Witch’s Will For A January Morning
My Pick Of The Litter Today
Thank goodness for the L.A Times English to racist/Racist to english dictionary
It’s a good thing the LA Times is offering an English-to-Racist/Racist-to-English dictionary now. For those of us without an interpreter, it can become quite a confusing topic. According to the LA Times, this recent picture seen on conservative blogs is obviously racist (at least to those who have the dictionary for interpretation).
To the uninformed, this might appear to be a jab at an “elitist” attitude, but we’d be wrong, wouldn’t we? According to their interpretation, it is now a racial slur to compare someone of color to Marie Antoinette.
What becomes confusing is the fact that a few other first ladies have previously been compared to Marie Antoinette as well. Apparently, those doing the comparing at the time were unaware of the obvious racial undertones associated with this characterization. Ask Nancy Reagan or Hillary Clinton:
“Even her staunchest defenders concede that Nancy Reagan is more Marie Antoinette than Mother Theresa.”
“Hillary Clinton Proves Herself the Marie Antoinette of the Keystone State: Let Them Eat Cake.”
More: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/06/thank-goodness-for-the-la-times-english-to-racist-dictionary/
Stories/Articles You Might Find Interesting – or not
Judge rules for Walker campaign on recall petition signature questions![[image]](http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv166/pennjazz/Star%20Pirates/Emoticons/bliss.gif "[image]")
This is excellent news for Walker – especially considering it is by no means certain that the coalition of big labor and online leftists who are seeking a recall election for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker can get the required number of signatures in time to beat the January 17 deadline.
JSOnline:
A judge ruled Thursday that the state Government Accountability Board needs to take more aggressive action to vet recall signatures that are expected to be submitted in two weeks against Gov. Scott Walker and other Republican office holders.
The ruling by Waukesha County Circuit Judge J. Mac Davis came in a case filed Dec. 15 by Walker’s campaign committee and Stephan Thompson, executive director of the state Republican Party, asking Davis to order the accountability board to seek out and eliminate duplicate and fictitious signatures and illegible addresses in recall petitions.
Davis, who refused to enter injunctions in the case, based his decision on his interpretation of state law, more than on equal protection arguments brought up by the Republicans. He also said that the board must take “reasonable” efforts to eliminate such signatures.
Kevin Kennedy, director and general counsel of the board, said after the hearing that his organization would have to discuss the decision to see what it needed to change in procedures already in place.
In court, Kennedy testified that entering signatures into a database to look for duplicates could take eight extra weeks for his staff, and could cost $94,000 for software and outside help.
Steven M. Biskupic, attorney for the Republicans, argued that not catching invalid signatures violated the constitutional rights to equal protection of people who chose not to sign recall petitions.
He also cited a media report that one man claimed he’d signed recall petitions 80 times, and submitted a petition from last summer’s attempt to recall Sen. Jim Holperin (D-Conover), in which the accountability board allowed a “Bugs Bunny” signature to be counted. Kennedy said the signature was counted because Holperin didn’t follow the proper procedures for challenging it.
It’s not so much the duplicates that will make a difference; it’s the illegible addresses which is a ploy sometimes used to mask one person signing a petition many times. Of course, the illegible addresses are also the result of petition signers who are in a hurry, or who have illegible handwriting to begin with. All of those will now be challenged, along with obvious fakes like “Bugs Bunny.”
Momentum to recall Walker seems to have stalled. It’s hard to see how they can recapture it at this late date.
South Carolina poll shows narrowing window for Romney foes
Mitt Romney’s strong showing in Friday’s CNN/Time/ORC South Carolina poll shows how narrow a window his opponents may have to derail him.
The poll offers a powerful reminder of how much each caucus and primary resets the dynamic in the states that follow — the same way each shot in billiards reshapes the table. Compared to the most recent CNN/Time South Carolina survey in December, Romney posted gains across the board. Most important, the new poll shows him significantly advancing among the overlapping circles of evangelical Christians and tea party supporters who have resisted him in surveys all year — and who reaffirmed that resistance in the Iowa caucuses, according to entrance polls.
As in most surveys over the past year, Romney continues to run better among more secular and less ideological voters. Among South Carolina voters who don’t identify as evangelical Christians, the survey shows him spiking to 41 percent, more than double his nearest competitor, and up 15 percentage points since December. He’s also at 41 percent among likely primary voters who don’t identify with the tea party. That’s also double his nearest competitor, and up 10 percentage points from December.
