah Palin was concerned, and I wonder if she wants to weigh in on this controversy.

VERCAMMEN: Wolf wants to know if you want to weigh in on this controversy. He says some vile words were thrown around, some of them directed towards you actually, the controversy involving Rush Limbaugh, contraception and the Georgetown student? Your reaction to some of those words that were used?

PALIN: I think the definition of hypocrisy is for Rush Limbaugh to have been called out, forced to apologize and retract what it is that he said in exercising his First Amendment rights, and never is that – the same applied to the leftist radicals who say such horrible things about the handicapped, about women, about the defenseless. So I think that’s the definition of hypocrisy. And that’s my two cents worth.

I wish we had some straight talk from all of the current Republican Candidates like that.  

It would certainly be refreshing.  And Conservative.

Rush Limbaugh and the Liberal Blitzkrieg

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

In their unfettered zeal to get rid of one of the most effective barriers to the re-election of their false messiah and the continued existence of the political status quo, Liberals in both political parties and the Main Stream Media have launched a Liberal Blitzkrieg against Rush Limbaugh over his comments concerning Professional Activist Sandra Fluke.

What’s a Blitzkrieg, you ask?

Per historylearningsite.co.uk:

Blitzkrieg means “lightning war”. Blitzkrieg was first used by the Germans in World War Two and was a tactic based on speed and surprise and needed a military force to be based around light tank units supported by planes and infantry (foot soldiers). The tactic was developed in Germany by an army officer called Hans Guderian. He had written a military pamphlet called “Achtung Panzer” which got into the hands of Hitler. As a tactic it was used to devastating effect in the first years of World War Two and resulted in the British and French armies being pushed back in just a few weeks to the beaches of Dunkirk and the Russian army being devastated in the attack on Russia in June 1941.

Rush Limbaugh addressed the situation and why he issued an apology last weekend to Ms. Fluke as he opened his show yesterday:

I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday. I’ve read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don’t expect — and I know you don’t, either — morality or intellectual honesty from the left. They’ve demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda. It’s what they do. It’s what we fight against here every day. But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.

Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I’ve always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.

The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose. I ended up descending to their level. It’s important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week. But the apology was heartfelt. The apology was sincere. And, as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else. No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention. Pure, simple, heartfelt. That’s why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, ’cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong.

What’s gone on since and what really is going on here is what we all know to be true. Our president, Barack Obama, has a socialist agenda when it comes to health care, when it comes to birth control, when it comes to virtually every aspect of his agenda. In this case, Barack Obama wants the government, his government, making moral decisions about what treatments, prescriptions, pills you pay for through your insurance premiums. He isn’t willing to let you or the market make that decision for yourself.

Rush also had something to say concerning the advertisers who have acquiesced to the Liberal Blitzkrieg: 

The left, folks — the media — are giddy that some advertisers have said they’re leaving the program. And I’m sorry to see ’em go. They have profited handsomely from you. These advertisers who have split the scene have done very well due to their access to you, my audience, from this program. To offer their products and services to you through this venue is the best opportunity that they have ever had to advertise their wares. Now they’ve chosen to deny themselves that access, and that’s a business decision, and it’s theirs alone to make.

They’ve decided they don’t want you or your business anymore.

So be it.

For me, this program is always about you. You talk to anybody that knows me who asks me about this program, and I always say, “It’s all for the audience,” because if you’re not there, all the rest of this is academic. This show is about you. It’s not about the advertisers. I knew the political inclinations of these people. They didn’t care when they were profiting — and I didn’t, either. Everybody’s able to put these things aside for the sake of mutual beneficial business activity. No radio broadcast will succeed by putting business ahead of the needs of its loyal audience, and that audience is you. My success has come from you. My focus has always been, and always will be, on you.

…As I was saying, ladies and gentlemen, this show has always been about you. It has always been about meeting and surpassing your expectations as an audience on any level that I can imagine, on any level for which I have empathy. If this program were about the advertising… (laughing) you don’t know the kind of commercials you’d be treated to. I reject millions of dollars of advertising a year, much to the chagrin of my hardworking sales staff. Millions, folks, including, I might add, General Motors. What would you have thought, if, after the government took over General Motors, I started advertising General Motors? I made the decision not to accept that because you, the audience, come first. Because no successful program puts the audience second or third.

See, I understand my successes come from you. During the year, many of you regale me with how much the program has meant to you personally, your family, over the years. Every Thanksgiving and Christmas I take time out to tell you that no matter what this program’s meant to you, it can’t compare to what you have meant to me and my family. In fact, I have no adequate way to express my gratitude to you. Just doesn’t exist. It’s how great my gratitude for all of you is. Without you, advertisers would have no need to participate in this program. So what we’re gonna do is replace those that leave, those that no longer want access to you, those advertisers who no longer want your business, fine. We’ll replace them. It’s simple, really.

