Witch’s Will For A Sunday In February

Thought For A Sunday Morning:

  We  can’t help everyone, but everyone can help someone. ~ Ronald  Reagan

For Best Article This Morning:

A Perfect Contrast

Contrast  can bring clarity. And I do not think that the two warring political ideologies  in America have never been personified, juxtaposed, and as clearly defined as  the contrast we witnessed at this week’s National Prayer Breakfast.

Dr.  Benjamin Carson, the famed director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins  University, was given the unique opportunity to  share his beliefs before a distinguished audience, including President  Barack Obama. He did not waste the opportunity, and courageously expressed his beliefs with conviction, contrary though they are to those of  the president.

Much  has been made of Dr. Carson’s alternative solution to make healthcare more  efficient:

Here’s my solution: When a person is born, give him a  birth certificate, an electronic medical  record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed – pretax  — from the time you’re born ’til the time you die. When you die, you pass it on  to your family members, so that when you’re 85 years old and you got six  diseases, you’re not trying to spend up everything. You’re happy to pass it on  and there’s nobody talking about death panels.

Number one. And also, for the people who were  indigent who don’t have any money we can make contributions to their HSA every  month because we already have this huge pot of money. Instead of sending it to  some huge bureaucracy, let’s put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control  over their own healthcare.

We  must admit — there is something amazing  about this. In two paragraphs, Ben Carson has offered a free market solution to  create competition and reduce healthcare costs that is feasible, understandable,  and compassionate. (And one that has already been tested — it is very  similar to the system used in Singapore. ) Its relative simplicity alone  stands in stark contrast to Obama’s healthcare solution pitch, the mechanics of  which were so confusing that after two years of explaining it, Democrats  entreated Americans to not even try to understand it. Just accept it and see  what happens, as Nancy Pelosi suggested.

But  to focus on the contrast between their healthcare approaches alone is to miss  the deeper contrast on display. That is, the contrast between Dr. Ben Carson and  Barack Obama, the ideologies that have driven their life’s work, and the results  of that work.

Years  ago, I remember my mother asking if I had ever heard of Dr. Ben Carson. She  explained that he was a pioneer in neurological medicine, and that he had an  amazing and inspiring story. She had a copy of Dr. Carson’s book, Gifted  Hands, and began to read passages that she had selected. I was captivated,  committed to reading more about him, and later watched the film of the same  title starring Cuba Gooding, Jr. Indeed, his story is one of the most amazing  and inspiring I’d ever heard, from his unique upbringing to his design of a  groundbreaking procedure in 1987 which successfully separated two cranially  conjoined twin babies. His life, his work, is nothing short of  miraculous.

Dr.  Ben Carson was one of two sons born to Sonya Carson, a single mother who had  married Ben’s father at thirteen years of age. Ben’s father was a bigamist, and  after learning of his other family, Sonya resolved to raise her two sons alone.  Though in poverty, and though she herself had no formal education beyond third  grade, she insisted that her sons devote diligent efforts to their education.  She required that the boys read books  from the public library each week and write lengthy reports for her (which she  would review for them to support their effort, despite being unable to read).  She worked hard to support them financially, in staunch determination that she  would not be a victim, and neither would her children. In short, the Carson  family is a testament to personal perseverance and the success that  follows.

One  story of Dr. Carson’s childhood that particularly stood out to me is an instance  where he, an admittedly angry child, attempted to stab his friend in the stomach, only to have the  blade of the knife blocked and broken by the other child’s belt buckle. This was  a moment that shaped his worldview thereafter, and he has expressed a belief  that it was divine intervention. And I could not help but agree. Could it be  anything but Providence that this good fortune, without which he may have been  incarcerated and set on a different path, became the good fortune of the world,  allowing Dr. Carson to touch and save so many lives?

Knowing  of his background, it came as no surprise when I reviewed the entire speech at  the National Prayer Breakfast that nearly everything Ben Carson said was a  perfect contradiction of the values expressed by Barack Obama.

