Labor Day 2014

witch small Witch’s Will

Quote of the day:

Cartoon of the day

Articles of Interest

When can you legally use a gun against an unarmed person?

 Legally, it doesn’t matter that both Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin were “unarmed” when shot to death.

 by Andrew Branca

One of the most common laments to come out of Ferguson these last days has been that surely it was outrageous for Office Darren Wilson to use his service pistol to shoot an “unarmed” Mike Brown. (Earlier iterations of this narrative went further in their misinformation, describing the 18-year-old 6’4″ 292 pound Brown as a “kid” or “child,” as well as falsely claiming that Wilson shot Brown in the back, but such misinformation falls outside the scope of this post.) Similar arguments were made in the context of the shooting by George Zimmerman of the “unarmed” Trayvon Martin.

The notion that a defender may use a firearm in self-defense only if they themselves are faced with a firearm is entertainingly naive, but has no basis in actual law, nor in common sense.

In the eyes of the law a gun is not some magical talisman of power, it is merely one of perhaps an infinite number of means of exerting force. Legally speaking the law tends to divide force into two broad buckets: non-deadly force and deadly force. There is some stratification in the context of non-deadly force–a poke to the chest is not the same degree of non-deadly force as a punch to the face–but really none whatever in the context of deadly force. Deadly force is simply deadly force. For purposes of conciseness, I limit this discussion to cases in which deadly force is involved, as was the case in both Ferguson and Zimmerman.

Deadly Force: Force Likely to Cause Death or Grave Bodily Harm

It should also be noted that when the legal system uses the phrase “deadly force,” it is not merely referring to force than can literally cause death. Of course, force likely to cause death qualifies, naturally. But the law’s view of “deadly force” is broader than the phrase might suggest. In fact, “deadly force” includes BOTH force likely to cause death, as well as force likely to cause “grave bodily harm.”

We all understand “death,” but what could possibly be meant by “grave bodily harm.”? Typically, grave bodily harm means something along the following lines: the temporary loss of an important bodily function/organ, the permanent loss of even a minor bodily function/organ, maiming, rape, or debilitation to the point of defenselessness.

Note, also, that under the law of self-defense, NONE of these must ACTUALLY be experienced by the victim before the victim can lawfully respond. Rather, there must be an imminent threat of one of these occurring, as perceived by a reasonable and prudent person, in the same or similar circumstances, possessing the same or similar capabilities as the defender, having the same or similar knowledge as the defender, and experiencing the same or similar mental stress as would a defender being threatened with such harm.


Aug. 29, 2014

Obama’s Miserable Failure

columnist avatar Daniel Greenfield by Daniel Greenfield

It was always obvious what Obama’s supporters wanted. They weren’t willing to settle for a Hillary, just another politician who would punch the clock, deliver tepid speeches and push their leftist agenda.

They wanted someone larger than life. A head made for Mount Rushmore and a body that would be cast in statues across the country. Speeches meant to be studied in classrooms for the next hundred years.

They compared him to JFK and Reagan. He was treated as the icon that his backers wanted him to be. His election was supposed to be a watershed moment in American history.

Instead it ends in miserable failure.

At home, Obama is caught in a desperate tug of war with Republicans. He won the budget battle by sending park rangers to shut down national monuments. His last ditch gamble for holding on to the Senate is using racial tensions in Ferguson to promote black voter turnout.

And if he wins, all he’ll have is what he has now.

This is how shoddy and tawdry the reality of Hope and Change has become. Trapped in a corner, Obama is dragging out the dirtiest Chicago politics. He’s trying to hold off the inevitable by using the same types of tactics that the crooked mayor of his hometown would.

There’s no inspiration here. No words that will resound across time. Just dirty rats on a sinking ship.


I really loved the entire article but these 3 short paragraphs really got me cheering:

Obama is Fareed Zakaria. He’s Thomas Friedman. He’s Paul Krugman. He read all the books and he talks a good game so that it’s easy to miss the fact that his ideas don’t have much to do with real life.

Friedman babbling about the flattening world, Krugman pretending that money is infinite and Zakaria jumping from one ridiculous globalist idea to another sound good in a lecture hall or a column.

But only an idiot would actually listen to them.

Applause Daniel Greenfield, applause!

Restricting ‘Choice': California Dictates That its Employers Cannot Refuse to Cover Elective Abortions

columnist avatar Tom Blumer by Tom Blumer

This “choice” thing with abortion is really the narrowest of one-way streets.

Seven robed men decided in 1973 that a woman has a “privacy” right to “choose” to take the life of a pre-born baby she is carrying, the God-given right to life of the baby be damned. But the radicals in Jerry Brown’s government in the State of California have now mandated that all employers in that state, even those with religious affiliations, do not have a choice as to whether they will cover abortions in their health plans. It’s funny, but certainly not in a humorous sense, how certain states’ attempts to limit the practice routinely make national news, while this blatantly coercive dictate by California has barely been noticed.

The Associated Press did carry a story at its national site (a backup link is here). But it was not widely picked up. Additionally, a Google News search on “California elective abortions” (not in quotes, sorted by date, showing duplicates) returned about 55 items, almost all of which were from news outlets within the state or prolife and religious publications.

Here are excerpts from the unbylined AP item (bolds are mine throughout this post):


Health insurance companies in California may not refuse to cover the cost of abortions, state insurance officials have ruled in a reversal of policy stemming from the decision by two Catholic universities to drop elective abortions from their employee health plans.

Although the federal Affordable Care Act does not compel employers to provide workers with health insurance that includes abortion coverage, the director of California’s Department of Managed Health Care said in a letter to seven insurance companies on Friday that the state Constitution and a 1975 state law prohibits them from selling group plans that exclude the procedure. The law in question requires such plans to encompass all “medically necessary” care.

“Abortion is a basic health care service,” department director Michelle Rouillard wrote in the letter. “All health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally.”

Jesuit-run Santa Clara University and Loyola Marymount University notified employees last fall that they planned to stop paying for elective abortions, but said faculty and staff members could pay for supplemental coverage that would be provided through a third party. The two schools said their insurers, Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente, had cleared the move with the state.

University employees who objected to the decision and abortion-rights groups lobbied the women’ caucus of the California Legislature, which in turn asked Gov. Jerry Brown to clarify and reverse the health care department’s determination.

There are at least four unsettling elements to this story beyond what California has done — beyond the fact that Jerry Brown still calls himself a Catholic, which is a joke.

First, why was abortion coverage ever allowed in the first place at these schools?


When liberals tell you that they are “pro-choice” they are lying. They do not want to give you any choice in the matter. I thought I was “pro-choice” most of my life. Now, I’m not so sure.  I thought it was a matter of allowing a woman to make the “choice”. I also thought it was a choice that would be made long before the “fetus” was a viable “baby”.  What kind of idiot would do otherwise? Evidently the kind of idiot that isn’t on birth control – of wait that’s something else the rest of us should pay for too. Evidently the idea of just keeping the panties up never enters their irresponsible little minds.
Now I realize that the “pro-choice” crowd is actually “pro-abortion” and do not want to allow those who do not agree any choice. They also want those who do not agree to pay for the abortions. Doesn’t seem like much of a choice to me.
Were I an employer in California I would instantly drop all insurance for my employees. Will the innocent suffer with the guilty? Probably. But the innocent, or many of them, are Democrats who vote for the pro-abortion politicians. Thus they need to pay for what they’ve done.
I am not longer “pro-choice” if it means that those who do not agree with the murder of innocents must pay for that crime. And any late-term abortion is, IMO, a crime. It’s murder. It’s infanticide. And pretty words about freedom and “choice” don’t make it anything else.
When did women become so disgusting? I actually thought we were the moral superiors of most men. Now? Not so much. I am also thoroughly disgusted with the thought of the likes of Brown, Pelosi, Biden and others calling themselves Catholics. They are not. And long past time the church refuses them sacraments they do not deserve.

Mike Keefe Editorial Cartoon

thinker 2 Think About It

The Ebola of Journalism: Liberalism is Killing Time and CNN

Call it the Ebola of Journalism. And its spreading — to Time and CNN.

The cover of the September 1, 2014 issue of Time could not be more explicit. Showing a dramatic image of a black man on his knees, hands raised with the cover bearing the title “The Tragedy of Ferguson,” it was written by David Von Drehle and Alex Altman in the tones of the standard liberal “I-told-you-so” thinking on race . It included the line: “We’ve been here before—and failed to learn the lessons.”

When it came to the mess that is ObamaCare? There was this Time cover admitting the launch of was a disaster but presenting “the team that figured out how to fix it.” (You do know ObamaCare is fixed, right?)

And don’t forget all those gushing Obama covers like this one in 2007. As reported by NBC in December of 2008 that in all of that year “Time has featured Obama on its cover 14 times since Jan. 1. Newsweek was close behind, featuring the now-president-elect on 12 of its issues. Time has had 52 issues in 2008, so Obama has been featured on more than one-in-four of its covers, or about 27% of the time.”

Suffice to say, the covers were overflowing with praise for Senator, presidential candidate and president-elect Obama. This one lavished praise on the post-election Obama by Photoshopping him as Franklin D. Roosevelt, with writer Peter Beinart gushing about “The New New Deal.”


Gotta tell ya when a grown man “gushes” I imediately stop listening. A grown woman too. Save the gush for the teenagers and let us regard people, especially politicians with a jaundiced, if not cynical eye. If they prove worthy of our regard all is well – if they don’t then we don’t look like fools for supporting someone who is just another trash POS that got himself/herself elected by lying to the voters. And when the lies were shown, probably got re-elected by the same stupid voters.
Pogo was right:


Watch This:

Engel: Growth of ISIL Was ‘Incredibly Predictable’

Auditor that Accredited VA Hospitals Where Patients Died to Review Same Hospitals

Veterans want independent authority to investigate

The same independent auditor who accredited Veterans Affairs hospitals where multiple patients died from delays in care—and in some cases named them as “top performers”—has been chosen by the VA to complete a new review of those same hospitals.

Earlier this month, new VA Secretary Robert McDonald announced that the Joint Commission, a hospital accreditor, would review scheduling practices across the VA system.

