Ken Storey

Ken Storey is an otherwise unknown professor at the University of Tampa.  He apparently doesn’t like conservatives, or Republicans, or people who are not socialists.  Witnessing the atrocities hurricane Harvey was inflicting on people of all political beliefs and affiliations, he had those reassuring words to offer.

And, not to be outdone, took it up a notch to include people who haven’t suffered yet:

He very quickly took it down AFTER his employer strongly condemned his tweets:

So, who here feels like I do?  I’m sick and tired of people accusing innocents of hate while hating overtly and publicly.  The original post was Ken Storey being honest.  He truly thinks people who voted against his preferred candidate should suffer horribly.  That’s hate people.  Assuming someone else does because you don’t agree with them isn’t.  You just don’t get much more hate filled than what Ken Storey said.  the University of Tampa has a choice to make.  They show people they don’t tolerate hate and do something about it.  Or, they can show people that they do tolerate hate and keep him.  That’s their choice.  Hate can’t be tolerated as long as you agree with it.  If people want it to go away, they have to get rid of their own first.

Next day update: The University of Tampa has fired Ken Storey.

University spokesman Eric Cardenas said in a statement Tuesday that Storey was fired after the school weathered an outpouring of online outrage over the comments.

Good.  This guy doesn’t need to be anywhere near kids.

Yelling Wolf in Theaters

Never a dull moment with Nancy Pelosi.

Actually, Nancy. it does:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What it does not protect is the legal ramifications of the damages caused by do it.  Nancy not knowing the right to free speech protects everyone, including people who shout “wolf” in theaters doesn’t surprise me.

Not to be too petty, but it also guarantees others the very same right to be offensive in other ways.  Namely, the alt-right marchers in Charlottesville.  As much as we may despise their message they have the same right as Nancy slaughtering quotes.

The fact that Antifa and other alt-left groups tried to deprive them of their First Amendment rights, with the support of almost all elite Democrats, is indicative of the leadership they are following right now.

Now, if Nancy HAD truly respected the Constitution more than George Soros donations, she, and other leaders, would have stressed to Antifa et al that they had a right to speak publicly.  However, if the entire world had ignored them, no one would have heard their message.  Thanks to her ignorance, along with most liberal Democrats, there were riots, fights, and one death.  The ultimate outcome not being irrelevant destruction of historical monuments, but more significantly, the alt-right’s message was displayed to the entire world.  Real smart Nancy.  Real flipping smart.  I seriously put the blame for Charlottesville squarely on the Democrat leadership.  All this race baiting crap is their doing.

San Francisco routinely gives Nancy about 80% of the vote in every election she’s in.  Unfortunately for the rest of the country, they apparently believe in voting to see what they get.  Morons.  Does it not matter at all what she’s doing?

And for those entirely lost in this rant, the quote is actually “You can not yell “fire” in a theater“.  The irony being that a lot of people like myself feel this current race media frenzy is nothing but liberals crying wolf to stir up resentment to our present President.

Sarah Palin vs The New York Times

Sarah Palin just filed a lawsuit against The New York Times.  That in itself isn’t much of a story.  Where it gets good is the WHY.  The New York Times ran this editorial in response to the Congressman Steve Scalise shooting:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairsBut in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.

Now, to be sure, this is the EDITED version of the Times editorial.  It’s watered down to appease the anticipated lawsuit I’m sure.

For starters, there was never any connection made between Sarah Palin and the Gifford’s shooting.  Ever.  They say there is.

Secondly, there was never a map targeting “Mrs. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs”.  Ever.  Here it is:

Not exactly what The New York Times is depicting.  I don’t see a single Democrat “in the cross hairs”.  Toss in the fact that Loughner was targeting Giffords over a year BEFORE the poster came out kinda makes The New York Times claim look silly.  And finish with the fact that no clear motive by Loughner was ever established.  So, basically everything about the Loughner story The New York Times got wrong.

So, given there was actually absolutely nothing connecting Palin to the attack, they ran with it anyway, knowing the shooter was a far-left radical, they were spinning it on the right.

