Witch’s Will For A Sunday In January
Feel Good Story For A Sunday Morning:
What Goes Around – Comes Around
One day a man saw an old lady, stranded on the side of the road, but even in the dim light of day, he could see she needed help. So he pulled up in front of her Mercedes and got out. His Pontiac was still sputtering when he approached her.
Even with the smile on his face, she was worried. No one had stopped to help for the last hour or so. Was he going to hurt her? He didn’t look safe; he looked poor and hungry. He could see that she was frightened, standing out there in the cold. He knew how she felt. It was those chills which only fear can put in you. He said, “I’m here to help you, ma’am. Why don’t you wait in the car where it’s warm? By the way, my name is Bryan Anderson.”
Well, all she had was a flat tire, but for an old lady, that was bad enough. Bryan crawled under the car looking for a place to put the jack, skinning his knuckles a time or two. Soon he was able to change the tire. But he had to get dirty and his hands hurt. As he was tightening up the lug nuts, she rolled down the window and began to talk to him. She told him that she was from St. Louis and was only just passing through. She couldn’t thank him enough for coming to her aid.
Bryan just smiled as he closed her trunk. The lady asked how much she owed him. Any amount would have been all right with her. She already imagined all the awful things that could have happened had he not stopped. Bryan never thought twice about being paid. This was not a job to him. This was helping someone in need, and God knows there were plenty, who had given him a hand in the past. He had lived his whole life that way, and it never occurred to him to act any other way. He told her that if she really wanted to pay him back, the next time she saw someone who needed help, she could give that person the assistance they needed, and Bryan added, “And think of me.” He waited until she started her car and drove off. It had been a cold and depressing day, but he felt good as he headed for home, disappearing into the twilight.
A few miles down the road the lady saw a small cafe. She went in to grab a bite to eat, and take the chill off before she made the last leg of her trip home. It was a dingy looking restaurant. Outside were two old gas pumps. The whole scene was unfamiliar to her. The waitress came over and brought a clean towel to wipe her wet hair. She had a sweet smile, one that even being on her feet for the whole day couldn’t erase. The lady noticed the waitress was nearly eight months pregnant, but she never let the strain and aches change her attitude. The old lady wondered how someone who had so little could be so giving to a stranger. Then she remembered Bryan.
After the lady finished her meal, she paid with a hundred dollar bill. The waitress quickly went to get change for her hundred dollar bill, but the old lady had slipped right out the door. She was gone by the time the waitress came back. The waitress wondered where the lady could be. Then she noticed something written on the napkin.
There were tears in her eyes when she read what the lady wrote: “You don’t owe me anything. I have been there too. Somebody once helped me out, the way I’m helping you. If you really want to pay me back, here is what you do: Do not let this chain of love end with you.” Under the napkin were four more $100 bills.
Well, there were tables to clear, sugar bowls to fill, and people to serve, but the waitress made it through another day. That night when she got home from work and climbed into bed, she was thinking about the money and what the lady had written. How could the lady have known how much she and her husband needed it? With the baby due next month, it was going to be hard…. She knew how worried her husband was, and as he lay sleeping next to her, she gave him a soft kiss and whispered soft and low, “Everything’s going to be all right. I love you, Bryan Anderson.”
There is an old saying “What goes around comes around.”
For Best Article This Morning:
The Democracy Initiative: a Coup in Plain Sight
By Clarice Feldman
Matthew Continetti, one of my favorite writers, wrote an eye opener last week, “‘A Conspiracy so Immense': ideological commitment and the timidity of pragmatic politics”, too late for me to discuss in my column. It is one of the most important stories you’ll ever read anywhere and shows how far behind conservatives are in the fight against “progressive ” ideologues.
He picks up on a report by Andy Kroll in Mother Jones about a coordinated effort by about 36 different interest groups with reported revenues of no less than $1.69 billion, pledging millions of dollars to work together to attack conservative supporters and organizations, to intervene directly in Democratic politics, to push for filibuster reform to better enable a push through their agenda without any input from the opposition, and expanding “voting rights” and fighting voter registration laws to further grease the skids for their legislative agenda.
The group’s organizers are Michael Brune, formerly director of the radical Rainforest Action Network, and presently director of the Sierra Club , Phil Radford, head of Greenpeace, Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America and Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP.
All of this is taking place with no comment by the media — which like their counterparts in academia, Hollywood. Silicon Valley (and unfortunately too many big corporations) — are ideological partners in “progressivism”.