“VA is committed to instilling integrity into our scheduling practices to deliver the timely care that veterans deserve,” McDonald said in a statement. “It is important that our scheduling practices be reviewed by a respected, independent source to help restore trust in our system, and I’m grateful to the Joint Commission for taking on this critical task.”

Since VA Secretary Eric Shinseki resigned in the wake of the national VA scandal, the VA has taken steps to repair its image and address the serious, sometimes deadly, lapses in accountability across the VA system.

However, the Joint Commission is the same auditor that accredited VA hospitals before the national scandal broke, and while hospitals were using secret waiting lists.


Are we surprised to find that the “new boss” is the same as the “old boss”? Did we really expect that after the outrage died down and the abuses at the VA were no longer front page news that anything would change? All the politicans make big promises. We know that you cannot trust anything a politicans says because they are liars by profession. And their actions, and inactions, prove this too be true. And by our actions, re-electing the liars, and inactions, not holding them responsible, we are as guilty as they.

thinker 2 Think About It

It’s Labor Day weekend. Labor Day, of course, is a holiday where people take three days off from being unemployed.

152954 600 BACK TO SCHOOL cartoons

Worth A Look

The Making of “Latinos”

How non-Hispanic elites decided they were in charge of what ‘Latinos’ are called.


Obama’s “Strong Disapproval” Double His “Strong Approval”

Republicans are more likely to strongly disapprove now than in 2010


Cash for Clunkers: How bad public policy gets made

  by John Sununu


the absurdity of it The New York Times ripped President Obama for going golfing after he announced the murder of the U.S. reporter in Iraq by ISIS. He went straight from the podium to join his foursome on the first tee. It’s so sad, foursomes had a completely different meaning when Clinton was president.

Last But Not Least…

Mythologies and Pathologies of the California Drought

columnist avatar Victor Davis Hanson by Victor Davis Hanson

The third year of California drought has exposed all sorts of water fantasies. If in wet years they were implicit, now without rain or snow for nearly three years, they are all too explicit. Add them up.

Take the Bay Area, Ground Zero of water environmentalism. From Mill Valley to San Jose is where most of the green activists are based who have demanded, even as the snowfalls and rains ceased, that reservoir storage waters be diverted to the sea to encourage the resurgence of the delta smelt and river salmon. The Bay Area’s various earlier lobbying groups long ago helped to cancel the final phases of the California State Water Project and the Central Valley Project, and now talk about reducing world carbon emissions rather than building more storage capacity to solve California’s water crisis.

How odd that is — given that the San Francisco greater community has almost no aquifer to supply its millions. Environmentalists count instead solely on vast water transfers from the far distant Hetch Hetchy reservoir to supply the nearly three million water users of the Bay Area with their daily showers and lawn irrigations.

The brilliantly engineered project supposedly had ruined a Yosemite Park valley greater than its more famous counterpart below Half Dome and El Capitan. Odder still, the Hetch Hetchy conduits run right across the San Joaquin River that environmentalists are intent on supplying with reservoir water long ago designed for irrigated agriculture. When most Bay Area drivers cruise along the I-280 by the full-to-the-brim Crystal Springs Reservoir they have not a clue that the lake would be little more than a muddy slough of scant local runoff, without the importation of thousands of acre-feet of clean water from the Hetch Hetchy project. Nor do they grasp the greater irony that they have reservoir water to divert to fish only because someone else built the reservoirs that they near automatically oppose. Consider the logic: don’t dare build an unnatural reservoir to irrigate food lands; but if you dare build it over my opposition, I want the ensuing banked water to ensure the rivers run year-round for my fish projects — given that before your artificial reservoirs the rivers sometimes had a bad natural habit of running dry and suffocating my fish.

Could not Bay Area professors, journalists and politicians shower once a week or let their garden foliage die on the greater sacrificial altar of diverting Hetch Hetchy water into the San Joaquin River to save the smelt or facilitate salmon runs? After all, at least farmers can claim they are producing food for the masses with reservoir water. But what do Facebook and Apple techies claim — that without a verdant garden they cannot design social networking? In 1990 there was no Facebook or Google and people continued to live; without food they cannot at any time.

A larger point is that 70% of Californians prefer to live in places like the naturally arid seaside resorts of San Diego, Santa Monica, Malibu, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Carmel, Santa Cruz, and the Bay Area, coastal communities whose growth long ago both outpaced the local aquifers and Coast Range small reservoirs, and thus required water transfers from wetter environs.


Sunday’s Songbirds

witch small Witch’s Will

Quote of the day:

Oscar Wilde quote price value

Cartoon of the day

Articles of Interest

The Left’s Attempt to Institutionalize the Rewriting of US History:

A New Step Forward Through their “Long March Through the Existing Institutions
Ron Radoshby Ron Radosh

Recently, a few conservative intellectuals have raised serious questions about the College Board’s effort to develop a new curriculum for the Advanced Placement history courses. Stanley Kurtz, at National Review Online, writes that “this Framework will effectively force American high schools to teach U.S. history from a leftist perspective.” Naturally, the College Board argues that its intent is only to provide “balance,” to streamline the curriculum, and to enhance teacher flexibility. In other words, all benign matters that educators should welcome.

Are Kurtz and the other critics, like National Association of Scholars executive Peter Wood, right in their criticism? Wood argues in a preliminary report, like Kurtz, that “this newest revision, however, is radical.” The board, he notes, citing other critics, is substituting a specific curriculum in place of their previous broad frameworks, promoting a negative view of the United States, and erasing major figures (the Founding Fathers, of course) from American history.

Wood is concerned that “perhaps more than other parts of the college curriculum,” the board is turning history “into a platform for political advocacy and for animus against traditional American values.” Moreover, he thinks that the “College Board has turned AP U.S. History into a briefing document on progressive and leftist views of the American past. It is something that weaves together a vaguely Marxist or at least materialist reading of the key events with the whole litany of identity group grievances.”

We have seen this particularly in the books of Howard Zinn and his followers, and in the book and video series on World War II and the Cold War by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. And, as we know, their works are widely adopted in the assigned readings of many high school teachers and college professors. Within the academy, there has also been a widespread adoption of monographs that are based on race, class and gender to the exclusion of the old type of political history that once exemplified the best the profession had to offer.

These charges have led to an attack on the board’s critics, as revealed in this harsh column in the Los Angeles Times by columnist Michael Hiltzik. Its blaring headline reads: “The right wing steps up its attack on the teaching of U.S. history.” Rather than address the substance of the claims made by critics like Wood and Kurtz, Hiltzik offers his readers a standard left-wing McCarthyite smear, arguing that it is nothing less than “an anti-intellectual assault.” He accuses Kurtz of declaring that a “grand conspiracy” exists made up of left-leaning history professors to emasculate their profession by belying the concept of “American exceptionalism.” (Kurtz’s answer to Hiltzik can be found here.)

To weigh the accuracy of the claims made by Kurtz and Wood, I read the College Board report. As a historian of recent America, 1900 to the present, and U.S. foreign policy in the 20th century, I evaluated what the curriculum offers in the area of my own expertise. I’ll start with Period 7, 1890-1945. Take as an example how it frames questions about Progressivism and the New Deal. The report puts it this way:

Progressive reformers responded to economic instability, social inequality, and political corruption by calling for government intervention in the economy, expanded democracy, greater social justice, and conservation of natural resources.

There is no indication that Progressive reform actually may have been instituted by corporate regulators for their own benefit, at the expense of small manufacturers and producers. This argument, by historians like Gabriel Kolko, James Weinstein and Martin J.Sklar, whose pioneering work changed the standard view of progressivism, is not even raised as an alternative way to comprehend the Progressive era. The paragraph, as structured, reflects the old traditional left/liberal view of the Progressive Era, and takes it as a given.

Referring to the New Deal era, the authors write:

The liberalism of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal drew on earlier progressive ideas and represented a multifaceted approach to both the causes and effects of the Great Depression, using government power to provide relief to the poor, to stimulate recovery, and reform the American economy.

Radical, union and populist movements pushed Roosevelt toward more extensive reforms, even as conservatives in Congress and the Supreme Court sought to limit the New Deal’s scope.

The above paragraphs are standard left-wing history, offering an analysis that has been challenged by many historians (including myself here on a leftist site — and the same essay in a book I co-edited on the site of the laissez-faire Ludwig von Mises Institute). The board presupposes that the New Deal was a positive advance on earlier Progressivism and that it stimulated recovery, which it did not since, quickly, the U.S. entered what was dubbed “the Roosevelt depression.” And it omits the failures and challenges to the large business-dominated orientation of the New Deal as reflected in the corporatist structure of the National Recovery Administration (NRA). It is skewered to reflect the position that pressure from the Left was good and necessary, since it led to more extensive reforms that, of course, conservatives opposed.


How deficient in moral fiber are these “progressives” academics that they see nothing wrong in what they do? Have academics always sought more to indoctrinate than educate? question mark smiley 3

‘Fake’ IRS scandal spawns real coverup

 by James S. Robbins

President Obama regularly claims that he oversees the most honest and transparent administration in history. But when it comes to Congressional investigators looking into the IRS scandal and other issues, it is funny how often the administration hits the delete button.

The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch revealed this week that IRS Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel Thomas Kane admitted that disgraced former official Lois Lerner’s government-issued Blackberry was “wiped clean” and “removed as scrap for disposal” in June 2012. This took place after Congress had opened an investigation into Lerner’s role in using the IRS to target conservative nonprofit groups.

For a scandal that is frequently derided as “fake,” it is amazing how often real evidence disappears. The disappearing act is so frequent, it is reasonable to wonder whether it is really a systematic attempt to destroy evidence of abuse of power.

Explanations regarding Lerner’s thousands of missing emails have always been hard to swallow. The initial story was that the records were accidentally lost when Lerner’s desktop computer crashed. But given the nature of networked and cloud computing, as well as government requirements for redundant email backup systems, this account never made sense.