Bad plan.

Palin filed suit today for defamation.

I’ll be watching this one for chucks and giggles and will most definitely follow up on this.

Now, the bigger picture to me is the why behind The New York Times running an endorsed editorial with actual fact contradicting the opinion of the editorial that The New York Times had actually printed.  They didn’t have to look far to get the stories behind it, they had printed it.  Now, the damage here is simple to understand.  When national media run something, anything, it takes on a life of it’s own.  It’s linked to, it’s screen capped, it’s quoted, it becomes it’s own “fact”.  Whether right or wrong, it will be used to justify other statements.  It becomes a real thing regardless of the accuracy or intent.  That’s what happened here.  There is now something on the internet that will justify “some” people’s argument that Sarah Palin contributed to Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting.  It was in The New York Times, in black and white no less.

Then, they changed it.  Partially obscuring the fact that the original claims were completely erroneous.  Not somewhat, no debatably, but COMPLETELY unfounded by any evidence whatsoever.  Loughner was targeting Giffords a long time before the crosshairs map was ever printed.  There was nothing to support this editorial.  Ever.  That doesn’t change the fact that the opinion The New York Times wanted relayed was.  Their intent was successful.  That opinion is now supported others as fact.

That, is slander.  To be clear:

a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report:

And the beauty of all this is that Sarah Palin will use those millions to promote the political opinions The New York Times hates so much it was willing to compromise the integrity, and possible sustainability, of the paper itself.

Until society demands ethical reporting, expect this garbage to continue.  And as Thomas Jefferson noted, most would go bankrupt if they did.  The New York Times knows its audience.

George Takei takes on unconscious Scalise


George Takei seriously took on Representative Steve Scalise, while he was unconscious, in critical condition, in a hospital.

Takei doesn’t mention the fact that the nameless black lesbian was basically employed BY Scalise ( How many black lesbians does Takei employ? ).

What

An

Asshole

Takei seriously has become a parody of everything he represented on Star Trek.  He is the poster boy of the latest stupid social division, heterophobia.  Kicking someone when they’re down HAS to have some more meaningful label than just “asshole”.

Representative Val Demings on fluctuating Constitutional Rights

Ever wonder how things get so screwed up?  Try this one:

“My First amendment rights is DIFFERENT from yours.”

OK, so, in her mind, we have different social classes?

OK.

Now, where this gets kinda scary is the fact she used to be the Orlando Police Chief.  Luckily it wasn’t her job to interpret the law, just enforce it.  However, now she’s in a position to affect the law.  And, she thinks civil rights are different for different people for apparently whatever reason she sees fit.

That folks, truly is dangerous.

Now, I’m going to give Orlando a pass for right now as Demings is newly elected.  And, I’ll give her a pass this one single time in deference to her probably not having a clue what she was trying to say.

However, I will say this, and I say it often here.  People of the Florida 10th, you know how she’s thinking.  Let’s see how well she does in 2018, knowing what you know now.

My bet, 90% of the people who go to vote never have a clue that she’s just condoned selective discrimination in complete violation of the United States Constitution.  Just call that a hunch.  In 2016 she got 65% of the general election.  Let’s see what happens in 2018.  If I’m wrong and the people of the FL-10th treat with the respect she’s earned, I’ll apologize.  Right now, I’m not worrying about having to.

 

Anyone else catch that Schumer flip-flop on Comey?

I doubt it.  So, here it is again:

“I do not have confidence in him any longer,”

Not to be outdone, Nancy Pelosi chimed in as well:

“Maybe he’s not in the right job,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNN’s Jamie Gangel. “I think that we have to just get through this election and just see what the casualties are along the way.”

Even Obama took a shot at Comey:

“Setting aside the particulars of this case, I know that [Hillary Clinton] is somebody who has always looked out for the interests of America and the American people first, and I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations, we don’t operate on innuendo, we don’t operate on incomplete information, we don’t operate on leaks, we operate based on concrete decisions that are made,” Obama told NowThis on Wednesday.

