In order to enter the contest, one must give their full name, email address, and agree to receive one of their daily digests. Oh, and agree to the terms and conditions of the contest, too. Here's the promo:

The Daily Caller will be giving away one gun per week until Election Day – November 6, 2012.

The FMK9C1 is an American-made high capacity 9mm designed by Jim Pontillo and manufactured in
California. Each gun is engraved with the Bill of Rights and comes in one of three colors.

To enter this week’s contest, simply sign up below to receive updates from The Daily Caller. Our DC
Morning emails are an informative and amusing way to keep up with the latest news.

According to the terms and conditions, contestants must undergo a background check and file the necessary forms with the ATF in order to actually receive their custom-colored, high-powered pistol.

W.T.F.? Media Matters has more on Jim Pontillo, manufacturer of the spiffy prize:

Pontillo has also published some creepily bizarre stuff that transcends mere fringy-ness and is actually pretty alarming. Like his one-act play about the Virginia Tech massacre (written from the point of view of the murder weapon). And his belief that "we should send the U.S. Military down to Mexico, seize their oil fields, and confiscate the proceeds until the Mexican government changes its policy of encouraging their population to come here for work and send money home, all subsidized by American taxpayers."

Dave Weigel:

So far, only the wags at Media Matters have explored beyond the stunt to find out more about Pontillo. He's the kind of gun manufacturer who likes to write Human Events columns about how Arizona's SB1070 was " a warning to a despotic administration that the American people are only going to tolerate a limited amount of assault on their sovereignty." But that was two years ago, and Pontillo, like most conservatives who talk this way, decided that winning the 2010 midterms was probably better than open rebellion. I showed Carlson the Arizona column, just to check. "A little rebellion once in a while isn't a bad thing," he said.

This aligns with the much-touted conservative belief that in the day and age where "liberals" are in charge, conservatives need their guns because otherwise their freedoms will die in the fire of liberal socialism. Yet, it's conservatives who are killing our freedoms with their assault on women, schools, libraries, and universities.

Remember when they wail about gun shortages that all they have to do is agree to receive right-wing pap in their inbox to have a chance to be one of the lucky rebels that can jam a gun in their pants and tell the rest of us what to do.

AngryBlackLady has a few things to say, mostly in response to a fairly clueless and tepid defense of dear Ms. Boyle over at Mediaite:

The obvious problem is separating the kids — obvious problem is obvious.

But there’s another problem — the Charleston Problem, and that is, the narrative regarding the reasons this country fought itself in the Civil War have been coopted by idiots who like to put on their fanciest Confederate gear and pretend shoot one another. They see it as a celebration of history. I see it as a yearning for a Simpler Time, when it was all mint juleps, and seersucker, and field negroes. It makes me exceedingly uncomfortable.

I think AngryBlackLady is putting that mildly. In the ABC interview with the kids, you can almost see them defending their teacher, which is somewhat heartbreaking to me -- that they would be in a position first to be humiliated in that fashion, and then feel as though they needed to gentle-down what was done in that school that day.

And more to the point, it's beyond clueless. It indicates an attitude that doesn't think one is the same flesh and blood as "those people." This isn't political correctness. This is taking a painful episode in history and asking children to re-enact it as a 'learning experience', with skin color determining what place in the re-enactment they will assume. Someone who thinks like that is also separating "those children" from the others in her own mind as a matter of course.

It isn't as though elementary schools in Virginia haven't had similar incidents over the years. There is a pattern here that continues to go unaddressed:

Last year, a Jacox Elementary teacher who anointed students with "holy oil" in the classroom resigned after a parent complained about the teacher's religious actions. The division determined the teacher violated the school system's instructional curriculum as well as policies and laws related to the separation of church and state.

Also last year, two teachers at Norcom High School were placed on leave for using materials in the classroom that were endorsed by an anarchist group and an organization that backs legalized marijuana. Both received letters of reprimand for not receiving permission to use the materials in class and returned to their jobs.

