Jack Welch's Jelly Brain

On Friday, Welch seemed to be claiming that Obama or someone in his administration had manipulated the results of the recent jobs report on his twitter feed:


Obama is from Chicago, and had just lost his first debate with Mitt Romney - or so I'm told.  I don't bother with such pointless charades.

Well, as you can imagine, this created a minor uproar, with media outlets, politicians, and even business associates questioning the merit of such an accusation.  First, the report was actually published before the debate.  Second, all the raw data is available, so it's not something that can really be manipulated.  Experts basically concluded that Welch was talking out of his ass.

So on Sunday, Welch sent out a new tweet:


Well, maybe he didn't comment on the White House, but he certainly commented on the jobs report, and only moments before his claims that he hadn't made any comments about the White House.



That link he posted leads to a story on AEIdeas, the public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute.  The article is titled "Economist: Unemployment drop ‘implausible … a statistical quirk’." 

Welch's claims are disingenuous, at best.

To accept Welch's comments, we have to find a plausible explanation for the first post; who are "these Chicago guys" that he's referring to, if it's not Obama, a former resident of Chicago?

Could he be referring to the band Chicago?  Did this jazz/rock fusion group fudge the numbers?

I know;

It's the Moon Furies.  Their website even says that they are "Chicago Guys."

Wait, he said they lost a debate.  So maybe it's...

...the Chicago Blackhawks!  Perhaps by "debate," he really meant "game.

But they weren't mentioned in the "interesting view" of the jobs report.

No, there's only one explanation of Welch's comment that makes any sense; he was, in fact, referring to President Obama, who has often been lambasted by conservatives for doing things "The Chicago Way," a reference to the violence and corruption of the government in the gangster era as depicted in The Untouchables.  Obama is from Chicago, and had just lost a debate, and certainly benefits from a positive jobs report.  This is the only context that fits.

Jack Welch is lying to us.  And he's doing a pathetically poor job of it.  It's almost as pathetic as believing he could get away with claiming that the POTUS influenced the numbers without offering one shred of supporting evidence.

If Jack Welch really believes that he can  simply wave away his comment by stating it wasn't about the White House,
he must be keeping his brains in this jar >

Lyin' Ryan Sticks to the Broken Script.

What do you do when you have no legitimate issues to put forth with your campaign?  You lie.

And what do you do when your lies have been thoroughly debunked?  If you're Paul Ryan, you repeat the lie.  At least, that's what he was doing in Tampa yesterday.

“Here’s the dirty little secret about Medicare they don’t want you to know,” he said. “The  biggest threat to Medicare is Obamacare.”
--Tampa Bay Times, September 16, 2012

Of course, the truth about the Affordable Care Act is that it extends Medicare funding by eight years. 

It’s worth noting that there’s one area these cuts don’t touch: Medicare benefits. The  Affordable Care Act rolls back payment rates for hospitals and insurers. It does not,  however, change the basket of benefits that patients have access to.
-- The Washington Post, August 14, 2012

That's not entirely accurate: it also adds new benefits to to seniors currently enrolled in the program.  That's right; thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Medicare costs less, provides more benefits, and the funding lasts longer. Which is exactly the opposite of what Paul Ryan is claiming.

You see, back in 2003, the Medicare Modernization Act was passed, which underwrote the costs of many prescription drugs for seniors, and paid to put a number of seniors into private insurance plans, the theory being that by enrolling seniors in various private health plans, competition and market forces would lower the costs of care.  But costs for seniors in the private health plans rose, costing taxpayers an average of 117% compared to standard Medicare costs. 

The Affordable Care Act eliminates these over-payments to bring them in line with the rest of Medicare coverage costs by re-negotiating reimbursement rates to the insurance companies.  It also negotiated savings from health care providers, further lowering costs.  So there aren't any cuts in coverage, only cuts in costs; what you and I would actually call "savings" instead of "cuts."

The real "dirty secret" that the Romney campaign doesn't want you to know is that Paul Ryan  proposed to make exactly the same cuts in expenses.

