About That Waitress and Rush Limbaugh

Mad World News

So yesterday I run across a story about Rush Limbaugh and how he tipped this waitress $2000 for service.

Merritt Tierce, who is now an author, refers to the generous tips she received from Limbaugh as “blood money” in her debut novel “Love Me Back.” Tierce said she donated most of the money to the TEA Fund, which is a charity that funds abortions for low-income women.

Teirce states:

“It felt like laundering the money in a good way. He’s such an obvious target for any feminist or sane person. It was really bizarre to me that he gave me $2,000, and he’s evil incarnate in some ways.”

I ended up posting this on Facebook and some guy started attacking me.

Name redacted:

Tough for you Tea Party to conservatives to respect values over money isn't it. 

So only you the chosen ones worshipping Rush Limbaugh can slam the ones you disagree with.... Sounding very communist in your rules of who can say what. I defended this country so even you can speak your opinions. Who the hell do you think you are condemning someone who disagrees with you? This is the United States of America! Not some Quaker take off. The Republican party shoved you full of pro life broken campaign promises for almost 40 years of NOTHING CHANGED and you vote for the same empty promises. You worship Limbaugh the drug addict who announced ALL drug addicts should be put away. The same man who said if Obama was reelected he'd leave the USA. Bow down and honor those double standards you live by.

I only bring this up because I want to make clear that I don't care who or where this woman gave her money to. Rush made a choice to give this woman 2 very generous tips and it became HER money; she was free to do whatever she wanted to do with it.

I have a feeling she donated only about five dollars because she sounds like a nasty woman. I don't understand why she wouldn't donate and leave Rush's name out of it. This woman could have been at least respectful enough to a man who gave her the money to help a cause she believes in. No, instead she had to insult him and act like a horrible nasty pig.

I only wish this woman had some more class. It is quite classless to take money and then turn around and donate it to a cause out of spite. When a person donates it should be done out of love and the mouth should be kept closed.

I don't care what this woman does with HER money. That is certainly HER choice and any woman or man is free to give to whomever they CHOSE. There simply was no reason to go further by invoking Rush's name. Obviously she was looking for attention instead of actually giving to a charity that she believed in. Where should the focus be? On the charity she donated to or the person who gave her generous tips?

So to the man who decided to chew me out on my Facebook wall: I guess if being a classless b*tch is a "value" she did a fine job at acting like one.

Bill Maher Making Sense

It seems as if the last few times I've heard Bill Maher he has brought some truth to the table. Maybe Bill hasn't strayed as far as I once thought. I used to LOVE Politically Incorrect back in my college days but, for some reason he seemed to have strayed over the years, heading over to la-la-liberal-land.

I digress.

This time, Bill Maher is speaking with Charlie Rose and brings up issues about Islam that need to be heard. The issues with homosexuals being beheaded and  women not being treated equal and forced to wear burkas are those that should be a concern for all of us. This is not a benign religion where people have choices.

Sure perhaps Christians are a bunch of hypocrites. I understand but, we do not treat women as second class systematically nor does Christianity advocate women to be tortured or covered up. While I may see Christians leery of supporting homosexual marriage, or supporting the idea that being gay is innate (not learned), I have yet to see one stone a gay man or lesbian to death because of the person's sexuality. If treating women in a respectful manner is important and treating homosexuals with dignity is important, how can the left in this country possibly make any excuses for Islam? How much more of these atrocities must we see before we call a spade a spade?

Thank you, Bill!

Ward Churchill Tells More Fables on Megyn Kelly's Show

The creepy professor Ward Churchill seems to be hard up for money since he agreed to get grilled by Megyn Kelly on Fox News.

Watch all parts of this interview here.







Here is the full statement that Churchill now claims he only meant to apply toward those who were not the janitors or food service workers:

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved - and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" - a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" - counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in - and in many cases excelling at - it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

 April 2004 interview with Satya magazine:

If I defined the state as being the problem, just what happens to the state? I've never fashioned myself to be a revolutionary, but it's part and parcel of what I'm talking about. You can create through consciousness a situation of flux, perhaps, in which something better can replace it. In instability there's potential. That's about as far as I go with revolutionary consciousness. I'm actually a de-evolutionary. I do not want other people in charge of the apparatus of the state as the outcome of a socially transformative process that replicates oppression. I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether.[35]


— Ward Churchill , Dismantling the Politics of Comfort

An interview with Ward Churchill by Marlena Gangi. (Pro-Churchill)

More information about Ward Churchill being a fraud can be found at Pirate Ballerina.