An elementary guidance counselor who distributed 80 to 100 human fetus figurines to students last year at Oakwood Elementary resigned after being put on leave. The school's principal was removed from her post and reassigned elsewhere as an assistant principal.

This didn't just happen in Virginia last week, either. In Ohio last month another teacher decided a "re-enactment" was in order:

Nikko Burton, a 10-year-old student at Chapelfield Elementary in Ohio, says he was humiliated by his teacher when she tried to demonstrate what it was like to be a slave on an auction block. Burton, one of two black students in his class, was chosen to be a slave. Students who were the "masters" inspected the "slaves" to see if they would be able workers.

Meanwhile, confederate themes continue to grow and proliferate more than ever. 150 years later, the Civil War rages on, to all of our detriment.

Perhaps it would help these teachers in Virginia and Ohio to remember better if they were forced to wear a big scarlet "B" (for bigot) instead of just apologizing.

MAL Contends: U.S. Army Clears War of Wrongdoing

Obsidian Wings: WTF? ANTI-Defamation League? Really? Really?

Left in the West:Tester, Baucus obstruct Senate reform

The Center for Public Integrity: Five of the nation’s largest health insurers are in serious discussions about creating a new nonprofit group and bankrolling it to the tune of about $20 million to influence tight congressional races and boost the image of their industry. Wonder who they'll support?

OurFuture: Where are the prosecutions? SEC lets Citi execs go free after $ 40 billion subprime lie

Danger Room: U.S ducks as cluster bomb ban takes effect

After almost five years of blogging, I admit to a certain cynical level of outrage fatigue. I expect politicians to be pandering asses and I expect journalists to be stenographers at best. But this moment on Meet The Press kicked my butt out of my complacency and squarely right back to outrage.

One of the newer memes that Republicans have been floating to paint the Democrats (and in particular, this administration) as weak on terror and defense is to suggest that by giving a suspect his Miranda rights is to somehow weaken our ability to catch terrorists.

Excuse me, but WTF???? So following the "rule of law" (something that the Republicans claim they are for) is now making us weak? By what measure? The insinuation is that these suspects clam up when they know they have a right to remain silent. Well, do we think they don't know that already? Gregory apes the RWNJ of saying that once a suspect is "lawyered up", our ability to get information stops. Even with Holder confirming that Shahzad continues to talk to authorities after acknowledging his Miranda rights, somehow this is still a concern?

Let's be clear. Shahzad, despite his alleged attempted acts, is an American citizen. That he has a Middle-Eastern surname does not mean that his rights as an American should be forfeited. Was there discussion of not giving Roeder his Miranda rights when he killed Dr. Tiller? Or Tim McVeigh when he successfully bombed the Murrah Building? Why not? The "changing nature" of the threats we face is not limited to the color of someone's skin. And even more importantly, not every person arrested is guilty of the crime of which they are accused. Can we really say that modifying Miranda rights on a case by case basis will result in better justice?

Proving once again that the White House responds to those who are the loudest and most fear-mongering over what's right and most grounded in our justice system, this law is an affront to all Americans. If any citizen's rights can be adjusted like this, we are all threatened by it.

Transcripts below the fold:

Continue reading »

Dedicated to the GOP. And yeah, I could have run this Brook Benton Scopitone as a Late Night Music Club, but even I think Amato and Max Marginal would have grounds for wringing my neck.

What the HECK are these girls dancing to? Cuz it ain't the music.

Open thread below.

DOWNLOADS: (1049)

PLAYS: (1801)

Embed

You knew that when Dick Cheney went on Sean Hannity's Fox News show for a sit-down interview last night, it was going to be a nonstop Obama-bashing fest.

Indeed, not only did Cheney back up the long-running Fox News theme that "Obama is a radical leftist America-hater whose plan is to weaken us and destroy us", but he went a step further -- essentially accusing the Obama administration of committing treason.

Hannity: You said that the president's cerebral approach projects weakness, and that the president is looking far more radical than you expected. I was, during the campaign, criticized a lot because I was warning, I thought, of the president's radical associations. How radical do you view him now? How radical do you view his opinions?