More: http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/01/south-carolina-poll-shows-narr.php
Being There – The Obama Sequel
by Victor Davis Hanson
Rip Van Obama
President Obama went into a deep slumber in December. When he woke up this January, he found himself back even in the polls, with neither a press conference nor another overhyped presidential televised address to be heard. Sleep, quiet, and solitude — all that appears wiser than campaigning, visibility, and speaking, both for Obama and Americans. In short, the president has really hit on something: an Obama going into a Rip Van Winkle somnolent state might just mean waking up again as president.
If conservatives once alleged that Obama got elected as Being There’sChauncey Gardiner — the empty vessel that all put their hopes and dreams in — they might complain even louder that he now plans on getting reelected as him as well, as if 2009-2011 were now a dream and we are back to fall 2007 when a political unknown proclaimed himself a new Lincoln declaring his candidacy from Springfield.
Meanwhile, Fratricide
While the Republicans were tearing each other up in Iowa, to the delight of the liberal media, Barack Obama said not much at all from Hawaii. He did not have to, given that no Republican was offering a simple anti-Obama plan to drill for gas and oil as never before, repeal Obamacare, balance the budget, reform the tax code, and redo Social Security and Medicare. Instead his would-be opponents argued over who voted for what fifteen years ago.
We heard from the press and other Republicans in Iowa that Cain was a supposed womanizer, Romney a liar, Gingrich a blowhard and hypocrite, Perry clueless and tongue-tied, Paul a nut, Santorum a whiny complainer, Bachman a loser, and not much of anything about Huntsman. Who cares that the debt is hitting $16 trillion, the Iranians are enjoying our reset diplomacy, Iraq is heating up after our departure, and we are talking to the Taliban via the Muslim Brotherhood? Who mentions that our rendezvous with Obamacare is daily coming closer? Or that the Simpson-Bowles commission, the super-committee, and all talk of the debt is now but a distant, bad memory? Does it matter that Obama decided not to follow federal immigration law and will sue states that do? What are recess appointments when the Congress is not in recess? While Obama sleeps, all sorts of strange things do not.
As this circular firing squad went on in Iowa (strangest of all was the New Newt Gingrich’s 30-day new persona of senior statesman grandly proclaiming unity and civility — only to descend into the Old Newt proclaiming Romney a “liar”), each couple of days Barack Obama’s poll ratings inched back up. The more he kept out of the news and kept quiet, the more his negative and positive ratings went back in sync, until they are today about even, a radical shift in just about a month — and as a result of doing absolutely nothing. Do Americans sort of like Barack Obama the more that they do not see or hear much of him — at least while they hear too much of the Republicans ripping each other apart? After all, in 2008 with no record or much knowledge of his past, Obama The Idea was adored; in 2011 with a record and a fledgling history, Obama The Flesh and Blood was not. Why then not go into deep sleep, do nothing, let his surrogates loose, and let voters’ imaginations run wild with past fantasies and dreams — especially in comparison to the screeching of fratricidal Republicans that for now precludes any reexamination of a mostly disastrous presidential record since January 2009?
More: http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/being-there-the-obama-sequel/
Obama’s tin ear returns
When even a New Republic writer suggests that Barack Obama’s Wednesday recess appointments to the Consumer Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board are probably unconstitutional, you know we’re in for a good fight… at least if Senate Republicans have the courage to take it on.
The left-leaning Politico also notes that “… President Barack Obama’s decision to jam the Senate and install three labor nominees and a consumer watchdog without a confirmation vote raises unsettled legal questions that could have a long-lasting impact past his presidency.”
The Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin has a good summary of initial Republican response to Obama’s power-grab.
My view: While Obama is pandering to the far left and union (if you’ll pardon my redundancy) parts of his base, his move is politically unwise.
Think about Obamacare: It was not just the content of the law which people hated; it was also the process. From “deem and pass” to “reconciliation” to “pass it so you can learn what’s in it” every part of the Democrats’ efforts to shove the measure down our throats stunk of heavy-handedness if not outright tyranny.
Obama’s recess appointments were an unnecessary reminder by Obama that he is indeed a tyrant. It’s one thing to fight “obstructionism.” It’s another thing entirely to say that he, rather than the Senate, determines whether or not the Senate is in session.
More: http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/05/obamas-tin-ear-returns
Something To Think About
Did environmentalists change the word ‘jungle’ to ‘rain forest’ because they thought no one would give their money to save a jungle?
