Tag Archives: CNN

Nancy Pelosi Should Quit and Follow Her Passions

imagesOriginally posted at American Thinker

Minority Leader Nancy “Nip/Tuck” Pelosi, the woman who strutted around Washington, D.C. with a king-sized gavel when Obamacare was passed into law, is 74 years old.  Now, in the aftermath of the trouncing the Democrats took during the midterm election, an obvious question has arisen as to whether the granny with the gavel should hang up her dream of another go-round as House minority leader.

So, at a Capitol News conference, in response to a question about the suggestion that the millionaire politician should either take her hefty pension and head home to the City by the Bay or at least pass the House minority leader position to someone younger, Nancy played the trusty sexism card and threw in a smidgeon of ageism accusations for good measure.

Dressed in a tailored soldier blue suit with an uncooperative collar lined in canary yellow, at one point, Nancy became so angry with reporters while trying to say, “As a woman, is there a message here?” that her top lip kept getting stuck on her caps.  In fact, judging by Pelosi’s bulging eyes and garbled speech, it was hard to tell whether her $20,000 necklace was strangling her, she had been hitting the Johnny Walker Red, or she was just majorly ticked off.

The very irate Mrs. Pelosi challenged the press, asking, “When was the day that any of you said to Mitch McConnell, when they lost the Senate three times in a row … ‘aren’t you getting a little old, Mitch?  Shouldn’t you step aside?’

“Have any of you ever asked him that question?

“So, I don’t understand why that question should even come up,” Pelosi said.

Maybe the question hasn’t come up because although soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is not the most vivacious person in Washington, D.C., at least when you put the man in front of a mic he doesn’t say ridiculous things like “Every week we don’t pass a stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs,” or “Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program.”

Regardless of McConnell’s age or lack of charisma, he would be hard-pressed to outdo Pelosi’s pièce de résistance: “We have to pass the [health care] bill so you can find out what is in it.”

And that’s just scratching the surface.  Nancy has also provided fodder for jokes by saying that Republicans want to see “women dying on the floor,” that immigration laws are “un-American,” and that she believes natural gas is a cheap alternative to fossil fuel – which is natural gas.

All these things, plus the septuagenarian’s growing inability to express a point without twitching, flapping her hands, and/or stammering, indicate that regardless of whether or not she believes that the Democratic caucus still put their faith in her or that she still (God help us all) has a mission to accomplish, the truth is that Nancy Pelosi should absolutely step down.

Instead, as with all liberal women, Nancy’s response is to play “the war on women card.”  Then, after accusing those who thought she should think about retiring of being sexists, a flustered Nancy stressed that “[her] life and who [she is] is not dependent on being here” or on the cover of TIME magazine.

If that’s true, then why is the minority leader refusing to pass the baton?

Nancy also said, “I have the liberty…if you want me to be here, I’m happy to be here.  If you don’t, I’m proud of what we’ve done together.”

Huh?

Anyway, what Granny Pelosi said is true.  Thanks to a health care policy that has stripped millions of their insurance plans and their jobs, unlike the rest of us, pro-choice Nancy does have the liberty to make a choice most Americans are being denied.

Which raises the question: why is Mrs. Pelosi being a defensive “Negative Nancy”?  Especially since, when union leader James Hoffa, Jr. accused Obamacare of standing to “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week,” it was an optimistic Nancy Pelosi who told CNN’s “State of the Union” host Candy Crowley that joblessness ushers in “liberation.”

Doesn’t Nancy remember saying that losing a 40-hour work week frees up Americans to “pursue … happiness … [and] … follow passion?”

Why does Nancy view the suggestion that she should step down or scale back her working as sexism and ageism?  Wasn’t it Ms. Nancy who said that being unemployed is “about wellness … prevention … a healthy America?”

That’s why Leader Pelosi should apply her jobless theory to herself and embrace unemployment with the eager anticipation of someone on the cusp of finding newfound independence and contentment!

With her time freed up, think of all Nancy could do!  The former speaker/minority leader could spend afternoons stomping grapes in one of her Napa Valley vineyards, or she could string imitation Tahitian pearls, or maybe she could follow her true passion by volunteering to answer phones at her favorite plastic surgeon’s Botox clinic.

Nancy Pelosi ought to submit to her own counsel and willingly retire her minority leadership, take down her congressional shingle, and head back to Rice-a-Roniville.  Then maybe she’ll be able to identify with the 100 million Americans who, thanks to the stunning accomplishments of the party Nancy represents, are also now free to follow their passions.

TIRED RACIST CHARGE: Ebola and Unbiased ‘Serum Equity’

ebola-300x180Originally posted at Clash Daily

Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol are impressive people. After all, they obeyed God’s call to minister to the “least of these” as missionaries to Liberia. Dr. Brantly grew in stature when, after contracting the deadly Ebola virus, he decided to forfeit an experimental serum so that 60-year-old Writebol could have the first available dose.

