Witch’s Will For A January Morning

My Pick of the Litter Today

Rubio’s Amnesty: A Path to Oblivion for the GOP

  by Ann Coulter

Apart from finding out that Barack Obama did far worse in his re-election than nearly any other incumbent who won re-election, the only thing that perked me up after Nov. 6 was coming across a Time magazine published after the 2004 election, when George W. Bush won a second term.

In the mirror image of all the 2012 post-election analyses, the Democrats were said to be finished, out of ideas, hopelessly unpopular. It’s like watching MSNBC, with the word “Democrats” replaced with “Republicans.”

Democrats had thrown everything they had into beating Bush, crushing the Howard Dean wing of their party and running a moderate — a Vietnam veteran, no less! They had George Soros, Michael Moore and Code Pink working like fiends to topple Bush.

Still, they lost to an incumbent. As Time noted, the Democrats had “lost five of the past seven presidential elections.”

But the pendulum swings. The Democrats came roaring back in 2006 and again in 2008. There’s no reason Republicans can’t do the same, unburdened by having to run against an incumbent in 2016.

Unless Marco Rubio has his way.

The Democrats never change their ideas; they change the voters. For decades, Democrats have been working feverishly to create more Democrats by encouraging divorce (another Democratic voter!), illegitimacy (another Democratic voter!) and Third World immigration (another Democratic voter!).

Strangely, some Republicans seem determined to create more Democratic voters, too. That will be the primary result of Sen. Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan.

IT’S NOT AMNESTY! Rubio’s proponents cry. They seem to think they can bully Republicans the way the Democrats do, by controlling the language.

Rubio’s bill is nothing but amnesty. It isn’t even “amnesty thinly disguised as border enforcement.” This is a wolf in wolf’s clothing.


More Stuff:

  The Fall of Journalism

In  the past 30-plus years I’ve interviewed dozens of candidates for jobs in journalism.  Among the questions I always  posed is this one: Why are newspapers published?

To  date, no journalism school graduate has known the answer, which is, of course,  to make money for the  publisher.

Last  year I participated in a get-together with journalism students from the local  college.  I asked my question and received the same b.s. answers as always  (“To… uh… provide the community with a voice?”)

When  I told the students the answer, the instructor disagreed and repeated the same  nonsense his students had already provided.

Mine  was a common sense observation, gently delivered.  As a friend of mine  recently wrote, “If you want to see heads explode, try explaining to people that  they are not the customer and the newspaper is not the product… advertisers  are the customer and reader attention is the product.”

If  you were to run that past your typical journalism school faculty, the resulting  cranial detonations would register on the geology department’s  seismometer.

And  yet it is entirely, one hundred percent true.

We  in the newsroom should have no illusions.  Our entire purpose is to fill  the “news hole,” which is the space left over after the advertisements have been  placed on the page.

That’s  the fact that underlies Seinfeld’s comical observation: “It’s amazing that the  amount of news that happens in the world every day always just exactly fits the  newspaper.”

It’s  all driven by advertising.

If  newspapers serve the public, that is a happy side effect of the first goal of making money.  And indeed, serving  the public is wholly contingent on making money.

How  these simple facts escape the notice of journalism students and journalism  professors is obvious.  They live in never-never land, where the facts of  life are secondary to ideological engagement.

The  professors are busily preparing their young charges to take verbal arms against  the world’s injustices, as defined by the world’s professors.  The result  is what Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby recently described as a  “lack of ideological diversity” found within most American newsrooms. Jacoby  listed the common attributes, including “the reflexive support for Democrats,  the distaste for religion and the military, the cheerleading for liberal  enthusiasms from gun control to gay marriage ….”

Why  it requires four years to prepare young journalists to go out and save the world  — that is, to remake it in their philosophical image — is beyond  me.