It was also curious that the emails were only lost in the specific timeframe of the investigation, and that Lerner’s hard drive had hastily been destroyed. When more than a dozen other IRS officials whose emails were being sought suffered similar computer failures and hard drive recycling, and backup tapes were either missing, written-over or deleted.

This inadvertent, accidental destruction of evidence is so thorough that the House Armed Services Committee asked the Defense Department to scour the files of the NSA in hopes that maybe the emails would turn up there. Last month Federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered IRS officials to explain under oath what had been done to find the emails and to make clear why they were missing.


Hamas’s Academic Apologists

by Cinnamon Stillwell

Reaction by Middle East studies professors to Israel’s recent effort to destroy Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure epitomizes their perennial pro-Hamas, anti-Israel, and anti-American biases. In lieu of reasoned, informed, and balanced assessments, they proffer extremist rhetoric that demonizes Israel and America while ignoring Hamas’s misdeeds: rockets aimed at Israeli civilians, kidnappings and murder, disregard for ceasefires, and the cynical use of Palestinian civilians — including children — as human shields.

Two groups — Middle East Scholars and Librarians and Historians Against the War — signed letters advocating a boycott of Israeli academic institutions and accusing Israel of war crimes that demand the end to U.S. military aid, respectively.

Many, however, took their pro-Hamas, anti-Israel antipathies far beyond petitioning to spew forth hyperbolic and mendacious rhetoric that reveals far more about the fevered imaginations of the professoriate than about their intended target.

Ignoring that Hamas started the war, Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan, declared that, “Israel’s only real strategy is causing war, not ending war.” Despite the fact that no Israeli politician has advocated genocide and that none has been committed, Cole alleged that, “Israeli nationalists have been arguing for war crimes at an alarming rate. . . . Too many Israelis have justifications in their minds for genocide.”

Similarly, Rashid Khalidi, who teaches modern Arab Studies at the Columbia University, maintained that, “By parroting deceitful Israeli talking points about ‘self-defense’ and ‘human shields,’ they — US and its allies — make themselves complicit in what may well amount to war crimes.”

Meanwhile, As’ad AbuKhalil, a political scientist at California State University, Stanislaus, argued that, “With every war, with every massacre, and with every ‘assault,’ Israel (the government and its people) genuinely thinks that this war crime would do the job and finish off the flame of Palestinian nationalism once and for all.” “The US media and government are willing to justify any Israeli war crime no matter the scale,” he added


And yet many parents near backrupt themselves in order to send their offspring to college to learn to be anti-American from these terrorist apologists. It’s quite amazing.

Feminist Amanda Marcotte Defends Democratic Senator’s Choice Not to ‘Name a Harasser’

Two days after U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand refused to identify the men in Congress who made sexist comments regarding her weight after the birth of her second child as described in her book Off the Sidelines, the Democratic politician from New York received support from an interesting source: feminist Amanda Marcotte.

In a Twitter post on Saturday morning, the staunch activist did not call on Gillibrand to reveal the identities of the alleged sexist members of Congress. In a surprising move, she instead stated: “I’m now convinced that the reason Republicans are demanding Gillibrand name a harasser is so they can castigate her as a lying slut.”

Marcotte’s tweet came after Gillibrand’s appearance on Thursday’s edition of CBS This Morning, when she declined to name any of the men she referred to anonymously in her book as people who supposedly made insensitive comments about her weight.

During the discussion, reporter Nancy Cordes claimed that “even U.S. senators are not immune” to such comments from their male colleagues, “and it wasn’t just one or two. A whole series of male lawmakers apparently felt free to remark on her baby weight and her attempts to lose it.”

Without bothering to question the appropriateness of promoting Gillibrand’s stories, Cordes provided quotes directly from the Democrat’s book to expose the supposed sexism directed at her from the Senate chamber to the congressional gymnasium.


If gillibrand is going to make accusations about sexism in the Senate she had either better name names or keep her fat mouth shut!  As for Marcotte – she’s just plain nuts and I hate that I even share a gender with her!

152933 600 Oh  Canada cartoons

Watch This:

Ed Henry to WH: Have Obama’s Promises To Combat ISIL Been Empty Threats?

Watch an IDF Soldier Propose to His Girlfriend on Gaza Border

Obama Foreign Policy Dangerously Aimless

Steve Huntley by Steve Huntley

President Barack Obama’s statement that “we don’t have a strategy yet” against the Islamist army rampaging across Syria will hearten Americans opposed to escalating the U.S. role in the Middle East chaos. But it’s hard to see how the fanatics of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria won’t interpret it as Obama backing away from another American “red line.”

That’s because Obama only a week ago called ISIS a “cancer” while his military and foreign policy advisers said it was an “imminent threat” (Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel) that “will eventually have to be defeated” and attacked in Syria (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey) and that “the United States of America will never back down in the face of such evil” (Secretary of State John Kerry).

In his latest statement, Obama also said, “I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are.” Was he referring to his advisers, or to calls to go to Congress to seek authorization for a stepped-up military campaign against ISIS? Could be it was both.

I was one who didn’t think Kerry, Hagel and Dempsey would speak out of school. It’s starting to look like they did, or perhaps Obama is having second thoughts about a tough stance now that Kurdish and Iraqi forces backed by U.S. airstrikes seemed to have foiled the threat of ISIS to overrun northern Iraq and the memory of the beheading of journalist James Foley is receding.


thinker 2 Think About It

“It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.” ~  J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone)

Worth A Look

Whatever Happened to the Chevy Volt?

John Ransom by John Ransom


FYI – I do not now and never will agree with much of what Ransom spews. He is a radical on the right as most libtards are on the left. However I do enjoy the spectacle of him eviserating the libs who are foolish enough to cross swords with him. His business is words and these fools think they can compete with him in that arena? Silly libs. laughing behind hand smiley

Missouri Public School Thwarted From Filing Bogus Charges Against Homeschool Family


Last But Not Least…

Is it deja vu all over again for Martha Coakley in Massachusetts?

by Jaime Fuller

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is miles ahead of her Democratic gubernatorial opponents before next week’s primary, according to a new poll from the Boston Globe. Unfortunately, that luck doesn’t extend to November. Her likely Republican opponent, Charlie Baker, now leads Coakley by 1 percent in the Globe poll. The lead is with the poll’s margin of error, but this is the first time this has happened in the race.

Sounds familiar. Remember him?

Coakley has waded through a particular brutal primary, so the disappearing margin between her and Baker, a former governor’s aide and CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, was probably inevitable. A super PAC backed by the Republican Governors Association, called Commonwealth Future PAC, has been running ads against Coakley.


It seems to me that part of Coakley’s problem is that she isn’t a particularly “good” candidate. By that I mean that she doesn’t articulate her message well and she doesn’t resonate with a majority of the population. If this wasn’t true Scott Brown wouldn’t have been able to defeat her before. I believe that Hillary Clinton has the same problem. In spite of their “valuable” name recognition when it comes time to campaigne they just don’t have the right stuff. Some feminists, wanting a woman in these positions so very much refuse to see that sometimes it isn’t “sexism” that loses there races, just women with whom people cannot relate. Just my 2 cents worth.

Saturday’s Un-Satisfactions

witch small Witch’s Will

Quote of the day:

Cartoon of the day

Articles of Interest

Hillary Joins the Ferguson Lynch Mob

columnist avatar Matthew Vadum by Matthew Vadum

Breaking her calculated silence on the issue, Hillary Clinton said young Michael Brown was a victim of police brutality in Ferguson, Mo., the latest in a long line of helpless black victims mowed down by racist cops who are part of America’s corrupt criminal justice system.

It’s just more left-wing sloganeering, staples of which are knee-jerk cop hatred and making excuses for black criminals.

Clinton, wife of the man some used to call America’s “first black president,” has a long history of race-baiting and race-based pandering. She patronized black Americans in her insultingly awful mock African-American accent when she gave her infamous “I don’t feel no ways tired” speech.

The all-but-declared candidate for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president’s media-hyped public epiphany about Ferguson and Michael Brown comes days after 18-year-old Brown was laid to rest following a grotesque political rally led by the abominable racial arsonist Al Sharpton.


Obama’s 5 Worst Foreign Policy Decisions

John_Hawkins_Updated  by John Hawkins

Since Barack Obama has been the Hindenburg of Presidents on the domestic front, there hasn’t been as much commentary as you’d expect about the fact that he has been the Titanic of Presidents on foreign policy.

George W. Bush certainly made his mistakes as President, primarily in Iraq, but you did at least get the sense that his administration was full of capable, serious adults sincerely grappling with a new strategic problem for the country. On the other hand, when it comes to foreign policy, Obama comes across like a bored kid playing war because his mother won’t let him come inside and play with his Xbox.

He doesn’t care very much, he’s not prepared, and he doesn’t spend a lot of time thinking things through. It’s like Obama just ponders the issues in-between shots on the golf course, formulates his policy by shooting from the hip, then gives a speech about it and thinks his work is done.

We may have laughed at the incompetence of the Obama Administration when it gave a “reset” button to the Russians that actually said “overcharge” or when the POTUS bowed to a foreign leader like he was his butler instead of the President of the United States, but there are real consequences to Obama’s buffoonery on the world stage.


Rasmussen Poll: Most Think DOJ Motivated by Politics

 by Amy Miller
Surprising absolutely no one, a new Rasmussen report released today reveals that the majority of Americans believe that the Department of Justice is motivated by a political agenda, as opposed to upholding justice:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of the Justice Department, while 53% view it unfavorably. This includes only nine percent (9%) with a Very Favorable view and 26% with a Very Unfavorable one. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Just 35% think the Justice Department is more concerned with making sure justice is done when it decides to investigate a local crime independent of local police. But 54% think instead that the Justice Department is more concerned with politics when it makes those decisions. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.

This distrust of the feds carries over into views of a planned new federal database to track “misinformation” and hate speech on the social media site Twitter. Thirty-five percent (35%) believe the federal government will use the database to go after real criminals, but 53% believe it will be used to monitor law-abiding citizens instead. Twelve percent (12%) are not sure.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent intervention in Ferguson, Missouri has shone a light on problems with the way the DoJ approaches its duty. Problems within the DoJ—especially those involving racial issues— are nothing new, but the increased news coverage on the scandals surrounding the DoJ appears to be doing its job.