Then, that night while the second sub-zero serum thawed, Brantly suddenly took a turn for the worse and was quickly administered the initial dose he had originally turned down. This is a man willing to go last and as a result, as promised, ended up going first.

Certain he was dying, he called his wife to say good-bye. But about an hour later Brantly received the IV serum, and within 20 minutes could breathe easier and his Ebola rash started to clear up. The next morning the doctor took a shower, was flown home on a Gulfstream air ambulance, and upon arrival at Georgia’s Emory University Hospital donned in a Hazmat suit, stepped out of the ambulance, and walked unassisted into the hospital.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Mapp Biopharmaceutical Inc. of San Diego, California manufactured the drug Brantly received. The trial serum named Zmapp “is a cocktail of three ‘humanized’ monoclonal antibodies that are manufactured in a group of fragrant plants or bushes known by the genus name Nicotiana.”

So, thanks to the grace of God, both missionaries received the experimental drug. Dr. Kent Brantly of Samaritan’s Purse is on the mend and Service in Mission worker Nancy Writebol, who arrived at Emory on a stretcher, is improving at a slower pace.

What is amazing about the story is that after offering themselves as servants of God to “wash feet” on the mean streets of Ebola-stricken Liberia, both of these devout Christians then freely offered their lives a second time by agreeing to be the first human specimens to test the tobacco-derived experimental serum, which for all intents and purposes. could have cost them their lives.

So far, the serum hasn’t killed Brantly and Writebol; instead it delivered a “miraculous” outcome and may have saved their lives.

So now that the outlook has improved and it appears that these two individuals will have a testimony to share, the political posturing has begun, and predictably the bluster involves accusations of racism. Why did the white people get the medicine while all those black people were dying?

Forget the survival story, or the fact that two white caregivers risked their lives to serve poor black people in West Africa. The question that is now being raised by some is why thousands of black Africans died, while two white Americans quickly received a lifesaving serum.

Erin Burnett of CNN’s OutFront got out-front when she broached that exact subject. Ms. Burnett presented Dr. Sanjay Gupta with the following question about why Brantly and Writebol received the extraordinary remedy:

I know it’s miraculous. I know it was untested, that it was very risky, but what about everyone else?  I mean (stammering), nearly a thousand have died, all of them Africans! Suddenly two white Americans, um, get the disease, and — and suddenly all the stops get pulled out?

For clarification, “everyone else” is everyone other than the two white Christians who received the brand-new serum. Ms. Burnett sounded as though she actually thought that Ebola might have killed a thousand people merely because they lived in Africa and are black.

It’s apparent that Ms. Burnett was unaware that Patrick Sawyer, the first American citizen to contract the Ebola virus, was black. Unfortunately, Sawyer died before anyone could offer the ZMapp serum, and his race had nothing to do with it.

As for all the stops getting pulled out – does it count that Brantly and Writebol offered themselves as lab rats to test a serum that has never been tested on any human?  Or that, since the epidemic is concentrated in Africa, thanks to the bravery of two white missionaries, mostly black lives will be saved?

Based on her uncalled-for suggestion, if the serum had been tested on a black Ebola victim first, instead of taking a stand for unbiased “serum equity”, Erin Burnett would have probably accused the CDC of “experimental racism” for using black Africans as guinea pigs.

Dr. Gupta replied to Burnett that she should “Keep in mind, this had never been done before,” and that “[Brantly] was the first human” to try the serum.  If Burnett were an actual journalist and not a agitator, the fact that Brantly was the first human volunteer to receive the risky drug would have been the emphasis of her comments, not that he was a white American.

Despite the racist accusations that are likely to surface in the coming days, thankfully two dedicated servants selflessly bringing the Gospel to West Africa were infected with Ebola but faced down death and used the opportunity to take a step of faith. That courageous decision on their part has provided hope in the midst of a deadly epidemic for all people, regardless of their color.

A Bright Future of Quilting with Nancy Pelosi

628x471Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Nancy Pelosi should go back to her plastic surgeon and ask him to loosen the skin ponytail on the top of her head, because it’s impacting her already-compromised ability to think straight.

Recently, Mrs. Pelosi was shilling for the left on Obama debate-savior Candy Crowley’s “State of the Union” show on CNN. Ms. ‘I saved Obama’ Crowley felt moved to read a letter to Pelosi signed by James Hoffa Jr., of Teamster hoodlum fame. The letter from Mr. Hoffa the Younger, General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, rightly describes Obamacare’s impact as a way to “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week.”

This is the same Jimmy Hoffa Jr. who, before the Affordable Care Act became law, ardently lobbied on its behalf. Jimmy may still not know where his father is buried, but what he has figured out is this:

The law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

Duh! Clearly, somewhere along the line Jimmy Jr. pulled his head out of the wet cement.