OK, so Schumer stated outright he had no faith in Comey.  Pelosi suggested that after the election, he might be a casualty.  Does it get any clearer than that?  Apparently not.

Fast forward to last night:

So even though Schumer had no trust or faith in Comey at all, it was the TIMING of it that makes it bad. Right? At least Pelosi has enough sense to keep her mouth shut for the time being. I doubt that lasts through the day tho.

So, why the timing?  This, is why:

Apparently Schumer didn’t bother to read it.  I’m sure he got it, just doubt he cared enough to read it.   Now, to put this in perspective, Rosenstein is effectively Comey’s supervisor.  Rosenstein was nominated and passed the Senate with a 94-6 vote.  That is called “bi-partisan” support.  Chuck Schumer voted to confirm Rod Rosenstein.  So, as of April 25, 2017, that’s this year, about three weeks ago, Chuck Schumer very publicly supported Rod Rosenstein, and very publicly did not support James Comey.  Rosenstein effectively fires Comey, Schumer IMMEDIATELY cries foul and claims coverups and the like.  What’s the difference between wanting to fire Comey in November and Comey getting fired in May?  The “timing” as Schumer calls it?  Back to a little blurb in the first article I cited:

Schumer ― who is on track to serve as Senate minority leader for the next Congress, or perhaps majority leader based on Senate projections for next week’s elections ― is the latest in Democratic leadership to criticize Comey.

When Schumer wanted Comey fired, he fully expected to be the person making the call.  Now that he’s not, he’s going to whine about it and spin it anyway he can.  I expect Pelosi to expect everyone forgets all the criticism she’s fired at Comey and chime in on the Watergate angle as well before the day is over.

Anyone who’s followed Comey to any degree at all knows this firing had to happen.  The man was violating FBI code all over the place, pandering to whoever he was answering to at any given moment.  The way he handled Clinton’s email investigation was criminal.  I should be thankful he gutted her campaign, but I’m not.  He needs to be prosecuted for ethics violations, as well as Susan Rice.

And the ultimate irony of this is the fact that Schumer claims the firing is a cover-up for the Russian conspiracy theory that the man he’s protesting being fired just finished claiming didn’t exist.  Repeat that three times real fast.  And yeah, that feature image is intentional.  It’s OK when Schumer meets with Russians, not OK when Republicans even speak to them.

Think Newsweek’s not biased?

Next time you read Newsweek, and hesitate for one millisecond to ponder whether the article you’re reading right now MIGHT possibly have a slant to it.  Consider this:

Kurt Eichenwald writes for Newsweek.  And, he seems to be a very, very, angry person.  Previously he wrote for Vanity Fair and Washington Times.  Seems to be a common theme in this guy’s life.  Even though great trouble was made to insure that pre-existing conditions were covered in “Trumpcare”, Kurt ignores all that, blindly assumes what we have now works, and wishes all Republicans who voted for to experience the nightmare of losing a loved family member.

The man is clearly a partisan asshole.  Is Newsweek going to do anything about his unfounded hate speech?

Yeah.

Right.

Regarding Kurt Eichenwald's hate speech

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

I would have linked to his hate-speech fueled rants on his twitter, but he deleted them.  Instead he refers back to them even though he didn’t have the actual guts to keep them.  So, you can go check him out if you want.  If he’s truly got one speck of personal respectability in him he’ll come out and apologize once everyone realizes that Trumpcare isn’t what they’ve been sold by their morally devoid leaders.  I’d love to track how that develops.  Wanna?

Kurt Eichenwald

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

( And no, I’m not going to put a picture of this asshole on my blog. )

Nancy Pelosi’s Fix for Obama’s border security failure

This is, as usual, just insane:

Pelosi has this absolute obsession with taking anything that might be very obviously a Democrat failure, and trying to make it Republican. Therefore, I’m going to do the mundane and point out that Trump has been President for about three months. He’s responding to eight years of Obama trying to get it done, and quite frankly, not wanting it done. The average grade schooler would be able to see that. Nancy banks on her followers ( Yeah, that’s you California 12, aka San Francisco ), simply not caring enough to question her insane comments.

