Witch’s Will For A January Morning

My Pick of the Litter Today

3 Incredibly Outrageous Evasions by Hillary Clinton About Benghazi


During a long day of testifying before House and Senate panels, outgoing Secretary of State – and presumptive Democratic Party candidate for the presidency in 2016 – Hillary Clinton batted away contentious questions from Republicans like Ted Williams at a Little League game. She also soaked up extreme adulation from Democrats (including a a not-so-coded call to run for president by Sen. Barbara Boxer, who said, “You will be missed, but I for one hope for not too long”).

The scene reminded me of nothing so much as Oliver North’s appearance before a joint Congressional committee investigating Iran-Contra back in the 1980s. Not because of anything Clinton said but the way that she carried herself and the ease with which she wrapped herself in the flag and tragedy to obscure the simple fact that she wasn’t going to answer anything. North famously showed up to testify in a military uniform that had nothing to do with his day job of subverting the U.S. Constitution from the basement of the Reagan White House. Clinton couldn’t repeat that fashion statement but she was able to pound the table and choke up at all the right moments to evade serious discussion not simply of major screw-ups, but major screw-ups that will go unaccounted for.

Three major evasions from her appearances yesterday include:

1. “I take responsiblity.”

From a Fox News report of the Senate hearing:

During the opening of the hearing, Clinton said she has “no higher priority” than the security of her department’s staff, and that she is committed to making the department “safer, stronger and more secure.”

“As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right,” Clinton said, later choking up when describing how she greeted the families of the victims when the caskets were returned.

Taking responsibility is the classic dodge in Washington, where pols assume the mantle of leadership and them promptly do nothing to address the situation for which they are in hot water. What does it mean to take responsiblity for the absolute breakdown of security at a consulate where your ambassador gets murdered (along with three others)? Judging from Clinton’s subsequent actions, nothing other than showing up when the dead are brought home. Worse still is Clinton’s misting up over the tragedy. That makes her a little too much like the kid who kills his parents and then asks the court to take mercy on him because he’s now an orphan.

2. “1.43 million cables come to my office.”

ABC News reporting from the House hearings:

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, asked Clinton this afternoon why her office had not responded to a notification from Stevens about potential dangers in Libya.

“Congressman, that cable did not come to my attention,” Clinton calmly told the House Foreign Affairs Committee hours after her Senate testimony this morning. “I’m not aware of anyone within my office, within the secretary’s office having seen that cable.”

She added that “1.43 million cables come to my office. They’re all addressed to me.”

Come on, already. The question is plainly not whether Clinton is reading every goddamned communication addressed to her but whether she’s got the right people in charge of assessing risk and making sure resources are apportioned accordingly. Tragically, the answer was no, especially given the fact that State had cut security in Benghazi despite attacks prior to the deadly 9/11 one! This just ain’t no way to run things.


More Stuff:

Obama unbound

 by Charles Krauthammer

The media herd is stunned to discover that Barack Obama is a man of the left. After 699 teleprompted presidential speeches, the commentariat was apparently still oblivious. Until Monday’s inaugural address, that is.

Where has everyone been these four years? The only surprise is that Obama chose his second inaugural, generally an occasion for “malice toward none” ecumenism, to unveil so uncompromising a left-liberal manifesto.


Thousands to March For Life in Washington Friday

  by Katie Pavlich

Today thousands of pro-lifers will take to the streets of Washington D.C. and face freezing weather conditions to send one message: life must be protected. The annual March for Life kicks off this afternoon on the National Mall. This year’s theme revolves around the 40th annivesary of Roe v. Wade and the March for Life is reminding people of the 55,000,000 million lives that have been taken since the landmark decision was made to legalize abortion.


 Hypocrite of the Day Award Goes To…


Guns and the President

Who has killed more children, Lanza or Obama?

by Andrew Napolitano

Here is an uncomfortable pop quiz: Who has killed more children, Adam Lanza or Barack Obama? We’ll hold off on the answer for a few paragraphs while we look at the state of governmental excess—including killing—in America. But you can probably guess the correct answer from the manner in which I have posed the question.