Dr.  Carson began his speech, even as he shared the stage with the world’s most  renowned spokesman for political correctness, by decrying political correctness  as a “dangerous” concept. He argued that political correctness acts as a  “muzzle,” keeping people from “discussing important issues while the fabric of  their society is being changed,” even as the architect of that “change” sat just  a few feet to his right.

He  related the admirable tale of his mother’s unwillingness to be a victim, as he  was in the presence of our president who unequivocally demands that women in  such circumstances be viewed and treated as such. Dr. Carson told the audience  about his revelation that poverty is a “temporary” condition, one which people  could personally alter. And he said this in the presence of a man whose  political ideology is founded upon the notion that poverty is an institutionally  applied condition, and that it is the responsibility of society, not the  individual, to alter that condition.

Dr.  Carson went on to destroy the notion of the progressive income tax, arguing that  “God has given us a system” that would work. He argued that because God requires  tithing regardless of outcome:

There must be something inherently fair in  proportionality. If you make ten billion dollars, you put in one billion. If you  make ten dollars, you put in one. Of course you gotta get rid of the loopholes.  [Laughter] But, now some people say, “Well that’s not fair, because it doesn’t  hurt the guy who made ten billion dollars as much as the guy who made ten.”  Where does it say you have to hurt the guy? He just put a billion dollars in the  pot!

Is  it possible to say anything more contrary to Barack Obama’s insistence on the  moral imperative to take disproportionately more from the wealthy to  redistribute among the collective?

And  this is where the contrast between the two men becomes most apparent. Barack  Obama rejects the notion of fairness presented by God, because his devotion to  God, if it was ever a driving motivation in his life, has become supplanted by  his devotion to the government administration of fairness. That much is  abundantly clear. Consider that Dr. Carson carries himself with a pious  humility, crediting God and family for giving him the strength of will to  succeed. President Obama, whose name would rarely collide with humility in a  sentence, insists that the government is responsible for people’s success.

The  revelation here is not that Barack Obama is a PC thug who intends to transform  the fabric of America, or that he makes victims of women rather than empowering  them, or that he subscribes to a Marxist’s notion of fairness by coercion, or  that his healthcare solution is a muddled, hopeless mess sold on Utopian dreams.  We already knew all that.

No,  the real revelation is that at this year’s prayer breakfast, so often only a  pious ritual, his exact opposite stood and spoke in sharp contrast to our  president. And Dr. Ben Carson owns a legacy as an innovative pioneer of his  field and philanthropist whose life and work have personally touched, and even  saved, countless others. Barack Obama, on the other hand, despite all his  celebrity, owns a legacy that amounts to little more than stirring fear and  outrage on the premise that others are not doing enough to help  people.

Which  ideology has produced the more effective, positive outcome?

Other Interesting Articles

Skeeter President: Mock on, Americans

Petty rulers do not appreciate ridicule.

In his memoir Fear No Evil, Jewish Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky recounts the mind games the KGB played with him as they tried to entrap him in “confessions” of treason. What allowed Sharansky to survive was his ability to anticipate their moves in a game that began with transparent lies from his government, ones he recognized from kindergarten.

This month, as evidenced by the release of a photo supposedly showing the president engaged in skeet-shooting, we have similar mind games being played by the Obama administration and with all the sophistication of junior high school intrigues.

Sycophantic media, like the Daily Beast, the Washington Post, and New York Magazine, called mockers of President Obama’s skeet-shooting photo “conspiracy nuts.”

They seemed to be following orders, specifically a taunting tweet from David Plouffe on Saturday, February 2: “Attn skeet birthers. Make our day — Let the photoshop conspiracies begin!” A few minutes later, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “For all the skeeters: POTUS shoots clay target on the range at Camp David.”

Both tweets linked to the official photo accompanied by the warning: ”This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.”

Amazingly, Chris Cillizza and Aaron Black at the Washington Post excused such preemptive pettiness as a necessity in today’s age of social media and claimed: “While Obama and his inner circle pride themselves on their lack of drama and their tendency not to overreact to the political winds that buffet Washington … they have repeatedly shown a keen awareness of and concern for issues that would have likely been considered beneath most past administrations.”