If it had been accomplished when she was Speaker, or while Obama as President, Trump wouldn’t be addressing it now. It’s that simple. For whatever reason, and I assume it’s 100% partisan politics, Nancy doesn’t care about all the violence and drugs pouring into our country across that border. The wall isn’t the best answer, but it sends a very loud message that we don’t want it any more. It if it’s people with legitimate reasons and businesses, they’ll pass through that wall easy enough.

About that Georgia 6th special primary

A lot’s being made of the Georgia 6th special primary to replace Tom Price.  Notably that a Democrat won the “jungle primary”.

  • For starters, I hate elections that dick around with the election process.  I don’t know if parties were held to their party or not.  Some states do, some states don’t.  However, given the nature of the 50% rule, I would imagine the Democrats stuck to their party to get Ossoff over the threshold whereas Republicans were probably voting their party to keep Ossoff from getting there.
  • Second, out of the approximately 700,000 people in that district, less than 200,000 voted.  26% on a special election isn’t terribly bad, but isn’t anything to get excited about for sure.  My gut feeling is the runoff will probably get a fairly higher percentage.  Maybe 35% now that the local Republicans feel challenged.  40% if it gets really heated.  That, I do expect.  This district has in the past, during contested races, hit those percentages easily.
  • When the voters do turn out there, it gets very Republican very quick.  Price routinely got in excess of 200,000 votes.  If his machine gets his people out, this is a blowout.
  • Democrat
    Jon Ossoff
    48.10% 92,390
    Republican
    Karen Handel
    19.80% 37,993
    Republican Bob Gray 10.80% 20,755
    Republican Dan Moody 8.80% 16,994
    Republican Judson Hill 8.80% 16,848
    Republican Kurt Wilson 0.90% 1,812
    Republican David Abroms 0.90% 1,637
    Democrat Ragin Edwards 0.30% 502
    Democrat Ron Slotin 0.30% 488
    Republican Bruce LeVell 0.20% 455
    Republican Mohammad Ali Bhuiyan 0.20% 414
    Republican Keith Grawert 0.20% 414
    Republican Amy Kremer 0.20% 349
    Republican William Llop 0.20% 326
    Democrat Rebecca Quigg 0.20% 304
    Democrat Richard Keatley 0.10% 227

    Although Ossoff did well, the party as a whole still was outvoted.  With only one candidate to either support or not, those percentages weigh heavily against Ossoff.

    Republicans 97997
    Democrats 93911
  • Although Ossoff has raised millions, almost all of it has come from places that can’t vote in this race. That doesn’t really do as much for him as you’d think.  Although it buys tons of advertising, people very quickly tune that out.  There’s only so much election day advertising anyone can do to actually get their voters out to vote.  Secondly, don’t think for one second Handel won’t use the outside meddling against Ossoff.  That is already a theme and they haven’t even gotten one-on-one yet.  I’d have Ossoff explaining his donors for the next month.  A lot has been made of him not living in the District, that only adds to the outsider meddling theme.  Thirdly, we’ve already seen his best shot in my opinion.  Eight million dollars got 90,000 votes.  My bet is going back to the same well just got harder.  It’ll be there, but not to the tune of another $8 million.  Now that Handel has the focus of the RNC, look for that funding to counter Ossoff’s DNC.  People have to understand that no Republican had the support of their national party.  That was effectively $8,000,000 to zero.
  • Bottom line, Ossoff’s one serious chance was to win this goof-ball jungle primary.  Unless Handel is completely inept, which I have no clue at this point, she wins by 10% or more.

About that Hollywood strike

Immediately after the election, a group of Hollywood elitists decided the best thing they should, since the US didn’t elect the candidate they wanted, was to go on strike. The group included Rosie O’Donnell, Miley Cyrus, Ed Asner, Amy Schumer, and George Clooney, among others.  That was January 9, 2017(ish).