We all know that the sheet anchor of our liberties is the Declaration of Independence. The president himself quoted Thomas Jefferson’s most famous line in his inaugural address earlier this week. He recognized that all men and women are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The president would no doubt like to modify the word “created” to read “shall be maintained,” since his presidency seems dedicated to keeping us equal, not in terms of equality of rights and opportunity but of outcome. He has dedicated himself to using the coercive power of the federal government to take from those who have and give to those who don’t. Under the Constitution, charity is a decision for individuals to make, not the government.

This forced egalitarianism was never the purpose of government in America. When the people in the original 13 states gave up some of their personal liberties to create their state governments so they could perform the services that governments in the West do, and when the states themselves gave up some of their liberties to create the federal government of limited powers to address the issues of nationhood, they never authorized government to impose taxes to transfer wealth to those who lack it or need it.


What Up With Republicans?

Rand Paul to John Kerry: If it was wrong to bomb Cambodia without Congress’s approval, why is bombing Libya without approval okay?

Excellent, and not just the Libya stuff. Stick with it for Paul’s questions about how smart it is to be arming the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt when Morsi is already wheezing about Jews controlling the media in official diplomatic sessions with the U.S.

If you’re wondering why it fell to Paul to ask this question instead of any of the more senior senators who preceded him, it’s because the Senate was perfectly happy to have Obama act unilaterally on Libya.

The Iraq war authorization came back to haunt many of them; no one knew at the time how messy Libya might get. O did them a favor, left and right, by freeing them from a tough vote.

But Kerry can’t say that so instead he squirms through a few minutes of how the two bombing campaigns are different because they just are. Frankly, Paul let him off easy.

You could, if you chose, defend U.S. actions in Cambodia as a cross-border extension of the war already being fought in Vietnam. No such defense for Libya; if anything, the Libya war cut against the AUMF against Al Qaeda that was passed after 9/11 because, as we’ve recently learned, eliminating Qadaffi was actually a boon to jihadist groups like AQ.



Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

Since 1960, entitlement transfers have grown twice as fast as personal income—to $2.3 trillion annually.

By Nicholas Eberstadt

In President Obama’s second inaugural address, he not only outlined an ambitious agenda for his second term but also seemed intent on shutting down debate about the social-welfare state and its impact on American life.

“The commitments we make to each other—through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security—these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us,” Mr. Obama said. “They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.” In other words, the president is tired of listening to critics of America’s entitlement programs, and as far as he is concerned, the discussion is now over.

It is not over—and won’t be anytime soon, because the country’s social-welfare spending is generating severe and mounting hazards for the nation. These hazards are not only fiscal but moral.

A growing body of empirical evidence points to increasing dependency on state largess. The evidence documents as well a number of perverse and disturbing changes that this entitlement state is imposing on society.


AND, a discussion is not over because the POS POTUS says it’s over. It’s over when the people of this country say it’s over. Of course we know that the lazy-assed “takers” who support and vote for Obama while waiting for their Welfare Check want the discussion to be over. Because they are too damn stupid to realize that they doom themselves and their children to a mere existance and not a life. Some few will “rise” anyway. But the rest will stay mired in dependency.

  It’s the Message, Morons

On  November 6, 2012, almost 66  million Americans traded the nation’s future for a chance to worship a  false god. In a country of over 315 million people, a minority of eligible voters traded prosperity for the illusion of forced  fairness.

In  reelecting Barack Obama, with fewer votes than in 2008, voters traded harmony  for the divisiveness of America’s most polarizing president.

Woody Allen said, “eighty percent of success is just showing up.” How  true, because a little more than 20% of America has successfully forced upon the  nation 4 more years of Barack the failure.