Black voters voted for Obama believing he would concentrate on black issues. That and the fact that he is black. At least half of him is. Blacks have shown time and again that they will vote for any fool with the right amount of melanin in their skin no matter what is between the ears or in the heart.
Liberals voted for Obama because they wanted to show they sympathized with blacks and to show that “they” weren’t racist like those evil conservatives.
If there were some who actually thought that Obama would be a good president based on his resume’ they were/are so stupid its a wonder they could find their way to the voting booth.
Anyone who no longer sees the “Justice Department” as a political arm of the White House, under both left and right, just has no understanding of history or politics.

thinker 2 Think About It

Washington Post Covers Voter Fraud Inaccurately and Incompletely

J. Christian Adams by J. Christian Adams

Sometimes voter-fraud deniers are forced to discuss the truth of voter fraud. This happened today at the Washington Post (“Fairfax officials say some people may have crossed Va.-Md. line to vote twice in 2012“). While the Post deserves credit from emerging from its cocoon of voter-fraud denial, it deserves scorn for bungling the emergence.

Reporter Susan Svrluga notes that “tens of thousands of voters” were registered to cast ballots in both Virginia and Maryland. That’s true, and it is a big problem nationwide. Hundreds of thousands of people are registered to vote in multiple states, and many of them have voted.

It wasn’t Eric Holder’s Justice Department that discovered the problem. That won’t happen because as I reported at PJ Media in 2010, Obama political appointees expressly shut down the efforts at DOJ to detect this sort of fraud and inadequate voter-roll maintenance.

Hans von Spakovsky notes who deserves the credit for detecting the problem:

It was the VVA — along with another citizens’ group dedicated to election integrity, Election Integrity Maryland (EIM) — that did the research on the voter files in Virginia and Maryland to find these illegal voters. And this may be only the tip of the iceberg: VVA and EIM turned the names of 43,893 individuals who appear to be registered in both states over to the State Boards of Elections in Virginia and Maryland. Fairfax County alone has more than 10,000 such duplicate registrations. These 17 voters are only a subset of at least 164 voters their research showed voted in both states in the 2012 election.

Naturally the Washington Post makes no inquiry as to why the Eric Holder Department of Justice has failed to do anything about the scourge of double registration. It’s in DOJ’s job description. DOJ isn’t doing the job. Instead, groups like the American Civil Rights Union, Judicial Watch and True the Vote have had to bring the cases Eric Holder has refused to bring to clean up voter rolls.

Those who create and manage the left-of-center election narrative ignore entirely this DOJ history, as does the Washington Post.


 White House does damage control


Another day, another Obama foot in mouth moment. Lucky for him and his administration that he has a friendly, aka biased, media to minimize and/or cover-up his constant stream of gaffes. Must be too much time spent with Biden. Or perhaps he never was as smart as advertized. bell ringing smiley

Liberals Will Never Fulfill Dr. King’s Dream Of A Race-Blind Society

History shows leftist policies, not racism, have decimated the African-American community.

by Willis L. Krumholz

Over the weekend there was a short “debate” between Jesse Jackson and Ben Carson. Within the exchange lies the real issue behind Ferguson.

According to the Left, the economic hardships blacks face are largely due to latent racism. According to Ben Carson, and many other conservatives (Larry Elder also comes to mind), big-government policies, not racism, are the primary force suppressing black advancement.

History shows Ben Carson is right, and Jesse Jackson is wrong. Let’s go back 50 years.

The Joseph Gantt Era

Joseph and Clara Gantt married in 1948. Soon after, Joseph Gantt went off to Korea to fight and never came home—until last week when his remains were finally identified. Joseph Gantt was a good man. Even though Joseph asked Clara to remarry if anything were to happen to him, she never could bring herself to do so.

Gantt, a black man, lived in a time where much of America was not kind to him. Segregation, open bigotry, and lack of employment prospects were widespread. Yet during Gantt’s time on earth, despite the oppression, blacks were making laudable advancements.

According to economist Walter Williams, “[f]rom 1900 to 1954, blacks were more active than whites in the labor market. Until about 1960, black male labor force participation in every age group was equal to or greater than that of whites … As early as 1900, the duration of black unemployment was 15 percent shorter than that of whites; today it’s about 30 percent longer.” According to economist Thomas Sowell, “[t]he poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs … In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959.”

Most important, back in Gantt’s day, his and Clara’s devotion to each other was the norm. In fact, from 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites. In 1950, only 9 percent of black families with children were headed by a single parent (today, roughly two-thirds of black children are now raised in single-parent families).


Liberals will never fulfill Dr. King’s dream of a race-blind society, at least from the blacks and the liberals, because that is the last thing they want.

Constitutional Crisis

thinker 2 Think About It

Worth A Look

Why Obama’s “We don’t have a strategy” gaffe stings

By Aaron Blake

Big surprise to find an article that is this honest in the Washington Post. Must have slipped past the editors when they were genuflecting in the direction of the White House.

Are Stock Prices Headed for a Fall?

Long-run equity returns from today’s price levels are likely to be considerably lower than their 10% long-run average.

By Burton G. Malkiel


Feds’ Plot to Stop Small-Town Cookies Backfires Into International Demand


With all the failures of the Federal Government why on earth would they try to triumph over a pink cookie? I would think they had more important things to do. Nanny state gone wild!

the absurdity of it  According to an anthropologist from the University of Hawaii, who spent years studying this, Hello Kitty is not actually a cat. I hope the anthropologist was studying other stuff, too.  ~ Jimmy Kimmel

Last But Not Least…

Another government shutdown? Not gonna happen

  by Byron York

A few weeks ago Washington was buzzing with predictions that Republicans will impeach President Obama.

Now, Washington is buzzing with predictions that Republicans will shut down the government.

Both have come mostly from Democrats facing long odds in November’s midterms, hoping the GOP might do something suicidal before voters go to the polls. For them, sheer ecstasy would be Republicans shutting down the government while keeping House offices open to draft articles of impeachment.

The only problem is, well-connected Republicans insist it’s not going to happen.

House Speaker John Boehner appeared to settle the impeachment question last month when he called all the talk a “Democratic scam” and added, “We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans.”

So the subject changed to a shutdown. It’s a more substantial accusation; after all, House Republicans have never impeached Barack Obama, but they have shut down the government. But it appears there’s little or nothing to the shutdown talk, either.


Friday’s Fractures

witch small Witch’s Will

Quote of the day:

Cartoon of the day

Branco cartoon from Legal Insurrection

Articles of Interest

Small Vermont Town Latest Sad Example of Oversensitivity Epidemic

  by Mark Davis

Here is a snapshot of a series of truly ridiculous things that happened in a small New England town this week, followed by an extended examination of how it represents a deep societal pathology.

In Winooski, Vermont, a small town northeast of Burlington, a restaurant was awarded a sign placement for its participation in a beautification project. Proud of its bacon (among other things, I’m sure), Sneakers Bistro chose a sign that said “Yield for Sneakers Bacon.”

A Muslim woman, fond of neither pork nor free speech, complained online, garnering a sufficient contingent of busybodies to pressure the restaurant to take down the sign.

The restaurant caved. The sign is gone. The restaurant and town officials sound very pleased at how this has all worked out.

They could not be more wrong. This story is horrible at every level. Let’s begin with our offended resident.

Religions may have whatever dietary restrictions they wish. Adherents may follow such limitations as strictly as they choose. But when a person of faith runs across a display indicative of the habits of others, there is no basis for objection.

Something truly bizarre has happened when someone sees imagery related to other people’s choices and hears an inner voice saying: “That is not my choice. But not only do I seek to make choices in my own life, I seek to inhibit the expression of those who choose differently.”

That brand of obnoxiousness must be civilly but firmly contradicted whenever it arises. In the case of the restaurant, it is not run by people who seek to correct the presumptions of local townspeople. They just want to sell food.


Our free speech has taken a huge hit in the PC police and their determination to appease the “sensitivity” of cretins like this muslim woman. If she needs something to be offended by something perhaps she should try being offended by the actions of others in her religion who choose to murder in that religions name. I could care less about either her sensitivity or her being offended. I am offended that a whole town has to cave to her nonsense. We are no longer the land of the free and the brave when crap like this happens.

Obama today: We don’t have a strategy yet.”

Press Sec. Josh Earnest: The President Has a Comprehensive Strategy To Deal With ISIL

  by Debra Heine

In response to Obama’s Confusing, Expanding, Nonexistent ISIS Strategy:

Confusing is right.

Obama today: We don’t have a strategy yet.”

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest at yesterday’s press briefing: “…that is a key component of the comprehensive strategy that the President is going to put in place, and has put in place, to deal with this situation.”

Full quote:

The President and his team are closely watching the situation in Iraq and monitoring the ongoing military activities — U.S. military activities against ISIL in Iraq to protect American citizens and interests in that country.

We’re also carefully watching the efforts of Iraq’s political leaders to form an inclusive government. It’s important for the Iraqi people and for Iraq’s political leaders to unite that country to face down the threat that’s posed by ISIL. We have said all along that that is a key component of the comprehensive strategy that the President is going to put in place, and has put in place, to deal with this situation.

Later during the press briefing, he said, “so this element of outreach to countries around the globe to engage them in this effort is part and parcel of the comprehensive strategy that this President has laid out for — had laid out initially in his West Point speech, but it was discussed on several occasions since then.”

Full quote:

What’s needed is a more comprehensive solution, and that comprehensive solution certainly includes the use of American military force, but what’s also required is the engagement of, first and foremost, an inclusive Iraqi government that can rally the country and unite the country in the face of this existential threat that they face. That also will have the effect of strengthening their security forces, knowing — members of their security force can know that they’re fighting on behalf of and in support of and in defense of a united country. That will also improve coordination between the Kurdish security forces and Iraqi security force.