...deciding who is cutting Medicare by $700 billion just requires looking at who is cutting Medicare by $700 billion. And at the moment, that’s both Obama and the Republican  budget.
-- The Washington Post, August 14, 2012

Well, not the only dirty secret.  They also don't want you to realize this:

What Romney/Ryan are saying is that they then take the money saved from their cuts to Medicare and put it toward deficit reduction while Obama takes that money and spends it on health care for poor people... But Romney/Ryan also add a trillion dollars to the defense budget. And they have trillions of dollars in tax cuts they haven’t explained how they’re going to pay for. So those decisions make future cuts to Medicare more likely.
-- The Washington Post, August 14, 2012

But this might be the most important thing Ryan has said so far:

"We're not going to spend the next four years blaming everything on everybody else. We're going to take responsibility," Ryan said.
--Tampa Bay Times, September 16, 2012

I have a great idea for you, Paul; why wait for the election?  Why don't you take responsibility for what Republicans have done to this country now?  Admit to three years of obstructing our economic recovery, own up to the damage done by the Bush administration and its record expansion of the national debt, accept that our current financial straits are the direct result of all the deregulation that the GOP has fostered over the last thirty years.

Why wait to take responsibility?  If you're truly proud of what Republicans have accomplished, start bragging - truthfully - about what you and your party have really been doing.

Dictionary Fun with Rob Moore.

Yes, it's time for another round of Dictionary Fun!  Today, we'll be checking out the vocabulary skills of Rob Moore.

Rob Moore is the CFO for Murray Energy, a company that operates coal mines in West Virginia.  He's also a fucking thug colossal prick and a miserable excuse for a human being an uncaring company stooge a cold-hearted business man, as we'll see.


Mr. Moore came to our attention after a friend posted this photo on Facebook:

Hard to believe, isn't it?  But some research lead us to recorded talk radio show on West Virginia's WWVA 1170 AM. If you don't have the 20 minutes to listen to the program, The Raw Story gives us a thorough good recap of the story.

A group of coal miners in Ohio feel they would have been fired if they did not attend an Aug. 14 event with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and contribute to his campaign — and to make matters worse, they lost of day of pay for their trouble.

“Yes, we were in fact told that the Romney event was mandatory and would be without pay, that the hours spent there would need to be made up my non-salaried employees outside of regular working hours, with the only other option being to take a pay cut for the equivalent time,” the employees told Blomquist. “Yes, letters have gone around with lists of names of employees who have not attended or donated to political events.”

What did the company have to say about it?

Murray Energy Chief Financial Officer Rob Moore told Blomquist that the charges were untrue.

“There were no workers that were forced to attend the event,” Moore said. “We had managers that communicated to our work force that the attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend the event..."

Hmmm. Attendance was mandatory.  But the employees weren't forced.  But if it was mandatory, doesn't that mean that they had to go?  Isn't that what "mandatory" means?

Let's see what Merriam-Webster has to say about the word "mandatory:"

MANDATORY (adjective)  1: required by a law or rule : obligatory <the mandatory retirement age>

So, yes, if attendance was mandatory, they were indeed expected to go.  That was the, um, mandate they were given.

Moore did have more to say about the attendance:

"... but no one was forced to attend the event. We had a pre-registration list. And employees were asked to put their names on a pre-registration list because they could not get into the event unless they were pre-registered and had a name tag to enter the premises.”

Then why did you just say it was mandatory?  If there is confusion, Mr. Moore, it was created by Murray Energy, who told employees they had to attend, not the employees who are pissed that they were told they had to attend a political rally for someone whose record for labor is pretty dismal.

But to add insult to injury:

“Our management people wanted to attend the event..."

We have cause to suspect that the fact that their boss told them they'd better be there had something to do with it, but heck, we'll play the game that they were all willing volunteers who not coerced in any way by the owner of the company who has donated over $900,000 to the Republican Party over the last year or so.

So what's the problem with all the manager going to the rally?  Because there were no managers on site, the mine had to be closed for a day.  Or more precisely, because management closed the mine to attend a political rally, every miner working for them lost that day's wages.

The radio host asked them why the workers had to be punished for their management team's decision to close for the day:

I’m not saying pay then to attend the event, I’m saying, ‘Hey look, we have to close down the mine, if you want to attend this event, that’s fine, but you’re still going to get a day’s pay for the work that you would have done,’” Blomquist pointed out. “Why not do that?”

“As a private employer, it was our decision and we made the decision not to pay the people,” the Murray chief financial officer said.