But both ringmasters, Plouffe and Pfeiffer, were off the mark in conjuring up reactions from “right-wingers.” Most of the comments did not question whether the photo was a fake. Rather, experienced skeet-shooters questioned Obama’s claim in the New Republic about doing this “all the time.” They critiqued the positioning of the shotgun, the level aim, and compared his amateurish stance to that when he threw out the first pitch at the World Series dressed in “mom jeans.” Obama did not take up Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn’s challenge to a skeet shoot.

These Americans also defied the orders against altering the photo, to the delight of my immigrant heart. I happened to be reading Sharansky that day and recalled a trip back to Marshall Tito’s Yugoslavia as a kid, when my father asked my uncles in a very low tone about the government — was there any more freedom than before we had emigrated? They evaded the question.

My international students tell me that mocking their leader can land them in jail. I had become discouraged watching fellow Americans meekly subject themselves to body searches for the privilege of boarding a plane. And I dread visits to a doctor’s office in the future when I am likely to be given the quality of care that I’ve come to expect at the Department of Motor Vehicles.


Freedom of the Press-Control

While teaching on Aristotle in my ethics class last week, I noted that he was a “teleologist.”  A teleologist is simply one who thinks that everything in the world has an essential purpose that makes it the kind of thing that it is.  This is what most people held up until the advent of modern science.

An astute student then attempted to tie Aristotle’s analysis into the current debate over the Second Amendment. He observed that those who favor ever more oppressive restrictions on the Second Amendment—the proponents of “gun control”—sound very much like teleologists when it comes to guns.  Guns kill, we are told. This is their purpose.

That cars, knives, fists, and many other things other than guns also kill is neither here nor there for Second Amendment deniers. Cars, say, aren’t meant to kill.  Guns are.

My student was correct. When it comes to guns, the enemies of the Second Amendment do indeed speak as if they were teleologists.  Forget that when it comes to almost everything else, their teleology goes out the window.

But let’s play along and see whether these cafeteria teleologists are willing to follow their reasoning to its logical term.

The purpose of a free press is to safeguard our liberty against corruption.  Those who rely upon the First Amendment to peddle their wares in the media can constitutionally justify their existence by alluding to this purpose.  Without our media “watchdogs,” we are lead to think, those in power—those in government, particularly—could all too easily trample our liberties under foot.

Freedom of the press, we are told, is the always precarious line separating liberty from tyranny, citizens from subjects or slaves.

If this is so, however, then it is not unreasonable to think that if those in the media are not doing their job, if they are not serving as watchdogs, then maybe they should no longer be permitted to hide behind the First Amendment.

And they are not doing their job.

Journalists and pundits in publishing and broadcasting far too often protect, not the liberties that government office holders are busy away eroding, but the government office holders themselves. In exchange for access to politicians, the tireless champions of the press’s sacred right to freedom of speech reduce themselves to public relations tools for these same politicians.

So, this being the case, we should ask of the First Amendment absolutists in the media: Do they really need their freedom of speech?


 George W. Bush Is a Good Painter!

OMG! Pigs fly. I like something about George W. Bush. A lot. After spending more than a decade having almost physiological-chemical reactions anytime I saw him, getting the heebie-jeebies whenever he spoke — after being sure from the start that he was a Gremlin on the wing of America — I really like the paintings of George W. Bush.

A hacker today released what are apparently Bush family photos and three of W’s own “in-progress” paintings. They all look finished to me. We knew Winston Churchill was a painter. But George W. Bush?! Our W.! I didn’t even think he had an inner life, let alone a muse that called him to art! Gawker calls them “awkward” and “simple.” Gawker is wrong — way wrong.


I like his paintings too.

What I don’t like is some damn frakking hacker being the reason we can see those paintings. The man is retired, is keeping a relatively low profile and is harming no one. Still they just can’t leave him alone.

