Here's a video from FOX & Friends with Cody James, a student at the university who wanted to see the recruiters and says the protesters were not violent.
Whatever your beliefs are regarding military recruiting at colleges, Michelle Malkin crosses the line of decency by printing the telephone numbers of the students that formed the protest. They have been receiving death threats non-stop. An email-er wrote me and said:

"The protest was reported on by Hannity and OReilly. Michelle Malkin put actual students' phone numbers on her blog and they've been getting death threats nonstop."

In her update to the post Michelle writes:

"SAW has removed the contact information from its press release and is now lying about the fact that it made the info publicly available on the Internet. I am leaving it up. If you are contacting them, I do not condone death threats or foul language. As for SAW, my message is this: You are responsible for your individual actions. Other individuals are responsible for theirs. Grow up and take responsibility."

Obviously the death threats are emanating from her blog and she knows it. Malkin understands the nature of the fear and outrage she causes. Will she take responsibility when somebody gets hurt? Here's another example of the fear-mongering she causes. Read Cathy Young's Boston Globe column.

Here's an article about the affair.

Another email: "She REPRINTED the numbers. The death threats have started again with a vengeance." She's basically blaming the victim, saying "we asked for it." But we only sent the contact info to the PRESS (not her site) along with our press release and then we specifically asked HER to remove them, when there were death threats (we've published some on our site), she's refusing."

"The basic thing is, she's trying to make us sound like lunatic vandals and criminals so that her fanatical audience feels justified in sending us death threats. The action was completely peaceful and it was blown out of proportion. Malkin says: "SAW is trying to cover its tracks again and has wiped the info from the cached version." Does she have any understanding of how google cache works? We don't have the power to "wipe it."

(If you contact her please don't stoop to the levels that her readers are.)

Update:

Here are some of the threats on SAW's homepage.

[Please sign the petition, above, and ask Boston to stop allowing the federal government to turn our local police into border patrol agents.]

Boston has made one mistake too many in trying to enforce federal immigration law.

The city is currently enrolled in the federal program with the Orwellian name Secure Communities (S-Comm), which forces local police to check the immigration status of anyone they arrest. The Obama administration wants to force every local police force in the U.S. to enroll in this program by 2013, but states and localities across the nation are resisting. If migrant communities are afraid to go to their local police officers to report crimes, then all residents are less safe. Following the governors of Illinois and New York, the governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, recently declined to participate in the program.

While the program is under review in Boston, the latest Boston Globe article from Maria Sacchetti makes clear that the time for Boston to terminate its S-Comm program is now. With DREAMer Lizandra DeMoura now in deportation proceedings, this program has manifestly done enough damage to our communities.

In 2006, one of the first official acts of Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis was to refuse then Gov. Mitt Romney's request to use local police forces to enforce federal immigration law. What wouldn't be made public until four years later is that while Davis was publicly decrying the involvement of local police in enforcing federal immigration law, privately, the Boston Police Department was the pilot for a program that would check the immigration status of everyone they arrested, a program which would later come to be known as S-Comm.

It's easy to understand why the federal government approached Boston about doing this. As one of the most pro-migrant major cities in the U.S., involving Boston early would blunt criticism against S-Comm later. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also promised all participants in S-Comm that the purpose of the program would be to target the worst of the worst for deportation.

Continue reading »

How sick is it that Scott Brown has to make stories up about Rachel Maddow from random tweets just so he can fund-raise off of? Really, it's bizzare.

The Boston Herald:

Liberal TV lioness Rachel Maddow is demanding an apology from GOP U.S. Sen. Scott Brown for raising campaign dough on scuttlebutt she’s planning to run against him in 2012 - a false rumor that was actually trumped up by Bay State Democrats.

“The idea that the Democrats are to blame for this doesn’t even make sense. It’s ridiculous,” Maddow told the Herald yesterday. “Scott Brown made this up in order to make money off my name and likeness and I think he should stop. And I think he should apologize.”

Maddow, who lives in western Massachusetts, called Brown a “creep” in a planned MSNBC newspaper ad scheduled to run today and slammed him for sending out a nationwide fund-raising letter this week “smearing me to raise money for himself.”

--

Brown took the Maddow rumor and ran with it. He used the liberal lightning rod in a direct appeal to supporters for campaign money. “I’m sure she’s a nice person. I just don’t think America can afford her liberal politics,” Brown wrote.

Maddow said Brown never called her to ask if she was planning to run against him. In the ad and on her show this week, Maddow said she’s not taking him on in 2012.

“Anybody who knows me knows that I have no intention of running for office ever in my whole career,” Maddow told the Herald.

The Huff Po adds:

The ad concludes with a reminder that Brown has refused to appear on Maddow's show.