A responsible company would have ensured that operations continued.  A company that gave a shit about its employees would have declared "it's great that everyone wants to meet Mr. Romney, but we're a business first, and there are people depending on their paycheck to pay their bills, to put food on the table, so we need to have enough managers on site to continue operations."

A truly benevolent company would have paid the employees for the day's wages; after all, there is no good reason for them NOT to be working other than the fact that the managers and administration of Murray Energy are selfish pricks who don't give a shit about their workers decided not to show up to work so they could do something else.

They could have done either of those things, and everyone would have been happy, and there'd be no reason for me and the rest of the blogosphere to rip Mr. Moore a new one.

But sadly, that's not what Murray Energy did:

“We’re talking about an event that was in the best interest of anyone that’s related to the coal industry,” Moore added. “I do not believe that missing an eight-hour day, when you put it into perspective, when you think about how critical — critical this next election is, and how critical it is that we get someone in this office that supports coal — to give up eight hours for a career, I just don’t believe that there is anything negative about that.”

Well, Mr. Moore, that's because you are a steaming turd of a person.

While I certainly can see that if you don't want to run your mine with all the proper safety protocols to keep your workers safe, and if you're an owner whose income puts you in the top 2% tax bracket, attending Mr. Romney's rally makes perfect sense.  But if you're one of the workers who's going to wind up paying a big tax increase so the owner can pay an even lower tax rate than his employees, if you're a worker whose safety depends on the regulations that Mr. Romney has promised to repeal, if you're an hourly employee whose wages have been lowered because of Republican policies over the last few years, the last thing you want to do is lose a day's pay to support the candidate who is doing everything in his power to reduce you to living in poverty.

And if you think I'm being too hard on Murray Energy, consider this; the last time they made the news was 2009.  That's when a mine they owned in Utah collapsed and killed six miners and 3 rescue workers.  This was after receiving 325 citations in five years for exactly the kind of safety violations that resulted in the collapse.  That's an average of one citation every week.   Once a week for five years.

Charles Dickens wrote of greed-driven men like Moore, and his sleazy boss Robert Murray, nearly 170 years ago:

"I wear the chain I forged in life,'' replied the Ghost. "I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you?''

Scrooge trembled more and more.

"Or would you know,'' pursued the Ghost, ``the weight and length of the strong coil you bear yourself? It was full as heavy and as long as this, seven Christmas Eves ago. You  have laboured on it, since. It is a ponderous chain!''

The Ghost... set up another cry, and clanked its chain so hideously in the dead silence of the night, that the Ward would have been justified in indicting it for a nuisance.

"Oh! captive, bound, and double-ironed,'' cried the phantom, "Not to know that any Christian spirit working kindly in its little sphere, whatever it may be, will find its mortal life too short for its vast means of usefulness. Not to know that no space of regret can make amends for one life's opportunities misused! Yet such was I! Oh! such was I!''

"But you were always a good man of business, Jacob,'' faultered Scrooge, who now began to apply this to himself.

"Business!'' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!''

It held up its chain at arm's length, as if that were the cause of all its unavailing grief, and flung it heavily upon the ground again.

But I'm expecting too much of someone who doesn't even know what the word "mandatory" means.  These money-grubbing turds don't even own a dictionary, it's unlikely that they are bright enough to see how the parable of A Christmas Carol might apply to them.

Don't Jump On The GOP Bandwagon

...especially while we're trying to pull its wheels off.

People, when we embrace the methods of our enemy to win the goal, winning becomes pointless.  If the Democrats have to lie like Republicans to win the election, they've already lost everything that matters.

Lookin' good, but time to wash her mouth out with soap

While it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for Romney, he himself has always supported an exception for rape to any of the medieval anti-abortion laws his party has endorsed.  And he still does. Deborah Wasserman Schultz is indeed lying to voters when she insists otherwise. 

Does that mean that the GOP won't try to keep women barefoot and pregnant if we're stupid enough to elect him?  Of course not.  But we don't need to lie about Romney's stance on the matter.

Instead, we should be dissecting some of his ACTUAL stupid stances; like how he argued against the ACA's mandate that all health insurance plans offer birth control to women at no cost by claiming it violated the First Amendment. 

"I don't need facts while I carry this!"