No one on the left will do anything except make fun of his painting. That’s on them and their obsessive hatred.

He, like any other American, is entitled to some privacy. JMO and I still don’t
“like” the man. But I am coming to like him a hell of a lot more than the POS
that sits in the White House now!

Nobody wake Barack

  by Michael Goodwin

The Benghazi terrorist attack was a debacle in three distinct stages. The fatal mistakes occurred in the first two — the failure to provide adequate security before the attack and the failure to provide help once it started. Those mistakes were tragic, but the Obama administration’s explanations are coherent, though hardly defensible.

The mystery always has been the third stage — the aftermath, or more accurately, the coverup. Even before the bodies of the four Americans came home, the White House was eager to tell any story except the real one.

Aides twisted and turned to create the false narrative that a protest over an anti-Muslim video was spontaneously hijacked by radicals. But two problems quickly emerged: There was no video protest in Benghazi, and the attack, which used heavy weaponry, was well planned.

So, why did the White House spin the web of deceit? Don’t they know the coverup is worse than the crime?

Finally, we have the answer, thanks to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. In his reluctant Senate testimony, he provided the missing piece of the puzzle: The commander in chief was MIA. The coverup was created to protect his absence.

According to Panetta, President Obama checked in with his military team early on during the attack, then checked out for the rest of the night. The next day, we already knew, he blamed the video maker and flew to Las Vegas for a campaign event.

Meanwhile, half a world away, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans had been slaughtered by Islamists. Their murders on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 gave the incident extra gravity and led the White House to conceal the facts. An honest chronology would have revealed the president’s shocking behavior during the most successful attack against Americans by foreigners since 9/11.

Imagine the questions that would have come: What did Obama do through the long, bloody night? Whom did he talk to? When did he learn that Stevens was dead?

There is still much we don’t know, but Panetta, under persistent Senate probing, revealed that Obama simply wasn’t involved. Did he just go to sleep?

That question, like other good ones, was asked by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs, Martin Dempsey, told Graham they didn’t sleep, but said they didn’t know if Obama did.

You would think a presidential conscience would keep him awake and engaged until he knew what had happened in Benghazi. You would be wrong.

Instead, the two officials said they had only one, 30-minute conversation with Obama. It began at around 5 p.m. Washington time, 90 minutes after the first attack started, and they never spoke to him again that night.


 Getting Past Liberal Bullying: Conservatism Post-2012

Ben  Shapiro’s new book, Bullies: How The Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation  Silences America, is a must-read for anyone interested in politics.   The book delves into who the real enemy is and how to combat him.  American Thinker had the privilege of interviewing Ben Shapiro about his latest  book.

Ben  wanted to emphasize that the main bullies are the mass media, including those TV  show moderators who “are liberals masquerading as moderates.  It is  important to start recognizing who the real enemy is here.  The one  conservative who has done it right is Newt Gingrich, who started attacking the  reporters.”

Shapiro’s  solution is to have conservative representatives go on the talk show circuit and  speak out with gusto when it comes to their ideology.  They should be  polite by thanking their hosts for the opportunity given, but then they should  point out in no uncertain terms that since “I am a conservative and you are a  liberal, we have two fundamentally different worldviews, and I just want to let  the viewers know this.”

Shapiro  feels that conservatives never frame the debate and just assume that everyone  knows that the media is biased.  Since the mainstream media no longer  represents the truth by presenting both sides of an issue impartially,  “conservatives must explain who they are, why the reporters are biased, and what  about the reporters makes them biased.  Reporters are great in what they do  because they are subtle.  We lose because politicians are afraid of doing  this for fear they are going to be treated badly by the  press.”

For  learning purposes, Shapiro wants conservatives to look at what Candy Crowley did  to Mitt Romney in the second presidential debate last year.  “I would have  reacted by saying, ‘Candy it is not your place to be fact-checking this debate,  especially when you are wrong.  We all know that your sympathies lie with  President Obama, and we all understand that.  However, it is still no  justification for asserting yourself in this debate.’  Romney should have  gone right at her and instead just took it.  He never punched back after  the first debate.”