Pirate Ballerina did a chronology of Churchill's life. 

Exposing Ward Churchill:

Vietnam - What did he do exactly? 

Is he Indian or not? 

More about fraud of Ward Churchill 

Churchill's claim to Indian ancestry led to his employment with Colorado University. If he indeed is not Indian, were there others who could have been considered for the position that were better qualified? It seems rather odd that Churchill refuses to show proof considering we now have options of sending in our DNA to discover our full ancestry.

Clearly this is a man who hates this county and I have no idea why he chooses to remain here. Like all leftist, his goal is to tear down the system, to tear down others, and to tear down all the very things that allowed him to rise as high as he has.

Why the Right Says the Media is Left

I often hear many people on the left mock those of us on the right whenever the topic of the media is brought up. As many of you already know the right, in general, does believe the media is predominately left. This of course is completely dismissed by those on the left and they typically follow up with insulting, snide remarks about Fox News.

For myself, I do believe most of the people who work in mainstream are certainly left of center. We all have a bias and those in the media are no different.

Fox News is but ONE station and they are not as conservative or right as many on the left would like to imagine. In fact, it's quite clear those who criticize Fox never watch the station. I find that quite odd. It's almost impossible to get an explanation from them or an example of how specifically Fox is deceitful. The watchdog sites for Fox are outrageous. They distort a lot of information but, they also seem to ignore that the other stations like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and NBC all make mistakes as well. We need to remember that initial reports are almost never fully accurate and news stations are looking for ratings; they want to be the first to report. Perhaps this rush to get on is a bit irresponsible but, I do not feel it's intentional.

This blog right here, my very own blog, I have made mistakes. I wish I could say otherwise but, I've rushed to get a story on or I missed something that I didn't notice before. I try to change any of my older articles if I happen to remember but, that's not always the case.

The point is, we all make mistakes and no news station is above doing so but, to suggest that one station is lying while simultaneously suggesting the other stations are above the fray - well that's just naive.

I think I might turn this into a series but, for now I just wanted to pointed out an example of media bias. Please understand that when the right is saying the media is left it is precisely because we continually witness the media distort or hide information from the public. Is this done on purpose or accident? Well, again, I don't know that it's on purpose. I think they just have a bias that seems to impede them from digging further and when you couple that with strong deadlines it's hard to come out with a truly objective story.



This video shows Pelosi sounding like a complete idiot. I want you to note that the mainstream media would never show this type of video to their audience. However, if this were Sarah Palin, this would have been shown repeatedly and of course Saturday Night Live would have had Tina Fey or whoever is playing Sarah Palin these days mocking Palin. Talk shows on MSNBC would cover this for their full-hour programs and we could expect to hear about it from time to time for over a year - maybe even more!

Yet another example of the media clearly playing favorites.

Why does the right say the media is left? Obviously because of the things like this.

Is the media left? You decide and comment below.

Joan Rivers - Rest In Peace

It is with great sadness that I am writing about Joan Rivers passing on. She will indeed be missed. I remember her well from when I was growing up and her latest show, Fashion Police was absolutely hysterical. Almost everything that came out of her mouth was a classic on-liner.

One of my favorites roles she played was on the movie The Muppets Take Manhattan. Her and Miss Piggy had a classic scene where Rivers gave Miss Piggy a makeover.

"Pigs don't have eyebrows."

 "Well this pig is going to!"

No doubt about it, Joan could make anyone's jaw drop with her harsh wit. She was quite a solid character and very devoted to her craft. It's good to see she worked all the way up to the very end! One can only be so lucky to do so.

Politically Joan was a democrat but she was no far lefty. She really seemed to only be a bit left-of-center and her loud support for Israel is what truly made her a class-act among Hollywood celebrities.

Rest in Peace, Joan! You are loved.

Michael Brown - Juvenile Record 2nd Degree Murder?