Fast forward essentially two months later.  The blockbuster hit right now is Beauty and the Beast.  Although touted as revolutionary and cutting edge because this cartoon featuring blatant beastiality features an obviously homosexual scene, from what I’ve hear the cutting edge scene is actually very lame.  But more to the point, the storyline isn’t really that new.  It’s been used before.  Notably:

  1. Beauty and the Beast (2017)
  2. 20/20: Beauty and the Beast (1990) (TV Movie)
  3. 33: Beauty and the Beast (2012) (TV Episode)
  4. Beauty and the Beast (1991) (2017) (TV Episode)
  5. Beauty and the Beast (1991) (2017) (TV Episode)
  6. Beauty and the Beast 2 (2008) (Video)
  7. Beauty and the Beast 3 (2008) (Video)
  8. Beauty and the Beast Anime (2016) (TV Episode)
  9. Beauty and the Beast G2: Part 1 (2014) (TV Episode)
  10. Beauty and the Beast G2: Part 2 (2014) (TV Episode)
  11. Beauty and the Beast II (2009) (TV Episode)
  12. Beauty and the Beast Visits (2005) (TV Episode)
  13. Beauty and the Beast Within (2011) (Short)
  14. Beauty and the Beast (1899) (Short)
  15. Beauty and the Beast (1903) (Short)
  16. Beauty and the Beast (1905) (Short)
  17. Beauty and the Beast (1908) (Short)
  18. Beauty and the Beast (1912) (Short)
  19. Beauty and the Beast (1913) (Short)
  20. Beauty and the Beast (1922) (Short)
  21. Beauty and the Beast (1924) (Short)
  22. Beauty and the Beast (1934) (Short)
  23. Beauty and the Beast (1946)
  24. Beauty and the Beast (1950) (TV Episode)
  25. Beauty and the Beast (1952) (TV Movie)
  26. Beauty and the Beast (1953) (TV Episode)
  27. Beauty and the Beast (1956) (TV Movie)
  28. Beauty and the Beast (1957) (TV Movie)
  29. Beauty and the Beast (1958) (TV Episode)
  30. Beauty and the Beast (1961) (TV Series)
  31. Beauty and the Beast (1962)
  32. Beauty and the Beast (1963) (TV Episode)
  33. Beauty and the Beast (1964) (TV Series)
  34. Beauty and the Beast (1967) (TV Episode)
  35. Beauty and the Beast (1969) (TV Movie)
  36. Beauty and the Beast (1976) (TV Movie)
  37. Beauty and the Beast (1978)
  38. Beauty and the Beast (1981) (Short)
  39. Beauty and the Beast (1982) (TV Movie)
  40. Beauty and the Beast (1983)
  41. Beauty and the Beast (1983) (TV Movie)
  42. Beauty and the Beast (1984) (TV Episode)
  43. Beauty and the Beast (1985) (TV Episode)
  44. Beauty and the Beast (1987)
  45. Beauty and the Beast (1987) (TV Series)
  46. Beauty and the Beast (1988) (Short)
  47. Beauty and the Beast (1990) (TV Episode)
  48. Beauty and the Beast (1991)
  49. Beauty and the Beast (1991) (TV Episode)
  50. Beauty and the Beast (1991) (TV Episode)
  51. Beauty and the Beast (1992) (TV Episode)
  52. Beauty and the Beast (1993) (TV Episode)
  53. Beauty and the Beast (1994) (TV Episode)
  54. Beauty and the Beast (1994) (TV Episode)
  55. Beauty and the Beast (1995) (TV Episode)
  56. Beauty and the Beast (1995) (TV Episode)
  57. Beauty and the Beast (1996) (TV Episode)
  58. Beauty and the Beast (1996) (TV Series)
  59. Beauty and the Beast (1997) (TV Episode)
  60. Beauty and the Beast (1997) (Video)
  61. Beauty and the Beast (1999) (TV Episode)
  62. Beauty and the Beast (1999) (Video)
  63. Beauty and the Beast (2000) (TV Episode)
  64. Beauty and the Beast (2000) (TV Episode)
  65. Beauty and the Beast (2002) (TV Episode)
  66. Beauty and the Beast (2003) (TV Episode)