And while Romney indeed made a joke about no one asking for his birth certificate during is visit to his home town, it's not the same thing as Sherrif Joe "I'm A Fucking Idiot" Arpaio insisting that the State of Hawaii was wrong when it verified the authenticity of a birth certificate issued by the Stage of Hawaii.  

Yes, Romney is strangely attractive to birthers.  But it seems he has never questioned Obama's citizenship, even while courting the lunatic fringe.

It was a joke.  Romney was joking, or trying to. Nobody accused him of jumping on the birther bandwagon last time,   so lighten up.

The only way we can change the tone of these damaging excuses for elections is to actually change the tone of them; we must turn our backs on lies and deception; for every whopping fib they tell, we must counter with a truth.  We must dazzle them with honesty.

We can't afford to keep having our leadership win by the expedience of telling more lies - or more credible lies - than the opposition; we need leaders who win by being better, not more devious.

Santorum Lies To Public

CNN reports that Santorum is trying to clarify his position on contraception in the wake of an interview where he stated that not only does he not believe that all health plans should include access to it, no one should use it; not even married people:

One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative...  if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation... you diminish this very special bond between men and women... 

...I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.
- TIME, February 14, 2012

That's his opinion, and he's welcome to it.  Of course, it's not the opinion of a vast majority of Americans, 80% of whom approve of contraception, in and out of marriage.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that he seeks to backtrack, and re-state his position that it won't alienate 80% of the voting public come election day.

Rick Santorum sought to bring some clarity to his birth control position on Friday, which he said has been misconstrued by opponents which have put him on both sides of the issue.

"My position is birth control can and should be available," the former senator from Pennsylvania said at a campaign event in Columbus, Ohio.
- CNN, February 17, 2012

That's pretty clear and to the point, isn't it?

But it's also a complete and total lie.  

We know it's a lie because on his website, he clearly outlines his agenda if elected president, and it includes:

• Repeal Clinton-era Title X family planning regulations...
• Repeal Obamacare mandate for contraceptive services in healthcare plans
• Advocate for a Personhood Amendment to the Constitution

Title X ensures that low-income families have access to family planning services and related preventive health services (protection against STDs, for example).

I think we're all familiar with the recent mandate that ALL health plans include access to contraceptives, but if you're not, that's all it does.

The nefarious Personhood Amendment calls for the definition of human life to begin not with the onset of pregnancy, but at the fertilization of the egg.  Since the most popular contraceptives are designed to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, this amendment would effectively ban most common contraceptives, including the pill, Norplant, and IUDs.

The bottom line; you can't claim to support someone's right to have access to birth control when several of the planks of the platform you are running on specifically eliminates birth control or access to birth control.

Rick Santorum is many things; but "liar" should probably be listed first, to put the rest into proper perspective.

Keep Your Sweaty Palms Out Of My Pants, Rick Santorum.

I gotta say, I don't understand why anyone has their knickers in a twist over comments made by billionaire Foster Freiss.  He was being interviewed by Andrea Mitchell, when he blurted out:

"This contraceptive thing, my gosh it's such [sic] inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly."

Cue outrage.

It's not a new joke.  There are variations, where it's not aspirin.  I've heard oranges, apples, and potatoes used in the same fashion.  Old news.

Rick Santorum made the following statement about it on CBS This Morning:

"This is someone who is a supporter of mine, and I’m not responsible for
every comment that a supporter of mine makes," he told Charlie Rose.
"It was a bad joke, it was a stupid joke, and it is not reflective of me
or my record on this issue."

So what, exactly, is Rick Santorum's position on contraception?

One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.
- TIME, Feb 14, 2012

Yes, Santorum's actual position is a lot worse than Freiss's.  He's just moved our bedrooms, and our most personal, private relationships, into the arena of National Policy.  He doesn't just want to ban abortions, he's not merely someone who won't use contraception. He wants to dictate what you do in the bedroom.  His god doesn't approve.

Aren't Republicans about less government, and staying out of people's personal lives?  I don't think a potential Presidential candidate could be much more intrusive than this.  Just one more proof that the Party of Lincoln is as dead as he is.

Why are we event talking about contraception?  Because the Catholic Church is unhappy.