UPDATED: NBC News is stating that Brown had no top felony convictions but the records remained sealed.

Yes, that's what's being reported. A reporter who claims to be connected with law enforcement is saying definitively that Brown had a juvenile record and one glaring charge involves 2nd degree murder.







"Gentle giant" Michael Brown is being linked to a gang and second degree murder. 


The information should indeed be made available to the public and let us not forget this "gentle giant" had previously engaged in a strong armed robbery merely moments before this shooting occurred.

Just listen to Dorian Johnson. This is the person who was with Micheal Brown. Yeah, he's all shook up over the incident, isn't he?

How do I know he's lying? Simple. When someone starts off by saying, "We wasn't causing no harm to no one..." it's usually another way of saying, "The following story is complete bullsh!t." What he describes simply doesn't jive with reality. First he says that the policeman cursed at them - I don't buy it. Everything we know so far says the police officer merely wanted them to get out of the street, which makes sense. I firmly believe this cop wanted nothing more than to get these two out of the road. Cops do not generally go looking for a fight with two punks walking down the road. The police officer had nobody with him either.

Okay, but let's just say for the sake of argument that you believe this cop was a complete idiot and the very first thing he did was tell these two to get the "f@ck on the sidewalk."

Hesitation is also a sign of lying. Johnson first said truck, then car. Interesting that in the video below a witness also says "truck" describing the officer's vehicle. So which is it? Now I'm supposed to believe the cop opened his door and hit both of them? The door ricocheted off of them? How close were they walking together? Did you notice how big Michael was? If the door were thrust open, in order to hit them, it would only have ONE target, the other person would not have felt anything because the end of the door would have been blocked by the first person the door hit.

I made this very novice image in Paint in order to demonstrate this visual:

Okay, it seems to me that according to Dorian, we can conclude that Brown was closest to the officer's truck/car, which would make him the red cross and Johnson the green. Notice how these are right next to one another and if you follow the blue line which depicts the path of the door, it's not going to hit him. This idea that the door hit both of them doesn't make any sense and I highly doubt they were even walking that close to the vehicle. I also have to question - if they truly saw this officer go in reverse, why weren't they up on the sidewalk at this point? Why place yourself so close to this police car? I don't understand. This clearly shows that Michael was not in any fear and placed himself in a dominate-type of position. The idea that this cop just decided to lash out at these two over walking in the street just doesn't make sense to me.

Dorian then goes on to try and explain the struggle. Here again, I'm sensing major deception. He talks about Brown as if he knows when Brown felt he was hit by one of the bullets. There's no way for him to know that. He says he was hiding behind a car but somehow saw Brown hold his hands up? He says Brown was running away but, stopped and turned around? Why would Brown do that?



I'm no expert. I'm not claiming to be but I've been around my fair share of liars and this guy is lying. They weren't doing anyone any harm but, I guess the robbery that happened just prior doesn't count? Or I guess they were done being bad for the day? Seriously?

Whatever happened that day, we still do not know for sure but, some of these details seem to lend credibility to the idea that the officer was indeed in fear of his life and was justified in shooting.

On the other hand, yes it's very possible that maybe the officer was trigger happy and should have handled the situation better. We will have to wait until we have the full story - forensics, witnesses, and the officer's official account of what happened.

The officer does have rights too. He's entitled to a fair shake, just like anyone else. Furthermore, if we expect the police to protect us, shouldn't we in return offer them respect and protect their rights. Call me crazy but, while I do expect police to adhere to high standards of conduct, in return I respect their rights.

While the jury is still technically out for me, I am having a hard time remaining unbiased considering Al "not so" Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have inserted their mugs into this whole fiasco. They have a habit of finding the worst people to stand up for. Surely they can find real racism, some case that is clear-cut, I mean after all, according to them it's everywhere!

That's what this all really boils down to for me. If racism or negative attitudes towards blacks in general is prevalent among police officers then why is it the cases that Sharpton and Jackson gravitate toward are all questionable? There must be some case somewhere that is obviously racist, right?

Your turn - what do you think about this case?

UPDATE: In light of the update for this article it seems odd that this is released but not the full record. In any event, I'm not sure in the end that it matters. Any past actions would likely not be allowed into the court as evidence.