Politics trumps left’s empathy
by Mark Steyn
Lest you doubt that we’re headed for the most vicious election year in memory, consider the determined effort, within 10 minutes of his triumph in Iowa, to weirdify Rick Santorum. Discussing the surging senator on Fox News, Alan Colmes mused on some of the “crazy things” he’s said and done.
Santorum has certainly said and done many crazy things, as have most members of America’s political class, but the “crazy thing” Colmes chose to focus on was Santorum’s “taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after childbirth home,” whereupon he “played with it.” My National Review colleague Rich Lowry rightly slapped down Alan on air, and Colmes subsequently apologized, though not before Mrs. Santorum had been reduced to tears by his remarks. Undeterred, Eugene Robinson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post columnist, doubled down on stupid and insisted that Deadbabygate demonstrated how Santorum is “not a little weird, he’s really weird.”
The short life of Gabriel Santorum would seem a curious priority for political discourse at a time when the Brokest Nation in History is hurtling toward its rendezvous with destiny. But needs must, and victory by any means necessary. In 2008, the Left gleefully mocked Sarah Palin’s live baby. It was only a matter of time before they moved on to a dead one.
Not many of us will ever know what it’s like to have a child who lives only a few hours. That alone should occasion a certain modesty about presuming to know what are “weird” and unweird reactions to such an event.
In 1996, the Santorums were told during the pregnancy that their baby had a fatal birth defect and would not survive more than a few hours outside the womb. So Gabriel was born, his parents bundled him, and held him, and baptized him. And two hours later he died. They decided to take his body back to the home he would never know. Weirdly enough, this crazy weird behavior is in line with the advice of the American Pregnancy Association, which says that “it is important for your family members to spend time with the baby” and “help them come to terms with their loss.”
Would I do it? Dunno. Hope I never have to find out. Many years ago, a friend of mine discovered in the final hours of labor that her child was dead but that she would still have to deliver him. I went round to visit her shortly after, not relishing the prospect but feeling that it was one of those things one was bound to do. I ditched the baby gift I’d bought a few days earlier but kept the flowers and chocolate. My friend had photographs of the dead newborn. What do you say? Oh, he’s got your face?
I was a callow pup in my early twenties, with no paternal instincts and no great empathetic capacity. But I understood that I was in the presence of someone who had undergone a profound and harrowing experience, one which it would be insanely arrogant for those of us not so ill-starred to judge.
There but for the grace of God go I, as we used to say.
There is something telling about what Peter Wehner at Commentary rightly called the “casual cruelty” of Eugene Robinson. The Left endlessly trumpets its “empathy.” President Obama, for example, has said that what he looks for in his judges is “the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” As he told his pro-abortion pals at Planned Parenthood, “we need somebody who’s got the heart – the empathy – to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom.” Empathy, empathy, empathy: You barely heard the word outside clinical circles until the liberals decided it was one of those accessories no self-proclaimed caring progressive should be without.
Indeed, flaunting their empathy is what got Eugene Robinson and many others their Pulitzers – Robinson describes his newspaper column as “a license to feel.” Yet he’s entirely incapable of imagining how it must feel for a parent to experience within the same day both new life and death – or even to understand that the inability to imagine being in that situation ought to prompt a little circumspection.
The Left’s much-vaunted powers of empathy routinely fail when confronted by those who do not agree with them politically. Rick Santorum’s conservatism is not particularly to my taste (alas, for us genuine right-wing crazies, it’s that kind of year), and I can well see why fair-minded people would have differences with him on a host of issues from spending to homosexuality. But you could have said the same thing four years ago about Sarah Palin – and instead the Left, especially the so-called feminist Left, found it easier to mock her gleefully for the soi-disant retard kid and her fecundity in general. The usual rap against the Right is that they’re hypocrites – they vote for the Defense of Marriage Act, and next thing you know they’re playing footsie across the stall divider with an undercover cop at the airport men’s room. But Rick Santorum lives his values, and that seems to bother the Left even more.
Never mind the dead kid, he has six living kids. How crazy freaky weird is that?
link: http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/santorum-334497-one-weird.html
I shamefully confess that I found taking a dead baby home with them “weird.” But I mostly had the good sense to keep that thought to myself. These big name, big time “journalists” that showcase their cruelty did not. I don’t include Colmes in that group. I’m not sure what he is exactly other than an ugly little liberal apologist who seems to relish his position as the butt of O’Reilly’s jokes and insults.
Eugene Robinson? A horse’s ass who sees racists behind every tree and hasn’t written an honest column in years. If ever. A Paul Krugman type without the crazy.