I  have never taken a course in journalism, which I regard as a boon to my career and particularly to my reporting.   I’m occasionally told by a superior, “That’s not the way it’s done.”  When  I ask why, the answer invariably is, “because I was taught you shouldn’t do it  that way.”

Business  owners may recoil at the comment.  I hope they do.  After all, no more  dangerous words are ever spoken in business than, “that’s not the way we do it  here.”

The  result, in part, is a stylistic model that refuses to fully engage with the  reader.

Do  you know why this sentence would be struck through by a copy editor?

Because  I used the word “you.”  The editor would much prefer, “Readers might be  surprised to learn this sentence would be struck through by a copy  editor.”

In  the current media age, where rank exhibitionism is celebrated, we in the  newspaper biz remain too dainty to utilize the enormous engaging power of the  second person.

Of  course, everyone overvalues the academic training they’ve received.  It  makes the debt, hassle, and spent time seem worthwhile, or at least less  futile.

And  imagine the thrill of using “lede,” which is the new spelling of lead, as in the  opening sentence of a story.  Its use provides the pleasing sensation of  possessing specialized knowledge, knowledge well beyond the ken of the average  Joe.

That  is particularly pleasant to those who know so very little about everything  else.


Liar of the day award winner: Barack Obama!

Source: Number Of Times Obama Shot Skeet At Camp David . . . . One…

News of President Obama’s apparently long-secret fondness for skeet shooting came as a surprise to those who say they have witnessed the president’s “awkward” attempts at pinging the (clay) pigeons.

This has only happened with the president at Camp David, at most, a couple of times, according to a source who says he has been to the retreat on a half-dozen visits with Obama.

“The only time he shot skeet was for President’s Cup,” said the source, referring to a shooting competition tradition involving the presidential Marine guards. “I was there. He stayed for about five minutes, and couldn’t leave fast enough.”

Skeet shooting “is very hard,” said the source. “Especially for someone not used to guns … He couldn’t have been more uncomfortable.”

The source said a friend of his recalled Obama skeet shooting one other time at Camp David — very early on in his first term.

The White House did not immediately respond to’s request for comment.

Obama professed his sweetness for skeet shooting during an interview posted online Sunday with The New Republic, when asked if he had ever fired a gun.


 Well surprise, surprise, the POS lied again! Was he trying to pretend he was a big strong man who can handle a gun? Failed again!

Maybe he meant this kind of shooting…

Or maybe he meant this…

The White House’s curious silence about Obama’s claim of skeet shooting

A number of readers have raised questions about the president’s statement that he goes skeet shooting “all the time” while at Camp David. In these suspicious times, they would like to see some evidence.

But the White House has been oddly silent about the matter.

On Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said he did know how often the president has gone skeet shooting and that he has not seen a photograph. “When he goes to Camp David, he goes to spend time with his family and friends and relax, not to produce photographs,” Carney told reporters.


The WaPo “Fact Checker” is also curiously reluctant to call Obama out for his lie. Imagine that!

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz Q&A at Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Guns

What’s Up With the Democrats?

Another Genius Obama Supporter?

Every once in a while you run across something that is so outrageous, it has you in tears from laughter before you can even finish the whole text. Well, I found such an animal and it came in the form of a “Letter to the Editor” published in the local paper for Morehead City, North Carolina. Please brace yourself before reading this letter.  From the Carteret County News-Times:


Republicans and “so-called” conservatives are at it again. They are claiming that the Constitution gives people the right to have guns without the permission of the government. If that were true, then how could New York and Chicago have laws against it?

We Democrats are sick and tired of Republicans constantly using the Constitution to cover up their true plans, which are to make us all afraid of everyone else. Our great president came from a civilized part of the country where there is strict gun control, and he is only trying to bring the benefits of that more modern way of living to the rest of us. I don’t know the exact statistics, but I’m quite certain that Chicago is a lot safer that Morehead City, when it comes to gun violence.