"My show airs at 9PM Eastern in Massachusetts on MSNBC," she wrote. "So far, Scott Brown refuses to come on. Maybe he'll change his mind -- I hope he does.

DOWNLOADS: (727)

PLAYS: (2291)

Embed

I've been writing a lot about the role Fox News and the right wing noise machine played in getting Scott Brown elected in Massachusetts. Margery Eagan, a Boston Herald reporter (who supported Coakley) told Howard Kurtz that right-wing talk radio and sports talk radio demonized Martha Coakley endlessly. This was a big part of her fall after she held a 31-point lead in MA.

CNN's Reliable Sources:

On Boston newspapers’ coverage of the Massachusetts Senate race

EAGAN: Well, she got very good press from "The Boston Globe," not from my paper, "The Boston Herald." But you know something? People don't like -- TV journalists and newspaper journalists do not like to talk about the influence of talk radio. Let me tell you something. There was a nonstop hammering of Martha Coakley on the AM stations here, on the huge sports stations here. She was the evil incarnate and Scott Brown was the next coming. And, you know, the New England Patriots in the playoffs lost early on. It was as if there was this transference from Tom "Terrific" Brady, the quarterback of the Patriots, to Scott "Terrific" Brown. You look at the rallies for Scott Brown, they were very white, they were very suburban, they were Gillette Stadium fans, and there was almost this...

KURTZ: But just briefly, did you mean to say earlier that "The Boston Globe" tilted towards Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, and your paper, "The Boston Herald," tilted towards Scott Brown in the news coverage?

EAGAN: Well, I would say my paper was pretty much cheerleading for Scott Brown. We're the conservative paper in town, and The Globe, I think, was -- they were evenhanded somewhat, but I think that they were definitely cheerleading for Martha Coakley, absolutely. They're the liberal paper in town. That's the way it always is.

I cover the sports media on C&L all the time because I think it's important to show how they act like the Beltway media elite -- they have their own Village. And their political reach is greater than people think, because the sports talkers are uniformly right-wing and they love to bash liberals, just like their "opinion show" counterparts. Locally, AM right wing hate talk radio does play a major role in the GOP propaganda battles and it worked very well for them in Massachusetts.

Eagan names what the media elites will dare not: the actual influence right-wing talkers have in America. Good for her.

Still same as the old boss. A fan of the site sends me this Boston Globe article, which discusses how prominent Democratic politicians pushed to get the second F-35 engine into the final DOD Appropriations bill prior to President Obama's signature. You might remember that F-35 second engine as one of those costly gold-plated things that DOD really didn't ask for and that President Obama said he wouldn't stand for. First it was gone.

The Obama administration has signaled for months that funding for a second F-35 engine in the fiscal 2010 defense bill could become veto bait. Gates spent months, most recently at the beginning of September, making the case that the Pentagon does not need the alternative engine, built by a General Electric-Rolls-Royce team.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) said

Wednesday that he decided against funding the engine because he was concerned about the floor vote on the entire defense spending bill.

Now it's back.

Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said that GE officials had told his office that 1,000 jobs in Massachusetts will be saved or maintained once full production begins on the backup engine.

"There will also be some jobs gained, but maintaining jobs right now is very important,’’ he said yesterday, defending his efforts to persuade fellow lawmakers, including the highly influential Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, to overturn Obama’s proposal in a final vote on Saturday.

Inouye chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, while Murtha oversees a House panel with jurisdiction over defense spending.

Kerry also used his influence with the White House to get it to back off a threatened presidential veto. He told the Globe that he ultimately got assurances from Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, that the president would not veto the fiscal year 2010 defense appropriations bill if the money for the engine was included. Obama signed the bill which totals $626 billion, on Monday.

What utter bullshit. This is just unjustified crap, and it doesn't smell any better coming from a Democratic politician than a Republican. In talking about defense acquisition with a colleague, he said that he might believe in Santa Claus, but he didn't believe in acquisition reform. With clowns like this in the Senate and White House, it's no wonder that the Defense Department can't get clear of its huge funding bills and massively overpriced, behind schedule programs.

The VH-71 presidential helicopter program also got $85 million to "wind down" its efforts. Must be a big office. The USMC's Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is getting $293.5 million, despite its many troubles. I'm severely disappointed.

The writer of this Boston Globe op-ed, who works for a liberal think tank, pulls apart the Baucus bill and doesn't like what she finds. Hey, Kent Conrad likes it - that should have been her first clue:

It’s no surprise that his bill includes no public sector insurance plan. Instead, the only competition that giant insurers face will come from tiny co-operatives - and even then, to qualify for federal funding, they must be fledglings. Established co-ops will not qualify for help. Thus, private insurers can count on controlling the marketplace as millions of new customers who don’t have job-based coverage are required by law to come their way, tax subsidies in hand.