People are mad that the Affordable Health Care Act dictates that all health plans must include access to contraception and family planning counsel.  Some daft fools are stating that he's violating the Catholic Church's rights.  Of course, what these undereducated folks miss is the fact that a benefits package is for THE EMPLOYEE, not the employer.  Religious organizations are free to tell their adherents what is or isn't permissible to their religious tenets, and the ACA doesn't interfere with that.  There are Catholics right now, working outside the Church at firms that offer birth control.  They don't have to take it. And Catholics working FOR the Church also don't have to take it.

But the Catholic Church employs people of other faiths, at their various secular institutions; hospitals, schools, and various charities.  The Church does not have any right to prevent these non-Catholic employees from using contraception.  They are employees, not adherents.

Organizations protesting that they are being forced to fund activities proscribed by the articles of their faith.  And that's a load of hooey. It's no different than pacifists trying to get out of paying taxes because some tax dollars fund the military.

These organizations are funding their employee's health care.  The employees make their choices according the dictates of their faith.  It's as American as Apple Pie. 

Santorum is a relic, not from a simpler time, but from a simple-minded time.  A hundred years ago, his cause would have been Temperance.  Remember Prohibition?  A group of well-intentioned True Believers managed to legislate morality; they made alcohol illegal.  The result wasn't the end of domestic unrest as they'd predicted; instead, they created a huge black market that most Americans participated in.  Gang wars resulted.  A few street gangs grew into organized crime; corruption ruled.  Prohibition was overturned, but the criminal organizations remain; now they deal in illegal narcotics and prostitution.

And that's the America Rick Santorum represents.  He doesn't mean to.  And he probably doesn't even know it.  Or maybe, just maybe, he doesn't care, as long as he can dictate how you live your lives.

Some Cowardly Guy

As you may recall, I took SCG to task for his cowardly actions taken to keep people from pointing out that basically every point he made in that post was either a lie or a completely stupid argument for a grown-up to make.

His response came in A Note To My Readers, wherein he responds, in so many words:

I have a very diverse following. I average about a thousand hits a day. Many liberals read my blog, because I have many liberal views. Many conservatives read my blog, because I have some very conservative views. Atheists read my blog, and born again Christians. Libertarians too. Hell, I think even librarians read my blog!

Thus, it is inevitable that from time to time, someone is going to be pissed at me. Occasionally, I shut off comments when I just don’t care to see comments from whatever particular group is pissed at me that day. This pisses people off more, and because they can’t comment on my post, they write on their blogs how horrible and despicable it is for me to write what I believe and then shut comments off! The nerve of me!

This time, he did leave the comments on, and I left him a few. I let him know how disappointed I was that he'd told so many lies in the earlier post. And then he shut off the comments after re-posting the more egregious of his lies.

CL Jahn, I have not lied. What I wrote was what I found to be the truth, along with my opinion. If you think it is a lie, and you think I am a liar and a hypocrite guess what? I couldn’t give a rat’s ass.

Of course, he did lie. He asserts that Obama's " every associate, friend and mentor is a radical communist or flaming socialist." Not "Obama sat on a board with one guy," or "this guy who John McCain gave $480,000 to, once held a fundraiser for Obama." No, SCG would have you believe that this respected US Senator, who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard, who was an editor for the prestigious Harvard Law Review, who worked for a church based community organization, and taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School, doesn't know a single American who isn't either a commie or a pinko.

We are just going to have to disagree on this. I stand behind every single thing I said. You believe what you want to, and so will I.

This belies the fact that this isn't about belief. If SCG believes that McCain is simply the better candidate, he could simply have said just that. Bu instead, he trotted out the same tired lies that have been thoroughly debunked over the last few months.

You have never, ever, given any evidence to me, except for a link to Snopes

...other than all these articles I've posted over the last month or so. Don't forget those. I kept saying "I've written on this, it's on my blog." You barely let people respond to your wild libel now, should I really expect you to let me re-post my entire blog into your comment section?

Obama shared an office with him, and served on a board with him, and started his political career in his living room.

Uh, no. Obama didn't share an office with Ayers, and his political career had nothing to do with Ayers. They were both invited to serve on the same board by a Republican. Fella named Annenberg. You might have heard of him, he funded the campaigns of the last four Republican presidents.