But do Republicans and conservatives listen to the voice of reason? No, of course not. All they want to do is whine and complain about how gun control and wealth redistribution violate the Constitution, as if the Constitution were all that great, anyway. There are a lot of things that need to be changed about the Constitution, I’d say, and President Obama needs to change it.

The Republicans are just trying to stand in the way, because the president is black. They even dared to question whether he was born in this country. I think all this demonstrates that the Constitution needs to be amended when it comes to the qualifications for being president. Right now, it says that a person has to be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen. Well, that is obviously unfair because there are a great many otherwise qualified people who cannot run for president because their mothers had to have a C-section.  But because the Constitution was written a hundred years ago, nobody even thought of the discrimination that would result from a doctor having to deliver a baby in this unnatural way. Now that we Democrats are in control of the government, that’s just one more thing we should change in our drive to make life fair.

Please withhold my name because I don’t want to get crank calls.


Of course my tears of laughter soon turned into tears for America’s future when I realized that this letter may not have been meant to entertain me at all, but could very well be the way this Obama supporter sees America and our current political climate.

It’s not as if we haven’t seen many supporters of President Obama reveal themselves to be absolute dolts. Remember when they interviewed folks that supported him and they  thought Paul Ryan was African-American and Obama’s running mate or that Mitt Romney was Muslim? Or how about the Obama supporters that said they enjoyed an inauguration that hadn’t even taken place yet and went on to say the best parts were the teddy bears and tap routines?

All the Carteret County News-Times really said about this letter was that they attempt to publish every letter they get except ones they think may  be an invasion of privacy, libelous, obscene or plagiarized. So the only one who actually knows what the intent here really was is the person who wrote the letter.

But here’s the bottom line: given the stupidity displayed on a regular basis by so many ardent supporters of President Obama, I have no trouble accepting the very real possibility that the author of this letter not only believes everything they wrote, but thinks they were actually contributing something of value to a political debate. That makes me sad.



Lessons From the Ancient Mayans

What did them in? Who was their Obama?

By R. Emmett  Tyrrell

SANTO TOMAS DE CASTILLA, Guatemala — Wherever is that, you ask? Generally this column comes to you from Washington, D.C. or New York City. Occasionally it comes from London or Paris. Yet today it carries the dateline of a seaport in Guatemala, and if it were written a day ago or two days hence it would carry the dateline of Belize. It is freezing up north. The inclement weather has driven me to tropical parts. Global warming sounds more and more agreeable to me, and frankly if you have your wits about you, to you too. The frozen remains of palm trees have supposedly been found in the melting ice of the poles. Well, that is good news. Bring together a village of Eskimos and notify them of the so-called perils of global warming and, my guess is, they would to a man and a woman all become vociferous advocates of man-made climate change or anthropogenic climate change, as the phrase has it. Think of it? Wearing a bikini in the North Pole. That is progress!

I am aboard the cruise ship Yorktown once again! Last summer we took an amiable crowd of National Reviewand American Spectator readers on a tour of the Great Lakes. This winter we have taken mainly AmSpec readers on a tour of the Mayan ruins in Belize and Guatemala with stops along the way to inspect the barrier reefs, fish life, and even to partake of snorkeling. Also, we are doing a good bit of basking in the sun and snickering at our friends up north.

Of particular interest is the Mayan civilization. It flourished in the jungles of these parts from roughly 1500 B.C. to 1521 A.D., whereupon it ceased. Gone, fini, vanished — just like that! No war nor pestilence nor plague has been detected by modern scholars seeking to explain its passing. There remain great stone edifices: temples, palaces, living-quarters — even evidence of sacred altars for human sacrifice. However, there is no extant evidence as to why Mayan civilization ceased. It was highly advanced with a written language and astronomical literacy. Yet no word has been found that anything was amiss before 1521 A.D. when it utterly ceased to function. There are Mayans around today, but none seems to know why he is not living atop a ruin in the jungle, perhaps with colorful feathers sticking in his hair and a fancy wand or whatever those sticks are that his ancestors are pictured carrying. I doubt it has even occurred to a modern-day Mayan to reclaim a palace or one of the splendid temples in the jungle even for an occasional ritual sacrifice. Perhaps they are too polite. Modern-day Mayans seem to prefer to hang around the village gas station.