Bullies  shows that regardless of the cause, the people on the left are currently able to  show themselves as protectors and spreading the idea that anyone opposing their  agenda should be hated.  Pick the cause: be it climate change, gun control,  abortion rights, or illegal immigration, anyone opposing the left’s position  will be instantly and brutally attacked by government officials, the mainstream  media, Hollywood, and the union thugs.  They try to frame the narrative  through attacks that take the form of name-calling, heated rhetoric, and  intimidation.

Shapiro  summarizes the situation best by pointing out that conservatives are making  policy arguments while the left are making character arguments.  “They call  us racist, and we call them reasonable.  If you object to tax hikes, you  hate the poor.  If you object to abortion, you are launching a war on  women.  They play the race card, the class card, and the sexism card.   Look at the past presidential election.  Romney painted Obama as a nice  guy, someone reasonable although misguided, a good husband and father.  Yet  Obama painted Romney as the guy who straps dogs to the top of his car,  anti-women, someone who wants to put you back in chains, and fires employees whose wives are dying of cancer.  Which one  of those candidates would most people vote for?”

Conservatives  are constantly shying away from the fight in the interests of civility.   Shapiro wishes and is hopeful that “our mindset will change.  In the  aftermath of losing to Bush in 2004, the Democrats did not go into hiding or  moderate their position.  They got more extreme and more active.  We  have to point out our opponents’ tactics.  For example, trotting Gabby  Giffords out there to push gun control is disgusting.  It makes it seem  that people who disagree don’t care about her getting shot.  They brought  her out to create this emotional appeal.  We should be pointing that  out.”



Happy-Face Statism

by Wesley J. Smith

For the last decade, some social scientists have been arguing that “happiness measurements” should replace or supplement established economic standards to judge a society’s “success.” Many environmentalists also support the idea as a way of putting lipstick on policies that could slow down economic growth. And now, the idea is deemed ready to leave the ivory tower for implementation as government policy.

One can understand the appeal for the ruling elite and their camp followers of consultants and lobbyists. If government assumes the power to promote happiness, officials would have to “consult with experts” to figure out criteria by which a society’s “gross happiness index” could be measured. (As we will see below, that process has already started.) Once these standards were determined, a new bureaucracy would have to be established—let’s call it HAA, the Happiness Advancement Administration—to promote happiness goals and enforce happiness regulations.

One could even imagine a presidential debate, in which the challenger looks into the camera and earnestly asks, “Has your government made you happier today than you were four years ago?”

We have already started down Happiness Road. Bhutan recently established a National Happiness Commission, chaired by the prime minster, which must give all legislation a happiness seal of approval before it can become law.

One could shrug off Bhutan’s law as a consequence of the altitude. But the United Nations General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution in 2011 calling on all member states to promulgate national standards of happiness. The resolution states that “gross domestic product . . . does not adequately reflect the happiness and well-being of people in a country” and that “sustainable development” and a “more inclusive, equitable and balanced approach to economic growth” will best encourage the “happiness and well-being of all peoples.” Sounds like a prescription for wealth redistribution and rationalizing reduced prosperity to me.

An article published in National Affairs reported that “the twenty-seven nations of the European Union also plan to move ‘beyond GDP,’ complementing their official measures of economic output with measures of well-being drawn from happiness literature.” What better way to divert our attention from declining standards of living than to have government and the media trumpet proud claims of improved collective happiness?

The Obama administration has joined in. The Department of Health and Human Services has already gathered a body of “experts,” to devise reliable measures of “subjective well-being,” toward the end of turning these into official statistics. As reported by the Washington Post:

A measure of happiness could help assess the success or failure of a range of government policies. It could gauge the virtues of a health benefit or establish whether education has more value than simply higher incomes. It might also detect extremes of inequality or imbalances in how people divide their time between work and leisure.