  67. Beauty and the Beast (2007) (TV Episode)
  68. Beauty and the Beast (2008) (TV Episode)
  69. Beauty and the Beast (2008) (TV Episode)
  70. Beauty and the Beast (2008) (Video)
  71. Beauty and the Beast (2009)
  72. Beauty and the Beast (2009) (TV Episode)
  73. Beauty and the Beast (2009) (TV Episode)
  74. Beauty and the Beast (2010) (TV Episode)
  75. Beauty and the Beast (2010) (TV Episode)
  76. Beauty and the Beast (2010) (TV Episode)
  77. Beauty and the Beast (2010) (TV Episode)
  78. Beauty and the Beast (2010) (TV Episode)
  79. Beauty and the Beast (2010) (TV Episode)
  80. Beauty and the Beast (2010) (TV Episode)
  81. Beauty and the Beast (2010) (TV Episode)
  82. Beauty and the Beast (2011) (Short)
  83. Beauty and the Beast (2011) (TV Episode)
  84. Beauty and the Beast (2011) (TV Episode)
  85. Beauty and the Beast (2011) (TV Episode)
  86. Beauty and the Beast (2012) (TV Series)
  87. Beauty and the Beast (2013) (TV Movie)
  88. Beauty and the Beast (2014)
  89. Beauty and the Beast (2014) (Short)
  90. Beauty and the Beast (2014) (TV Mini-Series)
  91. Beauty and the Beast (2015) (TV Episode)
  92. Beauty and the Beast (2016) (TV Episode)
  93. Beauty and the Beast (2016) (TV Episode)
  94. Beauty and the Beast (2016) (TV Episode)
  95. Beauty and the Beast (2016) (TV Episode)
  96. Beauty and the Beast (2016) (TV Episode)
  97. Beauty and the Beast (2017) (TV Episode)
  98. Beauty and the Beast (2017) (TV Episode)
  99. Beauty and the Beast (2017) (TV Episode)
  100. Beauty and the Beast (I) (1992) (Video)
  101. Beauty and the Beast (II) (1992) (Video)
  102. Beauty and the Beast: A Concert on Ice (1996) (TV Special)
  103. Beauty and the Beast: A Dark Tale (2012) (TV Movie)
  104. Beauty and the Beast: A Latter-Day Tale (2007)
  105. Beauty and the Beast: Part 1 (1977) (TV Episode)
  106. Beauty and the Beast: Part 1 (1991) (TV Episode)
  107. Beauty and the Beast: Part 1 (2014) (TV Episode)
  108. Beauty and the Beast: Part 1 (2014) (TV Episode)
  109. Beauty and the Beast: Part 2 (1977) (TV Episode)
  110. Beauty and the Beast: Part 2 (1991) (TV Episode)
  111. Beauty and the Beast: Part 2 (2014) (TV Episode)
  112. Beauty and the Beast: Part 2 (2014) (TV Episode)
  113. Beauty and the Beast: Part 3 (1977) (TV Episode)
  114. Beauty and the Beast: Part 3 (2014) (TV Episode)
  115. Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas (1997) (Video)

Now, as admirable as Hollywood should consider itself teaching sexual preference to small children, the point is, the storyline is stale and way, way, overused.  The only writing here was where to stick the gay reference.  Personally, I think I still prefer the 1903 version.

Given that the cartoon remade for the 100th time didn’t appeal to me.  They quickly cranked stuff for the big boys.

That’s right. A remake of a tv series I watched in high school. For those that don’t know me well, that was in 1977. And not to be outdone, we have The Rock and Zac Efron’s latest creation:

That’s right, a remake from when I had just graduated college. That’d be circa 1989. And for those not in the know on cheesy tv show remakes, this isn’t even the FIRST Baywatch movie. How many remember the original motion picture? Didn’t think so.

This just leads me to wonder, did Hollywood actually go on strike or not? And if they didn’t but still plan on it, how would anyone know?