American Indians make all manner of extravagant claims on the federal government, some of which have resulted in extravagant restitution. The modern-day Mayans make no such claims down here in Belize or Guatemala. They seem to prefer hanging out at the gas station to taking over a temple or palace. Why does not a local Mayan huckster with a huckster’s gift for dramaturgy and eloquence simply take over a Mayan ruin and declare it his own? Maybe he could even collect taxes. Surely he could take his case to the United Nations or the World Court. Possibly today’s Mayans have suffered a huge failure of the imagination. Possibly it began back in 1521 A.D. when the Mayan civilization went poof. Have modern scholars detected in the records of the ancient Mayans any signs of an awareness of mounting economic problems, of an accumulating unsustainable national debt or of entitlements leading to bankruptcy? The Mayans boasted a rich hieroglyphic language. Is there a word in old Mayan for entitlement? How in Mayan would one spell Obamacare?

The other day as I tripped over a Mayan ruin, some dismal thoughts did occur to me. Could we go the way of the Mayans? Well, I doubt we would leave no evidence of the cause of our demise. True, our godlike leader has never fretted about the problems of entitlements or of unsustainable national debt. If he ever thought seriously about the IOUs being wrung up by the government, he would never have wasted years trying to bring down on us yet another unsustainable entitlement, Obamacare. But there are other leaders in other branches of government who are immensely worried about the perilous state of our economy and about the drift of our leaders away from the Constitution. In the courts, in the House of Representatives, and in the states there is mounting concern that the Progressives in Washington are en route to national decline, if not the end of civilization as we know it.

I had better get back to Washington. There is work to be done.

  No Significant Dem Opposition as Hagel Heads into Nomination Hearing

But Obama’s pick for defense secretary might face a filibuster in the full Senate.

WASHINGTON – Former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is expected to navigate a bumpy path through the Senate Armed Services Committee and ultimately emerge with a recommendation that he be confirmed as the nation’s next secretary of defense.

An aide in the office of Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, of Illinois, confirmed a report that originally appeared in Roll Call maintaining that there is no indication that any of the panel’s Democrats intend to oppose President Obama’s choice to succeed retiring Secretary Leon Panetta at the Pentagon.

Since Democrats outnumber Republicans 14-12 on the committee, the nomination of the Vietnam War veteran from Nebraska is likely headed to the Senate floor for final confirmation barring circumstances like a filibuster.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, of Connecticut, is considered the likeliest Democrat to break from the party. He has acknowledged in interviews that while he respects the right of the president to select his cabinet he does not feel comfortable with some of the positions Hagel has staked out – primarily involving Iraq and Israel – and has refused to make a public commitment. But Blumenthal has said he ultimately expects Hagel to be confirmed.


The best argument against Chuck Hagel: His 2009 speech

by Jennifer Rubin

Defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel’s 2009 speech to J Street confirms that he’s long held views that are out of the mainstream, contrary to the president’s policies and entirely at odds with his new views adopted for his confirmation hearing.

Much of the speech, granted, is empty blather, the type that no one in elite foreign policy circles is likely to mock. But it is comical nevertheless (“Citizens of the world live within the sovereignty of man-made borders – but also within the realities of a global community. Either we understand this and accept these realities of a world of different religions and cultures, and attempt to accommodate these differences, or we will live in a world of perpetual violence and hatred.”) These comment are vapid (“That is also the stark question that presents itself to mankind – will we be wise enough and courageous enough to find man-made solutions to man-made injustice and problems?”)  and assume that the audience is as well. (My personal favorite in the gibberish department: “Our character, our humanity and our wisdom must now find their way to a joining of global realities at another great confluence of historic proportions.”)