Here are some of the highlights of the article, though I strongly urge you read it all:
1. Who belongs: Kroll didn’t name all the participants in the organization’s latest retreat in December which took place within blocks of the White House at the headquarters of the National Education Association. Here are those he did name:
“the AFL-CIO, the Center for American Progress, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Color of Change, Common Cause, Demos, the Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, Mother Jones (in a “non-editorial” capacity!), National People’s Action, the National Wildlife Federation, People for the American Way, the Piper Fund, Public Campaign, the Service Employees International Union, the United Auto Workers, and Voto Latino. Brune of the Sierra Club predicts there will be 50 participating organizations by spring.”
2. How much money will they throw into their effort? Continetti thinks there should be “at least two high numerals inserted before Kroll’s estimate of “millions of dollars”. This from people claiming they want to get money out of politics.
Continetti repeatedly attacks the mainstream media for failing to cover this story, concluding,
What little we know of the Democracy Initiative provides a useful lesson in the ability of fantasy to inspire political action. Progressivism sets the political and cultural and social agenda; it is embedded in Hollywood, in Silicon Valley, in the academy, in journalism, and in much of corporate America; many of the richest counties in the nation support liberal Democrats; President Obama outraised and out-spent his Republican challenger; the combined budgets of progressive interest groups and foundations and think tanks and nonprofits and community organizations is practically incalculable; the most liberal president since Lyndon Baines Johnson is barreling ahead with a confrontational and ideological approach to cabinet appointments and budget fights; Republicans and conservatives are in their greatest state of shock and disarray since 1992 and perhaps since 1964; and yet progressive elites such as the well-compensated Radford of Greenpeace still are swinging at the windmill of the “40-plus-year strategy by the Scaifes, Exxons, Coors, and Kochs of the world” to “take over the country.”
Someone needs to give the members of the Democracy Initiative a tap on the shoulder, a kick in the pants, a wonk-like nudge — anything to wake them from their fantasy of being weak and isolated and besieged, anything to alert them to the fact that it is they, not “the Scaifes, Exxons, Coors, and Kochs of the world” who actually run the country and therefore ought to be covered in a diligent, scrupulous, and adversarial fashion. One thing is for sure: It won’t be the mainstream media that holds the progressive movement to account.
Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom, like me, found the Continetti article extremely important. Jeff’s forte is language as a tool to stifle debate and control thinking, and he viewed the article largely from that angle.
It is post-modernist philosophy put into physical usage: we have witnessed, if we cared to take notice, the studied and inexorable deconstruction of our Constitution, such that we now have laws deemed Constitutional by the Court that claim that of course a country formed on a Declaration of Independence from a tyrannical centralized authority can be compelled by that centralized authority to enter into private contracts — and that businesses be compelled to offer those contracts — the specifics of which are set by the central government. We have a Court that deemed it Constitutional that of course the government can take private land and give it to a shopping mall developer if the promise of increased revenue for that government comes to be considered and act in the public interest. And soon, we’ll be told that “shall not be infringed” is naturally open to infringements of all kinds, because shut up and think of the children.
“Equality” today means equality of outcome, or egalitarianism and homogeneity. “Tolerance” today means how dare you give offense — and your “hate speech” must be controlled. “Fair share” today means an immensely disproportionate amount is paid by those scapegoated by the left and given over to the left’s cronies, with some crumbs going to the poor, who become more and more entrenched in their dependence on the state, and more and more permanent clients to the state’s war on the free market.
To anyone who has studied language — and done so in a way where they didn’t feel compelled to follow the academic party line and pretend the sophistry of the post-structural movement, which has reached its zenith (or from the perspective of Enlightenment classical liberalism, its nadir) in anti-foundationalism — the physical, policy manifestations of such a corruption of our epistemology, informed by the premises we accept for the language that must necessarily describe and construct that epistemology, was an inevitability. As certain linguistic kernel assumptions were adopted, entrenched, and finally institutionalized — by all political stripes (“Yay, it’s the ‘democratization of language and meaning!’ We’re all for democracy! Go us!” — the effects of that adoption, played out in the world of language where language has performative functions (and no where is this more so than in law and legislative policy), were preordained: collectivism, consensus, mob rule, all dressed up in the finery of studied, rigorous legal interpretation that, once certain conditions for “interpreting” were legitimated, were inevitable. And that’s precisely because the kernel assumptions were all cleverly laid by collectivists to deconstruct and or subsume the notion of individualism on every level.
