As the youngest of three children, Tony Rodham has lived in the shadow of his sister. He never finished college, and he worked at a variety of jobs — as a prison guard, private detective and at the Democratic National Committee — until after the Clintons were in the White House, when he became a consultant and deal broker.
Obama Regime Buries its Head in the Sand - In Plain Sight
Okay, so let me get this right: There was an MOU insisted upon by the State Department (and White House) to ensure that, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, there was full transparency of any foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, to protect against the possibility that foreign donors to the Foundation might be giving their money in exchange for favorable treatment by Secretary of State Clinton. And that MOU was violated repeatedly. Now, the Obama Administration is refusing to even investigate whether Clinton’s violation of the MOU may have actually caused the sort of bribery problems the MOU was designed to prevent? Okay, so why have an MOU in the first place, if violations of it were not going to ever be investigated, or the agreement otherwise enforced? Was it all just a dog and pony show, to allow Clinton to become Secretary of State and deflect possible criticism of her taking the post, given the potential for conflicts of interest? The questions answer themselves, of course, but the fact that the Obama Administration is so blatantly and flippantly disregarding this nation’s interest in preventing corruption (at the highest level) is breathtaking– and telling. Read it all here.
Which brings us to Pamela Geller. I’m consistent: I didn’t like “Piss Christ,” and I don’t like insulting drawings of Mohammed. If Geller wanted an NEA grant to dunk Mohammed in beautifully illuminated urine, I would disagree quite strongly.
But that’s not what she’s doing. She’s contending that in America, people are allowed to say offensive things without risking execution. I am at a loss as to why anyone would disagree with that. But I am utterly baffled how people who think it’s censorship to withdraw funding for anti-Christian “hate speech” can argue that private individuals have no right to express anti-Muslim views.
Pamela Geller Exposes Democrats, Muslims and Journalism
“Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man.” – Thomas Paine
As CNN reported the news of a terrorist attack on Pamela
Geller’s Mohammed cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, any depiction of the
Muslim prophet was blurred out. I did not bother tuning into other network
broadcasts, but I have no doubt that all respectable news outlets similarly
behaved in a similarly cowardly manner.
You won’t find the Mohammed cartoons in any newspapers
And they call the critics of Islam, “Islamophobes?” Please
remind me: Who is it that‘s afraid of Islam? As Inigo Montoya remarked: “You
keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
What’s more amazing is that the very same people who will
argue that Islam is a “religion of peace,” will also claim that the attack on
Pamela Geller’s art exhibit was “predictable.”
This is what happens when one ideology has a near monopoly
on mass media. They get intellectually complacent.
In the 1990’s, a controversy erupted after the National
Endowment for the Arts funded several blasphemous, anti-Christian art
exhibitions. After North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms vowed to strip funding
from the NEA budget, the New York Times childishly called Helms “Senator
Know-Nothing” and argued that offensive art was so essential to free speech
that government should subsidize it.
But when it’s Pamela Geller defending the First Amendment,
elite opinion has no use for her efforts.
The government will
subsidize art that offends Christians but will not provide security for Pamela
Generations of Campus Speech Codes Yields Ignorant Cable News Hosts
While most of the media are criticizing Pamela Geller for hosting a Mohammed drawing contest, Erick Wemple points out that Geller is one of the few defending the First Amendment from Islamofascim. Most of the media lack the courage to stand up for free speech.
Cable news personalities are hired to ask tough questions, and so these folks were doing their jobs in pressing Geller. Yet the unspoken message they send with this line of inquiry is one of suppression — that what Geller and her invitees were doing was wrong, provocative, naughty, stupid and downright unnecessary. Some pundits used those very words or a mixture of them.
This strain of thought speaks to the power of precedent. In January, terrorists carried out a massacre of the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine, a publication that had compiled a record of depicting Muhammad in satirical ways. The attack, per force, elevated the newsworthiness of those cartoons: There was no way to fully understand the alleged motivations of the attackers without sampling the drawings that had placed a target on the magazine.
Yet the American media folded into a crouch of cowardice and rationalization. The Associated Press’s statement said it would “refrain from moving deliberately provocative images.” The major networks stayed away from the pictures, and the cable networks followed suit, for the most part, with Fox News showing glimpses here and there. CNN said it was withholding the images as a measure to protect its personnel in overseas hotspots. (In the immediate aftermath of the attack, The Washington Post’s news side didn’t traffic in the images, though the editorial side published one on its op-ed page.)
I was born in Tombstone, Arizona, but moved to California in 1959 when labor strikes at the copper mines devastated the Arizona economy. I've been moving north ever since. Pullman is as far north as I care to live and I'm looking toward reversing the drift.