Yet,  in providing Obama with another term, during which he can continue to remake  America in his own image, those 66  million voters convinced the president that he is omnipotent and whatever he  wishes is not only wise, but inevitable.

Barack  Obama is the worst thing to ever happen to this nation, and most Americans support neither him nor his policies. But, his  legions of lackeys, in true minion fashion, back him with all their heart, and  since they have successfully controlled the message, they have intimidated the  majority into believing they are the minority.

Barack  Obama, redolent with the stench of false supremacy, is now convinced that he is  the greatest man to have ever lived — not too difficult a task, since he had  always suspected as much anyway.


Our Most Polarizing President

by Peter Wehner

Barack Obama is a record-setting president.

He is the most polarizing president in the history of polling.


  Scarborough: Blood Will Be On Pentagon’s Hands If It Lowers Standards For Women

Joe Scarborough was a voice in the politically-correct wilderness this morning  on the subject of women in combat.  On today’s Morning Joe, as  other panelists voiced unerring if occasionally cautious support for the  Pentagon’s decision to permit women in combat, Scarborough sounded a stern  warning note.

“I’ll be damned; if we find out that the Pentagon  is lowering standards for politically-correct reasons, then you know what? Then  the blood of dead Americans in future battles will be on their hands.”

Scarborough went on to make the point that although co-host Mika Brzezinski is  in much better shape than he is, she would be unable to carry his 230-pound  frame off a battle field should he be wounded, whereas he’d be able to hoist her  125 pounds over his shoulder and keep going.  Among the panelists, MSNBC  contributor and exec Richard Wolffe was predictably the most supportive of the  new policy, claiming that “we’ve moved beyond”  debate over the wisdom on  women in the combat.


  Barack Obama’s new ‘grassroots’ group isn’t quite

When President Barack Obama rolled out his new political outfit last week, he and his allies declared  it would be powered by grassroots activists and change politics from outside  Washington.

Not exactly.

In its first days, Organizing for Action has closely affiliated  itself with insider liberal organizations funded by mega-donors like George Soros and corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Citi  and Duke Energy.

And it has quietly sought support from the same rich donors who backed  Obama’s campaigns, asking for help from Democratic donors and bundlers in town  for the Inauguration at a closed-door corporate-sponsored confab that featured  Bill Clinton as the keynote speaker.

In fact, invitations for the Saturday meeting at the Newseum where Organizing  for Action was unveiled for the liberal big-money set came from Obama’s National  Finance Committee (one member of which gave a transferable ticket to POLITICO),  as well as the Presidential Inaugural Committee, the Center for American  Progress and Media Matters.


  NRA Boycott Forces Nation’s Largest Outdoor Show To Cancel Event After They Banned “Modern Sporting Rifles”…

The Harrisburg Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show, the nation’s largest annual gathering of sporting outfitters, hunters, sportsman, shooters and others, has been postponed indefinitely after facing massive backlash over a new policy banning the display and sale of “modern sporting rifles.” The policy was implemented Monday and just five days later, the show has been cancelled after being scheduled to take place February 2-10 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.


Hillary’s 2016 Campaign Bumper Sticker

Media Morons:

Where Did Piers Morgan Come From, Anyway?
He’s new to you, but my fellow Brit has been a craven opportunist for decades.

American conservatives have found themselves a new and unlikely bogeyman in the shape of (my fellow) Brit Piers Morgan, whose profile in the U.S. has risen in recent weeks as a result of his theatrical contributions to the debate over guns.

Morgan’s rudeness to pro-gun guests, dismissive attitude to the U.S. Constitution and the Bible, and generally anti-conservative tone have led his detractors to call him a liberal. The fact that he’s British has added an element of B-movie villainy, as if Morgan were a haughty redcoat general intent on personally confiscating Americans’ guns.