This is a coup. And we’ve relied on cowards, charlatans, or know-nothings on “our” side to help push back against it.
Although I had no idea of the scope of the conspiracy I caught a glimmer of it in the article by John Dickerson over at Slate who wrote that Obama must “destroy” the GOP. That alerted me and this frightens me beyond the fright I all ready felt for my country.
Other Interesting Articles
O smells blood in gun push
by Michael Goodwin
The promise has an ominous sound. Provoking memories of the eerie music in “Jaws” when the shark circles the boat, Team Obama is revving up its campaign machine for the showdown over gun control.
“We’re going to take this fight to the halls of Congress,” Vice President Joe Biden warned. “We’re going to take it to the American people. We’re going to go around the country making our case.”
Do-do, do-do, thump-thump-thump-thump. America is gonna need a bigger boat to survive the onslaught of the permanent campaign.
Welcome to Obama 2.0, which is shaping up like a carbon copy of the first term, only without the velvet gloves hiding the brass knuckles.
“We have a remarkable opportunity right now to change our country,” Obama campaign boss Jim Messina said in an e-mail to supporters. “And if we can take the enthusiasm and passion that people showed throughout the campaign and channel it into the work ahead of us, we will be unstoppable.”
Do-do, do-do, thump-thump-thump-thump. Don’t go in the water!
The idea that campaigns settle things seems quaint in our hyper-politicized times. That is doubly so when, even before he takes the oath tomorrow, the president shows he has no intention of trying to heal the nation’s wounds or reconcile its divisions. He’s at war against half of his own country, and he must like it that way.
Assemble the adoring crowds, set up the teleprompters, go on the attack. Repeat.
It is an American tragedy that, with the nation’s first black president being sworn in on the holiday for Martin Luther King Jr., there is so little confidence in Obama’s leadership. A Wall Street Journal poll finds only 12 percent trust his ability to work with Congress.
There will be no holiday from his habit of treating Americans who don’t agree with him as enemies, as he proved when he rolled out his gun-control package.
“There will be pundits and politicians and special-interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty — not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves,” he claimed.
See, dissent is evidence of sinister motives. We’ve heard it before, during the fight over ObamaCare and the campaign on raising taxes. We will hear it on climate change and immigration.
Only the president is pure, above politics. So when he unleashes his campaign team to function as the spear tip of White House policy, The New York Times actually calls it “a grassroots effort.” Watch for TV ads like those that accused Mitt Romney of being a felon and causing cancer.
Where the States Stand on Obamacare
What the heck? CNN “journalist” has been writing letters to Obama every day of his first term.
CNN should be embarrassed that they’ve kept this guy in their employment for the past four years. To allow someone with what appears to be a quite unhealthy obsession with President Obama to work as a “journalist” is unconscionable. Then again, it seems most of the media has an unhealthy obsession with Obama. Unlike Tom Foreman, however, they’re just not willing to admit it publicly.
Highlights what a lot of us were convinced was wrong with CNN.
This is one of their “journalists”? Seriously?
File this one under “R” for R U kidding me?
Utah business owner charges liberal customers extra while another fires two employees for supporting Obama … and it’s all LEGAL
First owner George Burnett charged liberals a dollar more than conservatives at his Vernal, Utah smoothie shop.
Now, another Utah business owner — evidently inspired by that political stand — has fired two employees for supporting President Obama.
And it’s all completely legal.
Burnett, the owner of I Love Drilling Juice & Smoothie Bar, started charging liberals a $1 more than conservatives for his smoothies.
‘They’re costing us money,’ he told The Salt Lake Tribune about his left-leaning customers. ‘So it only seems fair that I charge them a little bit more.’
His menu board above the register clearly states that liberals will pay $5.95 for a 16-ounce smoothie or juice, while conservatives pay $4.95.
George Packer, writing in The New Yorker, warns that President Obama’s upcoming inaugural address may be “a bit of a snooze.” He says most inaugural addresses are. Obama “isn’t a phrasemaker,” because he is “too complex, too nuanced, too elusive, and too careful, for words that stick.” Packer doubts that even the “signature phrase” from Obama’s first inaugural address — “a new era of responsibility” — will “enter the ages.” About that, he is undoubtedly right.
Packer notes, however, that Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Reagan, and Bush 43 all gave inaugural addresses that included memorable phrases. Since it seems unlikely that all those presidents were significantly less complex, nuanced, elusive, and careful than Obama, we need an alternate theory to explain the point of Packer’s piece. Let’s review what he wrote about Obama’s first inaugural address, which is somewhat different from what one might expect, given Packer’s current comments.
