Obama’s Egalitarian Inauguration Address. Hillary “What Difference Does It Make” Clinton. Women in Combat. Obama’s “recess” appointments unconstitutional. And more today at 4 p.m. PT (7 p.m. ET)

Topics for today’s podcast: Obama uses Inauguration Address to push his egalitarian agenda. Hillary “What Difference Does It Make” Clinton. Women cleared for front-line combat; might they be drafted? Federal court rules Obama’s “recess” appointments are unconstitutional. And more.

Join in the discussion by phone or in the chatroom!

Today’s live show and, afterwards, the archived podcast, can be accessed here.

To access the show page at BlogTalk Radio, which will allow you to check out a past episode, or to subscribe to the recorded archives via iTunes and other services, use this link.

To access the iTunes store page for “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard,” where you can find past episodes, subscribe, and leave ratings and reviews (pretty please!), use this link.

Finally, if you would like to support the podcast, please donate using your Pay Pal account or Credit Card here.

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Don't Let It Go...Unheard, Uncategorized

4 responses to “Obama’s Egalitarian Inauguration Address. Hillary “What Difference Does It Make” Clinton. Women in Combat. Obama’s “recess” appointments unconstitutional. And more today at 4 p.m. PT (7 p.m. ET)

  1. Craig

    Copyright racketeering.
    Persecution and privacy:

  2. jayeldee

    Excellent summation and dissection of the inaugural propaganda, Amy.

    Regarding the What Difference Does It Make pol (sort of a modern version of the 1900’s I Don’t Care Girl—but who, at least, was a cute and amusing character), it should also be pointed out that, in a certain way, the “it” referred to by this entity really does NOT make any “difference”—given the two alternatives it carefully (with feigned casualness) tossed out for momentary consideration: that of (1) a spontaneous “protest” about an amateur video, which suddenly escalated into violence; or (2) some toughs out for a walk, who staged an assault on a spur-of-the-moment whim. Yes, fundamentally, there IS no “difference” between those two scenarios: for both are totally fictional—and either becomes a lie, if proffered (as alternative #1 was, for weeks) as an explanation for the atrocity at issue, which came of neither a vicious lark nor a spontaneous escalation, but was, rather, a premeditated, carefully planned attack by a known “affiliate” of a known terrorist organization.

    But of course this repulsive knave had to avoid mentioning the true “scenario”—for it would hardly do, would it, to huffily spew (with obviously phony but well-rehearsed indignation): “What difference does it make, whether it was the result of a protest over a video—or a planned attack by Al Quaeda??!!!” …. I think that—I THINK that—in that case, the entire U.S. populace (including even every Republican) would stop dead in their tracks, and stare, mute, at the glassy-eyed creature—and know it then, perhaps for the very first time, for what it truly is: a lying and despicable, power-lusting shrew.

    • “…a lying and despicable, power-lusting shrew.”

      …who wants to be our next President!

      • jayeldee

        Yes, I know. And I’m sorry–truly sorry. (However: I’ve not actually heard it express the intention, directly [have you?]. It only issues that venomous chuckle, peculiarly its own, when the prospect is broached. Should it materialize, I’m afraid there’ll be nothing for it, but to transport myself to another country–or to another dimension. Seriously.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s