But while he may walk the liberal walk and talk the liberal talk, Morgan is no liberal; he has no discernible political philosophy. He’s an unprincipled, relentlessly self-promoting opportunist, a disgraced tabloid hack who doesn’t care whom he offends or how foolish he looks as long as he’s the center of attention. Morgan’s stance on a given subject is determined not by ideology, but by what will generate the most controversy, get him the most coverage, and strengthen his hand when negotiating his next book or TV deal. His efforts been given added urgency of late by the need to boost the paltry ratings of his CNN show.


Rotten to the Core (Part 2): Readin’, Writin’ and Deconstructionism

by Michelle Malkin

(This is the second part of an ongoing series on federal “Common Core” education standards and the corruption of academic excellence.)

The Washington, D.C., board of education earned widespread mockery this week when it proposed allowing high school students — in the nation’s own capital — to skip a basic U.S. government course to graduate. But this is fiddlesticks compared to what the federal government is doing to eliminate American children’s core knowledge base in English, language arts and history.

Thanks to the “Common Core” regime, funded with President Obama’s stimulus dollars and bolstered by duped Republican governors and business groups, deconstructionism is back in style. Traditional literature is under fire. Moral relativism is increasingly the norm. “Standards” is Orwell-speak for subjectivity and lowest common denominator pedagogy.

Take the Common Core literacy “standards.” Please. As literature professors, writers, humanities scholars, secondary educators and parents have warned over the past three years, the new achievement goals actually set American students back by de-emphasizing great literary works for “informational texts.” Challenging students to digest and dissect difficult poems and novels is becoming passe. Utilitarianism uber alles.

The Common Core English/language arts criteria call for students to spend only half of their class time studying literature, and only 30 percent of their class time by their junior and senior years in high school.

Under Common Core, classics such as “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” are of no more academic value than the pages of the Federal Register or the Federal Reserve archives — or a pro-Obamacare opinion essay in The New Yorker. Audio and video transcripts, along with “alternative literacies” that are more “relevant” to today’s students (pop song lyrics, for example), are on par with Shakespeare.

English professor Mary Grabar describes Common Core training exercises that tell teachers “to read Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address without emotion and without providing any historical context. Common Core reduces all ‘texts’ to one level: the Gettysburg Address to the EPA’s Recommended Levels of Insulation.” Indeed, in my own research, I found one Common Core “exemplar” on teaching the Gettysburg Address that instructs educators to “refrain from giving background context or substantial instructional guidance at the outset.”


Joe Biden made another one of his famous gaffes on camera Monday, saying he was proud to be president of the United States. I guess he forgot he wasn’t at home standing in front of the bathroom mirror.” – Jay Leno

Flashback: Obama couldn’t be seen in Israel in 2008 with Hagel

by Jennifer Rubin

Largely unremarked upon, an incident in the 2008 presidential campaign reflects just how horrendous Chuck Hagel’s relationship with Israel was — and the Obama campaign’s full awareness of this phenomenon.

Sam Stein of Huffington Post in July 2008 accused the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) of misleading voters by calling on then candidate Barack Obama to disinvite Hagel from the Israel part of his Mideast trip that began in Iraq and Afghanistan. Stein wrote it wasn’t necessary to disinvite Hagel since the Obama campaign knew all too well he couldn’t be seen with the anti-Israel senator and had already disinvited him:

An official at a major Jewish organization with long-standing ties to the Democratic Party said, “The question is what did then-Sen. Obama know about Sen. Hagel’s views on Israel that caused him to ditch him at that critical time?”


Worth a Read:

Biden Admits Majority of Gun Deaths Not Caused by Assault Weapons


Senators not in ‘millionaires’ club’ would be hurt by lost paychecks


Emails show FBI investigating Sen. Bob Menendez for sleeping with underage  Dominican prostitutes


Oregon Lawmaker Wants Prescription-Only Cigarettes



 A  hypocrite is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then  mount the stump and make a speech for conservation. ~ Adlai E.  Stevenson

Or a liberal who uses millions of gallons of jet fuel to fly around the world to tell the rest of us that we must consume less.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s