Nonetheless, Nancy Pelosi appeared indifferent to Crowley’s contention that that level of criticism from Hoffa and letter co-signers Joseph Hansen, International President of the UFCW, and D. Taylor, President of UNITE-HERE, is “pretty tough” coming from a “loyal Democratic constituency.”

Mrs. Pelosi, who, by the way, is worth $58 million, didn’t disagree with Hoffa et al. Nor did she say that the 40-hour work week will be preserved. Instead, Nancy quickly touched upon the president’s limitations and mentioned that other options are being worked on.

Then, the House Minority Leader with the $10K Tahitian pearls and badly-Botoxed brow seemed to imply that losing a full-time job presents an opportunity for people with no money, no health insurance, and no future to “pursue …happiness [and] follow… passion.”

In other words, in lieu of working to support their families, destitute Americans, many currently in danger of foreclosure, now have a unique opportunity to break out that dusty piccolo, search the attic for that old easel and watercolors, or fulfill a lifelong dream of learning to quilt.

“Overwhelmingly, for the American people, this is liberation,” said Nancy, with her usual brilliant insight, “It’s about wellness, it’s about prevention, and it’s about a healthy America.”

Liberation from what — employment? Liberation from financial stability and a secure future? What in the world is this woman talking about?

Wellness? Where is “wellness,” exactly, if millions of Americans are unemployed, stressed out, and on the verge of despair?

As for prevention, the only thing being prevented here is large swathes of people being gainfully employed in full-time jobs. What’s not being prevented is loss of healthcare benefits, doctor shortages, hospitals and healthcare businesses shutting down, and pharmaceutical companies no longer having the funding to research new drugs.

And in Nancy Pelosi’s feeble mind, that equation adds up to a “healthy America?”

Although Nancy wouldn’t need an Obamacare referral because, being a political elitist, she’s exempt from the liberation, wellness, prevention, and health the rest of the nation is about to be punished with, she really does still need to pay her doctor a visit.

And when she gets there, Nancy should beseech the physician, for the wellbeing of the rest of America, to loosen that skin ponytail hiding under her perfectly coifed hair in hopes of restoring some blood circulation to that addled brain.

 

‘Eye Candy’ Lies, and Candy Swears to It

Originally posted at American Thinker

In the run-up to the second debate, feminists have been moaning about how Candy Crowley, unlike Jim Lehrer, was reduced to a “Vanna White … holding a microphone.”  Advocating for equal debate clout, Crowley has been speaking out on her own behalf and told Mark Halperin of TIME magazine that during the debate, “[o]nce the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?'”

In other words, Candy made it known prior to the event that she had no intention of keeping to the rules and that she in no way would she remain a “voiceless moderator,” fielding questions from the undecided audience and keeping close watch on the clock.  Going rogue, Ms. Crowley succeeded in her objective and in the process managed to weaken the credibility of women as debate moderators.

The guidelines in the memorandum of understanding that was agreed upon by the debate commission, as well as both campaigns, stated:

The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.

Those restrictions did not sit well with feminist groups, who’ve managed to make even a presidential debate about women’s issues.

So, on behalf of the sisterhood, Candy Crowley took to the town hall podium and proceeded to defy the rules and run the debate her own way.  The result was dreadful — not only for Candy’s reputation as a journalist, but also for a weak incumbent who looked like he needed a woman to protect him from being verbally spanked.  Moreover, her performance did nothing to convince the debate commission that female moderators should be granted more freedom in the future.

The reason why?  Candy Crowley cut off Mitt Romney 28 times, including when he was making a point about Barack Obama’s gunrunning debacle, “Fast and Furious.”  According to CNN’s own count, Candy allowed Obama to speak for a total of 44 minutes and 4 seconds and ordered Romney back to his stool by cutting him off and bringing his time down to 40 minutes and 50 seconds.

The CNN anchor showed obvious deference to the president.  Every time he spoke, her eyes widened in admiration and she exhibited an odd mix of what looked like coaxing and agreeing.  While claiming to be an unbiased moderator, Candy Crowley adjudicated on the president’s behalf when he stretched the truth on the subject of Libya.

Most would agree that Candy’s foot-in-mouth moment came when Mitt Romney accused Obama of not calling the attack in Benghazi an act of terror for two weeks and flying to Las Vegas and Colorado for a fundraiser the day after four Americans died. Crowley, like a mother hen protecting her chick, interrupted Romney and said: “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir.  So let me — let me call it an act of terror.”

In response, lily-livered Obama smirked, hid behind mama’s apron strings, and then asked her to restate the falsehood on his behalf, saying, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”  Candy gladly complied.  Stuttering, stammering, and tripping over herself to rush to Junior’s defense, Candy added: “He — he did call it an act of terror.  It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.  You are correct about that.”