There’s also an important role for regional governments to play and then for governments around the world to play, in no small part because of the threat that’s posed by foreign fighters.
So this element of outreach to countries around the globe to engage them in this effort is part and parcel of the comprehensive strategy that this President has laid out for — had laid out initially in his West Point speech, but it was discussed on several occasions since then.

Within an hour of President No-Strategy leaving the podium, today, Earnest was on damage control duty.

Of course the president has a strategy for I-S-I-L – a comprehensive one, as it turns out.


Obama’s segue from constructive tax proposals to low-grade demagoguery

columnist avatar Michael Barone  by Michael Barone

“The tax system should be simplified and work for all Americans with lower individual and corporate tax rates and fewer brackets.”

That’s from the Obama administration’s 2009 proposals for tax reform, straight from

“Because our corporate tax system is so riddled with special interest loopholes,” the document goes on, “our system has one of the highest statutory rates among developed countries to generate about the same amount of corporate tax revenue as our developed country partners as a share of our economy.”

That is still accurate except that, now that Japan has lowered its corporate tax rate, the U.S. is not “among the highest” but is the highest among developed countries.

The first step in establishing good public policy is identifying problems with and weaknesses in current policy. On the corporate tax, President Obama and his administration started off on the right foot.

Unfortunately, they haven’t moved any farther.


Branco cartoon from Legal Insurrection

thinker 2 Think About It

Sharyl Attkisson Schools ABC, CBS, NBC on How to Cover the IRS Scandal

Geoffrey Dickens's picture  by Geoffrey Dickens

Unlike her colleagues at the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks, investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson, on Tuesday night, actually dug into the finer points behind the big bombshells revealed in the IRS scandal this week.

Invited on Fox Business Network’s Lou Dobbs Tonight to discuss the revelations of a Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer confirming the existence of Lois Lerner’s “missing” e-mails and the IRS’s destruction of her Blackberry (stories the networks through Wednesday morning have yet to touch) Attkisson also did a great job of explaining the conflict of interest going on at the DOJ. (video after the jump)

Laying down the trail of bread crumbs for any network reporter to follow, Attkisson told Dobbs that at the same time the DOJ was “defending the IRS in court in the civil case with Judicial Watch” it was “also investigating the IRS. So at the same time it’s supposed to conduct a fair and impartial investigation on the one hand…it is defending the IRS in court on the other hand on the missing document cases. I think there is a potential appearance of a conflict of interest there.”

Not only have the networks not examined the conflict of interest case at the DOJ, they haven’t even bothered to report on the big revelations in the IRS scandal this week.


Michael Ramirez

Watch This:

Obama escapes from planet reality

When You’re a Leftist President Who’s Lost Esquire…

ed driscoll-image by Ed Driscoll

Say what you will about the man, but at least until today, the one thing Obama could do reasonably well was look sharp in a suit — hence all of the “clothes have no emperor” gags, dating back to 2008 when conservative blogs attempted to warn voters, Cassandra-like in retrospect, to think twice about the national purgatory they were about to inflict upon America. (And it’s actually not a bad suit; but it is such a dreadful choice when you’re trying to project power on the world stage that you have to wonder if he chose it deliberately for that purpose. But to paraphrase Hanlon’s Razor, never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by incompetence.)

Of course, today’s tweet was only a matter of time from Esquire — after all, this is the far left magazine which declared “John Kerry: Political Badass” on its cover in June of 2004, and was so in the tank to the Democrat party, it was publishing throne-sniffing “Summer of Obama” pieces around this time in 2011:

Before the fall brings us down, before the election season begins in earnest with all its nastiness and vulgarity, before the next batch of stupid scandals and gaffes, before Sarah Palin tries to convert her movie into reality and Joe Biden resumes his imitation of an embarrassing uncle and Newt and Callista Gingrich creep us all out, can we just enjoy Obama for a moment? Before the policy choices have to be weighed and the hard decisions have to be made, can we just take a month or two to contemplate him the way we might contemplate a painting by Vermeer or a guitar lick by the early-seventies Rolling Stones or a Peyton Manning pass or any other astounding, ecstatic human achievement? Because twenty years from now, we’re going to look back on this time as a glorious idyll in American politics, with a confident, intelligent, fascinating president riding the surge of his prodigious talents from triumph to triumph. Whatever happens this fall or next, the summer of 2011 is the summer of Obama.

No really, Esquire honestly allowed that to be printed, and I don’t even think they meant it at all ironically. Twenty years from now, we’re going to look back at this time in which a nation’s pundit class went absolutely insane — and no matter how badly they disclaim knowledge of their past writings, it’s up to the rest of us to preserve their glorious nonsense as a warning to future generations.


The number of boot-licking, adolescent, repulsive love columns that have been writted about Obama in the MSM has passed nauseating. I completely agreed with the title of Bernie Goldberg’s book, “A Slobbering Love Affair”. I had, happily until now, missed the teenage girl article in Esquire. Doesn’t this rag present itself as sophisticated? Seriously?

thinker 2 Think About It

Worth A Look

Landrieu claims parents’ home as her own, raising questions of Louisiana residency


Funny how the left was so quick to condemn Scott Brown as a carpet bagger  yet have no problem with a woman that doesn’t even bother to live in the state she claims to represent. Note to self: they also didn’t have a problem with Hillary Clinton being a carpetbagger. Again, there is that selective outrage.

A President’s Global Warming Tyranny

arnold ahlert  by Arnold Ahlert


Obama Enters Briefing Room to Say Absolutely Nothing

 columnist avatar Keith koffler by Keith Koffler


Maybe he just wanted to show off his new suit?

the absurdity of itApple is secretly developing a new product rumored to be the largest iPad they’ve ever made. It’s said to be 12.9 inches across, and it will be the first iPad that folds out into a full-size bed. ~ Jimmy Kimmel

Last But Not Least…

FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment Omits Islamist Terrorism

Internal report labels white supremacists, black separatists, militias, abortion extremists main domestic extremists

  by Bill Gertz

The FBI’s most recent national threat assessment for domestic terrorism makes no reference to Islamist terror threats, despite last year’s Boston Marathon bombing and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting—both carried out by radical Muslim Americans.

Instead, the internal FBI intelligence report concluded in its 2013 assessment published this month that the threat to U.S. internal security from extremists is limited to attacks and activities by eight types of domestic extremist movements—none motivated by radical Islam.

They include anti-government militia groups and white supremacy extremists, along with “sovereign citizen” nationalists, and anarchists. Other domestic threat groups outlined by the FBI assessment include violent animal rights and environmentalist extremists, black separatists, anti- and pro-abortion activists, and Puerto Rican nationalists.

“Domestic extremist violence continues to be unpredictable and, at times, severe,” the report states.

A copy of the unclassified, 60-page National Threat Assessment for Domestic Extremism, dated Aug. 14, was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. It warns that the threat of domestic-origin extremism was moderate in 2013 and will remain so for this year.

“Domestic extremists collectively presented a medium-level threat to the United States in 2013; the FBI assesses the 2014 threat will remain close to this level,” the report said.

On black separatists, the report warned that a “high-profile racially charged crimes or events” could lead to an expansion of black separatist groups. The report identified three such groups as the New Black Panther Party, the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, and the Black Hebrew Israelite group as extremists under FBI scrutiny.

An alternative assessment section in the report warned that radical black activists could “reinitiate violence at the historically high levels seen for the movement during the 1970s, when bombings, assassinations, hijackings, and hostage-takings occurred.”


Thursday With Thumps and Bumps

witch small Witch’s Will

Quote of the day:

Cartoon of the day

Articles of Interest

Obama fails History 101

victor_davis_hanson  by Victor Davis Hanson

President Obama doesn’t know much about history.

In his therapeutic 2009 Cairo speech, Obama outlined all sorts of Islamic intellectual and technological pedigrees, several of which were undeserved. He exaggerated Muslim contributions to printing and medicine, for example, and was flat-out wrong about the catalysts for the European Renaissance and Enlightenment.

He also believes history follows some predetermined course, as if things always get better on their own. Obama often praises those he pronounces to be on the “right side of history.” He also chastises others for being on the “wrong side of history” — as if evil is vanished and the good thrives on autopilot.

When in 2009 millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the thuggish theocracy, they wanted immediate U.S. support. Instead, Obama belatedly offered them banalities suggesting that in the end, they would end up “on the right side of history.” Iranian reformers may indeed end up there, but it will not be because of some righteous inanimate force of history, or the prognostications of Barack Obama.

Obama often parrots Martin Luther King Jr.’s phrase about the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice. But King used that metaphor as an incentive to act, not as reassurance that matters will follow an inevitably positive course.

Another of Obama’s historical refrains is his frequent sermon about behavior that doesn’t belong in the 21st century. At various times he has lectured that the barbarous aggression of Vladimir Putin or ISIS has no place in our century and will “ultimately fail” — as if we are all now sophisticates of an age that has at last transcended retrograde brutality and savagery.


Branco cartoon from Legal Insurrection

Climate Change to the Rescue?

rogersimon-828956056 by Roger L. Simon

Samuel Johnson had it wrong when he famously said that “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels!”

Global warming is the last refuge of scoundrels!”

(Or “climate change” or “extreme weather” or “bad storms” or whatever the euphemism du jour

happens to be.)

Of course, the good doctor can be excused, opining as he did in the late 18th century, long before Al of Gore emerged from a massage parlor to warn of us of impending ecological doom if we didn’t mend our ways (and start some lucrative carbon offset funds that would net him millions, or is it billions, before they disappeared in a haze of corruption somewhere in the bowels of a Beijing bank, so help me Al Jazeera).

But never fear — climate change is back, this time on the back of our president, who has emerged not from a massage parlor but from the golf course — where else? — to guide us into the promised land of clean energy. According to — where else? — the New York Times:

The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

Without ratification from Congress? No way! They wouldn’t do something like that, would they? This is a democratic republic. We have a Constitution. (Okay, kidding.)