Cheney: I saw him, when he got elected, as a liberal Democrat -- but conventional, in the sense of sort of falling within the parameters of the national Democratic Party. I think he's demonstrated pretty conclusively now during his first year in office that he's more radical than that. That he's farther outside the parameters, if you will, of what we've traditionally had in Democratic presidents in years past.

Excuse me, but WTF?????!!!!! Neither Cheney nor Hannity explain this remark or give any example of Obama's supposed demonstration of his radicalism.

Let's see, was it Obama's decision to eschew a single-payer plan and head for a "public option" compromise on health-care reform that marked him a "radical"? His decision to increase troop strength in Afghanistan? Or maybe his willingness to scale back his stimulus package, at conservatives' behest, to the point that it failed to properly spark job growth? Maybe it was his willingness to throw Van Jones under the bus the moment right-wing talkers began circling around him. I dunno. They never tell us.

But Cheney keeps going, slagging and attacking Obama's presidency in some of the most vicious terms available -- including the suggestion that Obama and his administration have committed an act of treason.

This came when he and Hannity were discussing the upcoming trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and other 9/11 terrorists in New York:

Hannity: You said in an interview that New York City is great, this trial in New York City is 'great for Al Qaeda'. That's a pretty strong statement. What did you mean by that?

Cheney: I mean that I think it will give aid and comfort to the enemy. I mean that it will make Khalid Sheikh Mohammad something of a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam.

Um, yeah, except of course that KSM is already "something of a hero" in "the radical regions of Islam."

More importantly, the language "give aid and comfort to the enemy" just happens to be the same language as the very legal definition of treason, as laid out in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Cheney is essentially accusing Obama of treason.

Hannity caps it off by asking Cheney if the Obama administration "maybe doesn't believe there's a war on terror," and Cheney agreeing that it doesn't.

History has already recorded that Dick Cheney not only was one of the worst vice presidents in history just in terms of governance, but moreover one of the most vicious character assassins and ethics-deprived manipulators ever to set foot in the White House.

Now he's just adding to that legacy.

The Villagers always find a way to attack progressives. Here's NBC's 'First Read,' that Chuck Todd is all about says this:

*** Fixing the public option fetish: But the speech also will be a failure if progressives -- Obama’s second audience tonight -- are still obsessing over the public option a week from now. We've said this before and we'll say it again: Obama never made the public option the focus of his health-care ideas, in the primaries or in general election. In fact, he never uttered the words "public option" or "public plan" in his big campaign speeches on health care. But there is no doubt that the public option has fired up the left, and how he sells them near-universal coverage and lower costs -- even if it means no public plan -- could very well be the trickiest part of tonight's speech. Indeed, that the White House allowed this to become the be-all, end-all on the left ("Public option or die!") remains a mystery. On TODAY this morning, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that “there can be no reform without adequate choice and competition,” but didn’t say that choice and competition had to come from a public option.

You will never hear anything like this said about conservatives. Passionately supporting a piece of legislation that we consider vital to real health care reform is now considered a fetish by NBC. WTF is that?

Craig Crawford:

NBC News calls the public option a "fetish." Providing insurance to Americans who cannot afford or obtain coverage is a fetish? A fetish? Have things gone so awry that health care for all is considered a deviant concept. Seems to me that big media's knee-jerk defense of the status quo is the real fetish.

Craig nails it...in a good way that is and without a spanking reference that would be considered un-serious by the beltway elite.

I just started watching the media again after missing a week and for every one Democratic politician on the air talking about health-care reform, I see two conservatives attacking it. Just an unscientific observation. What is that all about? OK, I know, but seriously, WTF?

Didn't they get trounced in the last election? Didn't John McCain's health care plan get soundly defeated in the last election?

I understand the need for members of the minority party to have their voices heard, but America JUST voted them out in large part because of the problems with health care. Why do we need to hear them all repeat the same talking points over and over again -- especially when their positions are those of such a whopping minority to boot?