Unfortunately a great deal in the speech is laughably wrong and not so laughably dangerous. I’ll go through the speech, highlighting the most egregious passages.

He chastises those who say that at times we have to side with our close ally Israel against its Arab neighbors:

The United States support for Israel need not be … nor should it be … an either-or proposition that dictates our relationships with our Arab allies and friends. The U.S. has a long and special relationship with Israel, but it must not come at the expense of our Arab relationships. That is a false choice, and not in the interest of Israel or the U.S. This is a much used distortion that plays to the single-issue benefits of certain groups. The fact is we all need each other. U.S. interests are served by having strong relationships with both Israelis and Arabs. As is Israel’s interests, reflecting on its relationships with Egypt and Jordan. As long as nations continue to be driven by the lowest common denominator of conflict and instability, they will be incapable of rising above the swamps of conflict to clearly view their long term interests for more than just day-to-day survival. But rather they must give their people a future worthy of the dignity of man.

This divisive strategy – attempting to make the U.S. choose between its relationships with Israelis and Arabs – perpetuates the current state of instability and mistrust … and continues to drive us toward more and deeper conflict.

But of course sometimes we do have to choose, especially when the Arab governments, now including Egypt, engage in rhetorical attacks and fail to live up to their treaty obligations. Hagel, however, comes down foursquare in favor of moral equivalence.

Next is undistilled “linkage” that posits that Israel is the source of trouble in the region and that we can’t solve other threats unless Israel makes a deal with the Palestinians. “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central, not peripheral, to U.S. vital security interests in combating terrorism, preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon, stability in the Middle East and U.S. and global energy security.” This nonsense, until the Hagel nomination, has been rejected by the Obama administration. It has been contrary to U.S. policy, which for example, seeks to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons even though the peace process is moribund.

He then praises the 2002 Saudi plan that would have internationalized Jerusalem and given up all post-1967 lands. (“It was a significant breakthrough. It was significant because for the first time ever all 22 members of the Arab League had come forward with a unanimously agreed to peace initiative. This, after years of the U.S. telling the Arabs that they must get involved and take responsibility and leadership for helping resolve this conflict.”) He then tells a falsehood, namely that ” the last administration ignored it.”


   Media Bias in the Age of Obama

by Peter Wehner

The soft and at times obsequious interview Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” did with Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) has received a lot of justifiable criticism. (Conor Friedersdorf demolishes Kroft in this piece.) Mr. Kroft didn’t help himself when he told CNN’s Piers Morgan that one of the reasons the president turns to Kroft so often is that he doesn’t use “gotcha questions” on Mr. Obama–the kind that “60 Minutes” routinely used against President Bush and other Republicans like Representative Eric Cantor.

But Mr. Kroft, as embarrassing as his interview was, is merely symptomatic of a larger phenomenon: the unprecedented swooning and cheerleading by the press for Barack Obama.

To say that the elite media has a liberal bias is similar to declaring that the sun rises in the east. But it’s never been this transparent, the infatuation never this deep, the advocacy this passionate. We are now seeing shows like “60 Minutes”–once a fearless giant in journalism–give interviews that you would expect to see on Entertainment Tonight or state-run television. We’re at the point when we have to count on tough interviews coming from news outlets like Univision. There are of course exceptions to this–journalists who are both tough-minded and fair-minded. But among the most significant political developments of our time is how many members of the press have become partisans in ways we’ve never before seen.

What explains this?

A combination of factors, I think. One is the rise of Fox News. For decades progressives had a monopoly on news, which meant they were content to slant the news but not routinely cross the line into advocacy. But now that Fox News has offered not only a different perspective, but a popular one, journalists may feel they must, in order to compensate for their loss of influence, increase their liberal advocacy.