And what’s wrong with cooking all this up on a golf course anyway, even if the sport is a bit iffy on the eco front? What’s a little extra water in Rancho Mirage between friends and future property owners? And perhaps all those conversations with Alonzo Mourning on the back nine have been about “ARCUS sea ice predictions” and the latest on “solar wind fluid” and not about whether Kobe can come back this year or whether he’ll end up on the JV (oops, bad reference). The president is informed, I say. He knows his science. Didn’t you see those great chemistry and physics grades he got at Occidental and Columbia? Oh, wait…


Modern Feminism: A Teenage Boy’s Dream

Derek Hunter by Derek Hunter

There was a time, or so I’m told, when “feminism” was about equality for women. Women had been treated as second-class citizens in many well-documented ways, and it was not right.

No need to rehash all the ways in which they weren’t treated fairly, they’re well documented. But somewhere along the way they won, if not every battle, at least the war.

In my lifetime, women have been able to do whatever they want and go as far as their ambition and talent will take them. But, like the union and civil rights movements, winning was the biggest threat to the movement’s leaders’ existence.

So, rather than accept victory, they continued to fight for the sake of fighting and, to no small degree, the money and power that comes along with instilling victim status on people they claim to want to help. By not accepting victory, they have become the problem, not the solution.

On Sunday night, after watching the last episode of True Blood (which was awful) and the season finale of The Last Ship (which was great), I watched the MTV Video Music Awards. And, as it turns out, I learned the new definition of “Feminist.”

Silly me for not realizing the word needed a new definition, but apparently it did. What used to be a fight for equality is now a fight to wear as little as possible and dry-hump everything in sight. What was once decried as sexist in music videos – the objectification of women – is now celebrated as the essence of feminism. I’m sure all those ‘80s hair bands are waiting by their phone for their National Organization of Women award for being heroes for women’s rights.


thinker 2 Think About It

CNN: Hey, Our Suspicious Shooting Audio with More Shots than a Battle in Fallujah Might Be Real!

Bryan Preston  by Bryan Preston

Well, this is funny — and a little too representative of today’s so-called mainstream media.

So CNN was asking two guys who know nothing about the case to speculate about an unconfirmed alleged audio from an unidentified man.

The experts both expressed their strong doubts that the audio was real.

The CNN time-waster had a strong rebuttal, though.

After the first guest says it’s most likely a hoax, and might just be a Howard Stern prankster, he allows, more out of politeness than conviction, “But it could be real.”

And it could very easily be fake. No one knows, which is the point.


How on earth can anyone take this pathetic excuse for a “news” channel seriously? Even they don’t know if what they put on the air is real of not.

Watch This:

Obama sings “Don’t Know Much”

Wasserman Schultz Fails to Explain Why She Now Supports Crist

Even Chicago’s Championship Little League Team Hates Gov. Pat Quinn

The Nutty Professor

Think about this cartoon – in order to get more votes for the Dems, in order for Big Business and the Chamber of Commerce get cheap labor – they are willing to put our entire country at risk from terrorists. And voters are willing to let them so that they can get free stuff. If this doesn’t make you sick to your stomach you are much of an American or much of a human being.

Martha Robertson: “Close your eyes” if don’t like her fat shaming attack ads (#NY23)

William A Jacobson  by William A. Jacobson

Doubling down on mocking Rep. Tom Reed’s past weight problem

It never ceases to amaze me how some politicians insist on digging when they are in a hole, rather than simply saying “Sorry”.

Democratic challenger Martha Robertson in my home district of NY-23 showed that quality last fall through the spring, when she refused to apologize for sending a fundraising email falsely claiming that GOP operatives tried to take down her website. Legal Insurrection broke that story.

First, she insisted it was true and even promised to hire a forensic computer firm to prove it, then went silent on the issue and became evasive when questioned, then admitted she never hired the forensic firm.

It would have been so much easier, and would have put the issue to rest, if she just said it was a mistake, she’s sorry, and offered to return any funds raised based on that false solicitation. Instead, the fundraising scandal still festers.

We’re seeing it again as to a series of fat shaming ads run by Robertson’s campaign, using old photos of Republican incumbent Tom Reed before he had gastric bypass surgery.

In some cases, Robertson seems to have gone out of her way to find photos that make Reed look as fat as possible.


Never disbelieve them when the liberals show you who they are – this IS who they are.

thinker 2 Think About It

Worth A Look

George Will on IRS: “It Is Off The Rails And It Is Now Thoroughly Corrupted”


Greg Gutfeld: “Coward” Russell Brand A “Racist” For Questioning Jason Riley’s Blackness


Last But Not Least…

Inside the World of Muslim Rape Gangs”

Part two

Tuesday in the Tuna Boat

witch small Witch’s Will

Quote of the day:

Image of the day

the absurdity of it Missouri Governor Jay Nixon apparently sent the National Guard to Ferguson without letting the White House know first. When he heard he was left out of such an important decision, Obama said, Holy crap, Ive been Bidened!  ~ Jimmy Fallon

Articles of Interest

A Decent Lawyer Should Tell Liberals They’re Damned Fools and Ought to Stop

columnist avatar Michael Barone  by Michael Barone

“About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” So supposedly said Elihu Root, New York lawyer and secretary of war and of state, and U.S. senator from 1909 to 1915.

Today it seems that many liberal “would-be clients” are in desperate need of what Root called “a decent lawyer.”

Take Texans for Public Justice, the so-called public interest group that has been pushing for the indictment of Gov. Rick Perry by a grand jury at the urging of special prosecutor Michael McCrum.

The basis for the indictment is, in the words of liberal New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait, “unbelievably ridiculous.” The first count says that Perry violated a vaguely worded statute by threatening to veto an appropriation. That, even though the Texas Constitution gives governors the veto power and the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protects their right to free speech.

The second count states that it was illegal “coercion” to demand the resignation of Rosemary Lehmberg, head of the public integrity prosecution unit whose funding Perry vetoed, after she was arrested for drunk driving with a blood alcohol content three times the legal limit.

“To describe the indictment as ‘frivolous’ gives it far more credence than it deserves,” Chait said. Liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz agreed. Perry’s actions, he said, are “not anything for a criminal indictment,” adding that the indictment is reminiscent of “what happens in totalitarian societies.”

The editorial writers of the Washington Post and the New York Times agreed. A “tendentious prosecution,” the Post wrote, noting that it was not the first one launched in Austin. The Texas town also produced the 2006 campaign finance indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay that was finally ruled invalid last year.

The Times, after making clear its distaste for Perry (“one of the least thoughtful and most damaging state leaders in America”), wrote that “the indictment appears to be the product of an overzealous prosecution.”


Were the “Times” an honest purveyor of information, which their bias does not allow, they would have  mentioned that under Perry the state of Texas has a better economy than the rest of the country. In fact Texas is what raises those numbers that Obama likes to brag about. Stuff that up your wazoo NYT.


 Her Highness Hillary and our leftist overlords.

columnist avatar Tom Blumer  by Tom Blumer

Recently uncovered information about what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demands from those to whom she deigns to speak tells us all we need to know about how “progressive” leaders and wannabes really view the rest of us. From President Obama on down, it’s clear that it’s not as their equals.

To be graced with her presence, Mrs. Clinton expects to be treated like a rock star, and arguably even better. In doing so, she has effectively appropriated the three-letter abbreviation “HHH,” once the exclusive property of 1968 presidential candidate and selflessly driven Democrat Hubert Horatio Humphrey, for herself — as Her Highness Hillary.

Public records obtained by the Las Vegas Review-Journal show that our 21st century HHH extraordinarily obligates those who run the events at which she delivers a contractually limited 90-minute address.

On the financial side, the events must, among other things, provide round-trip private jet transportation on “a Gulfstream 450 or larger jet.” The going rate for the use of a G450 is over $6,000 — per hour. She also requires “a presidential suite” for herself and three to five additional rooms for her staff. Mrs. Clinton has quite an entourage, including an advance team of two to scout the event site, as well as several travel aides. Naturally, she demands expensive room, board and perks for all of them. All of these expenses, and more, are over and above Her Highness’s $300,000 standard speaking fee, which was marked down to a rock-bottom $225K for the UNLV Foundation.

HHH’s controls over the proceedings, as described by the Review-Journal, are particularly galling. They include:

  • Final approval of all moderators or introducers.
  • Being “the only person on the stage during her remarks.”
  • No more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people.
  • No press coverage or taping of her speech.
  • No physical record of what she said, except for a transcript to be given to her — prepared by a stenographer the event must hire and pay.

The UNLV Foundation’s defense for its expenditure and cave-ins on conditions is that Mrs. Clinton’s appearance is a money-making venture, with donors paying up to $20,000 for a table. The obvious question thus becomes what these donors, an apparent who’s who of Vegas business and politics, believe they’re getting for their substantial “investment” that they wouldn’t receive by simply cutting checks to the foundation to further its mission. Sadly, the answer appears to be the “opportunity” to get barely more than a fleeting glimpse of someone who somewhere, someday, might grant them a favor or cut them a break. What a racket.

By their actions, modern progressive leaders, despite all of their pieties about protecting the middle class and defending the downtrodden, betray a belief system which in their minds entitles them to live the high life at someone else’s expense.


IRS: Oh, those Lois Lerner emails, yeah they’re backed up

 Prior IRS denials have “been a pack of malarkey”.
 by Amy Miller

Judicial Watch revealed today that Lois Lerner’s fabled “missing e-mails” may still exist on a government backup system.

Via Judicial Watch:

Department of Justice attorneys for the Internal Revenue Service told Judicial Watch on Friday that Lois Lerner’s emails, indeed all government computer records, are backed up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe. The Obama administration attorneys said that this back-up system would be too onerous to search. The DOJ attorneys also acknowledged that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) is investigating this back-up system.

We obviously disagree that disclosing the emails as required would be onerous, and plan to raise this new development with Judge Sullivan.