The Harry Reid Hypocrisy
By Jonah Goldberg
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was a failed Watergate baby.
In 1974, a slew of very liberal Democratic politicians rode the tide of understandable national disgust with Richard Nixon to Congress. Reid ran for the Senate, hoping to tie his opponent to the “imperial presidency” that had allegedly sprung up ex nihilo under Nixon.
Reid cast himself as an incorruptible champion of limited government and political honor. The New York Times reported that Reid “would cut government spending by reducing the maze of federal agencies, a bureaucracy that controls much of Nevada life and that, according to Mr. Reid, has become a dangerous fourth branch of government.”
Reid has made some adjustments since he lost that election. Last year, he insisted that Congress had cut the federal government to the bone and could no further lest we hit such vital arteries of the body politic as the federally subsidized cowboy poetry festival in northern Nevada.
But let’s get back to the imperial presidency for a moment. Nixon’s error was to continue the inexorable growth of the executive branch hatched by Woodrow Wilson and set loose by Franklin Roosevelt.
During the height of the Watergate hearings, liberal Democratic Sen. Alan Cranston observed, “Those who tried to warn us back at the beginning of the New Deal of the dangers of one-man rule that lay ahead on the path we were taking toward strong, centralized government may not have been so wrong.”
Reid is as incapable of such honest introspection as he is of cracking a smile that doesn’t make its recipients feel unsafe.
In 2007, the Democrats controlling the Senate were fed up with George W. Bush’s recess appointments. Majority Leader Reid resorted to the extraordinary tactic of keeping the Senate in pro-forma session so as to prevent the imperial Bush from doing an end-run around the confirmation process. The move was celebrated by liberal commentators as a brave and necessary assertion of congressional power and was supported by then-Sen. Barack Obama.
This week, the Senate has once again been in pro-forma session to keep President Obama from making recess appointments. Reid agreed to the tactic as part of negotiations with Republicans last year.
Arguing that the maneuver is nothing more than a gimmick, Obama ignored the Senate’s authority and appointed Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created by the Dodd-Frank legislation allegedly to prevent the excesses that led to the financial crisis. If it wasn’t clear enough that the appointment was nakedly political, Obama made the announcement at a campaign rally in the swing state of Ohio, Cordray’s home state.
With the alacrity one normally associates with court jesters and royal spittoon cleaners, Reid immediately endorsed the president’s decision, accepting the logic that calls a maneuver he invented a sham.
More: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/harry_hypocrisy_WqCEXpEsRI9Snvyzd3GT7K
Poetry Page
Sore Losers
Pounding fistsand kicking dirt
The sound of stomping feet
Statements like, “It isn’t fair”
All following defeat
Shouting on the playground
As their pointing fingers choose
You shouldn’t be the one to win
A game they shouldn’t lose
They take their bat, they take their ball
And with their head hung low
Leave the field, now running home
The sore loser does go
Gingrich is out for revenge
by Jennifer Rubin
It is symptomatic of Newt Gingrich’s ego and the distorted view of the world which accompanies it that he is convinced his woes are traceable to ideological enemies who lie and cheat to prevent his wonderfulness from becoming available to the American people. It was Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s fault he was brought up on ethics charges. It is the mainstream media that distorts his own words. And it is Mitt Romney who had the temerity to point out Gingrich’s own record and embarrass him, which has robbed him of his golden opportunity.
Sound farfetched? Well, if you saw his post-caucus speech, filled with venom, and watched his behavior thereafter you’ll come to see, I think, that he is now motivated purely by anger and spite. His ire is directed specifically at Romney (not Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.)) for reasons not entirely clear, although the notion of a viable candidate besting him for the nomination is probably too much for him to bear.
The Defense Budget and America’s Decline
by Peter Wehner
There are many salient points to make about President Obama’s terribly unwise plan to cut $500 billion in defense spending during the next decade. But I want to focus on what I think it reveals about the worldview of America’s 44th president.
The one unequivocal area in which the federal government should be involved in is national defense. And our military is the one area which Gallup reports Americans trust more than any other American institution. According to a recent survey, 78 percent of those polled say they have a great deal of confidence in the U.S. military (versus 12 percent for Congress). And that trust is well-earned; the military has performed its tasks with extraordinary skill. And yet it is the military, more than any area in the federal government, that is now being asked to absorb the brunt of budget cuts – even though we’re still a nation at war. It is a striking thing to witness.