A second factor is Barack Obama. He is liberal, Ivy League, and a person of color. That is simply too powerful of a combination for the elite media to resist. (If Obama were conservative, Ivy League, and a person of color, he would be a marked man, as Clarence Thomas has been.) Mr. Obama touches the media’s erogenous zone in ways that no other president, even JFK, ever has. One gets to sense that journalists not only like Mr. Obama; they are in awe of him. They want to impress him and please him and are afraid of being rebuked by him. (It is very much how my 3rd grade son views his teacher.) Being a bright fellow, Mr. Obama understands this, which is why from time to time he transitions from being president to being media critic. He issues marching orders to the elite media–and a stunningly high number of journalists salute and do as they are told.

A third factor is that more and more “objective” journalists seem to feel that liberalism is synonymous with social justice and they want to be in the midst of the fight to advance it. Hence we see people like Bob Schieffer and Tom Brokaw–who once upon a time would have actually tried to keep their biases reasonably in check–frame the issue over gun control as if we’re in Selma in 1965. It’s all rather silly–efforts to manufacture melodrama usually are–but I suppose there’s something emotionally satisfying about trying to recapture, over and over again, the moral moment that was the civil rights era.

All of this helps explain why Americans’ distrust in the media hit a new high in 2012, with 60 percent saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.

There is some rough justice, I suppose, in members of the press being the architects in their own profession’s destruction. It will be interesting to see how much worse things will get, and what will finally emerge from the wreckage.

Dennis Miller Reviews Colin Powell Interview with Bill O’Reilly

Media Cockroaches

Feel Good Story Of The Day: Piers Morgan Loses To RuPaul In TV Ratings…

How unbelievably pathetic, Piers Morgan is on CNN, RuPaul is on some channel I’ve never heard of called Logo TV.


  Judge Napolitano: Menendez May Be Removed From Senate


And yet Martha Raddatz, the liberal press agent posing as a reporter, had an interview with the Senator just a few days ago and neglected to ask him about any of the allegations.

Reporter? I think not!

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Bullies’ Excerpt: Why Left Says Opposing Illegal Immigration is Racist

The idea that enforcing the law is racist has become a pervasive pattern in liberal America. The most obvious example is the left’s bullying take on illegal immigration, in which they label anyone who wants to police the southern border a bigot. Now, obviously there’s nothing racist about opposing illegal immigration. For the love of God, it’s illegal immigration. You can have a ton of sympathy for the poor unfortunates who risk their lives to cross the American border—I fully understand and sympathize with people who simply want to escape the current drug cartel regime cesspool in favor of the beacon of hope that is America. But that doesn’t mean that the United States can afford to continue to usher across its borders people who don’t pay into the system yet do reap the benefits of our generous social services.

That sympathetic but pro-legal perspective makes you a racist, according to the left. Many Democrats, Time reported in 2006, say that “a hint of racism or nativism” really underlies the immigration debate. “I have no doubt that some of those involved in the debate have their position based on fear and perhaps racism because of what’s happening demographically in the country,” said Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO). Of course, Time agreed. It wasn’t a “political ploy”—instead, “there certainly is a case to be made that racial fears are informing some of the debate on immigration policy.”


Media Malpractice:

Steve Kroft’s Softball Obama Interviews Diminish ’60 Minutes’

On 60 Minutes, the news-magazine show that prides itself on “hard-hitting” investigations and interviews, correspondent Steve Kroft, who has won most of the highest awards in his industry, has just broadcast another softball interview with the most powerful man in the world, a performance that ought to earn him a rebuke from his peers in the news business but almost certainly won’t. His CBS bio page proudly touts his unparalleled access to President Obama: He scored the first post-election sit down after Election 2008, another exclusive following the killing of Osama bin Laden, and a third sit-down as the president kicked off his reelection campaign.