Advertising’s a business decision. It’s not a social one. Only the leftists try to use extortion, pressure, threats to silence opposing voices. We don’t do that. Never, ever, do any of us on our side of the aisle try to suppress the speech or the voices of those with whom we disagree, and we never will. So, as you’ve always done, you make your own business decisions about the products and services you buy. But don’t be like the opposition. That was my mistake last week. Don’t make it yours.

Rush will survive this.  Conservatives, such as myself, will not desert him, nor our political ideology.

I have noticed that since this story broke on the Conservative websites, the Vichy Republicans, otherwise known as Moderates, have aligned themselves with the Liberal Blitzkrieg…and the overwhelming majority of them seem to be Romney supporters.

Coincidence?  I think not.

Eric Holder’s DOJ: Covington and Boling, West

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Eric Holder has staffed the United States Department of Justice for the past three years with, naturally, his own people.  Unfortunately, they all seem to come from his former law firm of Covington and Boling, which has a history of interesting clients, to say the least, which, in turn, affects the United States Department of Justice.

Judicialwatch.org has the story:

In a scary development, a major Obama fundraiser who defended a convicted al Qaeda terrorist will become the third highest ranking official at the Department of Justice (DOJ), which, ironically, is charged with defending the interests of the United States.

Northern California lawyer Tony West has been named Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, making him the No. 3 guy at the agency. In 2009 West, who helped Obama raise tens of millions of dollars as finance co-chairman of his first presidential campaign, was appointed to help run the DOJ’s civil division which represents the government, Congress and presidential cabinet officers and handles cases dealing with significant policy issues.

In a statement announcing the promotion this week, Attorney General Eric Holder says West has served the department with “professionalism, integrity and dedication.” Holder also mentions West’s work before coming to the DOJ a few years ago, including a stint as a Special Assistant Attorney General in California and a lengthier career at a large San Francisco law firm.

Conveniently omitted in the press release is that West represented convicted al Qaeda terrorist John Walker Lindh, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence. Lindh was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 while fighting against the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance as a member of the Taliban army. He actually pleaded guilty to aiding the Taliban and carrying explosives while fighting U.S. troops in the region.

Holder also knows a thing or two about defending terrorists. After all, he was a senior partner in a prestigious Washington D.C. law firm (Covington & Burling) that represented more than a dozen Yemeni terrorists held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. While Holder was a senior partner the firm employed a number of radical attorneys to provide the Islamic extremists with thousands of hours of free legal representation, according to a news report.

Another highlight in Holder’s resume is that he orchestrated Bill Clinton’s shameful last-minute pardons, including that of a fugitive financier and a pair of jailed domestic terrorists. In fact, shortly after the pardon scandal, Holder predicted that his public career was over. Under his leadership the DOJ has been embroiled in a number of high-profile scandals, including a gun-running operation (Fast and Furious) in which weapons were sold to Mexican drug cartels. One was later used to murder a federal agent. Judicial Watch has sued the DOJ to obtain records involving the operation.

United States Attorney General Eric Holder has a three year history of dubious decisions and deals, and a lot of them involve Covington and Boling.

In her best seller, Culture of Corruption, published in 2009, Michelle Malkin wrote that

Holder returns to a more modest $186,000 salary as Obama’s attorney general. But parting has its perks, too. The Washington revolving door pays.

Covington & Burling will make a separation payment valued at between $1 million and $5 million, plus a repayment of up to $1 million from the firm’s capital account, plus a retirement plan of up to $500,000. His net worth: $5.7 million. Reflecting on his past eight years raking in the dough and watching him schmooze friends and clients from his “elegant new Manhattan offices,” an American Lawyer profile observed: “Life is good for private citizen Eric Holder, Jr.” President Obama and the missus, such outspoken detractors of climbing the corporate ladder and influence-peddling, were unavailable for comment.

Some “Separation Package”, huh?

But, when is leaving a firm not really leaving a firm?  When you bring the firm with you.

Reuters News recently reported that

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, were partners for years at a Washington law firm that represented a Who’s Who of big banks and other companies at the center of alleged foreclosure fraud…

…The firm, Covington & Burling, is one of Washington’s biggest white shoe law firms. Law professors and other federal ethics experts said that federal conflict of interest rules required Holder and Breuer to recuse themselves from any Justice Department decisions relating to law firm clients they personally had done work for.

Both the Justice Department and Covington declined to say if either official had personally worked on matters for the big mortgage industry clients. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Holder and Breuer had complied fully with conflict of interest regulations, but she declined to say if they had recused themselves from any matters related to the former clients.