I’ve argued before that the Obama presidency, animated by a progressive impulse, wants to punish success. Rewarding human excellence is in many respects an alien concept to this president (see his repeated attacks on wealth creators). It’s therefore not surprising the president would decide to target the military when it comes to budget cuts. Its achievements have earned it a reduction in its budget, much like bad schools are rewarded with more money (the theory being that their failures are due to parsimony).
link: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/06/defense-budget-america-decline/
What’s Going On In The World?
EU states consider delay on any Iran oil ban
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – A European Union embargo on Iranian crude oil imports could take a few months to start because some EU capitals want a delay they say they need to shield their debt-stricken economies, diplomats said on Friday.
EU states have agreed in principle to an embargo on Iranian oil, part of the latest Western effort to ratchet up pressure on Tehran over its nuclear programme.
Details of how the ban would be imposed are being discussed in Brussels, with the goal of a final decision by month’s end.
Diplomats said EU countries have proposed “grace periods” on existing contracts of between one month and 12 months.
Greece, which depends heavily on Iranian crude, is pushing for the longest delay, the diplomats said. Britain, France, the Netherlands and Germany wanted a maximum grace period of three months.
“There is a range of ideas from one month to one year with countries who are more dependent on Iranian oil pushing for more time,” one EU diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
European measures against Iran’s oil industry will complement U.S. sanctions announced on New Year’s Eve that aim to make it impossible for most countries’ refineries to buy Iranian crude.
Iran is the second-largest producer of oil, after Saudi Arabia, among the 12 countries in OPEC, producing around 3.5 million barrels per day.
Could the west’s intention of trashing the Iranian economy cause big problems with economies in the west? As in rising fuel prices? Which has all ready begun. Just asking because it seems to me that all too often the west jumps into things without seeing the consequences.
Image of the day from the animal kingdom:
Just Hanging out.
Obama follows in Rumsfelds footprints
An unexpected name started popping up after President Barack Obama laid out his new defense strategy: Donald Rumsfeld.
Obama and Pentagon leaders used words like “leaner” and “agile” Thursday in describing the kind of military they intend to build.Senior Pentagon officials said the leaner, more agile force Obama’s new strategy envisions is necessary so the force can both fight a major conflict while also quickly responding to a number of other situations and conflicts.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the envisioned force’s “greatest strength” is that it would be “more agile, flexible, ready to deploy, innovative and technologically advanced.”
The commander in chief acknowledged in the strategy that, “yes, our military will be leaner.”
“But the world must know — the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats,” Obama said.
If those descriptions sound familiar, they should.
When George W. Bush appointed Rumsfeld to be defense secretary after the 2000 election, the two-time Pentagon chief set about his so-called “transformation agenda.”
Rumsfeld, too, wanted a leaner, meaner military able to adapt quickly to various situations and deploy quickly.
“We need rapidly deployable, fully integrated joint forces capable of reaching distant theaters quickly and working with our air and sea forces to strike adversaries swiftly, successfully, and with devastating effect,” then-secretary Rumsfeld said in January 2002.
New Hampshire Republican Primary
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is pulling away from the pack in New Hampshire as Tuesday’s first-in-the-nation primary nears. His nearest rival now trails him by more than 20 points.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters in New Hampshire finds Romney earning 42% support. Texas Congressman Ron Paul is a distant second with 18% of the vote, followed by former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, hot off his photo finish with Romney in the Iowa caucuses, at 13%. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who has focused his campaign efforts on New Hampshire, captures 12% support.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who less than a month ago had the backing of 22% of New Hampshire GOP primary voters, now gets just eight percent (8%) of the vote, with Texas Governor Rick Perry in dead last at one percent (1%). Another one percent (1%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) remain undecided.
South Carolina Republican Primary
What a difference a caucus makes. Rick Santorum who two months ago had one percent (1%) support among likely South Carolina Republican Primary voters now is running a close second there with 24% of the vote.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Palmetto State finds former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney still in the lead, earning 27% support from likely GOP Primary Voters, up from 23% in early November. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is in third with 18% of the vote, followed by Texas Congressman Ron Paul at 11%.
Bringing up the rear are Texas Governor Rick Perry with five percent (5%) and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman at two percent (2%). Another two percent (2%) of these likely primary voters like some other candidate, and 11% remain undecided.
National Republican Primary
Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, coming off his photo finish with Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses, is now in second place among Republican voters in the race for the party’s 2012 presidential nomination.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken the night after the caucuses, shows Romney again in first place with support from 29% of Likely Republican Primary Voters, followed by Santorum with 21%.
Quote For Today:
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