This is a jaw-dropping revelation. The Obama administration had been lying to the American people about Lois Lerner’s missing emails. There are no “missing” Lois Lerner emails – nor missing emails of any of the other top IRS or other government officials whose emails seem to be disappearing at increasingly alarming rate. All the focus on missing hard drives has been a diversion. The Obama administration has known all along where the email records could be – but dishonestly withheld this information. You can bet we are going to ask the court for immediate assistance in cutting through this massive obstruction of justice.


thinker 2 Think About It

Most Newspapers Skip Reid’s Asian Gaffe; WashPost Pleads He’s ‘Almost Built Up a Gaffe Immunity’

Tim Graham  by Tim Graham

Scott Whitlock noted earlier today that CBS and NBC skipped over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bad jokes about Asians (you’re not really the smartest, I can’t keep my Wongs straight). Additional Nexis transcript searches for “Harry Reid” and “Asian” show no mention on NPR, the PBS NewsHour, and even CNN and MSNBC (at least the transcripts they send to Nexis).

But what about newspapers? Surely, the “every “ reported this? No. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today skipped over it, too. The Washington Post covered it, but Post political reporter Aaron Blake strangely argued that Reid is so gaffe-prone he’s “almost built up a gaffe immunity”:

But Reid has also made a career out of saying such odd things — so much so that few tend to notice stuff like this. He’s like Joe Biden; he’s almost built up a gaffe immunity by committing so many small-ish gaffes.

It’s hard to argue Reid (and Biden, for that matter) doesn’t pay a price — given his unpopularity back home and nationally — but he has yet to ruin his career.

Blake then listed the worst “gaffes,” like Reid shamelessly claiming Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes. That’s not a “gaffe.” That’s just lying. That was like claiming Obama was born in Kenya.

The Associated Press gave the Reid story a little 321-word blip by Michelle Rindels. In the story, no one outraged by Reid was quoted. Instead, Rindels went on defense: “Both comments were met with laughter from the crowd of about 150 people.” She and let the Asian group hosting Reid dismiss it as some sort of meaningless Republican tracker prank:

Asian Chamber of Commerce Director James Yu said Reid has been a longtime friend of the group, which was established in 1986 to promote political, social and economic parity for Nevada’s Asian Pacific American entrepreneurs, according to its website. Yu said he hadn’t heard any complaints from attendees about the Senator’s comments.


You have to wonder how many excuses and how unconcerned these same people would be if the remarks had been made by a Republican. Methinks not so much! If if weren’t for double standards the Democrats would have no standards at all.

Branco cartoon from Legal Insurrection

Watch This:

Sad MoJo Panel Doesn’t Get Why Warren Buffett Doesn’t Want To Pay Higher Taxes

They get it alright. They just don’t want to call the old bastard what he is, a hypocrite!

Marc Lamont Hill Calls Out Hillary for Dodging Ferguson Questions

Todd: Admin Should Have Seen Vacation Criticism Coming

Pelosi takes the bucket challenge

Facts vs. Visions

thomas_sowell  by Thomas Sowell

The political left has been campaigning against the use of force since at least the 18th century. So it is not surprising that they are now arguing that heavily armed or aggressive police forces only inflame protesters and thus provoke violence.

Statisticians have long warned that correlation is not causation, but they have apparently warned in vain.

There is no reason to doubt that heavily armed police in riot gear may be more likely to show up where outbreaks of violence are expected. But when violence then breaks out, does that prove that it was the appearance of the police that caused it?

I strongly suspect that people who travel with armed guards are more likely to be murdered than people who do not travel with armed guards. After all, they are not paying to have armed guards for no reason.

If so, should we conclude from a higher murder rate among people with armed guards that having armed guards increases your chances of getting murdered? Shall we also conclude from this that we the taxpayers should no longer pay to have Secret Service agents guarding our presidents?

Actually, the history of assassinations of American presidents could be cited as evidence that armed guards are correlated with higher murder rates, if we proceed to “reason” the same way the advocates of weaker police presence seem to be reasoning.

There have been 43 Presidents of the United States, of whom four — Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy — have been murdered. That is a murder rate of 9 percent.

If the murder rate in the general population — most of whom do not have armed guards — were 9 percent, that would mean more than 27 million Americans murdered today. We haven’t quite gotten up to a murder rate that high, even in Chicago.

Does anyone seriously believe that leaving presidents unguarded would reduce assassinations? Probably not. But this is the golden age of talking points, as distinguished from serious thinking about serious issues.


Aug. 22, 2014

thinker 2 Think About It

Michael Ramirez

Worth A Look

Michael Brown Funeral: Cop-Lynching Pep Rally

columnist avatar Matthew Vadum  by Matthew Vadum

An Al Sharpton-led memorial service yesterday for Michael Brown, the black 18-year-old thug who gave a white Ferguson, Mo. police officer a severe head injury while trying to seize his handgun, became the grotesque political rally some observers feared it would be.

The distinctly anti-police tone of the service was proof that the lie that Brown tried to surrender to white police officer Darren Wilson, rather than trying to beat the life out of him, won’t die. The racial-grievance industry, egged on by President Obama, won’t let it go.

The Left’s narrative that the nearly 300-lbs. Brown, who had just robbed a convenience store on Aug. 9 mere minutes before encountering decorated policeman Wilson, is under withering evidentiary assault every day. As federal officials scour the riot-torn St. Louis suburb in a desperate search for material to justify federal civil rights charges, Sharpton is pressing on with his campaign to foment race-based hatred.

The funeral sets the stage for the mob-led lynching of Officer Wilson, an outcome eagerly sought by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Missouri’s governor, Jay Nixon (D). Nixon has been covering his left flank in recent days, terrified because activists noticed that he seemed to support law and order and oppose mobocracy, rioting, and looting in the early hours of the crisis that followed Brown’s death. But after criticism from the Left, Nixon, like the Democratic members of the local congressional delegation, wants Wilson indicted, evidence or not.


 Media Fail: Poll Shows Increase In Support for Ferguson Police 

A very useful YouGov poll that tracks public sentiment about Ferguson over time shows that despite the 24/7 racial demagoguery from cable news network’s like CNN and MSNBC, public opinion is moving in the exact opposite direction of what the media is aiming for.

Between August 14-17 a plurality of only 45% believed Ferguson residents reacted unreasonably following the shooting of Michael Brown. Four days later that number jumped to a clear majority of 56%. Those that consider the resident reaction reasonable only increased from 25% to 27%.


the absurdity of it John Kerry failed to pacify Chinese-Vietnamese tensions in the South China Sea Friday. He failed to stop the Gaza fighting, the Syrian civil war, and ISIS slaughter in Iraq. Back in high school science class John Kerry invented a smoke alarm that lets you sleep an extra ten minutes.

Last But Not Least…

In Defense of the Brown-Shaheen N.H. Poll

  by Sean Trende

The New Hampshire Senate race poll released last Thursday night caused quite a stir. It showed Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s lead over former Sen. Scott Brown collapsing to two points. Many people had begun to conclude that Brown’s campaign was on life support. Suddenly it looked downright sprightly.

Here are three points to consider:

1. The poll might be an outlier. FiveThirtyEight Senior Political Writer Harry Enten has made this case better than anyone else out there. Enten writes: “It’s possible that Brown is slicing into Shaheen’s lead, but there hasn’t been any sign from any other pollster that Shaheen’s edge is down to 2 percentage points. The other three surveys in the race taken after July 1 gave Shaheen an advantage of 5, 8 and 10 points. Before Thursday, no pollster over the past six months has given Shaheen anything less than a 3-point lead.”

2. But there are good reasons to suspect that the movement in the polls reflects actual movement of the electorate. The University of New Hampshire’s Dante Scala points out that the poll specifically shows tightening among Republican respondents.

Remember, when Brown entered the race, there was some resistance to his candidacy within the party. This shows up in the first WMUR/UNH poll from January, which found that Brown’s favorability among Republicans was a tepid 46/23 (+23), and that his lead among the group over Shaheen was 66 percent to 11 percent (+55).

Today, Brown’s favorability among Republicans is 63/15 (+48) and his lead over Shaheen among Republicans is 81 percent to 10 percent (+71), nearly matching the rate at which Democrats prefer Shaheen to Brown (85 percent to 12 percent). This suggests that the movement we see in the topline could also reasonably be viewed as a combination of two factors: First, a natural, inevitable tightening as Republicans “tune in” in advance of the primary and “come home,” and second, an increased Republican population making it through the likely voter screen, as Republican intensity increases in advance of the primary.


Monday’s Montage

witch small Witch’s Will

Quote of the day:

Cartoon of the day

the absurdity of it  The State Department announced it’s giving Ukraine the money to build a border fence to keep the Russians out. How brilliant. It allows President Obama to keep his campaign promise he’d build a border fence without it costing Democrats the Hispanic vote in November.

Articles of Interest

Maureen Dowd, Straight-Up Racist

ed driscoll-image  by Ed Driscoll

If there’s one thing I know from watching MSNBC*, even before Barack Obama took office, is that any criticism of him — any criticism, no matter how mild — was at its core, entirely “about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up,” as a guest on the show hosted by the MSNBC anchor** Keith Olbermann said in April of 2009.

And any reference to golf is definitely racism double-plus straight up, as MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell declared on August 29th, 2012, on a show hosted by the MSNBC anchor*** Martin Bashir.

So when Maureen Dowd goofs on the president with a collection of bad golf jokes (link safe, goes to Twitchy), by the standards of her fellow Democrat operatives with bylines, it can mean only one thing: racism of the vilest sort.

How should the president respond? Perhaps the January 2010 issue of Golf Digest, which featured on its cover Tiger Woods caddying for Mr. Obama — the issue went to press about five minutes before the pristine MSM-airbrushed narratives of both men imploded for good — holds a clue. Golf Digest contributing editor John Feinstein wrote that one of the “10 Things Obama Might Learn From Tiger” was “How To Step On Their Necks:”

What makes Tiger Woods the most dominant athlete in the world (with apologies to Michael Phelps) isn’t so much his golf swing as what he does between golf swings. He’s cerebral in the sense that he lives to wear opponents out mentally every chance he gets.

President Obama surely knows how to compete. And yet, if you watched him debate John McCain, it was clear that Obama didn’t have Woods’ sense of the kill — knowing when an opponent is weak and the time is right to step on his neck. If Obama versus McCain had been match play, Obama wouldn’t have closed out his opponent until the 17th hole. When Stephen Ames made the mistake a few years ago of saying that he didn’t think Woods was quite as unbeatable as he had once been, he had the misfortune of facing Woods in the first round of a match-play event soon after. Woods won, 9 and 8. Asked post-match if he had anything to say about Ames’ comments, Woods smiled and said, “Nine and eight.”