ACORN. I suppose you think this group didn’t commit voter fraud, and isn’t a radical left-wing organization? Or are you going to deny that Obama worked for them years ago, and supported them and their goals?

No, and Yes.

ACORN didn't commit voter fraud. Someone has to actually have tried voting when they were not eligible for voting fraud to occur. Since ACORN didn't try voting on the falsisfied registrations, they did not committ voter fraud. In fact, they have committed no crime at all. Whoever filled out the forms did; but once those forms are filled in, ACORN was required BY LAW to turn them over to the local Elections board. And when they turned them over as required by law, the informed the elections board that there were falsified documents in the collection. No laws were broken by ACORN.

Second, Obama "didn't work for" ACORN. Obama represented them in a class action lawsuit against the State of Michigan. Obama was part of a team, and ACORN was one of a dozen or so claimants. In other words, he wasn't employed or retained by ACORN. He was employed by the law firm that ACORN and several other groups retained for counsel.

There is no evidence that Obama directly supported ACORN or its cause, but John McCain actually DID.

Rashid Khalidi - Arab American Action Network (AAAN) founder, pro-Palestinian activist with PLO terrorist connections; and a friend and adviser to Obama in the past. You going to tell me he isn’t a radical?

Are you referring to this Rashid Khalidi?

If Rashid Khalidi is what you say, why did John McCain give him nearly a half million dollars? And if Khalidi is what you say, why aren't you demanding that McCain be removed from office?

If Khalidi is what you say, then McCain committed treason. Me, I don't think McCain is the kind of guy to commit treason. But I guess you do. So I guess you're not only a liar, but a hypocrite as well. How the cranky have fallen!

Sam Graham-Felsen - the official paid blogger for the Obama campaign is a proud Marxist, flies the Communist party flag, and has written articles for a Socialist magazine. You going to tell me this isn’t true?

He doesn't "fly the Communist Party Flag," he displays one that he picked up as a souvenir from a trip to the Soviet Union. He has written articles for a socialist magazine, and many other magazines. That doesn't prove, or even indicate, that he's a marxist or a socialist. In fact, the only place where anyone is saying this is in radical right-wing crackpot blogs.

Leftist liberals are the most intolerant group of people on the entire planet!!!

But I haven't posted some throroughy debunked lies and turned off my comments. Unless a person is posting outright libel, I let dissenting views be posted.

But God help me if I exercise my God given and constitutionally protected free speech right and say something negative

Actually, you LIED. Different than simply "saying something negative." You lied, you defended the lies, you lied again, and true to form, you cut off the discussion rather than own up to the facts.

I have heard you are spending all your time trashing me.

Is it "trashing you" to point out that you have been less than honest with your readers? Is it "trashing you" to compare what you've said to the actual truth?

I don't think I've spent any time at all "trashing" you. Up until this tantrum of yours, I've been a fan. No, I didn't "trash" you. You've trashed yourself. I took a few minutes to point it out, that's all.

And since this is the second of two posts about you, I hardly think that qualifies as "all my time." I have two other blogs and a full time job.

But I'll always make room to denounce a liar or two. It's a shame that you've become one of them.

Now HERE's someone needing to be Tazed...

CNN reports that Bill O'Reilly got a little out of hand at a rally for Obama Barack. According to the report:

....O’Reilly tried to get Obama’s attention after a Nashua campaign event. He allegedly began yelling at Obama’s National Trip Director Marvin Nicholson to get out of the way.

When Andrew Myer was questioning Sen. Kerry last year, the cops grabbed him. And when he protested being manhandled, they used their tazer to shut him up. But not O'Reilly, who didn't stop with yelling and generally being obnoxious:

Nicholson told CNN O'Reilly grabbed him by the arm and started "pushing" him. Nicholson also said that when he asked O'Reilly to stop pushing him, the talk-show host responded that he was "low class."

Barack eventually came over, and O'Reilly got his few minutes to speak with him before the Secret service put him back in his place - behind the barricades.

What does O'Reilly have to say for himself?

"We're sorry we had to have that little confrontation," O'Reilly added, "but no one on this earth is going to block a shot on The O'Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen."

Now there's a guy who needs a good tazering; low-class person, first class jerk Bill O'Reilly.

Maybe next time. We can only hope.

Powered by ScribeFire.