If hard-hitting girl power representative Candy Crowley was really looking to bolster female credibility, she should have gone according to the original script and asked Obama, “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”  If Crowley were really mixing it up with the boys, she could have demanded an answer from Barack Obama as to why it took fourteen days to acknowledge an al-Qaeda terrorist attack that left four Americans dead in the streets of Benghazi.

After the fact, Candy Crowley is now being forced to admit that Romney, who insisted that Obama did not call the incident a terrorist attack for weeks, was right — “in the main” — on Benghazi.

Rather than conceding that Obama picked the wrong way to go about handling the murder of an American ambassador, Ms. Crowley instead chooses to say that Romney “picked the wrong way to go about talking about it.”  Attempting to explain her unmitigated favoritism, Candy underscored that her second “two week” point favored Romney and generated applause much like her first point, which generated applause from one half of the audience led by an unrestrained Michelle Obama.

Prior to the Hofstra debate, America was forced to endure listening to Crowley whine about a woman’s rightful role as a debate moderator.  Then, during the actual debate, the nation witnessed the hot mess Candy made while shilling for Obama.

Suffice it to say that Candy proved that the “memorandum of understanding” was correct in its attempt to limit her role, because by the end of the debate, every headline should have read: “Eye Candy” Lies, and Candy Swears to It.

So, after all the fuss, Candy Crowley’s behavior and inappropriate intrusion did nothing to advance the feminist cause.  But wait, there’s still time!  How about if Crowley’s cheerleaders — NOW, The New Agenda, and former news anchor Carol Simpson — recommend that for the upcoming foreign policy debate, Lara Logan replace Robert Schieffer?

Barack’s ‘Idiot Board’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Don’t be surprised if Barack Obama challenges Walter Mondale to a Hamilton/Burr-style duel.  Former Vice President Mondale insulted two of the President’s most cherished possessions: the teleprompter, as well as Barack’s esteemed personhood.

Walter Mondale called teleprompters “idiot boards,” which offended defenseless teleprompters everywhere. Moreover, the twofold insult implied that idiots rely on “idiot boards,” an affront applicable to a certain President who relies heavily on electronic devices when speechifying.

Idiot is defined as: “foolish or stupid person. A person … having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers.”  If a teleprompter is a board for idiots, was Mr. Mondale implying Barack Obama is an “idiot?”

The elderly Walter isn’t the only one noticing Barry’s inability to speak without hauling along a scrolling security blanket. The President’s most ardent goose bump-riddled fans are also beginning to disparage Obama’s electronic facade. Chris “thrill going up my leg” Matthews, who just two years ago swooned every time Obama spoke, sounded like a jealous lover discussing the Obama teleprompter addiction:

You know sometimes I really support the President on a lot of his views, in fact all of them but I have to tell you, if he doesn’t get rid of that damn teleprompter. It’s like an eye-test, he’s just reading words now, it’s separating him from us. You go to a meeting with him I’m told at the White House, he hauls out the damn teleprompter and he reads it to them, why even bring people into the room, just have the teleprompter… I sense it’s getting in between him and us.

Unlike Chris Matthews’ unapologetic denigration, Walter Mondale attempted to tone down the “idiot” observation by clarifying for CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “I think he — he’s very bright — as a matter of fact, brilliant. And I think he tends to — and he uses these idiot boards to read speeches on television and I think he loses the connection that he needs emotionally with American voters.”

How exactly does Walter Mondale assess the intellectual acumen of a person who rarely utters a word without a script?

As far as the empathy issue goes, Barack’s odd habit of looking side to side may have worked in front of 76,000 INVESCO Field sycophants.  However, at a small press conference consisting of 30 some-odd reporters, incessantly pivoting from right to left causes one to resemble a wooden bobble head doll.

During the CNN interview, Mondale intimated that Barack was an idiot with an empathy deficit.  In response, Wolf Blitzer asked the former VP to expound on why he thought Obama lacked emotional connection with the American people.   Beholden to root around for another “he’s very bright” compliment to moderate his short-on-rapport critique, the polite Mondale replied, “I’ve seen places where he’s done it. The Milwaukee speech, I thought was terrific. I think some of these backyard events are terrific.

It wasn’t purposeful, but Walter’s comments implied Barry is self-assured only when stirring up audiences in labor union T-shirts and requesting chili pepper doggy bags, but wavers if addressing sixth grade students.

According to Walter Mondale, Barack is a brilliant idiot, outstanding at extending sympathy, but only when sipping sweet tea in backyard focus groups.  As a result, Obama’s electronic Siamese twin has been saddled with the undue burden of having to come up with a brilliantly empathetic retort to Mondale’s insightful assessment of an unfeeling man, unable to express inner conviction without the direct assistance of an “idiot board.”

%d bloggers like this: