Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

Well Arizona voters decided that John McCain deserves another terms in the senate and took Quayle the younger over the superior Vernon Parker.

Like Barbara Espinosa (Have you caught her blog talk radio show BTW) I preferred both Hayworth and Parker but the voters have spoken and it’s up to us to keep both of those seats in the R column.

In once sense it is not a surprise as if the Senate could flip the state might have wanted to keep the seniority that McCain brings, but if you see an amnesty bill next year, be assured that John McCain will be on board bigtime.

Meanwhile in Alaska Stacy McCain reports the MSM is still in full denial mode concerning Joe Miller:

Traditional media, however, continued to hold out hope for Murkowski, a pro-choice Republican who voted for the unpopular TARP bailout and had been labeled one of the ”Top 10 Senate RINOs” (Republican In Name Only) by Human Events.

In its headline, Roll Call described Murkowski as merely “imperiled,” and an Anchorage Daily News reporter named “Sean” said the incumbent was “battling for her political life.” The New York Times said she was “in a surprisingly tight race.” But Republican sources in Anchorage were more blunt, declaring Murkowski “toast” and employing obscene terms to describe just how completely she had been defeated.

Even funnier is this bit from MSNBC’s first read:

If 2008 was about “hope,” then 2010 might be about “fear” — with Republicans running on fear of Obama/Dems, while Dems will be running on fear of returning to Bush/GOP policies.

*** Why McCain won and Murkowski is in trouble: In fact, this explains why someone like John McCain cruised to victory last night in Arizona and Murkowski didn’t. McCain

Oh conservatives won because of fear. No media bigotry there. Gee what else could they have in common? I’ll give you a clue, it’s someone who sells books, is hated and ridiculed by the media and has odd shaped hips.

Robert Stacy also credits WooHooYoo and people like her for getting him involved and the hard work that made things happen.

Miss Sharon — her Twitter name is WooHooYoo – isn’t famous or influential. She’s just someone who has stopped asking, “What can I do?” and started doing what she can. (Good advice.)

I am looking forward to being able to say the same in November when talking about Bill Gunn here in MA-01.

Maybe by then the media will call the race for Miller.

but Chris Hitchens has only so many columns left in him so they should be promoted while there is still time:

Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything “offensive” to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …

As for the gorgeous mosaic of religious pluralism, it’s easy enough to find mosque Web sites and DVDs that peddle the most disgusting attacks on Jews, Hindus, Christians, unbelievers, and other Muslims—to say nothing of insane diatribes about women and homosexuals. This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be “phobic.” A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.

Read the whole things and as you do remember this is from a supporter of the Mosque.

I’m going to miss Hitchens when he’s gone

memeorandum thread here

According to Tucker Carlson (who hasn’t hired me even slightly) or more properly Jonathan Strong says at least half of conservative bloggers are getting paid for coverage.

To that I say. I wish! Today I was at the Charlie Baker event in Framingham. I got up at 5, filled up the car, bought batteries and spent 95 minutes on the road at Rush Hour to get to Forte’s Parts connection in Framingham where he was appearing. Once there Interviewed the owner, one of his competitors who was there for the appearance, Charlie Baker, Mary Connaughton (Candidate for Auditor) and two state rep candidates Ed McGrath and Chris Resmini. I walked in the door back home just after 12 noon.

Once I got home I started uploading pictures and videos so they could be posted and shared with people interested in Massachusetts races. If you have to count the dollars I got for doing this, I’d say it amounts to nearly…..nearly one. Call it none.

I am very out of work and have been for a long time. If any of the people that the Daily caller seems to know wants to help kick in to pay for this I’d be more than happy to take their money. If candidates who want coverage want to pay me to go anywhere in the country to cover their story, I’d love to do it, but the daily caller not withstanding it’s more like what Robert Stacy said today:

Most conservative bloggers are part-timers, for whom a couple of hundred dollars a month would be a godsend. Trying to “monetize” Web traffic is a notoriously difficult task, and even successful full-time bloggers aren’t exactly “farting through silk,” to borrow P.J. O’Rourke’s colorful phrase.

That’s me all over, so Tucker if you know republicans willing to finance conservative bloggers send them right over.

Oh and here are the photos from the appearance:

Update: memeorandum thread here

Apparently the UK Guardian has been attacking Pam Geller and have been featuring a Bikini shot of her in the stories. Pam answers them in this post:

Knowledgeable conservative readers will get a charge out of the Guardian’s story, which is a mixture of pure fiction and dangerous lies, all devoted to the marginalization of those who dare to expose the liberal media propaganda machine.

The anti-Semitism was open: “Geller,” claimed Chris McGreal, the author of the piece, “writes for an Israeli media network based in the occupied territories that is the voice of the Jewish settler movement.”

I do? They just make stuff up. I don’t even know what they are talking about, but if Chris McGreal is in touch with this “Israeli media network,” he should let them know that I would love to write for them — please point the way!

Pam being Pam hits them head on answering them at her site and Big Journalism:

What’s the point of this stupid hit piece? And yes, it is worse than that. At the moment when I am identified more than anyone else with the fight against the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero, they’re trying to make me radioactive, so that no one will dare to stand with me.

Anyone who has met Pam would be proud to stand with her, she is a woman of ethics, courage who has acted when others have shown fear. Anyone who thinks she had a bigoted bone in her body is drinking and smoking something stronger then I do.

As for the constant use of Bikini photos, well other than trying to be included in Rule 5 Sunday their use of them at the Guardian confirms one thing.

While they strategic, historical and sociological visions are faulty, their basic eyesight is apparently excellent.