It's shocking to me that the polling being done shows such solid support for the public option when they media is so biased. When that happens, you know Americans aren't buying the garbage being thrown at them.

And Blue America's Campaign For Health Care Choice is rocking the house. We've raised over $15K so far to go after Blanche Lincoln, and that's just the beginning.:

Perhaps it's not surprising that Lincoln is showing so much compassion for the poor insurance companies. She's taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from them over the years. In fact, she's already received $14,500 from insurance companies for her 2010 campaign, the second highest of any senator up for re-election next year.

We've received more small donations to our cause already than Lincoln has received from the health-care industrial complex to buy her vote. You know more money will be coming her way, but the response has been truly inspiring. Keep them coming. We'll need the cash to make the media buys in Arkansas to let her and her constituents know where she stands on the public option with your help.

DOWNLOADS: (1206)

PLAYS: (4096)

Embed

Sen. Grassley, the Mad Twitterer, was on with Andrea Mitchell and she asked him about the public option. She didn't bring up his tweets, unfortunately. He said that he was against the public option because a think tank study told him around a hundred and nineteen million people would opt out of private health insurance and join it.

So WTF is wrong with that? What does that say about the health care in America? If 80% of the people are satisfied with the insurance they have then why would they leave it for a public option? Simple questions need simple answers, but with people like Grassley as a Senator, you know this country is in trouble.

Indecision Forever:

Please donate to C&L's 2009 funder. We've received over 100 so far...

DOWNLOADS: (2115)

PLAYS: (5643)

Embed

David Neiwert posted about David Zurawik's frothy appearance with Howard Kurtz last weekend as he bashed MSNBC. On 'Reliable Sources,' David Zurawik decries heated cable talk by shrieking about MSNBC's 'fascism'

Zurawik felt compelled to explain himself in a little more detail online.

As you can see from the video, I am harder on MSNBC than Fox, because this NBC sister channel has outrageously decided it doesn't have to cover news on weekends and holidays -- and yet, still calls itself a news channel.I have to admit, it is a great business moldel: Don't cover the news. let someone fulfill that expensive task. We'll just put on ideologues like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and let them mock our opponents as we opine about the news that others like CNN went to trouble and expense of gathering and verifying.

He's upset because they choose to run some of those Locked Up episodes during the weekend, really? Here's a little info for Z: MSNBC does cover the news on the weekends, they just don't do it 24/7. He should probably check their schedule sometime before making the claim that they don't cover the news on Saturday and Sunday. And WTF does that have to do with how they cover the news in general or if they are biased in their reporting? Which is worse, showing some non-news shows on the weekend, or pushing a political agenda 24 hours a day, seven days a week for as many years as they've been on the air?

Fox News tries to shrug off their right-wing bias by saying they have opinion talking heads, so they don't consider those shows to be news. But if anyone -- and that means you, David -- were to watch Fox News, starting with Fox and Friends right up through Neil Cavuto, you would see a right-wing bias that would make your head spin -- all dressed up as news reporting. Heavy anti-union messages, insane free-market Wall Streeters and anti-Obama segments dominate their coverage, but somehow Z isn't outraged by that behavior as much.

Sure, MSNBC's opinion lineup, from Hardball to Maddow is largely center-left commentators, but they start their mornings with three hours of Joe Scarborough before going into seven straight hours of news blocks that for the most part interview politicians from both parties along with the usual battle of the consultants. Andrea Mitchell has her own hour and you can't call her a lefty.

So while I agree with some of Z's complaints, please get some basic facts straight. And his criticism of MSNBC gives us a look into the window of the mind of a Villager critic.

And yes, these cable shows have hurt America, because they are always looking for a "conflict" which will increase ratings rather than examine the news and issues at hand with an emphasis to inform us rather than persuade of. This approach aided Bush and Cheney in their quest to go and invade Iraq, and look where that has taken us: Thousands dead, innocents lost, billions of dollars spent, torture, military commissions and wiretapping soon followed. Good job, cable news.