On January 20, 2009, Packer wrote that Obama’s address had “echoes of Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt.” Its “tone and vision” had been “absolutely equal to the occasion and the times.” The “most eloquent words” were addressed to the entire world: “we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.” The most “passionately delivered” lines began: “We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waiver in its defense.” In short, Obama “delivered something better than rhetorical excitement” – he had spoken “the truth,” which “carries its own poetry,” and he had made “impossible” the job of the poet following him that day.
Four years later, Packer remembers only a single phrase — the not-for-the-ages “new era of responsibility” — and cautions that the history of inaugural addresses suggests Obama’s one Monday may slightly bore us. What’s going on here?
Notice the ever-present teleprompter? This “genious” can’t even memorize a speech. Smartest president ever? Not even close!
Thanks to pick-up artists who’re convincing men that women love jerks, being a jerk is back in. Of course, maybe we should be pointing the finger at the women who really do like jerks instead of the guys in goggles and top hats who point it out?
On the other hand, given that gossip mags do nothing but breathlessly report on celebrities acting like jerks and ordinary jerks are being given their own reality shows left and right to showcase their “jerkiness,” maybe they’re to blame? Could the increase in jerkiliciousness even be just a general degeneration of manners caused by South Park, the Internet & the existence of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo?
Whatever the case may be, jerks tend to be a lot more tolerable in theory than in practice. Not only does their personality make them fail, it makes you want to see them fail. Of course, not every jerk is doing it on purpose or is completely irredeemable. Sometimes, you may act like a jerk without realizing it, which is why it should make you a little bit nervous if you sound like this….
5. Arrogance: I can top that!
Forget about having a healthy ego and ante up a little Kanye-West-style bluster. Show off, brag, dominate the conversation, grab the mike to express your displeasure at an awards show because you disagree with the judges’ choice. It’s all about you, after all. These peons you’re talking at? They’re lucky to be standing near someone like you and they need to be made aware of it. Whatever they do, you can do better, and these little people need to know what a big, big man they’re talking to right now!
4. Ingratitude: Thanks….for nothing!
Just because your friend spent eight hours last Saturday helping you move out of your apartment doesn’t mean you’re obliged to spend 30 minutes of your time helping him move a table. Additionally, it was nice of your mother to give you $150 to pay your electric bill, but that’s what mothers do, isn’t it? That doesn’t mean you have to visit her on her birthday! Giving is supposed to be its own reward, right? Additionally, it’s not like you’re writing up a contract that says, “You helped me when I was in a jam; so I owe you something in return,” right? You’re so wonderful that people just give you things and they don’t even expect a little gratitude in return.
Sounds like someone was as annoyed by that stupid commercial as I was.
NRA More Popular Than Hollywood
With polls showing that our Second Amendment is still nearly as popular as ever, one is tempted to think that our guns are safe, for now. A new poll, for instance, even shows that the National Rifle Association is more popular than Hollywood.
The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that, even after the crime at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, ratings for the NRA did not much stray from the 41 percent approval it has enjoyed since 2011.
On the other hand, only 24 percent of respondents had a positive view of the entertainment industry.
That isn’t the only good news for the NRA. “The NRA also got some positive reflections elsewhere,” said Washington Times reporter Jennifer Harper on Thursday.
“A new CNN/Time/ORC survey conducted in mid-January found that nearly half of Americans–48 percent–‘agree with the positions’ of the group. Seventy two percent of Republicans and 28 percent of Democrats agreed,” Harper wrote.
Polls by Gallup tend to agree that the NRA’s standing with the American public hasn’t much changed, even after the Colorado theater shooting and the incident at Sandy Hook Elementary.
Finally, another Gallup poll from December found that, similar to the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, the NRA is also more popular than the media.
Kimmel Catches Obama Supporters Gushing Over Inauguration Ceremony That Hasn’t Happened
CBS News’ Political Director: Obama Must ‘Destroy’ Republican Party
Reading the Left’s fevered desires over at Slate isn’t anything new.
Not even articles breathlessly titled and subtitled:
Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.
Not even articles that read:
The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat. …
Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.
Slate is what it is and some bloodthirsty Slate writer orgasmic over the prospect of Obama permanently pulverizing and destroying the GOP is as noteworthy as green on grass.
Oh, except after someone like Brit Hume connects the dots.