Reuters reported in December that under Holder and Breuer, the Justice Department hasn’t brought any criminal cases against big banks or other companies involved in mortgage servicing, even though copious evidence has surfaced of apparent criminal violations in foreclosure cases.

The evidence, including records from federal and state courts and local clerks’ offices around the country, shows widespread forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, and illegal foreclosures on the homes of thousands of active-duty military personnel.

In recent weeks the Justice Department has come under renewed pressure from members of Congress, state and local officials and homeowners’ lawyers to open a wide-ranging criminal investigation of mortgage servicers, the biggest of which have been Covington clients. So far Justice officials haven’t responded publicly to any of the requests.

…Senior government officials often move to big Washington law firms, and lawyers from those firms often move into government posts. But records show that in recent years the traffic between the Justice Department and Covington & Burling has been particularly heavy. In 2010, Holder’s deputy chief of staff, John Garland, returned to Covington, as did Steven Fagell, who was Breuer’s deputy chief of staff in the criminal division.

The firm has on its web site a page listing its attorneys who are former federal government officials. Covington lists 22 from the Justice Department, and 12 from U.S. Attorneys offices, the Justice Department’s local federal prosecutors’ offices around the country.

Between the Black Panther Intimidation Cover-up after the Midterm Elections, the attempt to try Islamic Terrorists in the heart of New York City, and now this, it appears that corruption, or at the very least, the appearance of it, is the norm, not the exception under Attorney General Eric Holder.

It is time for him to go.

His boss, too.

Rush Apologizes to an Activist

On By kingsjesterIn Politics28 Comments

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh issued the following statement on his website, rushlimbaugh.com:

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

Let’s stop for a moment and consider just whom it is that Rush has issued this apology to:

Mr. Sandra Fluke, who is attending Georgetown Law School, is a 30 year old Women’s Rights (i.e., Abortion) Activist, who was originally described by the Main Stream Media as a “23 year old co-ed”.

She revealed that she was actually 30 years old in a Today Show interview on Friday morning with host Matt Lauer.

What she did not say was that she is a past President of the Georgetown Law School Chapter of Law Sudents for Reproductive Justice.

In a statement titled LSRJ Proudly Stands With Sandra Fluke, the organization voices its support for her:

We are proud of our member and past president of Georgetown LSRJ, Sandra Fluke, for her courage and commitment in the face of cruelty. Fluke is the Georgetown law student whose contraceptive access advocacy has been called into question with language that falls, as Fluke said in her press statement, “far beyond the acceptable bounds of civil discourse.” Such personal attacks are intended to shame women out of advocacy and into silence, but Fluke refuses to back down, ”No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices.”

Here’s an interesting factoid, per LSRJ: 

In 2010, LSRJ launched a funded legal fellowship program for current 3Ls and recent law school graduates interested in working to advance reproductive justice through policy advocacy. Following a tremendous response from students and advocates in the field, LSRJ successfully selected and placed six Reproductive Justice (RJ) Fellows with six organizations in Washington, D.C. for the 2010-11 fellowship year.

The RJFP is intended to enhance capacity at reproductive justice organizations working to influence law and policy and to build a pipeline for future reproductive justice lawyers. The RJ Fellows are each paid $50,000 plus benefits and placed with placement organizations in Washington, D.C. for a year-long program (running August to August) that includes mentoring, professional development, training, and networking opportunities.

Ms. Fluke’s activism doesn’t stop there.  Her profile on the Georgetown Public Interest Law Scholars 2012 Graduates Page shows that:

Sandra Fluke’s professional background in domestic violence and human trafficking began with Sanctuary for Families in New York City. There, she launched the agency’s pilot Program Evaluation Initiative. While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Sandra was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.

As the 2010 recipient of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant, she researched, wrote, and produced an instructional film on how to apply for a domestic violence restraining order in pro per. She has also interned with the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking; Polaris Project; Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County; Break the Cycle; the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project; NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; Crime Victim and Sexual Assault Services; and the Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County.

Through Georgetown’s clinic programs, Sandra has proposed legislation based on fact-finding in Kenya regarding child trafficking for domestic work, and has represented victims of domestic violence in protection order cases. Sandra is the Development Editor of the Journal of Gender and the Law, and served as the President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and the Vice President of the Women’s Legal Alliance. In her first year, she also co-founded a campus committee addressing human trafficking. Cornell University awarded her a B. S. in Policy Analysis & Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.

Whether an apology from Rush may or may not appease the “Moderate” Republicans and the Liberal Democrats, remains to be seen.

The fact of the matter is, Ms. Fluke is not some innocent co-ed.  She is a 30 year old professional student/activist, who was probably planted at Georgetown Law School to do exactly what she did.

She most certainly has an agenda.