President Obama should learn from Tiger. Sometimes you beat a guy 9 and 8, not 2 and 1. Teach him a lesson.****

That’s right — it’s time for Mr. Obama to teach Maureen Dowd a lesson, as her fellow MSMer demands of the president.

Either that, or it’s time for the rest of the media to come to grips with how misguided it’s been in its slavish throne-sniffing devotion to Mr. Obama. (QED: the notion of a rookie senator “teaching a lesson” to a former Navy pilot who spent years in a North Vietnamese prison camp by metaphorically “stepping on his neck” — completely forgetting how much McCain got of the real thing from the NVA. I wonder if Golf Digest’s editors, having outed themselves as crafting a publication that alienates half their potential readers feel any shame in retrospect at their hagiography?)


WH Snubbed US General and Margaret Thatcher’s Funerals, Sending 3 Officials to Michael Brown’s

Leah Barkoukis  by Leah Barkoukis

The Obama administration announced this weekend that it will be sending not one, but three, officials to attend the funeral of Michael Brown on Monday.

President Barack Obama is sending three White House officials to the funeral service of the Missouri teenager whose death in a police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, has sparked days of racial unrest.Leading the group for Monday’s service will be the chairman of the My Brother’s Keeper Task Force, Broderick Johnson. My Brother’s Keeper is an Obama initiative that aims to empower young minorities. Johnson is also the secretary for the Cabinet.

Also attending will be the deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, Marlon Marshall, and an adviser for the office, Heather Foster.

The decision would be highly questionable as is, but when compared to the White House’s presence at, say, the funerals of Maj. Gen. Harold Greene or British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, it’s deplorable.


E Pluribus Discidium-Identity Politics Unleashed

  by Terry Paulson

Michael Brown was a college-bound, black teenager who no longer has an opportunity to forge a future he could be proud of. He is dead, allegedly killed execution style after a confrontation with a policeman. Darren Wilson is a white police officer, who after six years of blemish-free service to his community, used deadly force to allegedly defend himself in an escalating confrontation with an unarmed teenager. Do you know which version is closer to the truth? The search for justice is always difficult. In the rush for judgment in Ferguson, Missouri, it has become all but impossible.

As coverage of the racial crisis continues, I’m saddened by how far we’ve strayed from the values that have made America what it is. One such core American value is E Pluribus Unum—out of many one. From our beginning, out of the mix of races and cultures our melting pot has worked to forge one people. We’ve called ourselves Americans. We may celebrate our unique nationalities, but we’re still Americans first.

Lincoln would say, “I don’t know who my grandfather was; I am much more concerned to know whathis grandson will be.” America has not and never will perfectly live up to this or any value. It took a civil war, hard-fought civil rights legislation, and tumultuous demonstrations to even begin to rid America of the curse of slavery.

But I fear that in America, E Pluribus Unum has given way to E Pluribus Discidium. Discidium is a Latin word meaning division, disagreement, or a tearing apart. The more politicians have used identity politics, the more Americans have emphasized our differences and our “unique” rights. We’ve put cultural diversity and minority rights on politically correct pedestals. When you add race-baiting leaders and a conflict-loving media, America is now more divided than ever.

Years ago, in the midst of racial tension over the OJ Simpson trial verdict, I shared a five-hour, cross-country flight with Brother Clarence, a 97-year-old black man whose loving presence was both disarming and inspiring.

Brother Clarence was the son of a slave, the last son from his father’s last wife. His father had been freed in Alabama as a child. Asked about his experiences as a young slave, his father refused to talk about it, saying: “Don’t worry about what happened. Be proud that you’re free. I never met a man who with a smile on my face and an outstretched hand would not treat me with respect. If they don’t, they’re not worth knowing anyway.” Brother Clarence confessed that he worried about his great-great-grandchildren, “They’re angry. They don’t want to listen to my advice about smiling or shaking hands.”


thinker 2 Think About It

Washington Post finds Darren Wilson guilty by association

Attacks prior police force racial problems in a different town and his family’s legal problems, none of which involved Wilson.

William A Jacobson by William A. Jacobson

The Washington Post has convicted Police Officer Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown, of guilt by association with a former troubled police force in a different town in a prior job than the one he held in Ferguson, MO, and of having parents who were in trouble with the law.


There is nothing, zero, nada, in the WaPo story linked below that shows Darren Wilson ever did anything wrong himself. In fact, to the extent his own conduct is even mentioned, it’s in the context of staying out of trouble.

But that does not stop WaPo from trashing Wilson by association.


Every time I think my opinion of the Washington Post cannot get any lower, they prove me wrong. This is way beyond despicible. And much to their chargrin, after all those words and all that ink, they found Wilson, himself, guilty of absolutely nothing. They make the National Enquirer look classy by comparison.

Watch This:

London Rapper Key Suspect in Beheading of James Foley

Susan Page: Obama Golfing After Foley Execution Was ‘Jarring’

IMHO every dimwitted media type that uses the word “optics” when they should use the word “inappropriate”, at the very least, should be smeared with honey and staked out on an anthill.

A Beheading Ends All Illusions About Islam

columnist avatar Daniel Greenfield   by Daniel Greenfield

In August 2012, James Foley retweeted a link to a CNN story asking “Right-wing extremist terrorism as deadly a threat as al Qaeda?”

The article concluded that indeed it was.

Three months later, Foley had been kidnapped. Two years later, on another August, a former branch of Al Qaeda chopped off his head.

In a New Yorker interview this year, which seemed to focus on the Lakers more than anything else, Obama wrote off ISIS as what happens when a “jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms”. He suggested that the answer lay in training the Iraqi police forces better.

That same month, ISIS had declared an Islamic State in Fallujah, the event that Obama was dismissively reacting to, and extended its reach beyond Iraq and Syria into Lebanon and Turkey. By June, the steamroller advance across Iraq had begun destroying the Iraqi military, never mind its police forces.

In April, Peter Bergen, the original author of the CNN article, had another piece contending that “right wing extremists” were now even “more deadly than Jihadists.” On August 18, he produced a CNN piece claiming that ISIS was no threat to Americans.

On the next day, ISIS chopped off James Foley’s head.

The incredibly deadly right-wing extremists have yet to show off the severed head of a journalist.


I was particularly struck by the following two paragraphs. Struck because I sadly believe them to be true.

James Foley was brutally murdered because he misunderstood the situation on the ground in Syria, but no matter how many journalists get beheaded in Syria, a month from now Peter Bergen will run yet another CNN piece arguing that “right wing extremists” are the real threat.

No matter how often the heads roll, in the CNN studios someone decides that it’s time to warn us about the threat of “right wing extremism” or to explain to us that the only way we can live in peace with the extremist terrorists is by supporting the moderate terrorists.

thinker 2 Think About It

Worth A Look

‘Disconnected Obama’ needs to change conversation to help party in midterms


Gary King Posts Story Attacking Martinez as the Wicked Witch of the West

Democrat’s social media woes continue


FYI, I am a very big fan of Susana Martinez. For this low-life Dem to attack her in this way is proof, once again that the “War On Women” is the one liberals wage against Republican women. Believe the Dems when they show you who they are, it is the one bit of honesty in their make-up.

Democrats wait, and wait for Michelle


Could it be that FLOTUS, like POTUS, doesn’t much give a rat’s ass about anyone other than his/her self? Seems they are both tired of the job and content to vacay and play until time to pack up and move on.
I’m sure she will stir herself to give a speech or two in the next 71 days. However I suspect she will save most of her speechifying for later when she will be able to ask for big bucks to do so ala Hillary.

the absurdity of it  A reporter took a jab at Hillary Clinton acting like royalty, asking “who gets to hold her crown while she speaks?” Silly question: the person to the right of whoever holds her scepter, of course.

Last But Not Least…

The Case for the Louisiana System

By Bruce Walker

Fox News recently had a political story noting that in several close Senate races in red states, Libertarian candidates might keep the Republican nominee from winning seats held by Democrats today. In the last three election cycles, liberal Democrats in Senate races have won races with less than half the vote, and with the majority of the vote going to the Republican nominee and candidates more conservative than that nominee.

In 2008, Mark Begich won in Alaska with 47.8% of the vote, while Republican Ted Stevens earned 46.6% and Bob Bird of the Alaska Independence Party, endorsed by Ron Paul, won 4.2%. Al Franken in Minnesota won 41.99% of the vote, while Republican Norm Coleman won 41.98% and Dean Barkley, a Perot and Ventura supporter, got 15.1% of the vote. Jeff Merkely in Oregon got 48.9% of the vote, while Gordon Smith received 45.6% and Constitution Party candidate Dave Brownlow won 5.2% of the vote. In 2012, the same pattern emerged.

How much have leftist Democrats prospered by the division of conservative votes? Consider that Democrat Jon Test in Montana in 2006 got 49.2% of the vote, while Republican Conrad Burns got 48.3% of the vote and Libertarian Stan Jones got 2.6%, and then in 2012, Democrat Jon Tester won 48.6% of the vote, while Republican Denny Rehberg got 44.9% while Libertarian Dan Cox received 6.1%. Tester won his seat and then six years later defended it because his opposition was split.

It would be one thing if leftist Democrats lost as many elections as they won because third-party candidates cost them votes, but in the last four Senate election cycles, leftist Democrats have won five Senate elections – two for the same seat in Montana – without ever losing a seat because of a third party candidate from the left.

The left understands this and is actually helping fund some of these candidates. In 2012, for example, leftist Democrats contributed money to the Dan Cox campaign. The left also funded the Libertarian candidate in the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial candidate. In both cases, this strategy worked: leftist Democrats won races that they otherwise would have lost because of Libertarian candidates. This election cycle, Libertarian Senate candidates in Alaska, North Carolina, and Montana may allow the leftist Democrat to win. As always, no candidate to the left of the Democrat Senate candidate is on the ballot.