The author of this outrageous left-wing fever dream is John Dickerson, whom Slate describes as “Slate’s chief political correspondent”. What Slate leaves out of its little bio, though, is that Dickerson is also the political director at CBS News.
I had wondered why, after I just read a few words of John Dickerson’s scread, even the title is offensive, why no one seemed outraged at what he has written.
I don’t like and don’t support the Democrats. I do not support destroying their party. Defeat them with ideas, ideals, facts and at the polls. Something a POS like Dickerson, well-named isn’t he, would never understand.
Aww: Tina Fey tired of being mistaken for Sarah Palin
Tina Fey isn’t thrilled that she’s constantly associated with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whom she famously impersonated during the 2008 presidential election.
From Rolling Stone:
As the late-middle-aged couple at the table next to us get up, the male half approaches, grinning: “Excuse me, aren’t you Governor Sarah Palin?” It’s so lame that Fey can barely manage a quarter of a fake smile. “Not for, like, three years now,” she says, looking as if she’d like to dive under the table.
The guy has his gag, though, and he’s going to run with it. “I so enjoy watching you on Fox,” he says.
“Thank you, have a nice day,” she replies. As he walks away, she murmurs, “Until the day I die. Until the day I die.”
Sonia Sotomayor’s Disappointing Memoir
The Supreme Court justice sheds little light on her legal approach.
In May 2009, shortly after Justice David Souter announced his retirement from the Supreme Court but before President Barack Obama got around to announcing his replacement, The New Republicpublished an article entitled “The Case Against Sotomayor.” Written by legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen, the piece quoted several unnamed legal officials, including federal prosecutors and law clerks, who had worked directly with Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s presumed favorite to replace Souter. They were not impressed with her qualifications.
“They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices,” Rosen wrote. These legal insiders wanted “the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible,” he continued, and they feared Sotomayor was not up to the job.
It was a damning exposé, especially coming from Rosen, a respected legal analyst writing at one of the flagship magazines of modern liberalism. And although the story failed to derail Sotomayor’s nomination, it cast a shadow of doubt that continues to follow her on the bench.
Sonia Sotomayor does not mention this troubling episode in her new memoir, My Beloved World, nor does she do much to dispel any lingering liberal doubts. In fact, she ends her memoir in the year 1992, culminating with her decision to leave private practice at a powerful law firm in order to be confirmed as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Aside from a brief mention of the surprise and humility she felt 17 years later when the president nominated her for Souter’s seat on the Supreme Court, there is no discussion of Sotomayor’s many years as a federal judge and no mention of any sort of legal philosophy that might be guiding her approach to the law.
In other words another autobiography that could have remained unwritten. So many of these people believe we find them as fascinating as they find themselves. In her case, yawn, not impressed, not interested and not found worthy of respect.
Our tangled foreign-policy problems
The desert sands of Mali and Algeria provide an unlikely arena for an existential challenge to the global alliance system the United States has managed since World War II. But the hesitant and timid U.S. and European Union responses to the crisis in northwestern Africa drip like acid on the rock of alliance cohesion.
The Obama administration’s self-described preference to lead from behind in messy conflicts in the Islamic world has much value for war-weary, financially strapped Americans. But great care must be taken with that approach to avoid driving U.S. leadership into a strategic dead end.
After days of very public hesitations by Washington and Brussels to provide even non-lethal help — such as in-air refueling — to France’s reluctant intervention in Mali, the United States and the 27-nation European Union committed just four transport aircraft to the effort.
Why Does Obama ignore FOX at New Conferences
Kirsten Powers: Obama Ignores Fox at News Conferences ‘Because He Doesn’t Want to be Embarrassed’
Supposedly the most powerful man in the world and he’s afaid to take questions from a reporter at FOX? What a puny little chickenshit!
Worth a Read:
In gun control push, Obama abandons logic and facts
“Wall-Street-Bonus” Lew to Replace “Tax-Avoider” Geithner at Treasury
strong young man at the construction site was bragging that he
could outdo anyone in a feat of strength. He made a special case of making fun
of Morris, one of the older workmen. After several minutes, Morris had enough.
“Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is?” he said. “I will bet a week’s wages that I can haul something in a wheelbarrow over to that outbuilding that you won’t be able to wheel back.”
“You’re on, old man,” the braggart replied. “It’s a bet! Let’s see what you got.”
Morris reached out and grabbed the wheelbarrow by the handles. Then, nodding to the young man, he said, “All right. Get in.”
Quote For A Sunday Morning:
“He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good.” ~ Confucius