Anyone recall the OIC condemning the Taliban for sending suicide bombers to blow up mosques filled with Korans? (FNA) – Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu deplored the burning of the Holy Quran by the US forces in Afghanistan, and called for swift action to punish those responsible for the provocative
Read more here:
OIC Chief Accuses American Troops of “Inciting” Muslims With Koran Burning, Demands “Swift” Punishment…
“ In post Tea Party Washington, D.C., National Journal is signaling it wants to be an un-evolved troglodyte when it comes to the ideological prisms of Washington power. ” I think National Journal must hand over its rating of the most conservative and liberal members of congress to an outsourced shop in Mumbai filled with mental midgets. There can really be no other explanation for this year’s embarrassing list of the most conservative members of Congress. What is so stunning about it is that if you go to outside actual conservative organizations like the Club For Growth or the Heritage Foundation, etc. and see how conservatives define conservatives, the list won’t line up the way the mainstream left-of-center oriented biases of National Journal have lined up the list. One of the issues is how National Journal cherry picks its legislation . Even more embarrassing, National Journal appears more interested in using “conservative” for “Republican” and “liberal” for “Democrat.” In other words, these rankings tend to draw out partisans more than ideologies, while bastardizing the language of ideology to conform the rankings to partisanship. I assume the liberal list is as stupid as the conservative list. The National Journal list, for example, would have you believe that Orrin Hatch is more conservative than Mike Lee in Utah. According to National Journal , James Inhofe is more conservative than Jim DeMint by 2.3 points, but Jim DeMint is only 0.5 points more conservative than Mitch McConnell who is 11.4 points more conservative than Senator Rand Paul and also 2.4 points more conservative than Marco Rubio. In other words, National Journal is full of it in a way that I think it should be hard for such a respectable organization to be. I cannot believe some editor did not have the good sense to sit down, look at the rankings, and think, “My God, we will turn into a joke if we put this out.” Because guess what? They are a joke today in my inbox. I cannot believe any conservative or liberal will take the rankings seriously. The humorous emails I’m getting from Hill staffers and even a few reporters confirm just how laughable it all is. And every single email expresses the same sense of disappointment that National Journal , of all organizations, would get it so badly wrong. What is so troubling though, and what explains just how dumbed down and mentally deficient so much political coverage in Washington has become, is that National Journal is an extremely respected organization. Even I rely on their reporting as close to fair. I have a stack of stuff from National Journal just for today’s radio show. So when a respected organization like National Journal produces a ratings chart of conservatism that so misses the mark and deviates so far from what conservatives themselves would produce, it not only will lead reporters in Washington astray who will see the National Journal imprimatur and not realize just how off the mark the ratings are, but it will also shape coverage of candidates in a way that fails the capture the nuance of what is actually happening within both the conservative and liberal wings of the parties in Washington today. Republican does not mean conservative. Democrat does not mean liberal. But you’d be hard pressed to get this in these rankings. In post Tea Party Washington, D.C., National Journal is signaling it wants to be an un-evolved troglodyte when it comes to the ideological prisms of Washington power. Because I respect the organization so much, I am so much more disappointed it can’t evolve past the nineties in how it covers ideology and party.
Original post:
National Journal’s Self-Beclowning: Their Ideological Rankings of Congress Are Embarrassing.
At the start of the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday, American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas said : This week at CPAC, the American Conservative Union is honored to host former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and Senator Rand Paul, a powerful surrogate for his father Congressman Ron Paul. Cardenas similarly characterized Rand Paul as representing his dad in a press conference before his speech. It’s easy to see why; contested primaries inject CPAC with a special energy, attracting large (and lucrative) crowds, and the absence of Paul
CNN has suspended Roland Martin indefinitely for tweets he wrote during the Super Bowl which were construed as homophobic. In one tweet, Martin writes, “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him, #superbowl.” CNN stated, “Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated.” Yet in November 2010, it was Martin who wrote , “Maybe someone should kick Sarah Palin,” after Palin criticized First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign. Did CNN reprimand Martin in way, shape or form? What do you think? Apparently language that demeans Sarah Palin (and conservatives in general) is not inconsistent with the values and culture at CNN and is not only tolerated but encouraged.
Here is the original post:
CNN Kicks Roland Martin Off The Air
Former Georgia Secretary of State and friend of RedState Karen Handel has resigned from the Komen foundation in the wake of the left-wing outcry over the future of the organization’s funding of Planned Parenthood. According to LifeNews , “ Komen initially decided in December to revise its grant-making process to funds grants to agencies that provide direct health services for women — which would eliminate Planned Parenthood since it does not do mammograms . After Planned Parenthood, Democratic members of Congress and the media pounced on Komen for its decision, Komen clarified that Planned Parenthood would still be allowed to submit grant requests but they may or may not be funded.” Handel’s letter of resignation is below. February 7, 2012 The Honorable Nancy Brinker CEO, Susan G. Komen for the Cure VIA EMAIL 5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250 Dallas, Texas 75244 Dear Ambassador Brinker: Susan G. Komen for the Cure has been the recognized leader for more 30 years in the fight against breast cancer here in the US – and increasingly around the world. As you know, I have always kept Komen’s mission and the women we serve as my highest priority – as they have been for the entire organization, the Komen Affiliates, our many supporters and donors, and the entire community of breast cancer survivors. I have carried out my responsibilities faithfully and in line with the Board’s objectives and the direction provided by you and Liz. We can all agree that this is a challenging and deeply unsettling situation for all involved in the fight against breast cancer. However, Komen’s decision to change its granting strategy and exit the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and its grants was fully vetted by every appropriate level within the organization. At the November Board meeting, the Board received a detailed review of the new model and related criteria. As you will recall, the Board specifically discussed various issues, including the need to protect our mission by ensuring we were not distracted or negatively affected by any other organization’s real or perceived challenges. No objections were made to moving forward. I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve. However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization. Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology. Rather, both were based on Komen’s mission and how to better serve women, as well as a realization of the need to distance Komen from controversy. I believe that Komen, like any other nonprofit organization, has the right and the responsibility to set criteria and highest standards for how and to whom it grants. What was a thoughtful and thoroughly reviewed decision – one that would have indeed enabled Komen to deliver even greater community impact – has unfortunately been turned into something about politics. This is entirely untrue. This development should sadden us all greatly. Just as Komen’s best interests and the fight against breast cancer have always been foremost in every aspect of my work, so too are these my priorities in coming to the decision to resign effective immediately. While I appreciate your raising a possible severance package, I respectfully decline. It is my most sincere hope that Komen is allowed to now refocus its attention and energies on its mission. Sincerely, Karen Handel
Here is the original post:
Karen Handel resigns from the Komen Foundation