But what is shocking is that under the Baucus plan, a 50-year-old single parent could wind up paying far more for health insurance than a 28-year-old single adult who earns twice her salary. The Baucus bill won’t let insurers hike premiums because a customer suffers from a pre-existing condition. But it lets insurers charge older Americas five times as much as younger customers.

"Shocking"? Only if you haven't been paying attention.

In a July letter to House leaders, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans called for the 5 to 1 ratio, saying anything less than that would force many young people to pay more to “heavily subsidize the naturally higher health care costs of older individuals.’’ House Democrats refused. The House bill, like Massachusetts, says that insurers can charge older adults no more than twice what they bill younger ones.

If the point of insurance is to pool risk and reduce costs, having young people subsidize the higher costs of older people makes sense. But never let it be said that the insurance industry will pass up a chance to rationalize jacking up somebody's rates!

The Baucus legislation also imposes a penalty on single-parenthood. If you live alone with one child, you will be asked to shell out 80 percent more than a childless adult.

Of course it makes sense that coverage for a mother and child would cost more than the premium for a single person. But since children typically use much less health care than adults, 80 percent is a steep surcharge for single-parenthood - especially since a couple with children would pay only 50 percent more than a childless couple.

The Baucus bill also punishes smokers, adding 50 percent to their premiums. No doubt many would argue that this is only fair. But the vast majority of adults who smoke are poor. Many will qualify for full subsidies; others will be eligible for partial subsidies to help them pay for their premiums.

So who will pay 50 percent more for their health care? You, the taxpayer. If the smoker receives a subsidy, the 50 percent surcharge isn’t likely to induce him to stop. This rule seems designed primarily to funnel more taxpayer dollars to private sector insurers.

Single parents also tend to cling to the lower rungs of the income ladder. Many will qualify for at least a partial, if not a full subsidy. Who lays out the extra 80 percent? That’s right - you and I.

Finally, if under the Baucus bill, insurers can charge middle-income 50-somethings five times as much as even the most affluent 20-somethings, a great many of those older customers are going to need fat subsidies, sending more tax dollars to Aetna.

Do we see a pattern, class? Of course we do! The purpose of the Baucus bill is to make insurance companies happy. That's why it has to be fixed, and that's why you should be calling your congressperson this week.

On the campaign trail, John McCain likes to brag that he went after corrupt uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff as some sort of high-minded reform crusade. Well, according to a new book by Boston Globe reporter Gary S. Chafetz, McCain's war against Abramoff was motivated more by revenge than any sort of noble principle.

Politico:

A new book released the day after Sen. John McCain accepted the Republican presidential nomination attacks one of his trademark political successes: his investigation of now-jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2004 and 2005.

“The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff,” by former Boston Globe freelancer Gary S. Chafetz and put out by small independent publisher Martin and Lawrence press, aggressively puts forth the case that McCain’s investigation into Abramoff wasn’t the high-minded reform crusade he has made it out to be on the campaign trail, but rather was pure political payback.

ThinkProgress has more.

Boston Globe:

Rep. Barney Frank said he plans to file a bill to legalize "small amounts" of marijuana.

Frank announced his plans late Friday on the HBO show "Real Time," hosted by Bill Maher.

"I'm going to file a bill as soon as we go back to remove all federal penalties for the possession or use of small amounts of marijuana," Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, told Maher.

Frank didn't define "small amounts." Efforts to reach Frank on Saturday were not immediately successful.

Frank said he'd filed a similar bill in the Massachusetts Legislature in the 1970s, but hasn't tried since he was elected to Congress.

"I finally got to the point where I think I can get away with it," he said.

Frank said he thinks "its time for the politicians in this one to catch up to the public. The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly."

I am totally for legalization of marijuana, but I have to differ with Frank on this: to think that at this time with this administration that you could get away with a bill legalizing pot actually is what sounds silly.

Boston Globe:

Mitt Romney declared last night that he would jump at the chance to be vice president if Republican John McCain offered the number two slot.

"I think any Republican leader in this country would be honored to be asked to serve as the vice presidential nominee, myself included," Romney said on Fox News Channel.

Oy. As Fred Barnes says, Not Bloody Likely

Des Moines Register endorses McCain and Clinton. Boston Globe endorses McCain and Obama.

McCain? Are these papers sucking up because their readers are of his demographic? Just asking....

UPDATE: Oh Judas Priest. Word is out that Lieberman is going to endorse McCain today as well? I thought Joe was an Independent. Pffft. Does he think we forgot this?