Little wonder that Obama keeps going back. The 60 Minutes brand is associated with probing interviews, and Kroft is adept at using his tone and manner to create the impression of tough questions without actually asking any. For Sunday’s interview, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who sat beside him, benefited from 60 Minutes gravitas while answering questions better suited to Ellen. It hardly matters whether Kroft is deliberately pulling his punches to secure ongoing access or is simply disinclined to fulfill the core journalistic duty of holding powerful people accountable for their actions; his Obama interviews ought to diminish his standing and the reputation of his employer.


When a usually reliable liberal publication like the “Atlantic” takes you to the woodshed you know you have really gone over the line. 60 Minutes was diminished and so was Steve Kroft. The public is ill served by both.

The Atlantic went on to say this about Steve Kroft:

Judged journalistically, Kroft’s interview was an embarrassing failure. It neither uncovered important new information nor added to the public understanding. It was nevertheless an interview that Kroft is almost certain to tout. Among broadcast journalists, landing an interview with the president is itself considered an achievement, even when the reason the interview was granted is inseparable from its poor quality.

 that’s gotta sting!


Dominican  prostitute: Senator Bob Menendez ‘likes the youngest and newest girls’

In a little-noticed email published online Wednesday by Citizens  for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a young Dominican woman  wrote nine months ago that she slept with 59-year-old New Jersey Democratic Sen.  Bob Menendez at a series of sex parties organized by Dr. Salomon Melgen, a  longtime Menendez campaign donor.

“That Senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on  April 21, 2002, according to an English translation provided to The Daily Caller  by a native Spanish speaker.

“In the beginning he seemed so serious, because he never spoke to anyone, but  he is just like the others and has just about the same tastes as the doctor,  very refined. I think they were taking us more often to get us checked  [medically] because of him.”


Examiner Editorial:Why isn’t gun control working in Chicago?

One week ago, 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton performed with her high school band here in Washington at President Obama’s inauguration. In addition to being a majorette, Pendleton was also an honor student and volleyball player who dreamed of visiting Paris this summer.

On Tuesday, she was shot dead in a public park two blocks from her high school and less than a mile from Obama’s Kenwood home in Chicago. The shooting prompted White House spokesman Jay Carney to remark, “If we can save even one child’s life, we have an obligation to try when it comes to the scourge of gun violence.”

Pendleton was the 44th homicide victim in Chicago so far this year. That puts Chicago on pace to surpass last year’s total of more than 500 murders. Chicago homicides have picked up dramatically in recent years and now outnumber killings in New York, which has three times Chicago’s population. Meanwhile, in the Big Apple, fewer people were killed in 2012 than in any year since the 1960s. During a nine-day stretch this month, not a single New Yorker was murdered. Here in Washington, there have been only four murders so far in 2013. That’s down 33 percent from the same period last year, when the city had the fewest killings in 50 years.

Despite the media’s intense attention to mass shootings, homicides, violent crime and gun deaths are all decreasing nationally, according to the latest FBI statistics. But not in Chicago. So what is causing the unacceptable wave of gun violence in Chicago?

It’s not because of lenient gun control laws. Chicago has the strongest gun control regime in the nation. Both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are completely banned in the city. And up until the 2010 Supreme Court decision that legalized them, handguns were banned too.


Worth a Read:

MSNBC criticized for editing of gun hearing video


This doesn’t worry me much since I don’t consider MSNBC or NBC credible or legitimate “news” organizations. Doubtful any idiot that watches is smart enough to know the difference.

Scarborough: Woman Testifying In Support Of Assault Rifles Looked Like ‘Jackass’


Can you imagine the fauxrage dance if a conservative media type had said that a woman in favor of gun control looked like a jackass? Oh the humanity!

The only ones that looked like jackasses were Scarborough and Mika for insulting a woman who had the audacity to disagree with their POV. But that’s a given on any day.

David Brooks’ Mission



Plato  “You should not honor men more than truth.”  ~ Plato

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