You know the drill: Once government settles on happiness statistics, the next step will be to uncover a “happiness crisis,” requiring legislation and regulation—all facilitated by new bureaucracies to close the “happiness gap,” and promote “happiness equality.” In short, the government will grow like Jack’s beanstalk. Perhaps the HAA is closer than we think.


 The Company Sen. Sleaze-Bob Menendez Keeps

  by Michelle Malkin

Put on your shocked faces: Since my bipartisan call last week for Democratic  women to join the Ladies Against Senator Sleaze-Bob movement, not a single  Democratic woman in Washington has signed up. Here’s the thing. The brewing  scandal involving N.J. Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, the new chairman of the  Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is not just a “sex scandal.” It’s a crony  corruption scandal of sordid, soap operatic proportions.

Maybe if Menendez were a contestant on “The Bachelor,” he’d finally command  more widespread female attention. For their part, the Democratic women on  Capitol Hill seem as uninterested in the alleged exploitation of underage  prostitutes as they are in cozy donor deals, tax evasion and Medicare fraud.


Maybe in lefty circles 59 year old Senators screwing baby hookers isn’t considered a “war on women”. Maybe they’re right. I think of it as more a “war on little girls” by a slimy old fart who has no ethics, no integrity and no decency. A child abuser IMO!

Liberal Lunacy

Colorado Democrats Declare War on Guns

Colorado Democrats are prepared to launch an all-out war on guns with legislation that includes bans on “high capacity” magazines, requirements for universal background checks, fees for existing background checks, and allowing victims of gun violence to sue firearm manufacturers for the misuse of weapons.

The proposed ban on “high capacity” magazines and the call for universal background checks are both reflective of similar measures being pushed by Democrats around the country.

As I have made clear in earlier posts, if universal background checks are implemented, they will not only stop private sales and close the “gun show loophole,” but will also take away a grandfather’s ability to simply give his favorite rifle to his grandson or for a mother to give a handgun to her daughter for self-defense.

In both scenarios, the guns will have to be registered, the government will have to be notified, specified fees will have to be paid, and background checks will have to be performed.

The measure to add a fee to existing background checks for gun purchases is nothing less than a new state-level tax on gun purchases. If this law passes, the fee could eventually be raised high enough to rule out buying a gun in the first place.

The proposal to allow crime victims to sue gun manufacturers is very onerous for gun companies. Although it would ostensibly only apply to makers of “assault weapons” if implemented, Colorado state Sen. Greg Brophy (R) said it “is the equivalent of holding Coors, the distributor, and the 7-Eleven from which the 12-pack of beer was stolen responsible for the drunk-driving accident.”


 Hope & Change: Only 62 Percent of Millennials Are Employed…

On the one hand, it’s hard for me to sympathize with members of the Millennial Generation — many of whom either didn’t vote or overwhelming chose to re-elect a candidate who spent his first term pushing “green energy” and health care legislation, while ignoring the chronically high youth unemployment rate.

Sadly, his second inaugural address pretty much confirmed that job creation is not — and will not be — a top legislative priority in 2013. The president, it seems, is going to spend his political capital on combating climate change and introducing more gun control measures during his second term.

On the other hand, the fact that just 62 percent of young people have a full or part-time job is deeply disconcerting. And the implications are startling: nearly 40 percent of Millennials are unemployed and presumably living at home with their parents.

Lawmakers and business leaders need to be doing everything they can to find a way to solve this economic and moral crisis.

And the president should be leading the way.

After all, isn’t that why Americans re-elected him?


  Liberal Cockroaches

Treasury Sec. Nominee Lew Under Fire for Cayman Islands Investments

Senate Republicans may question Jack Lew, the former Budget director whom President Barack Obama has nominated to be his next Treasury secretary, about investments he made in a Cayman Islands fund during his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday.

The fund in question is located in the infamous “Ugland House,” which Obama called out for hosting numerous tax scams and havens.

Though the White House has said the investments have been previously disclosed, Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee have said Republicans vetting Lew have noted “there are concerns” with Lew’s Cayman Islands investments.

The White House continues to insist that Lew “paid all of his taxes and reported all of the income, gains and losses from the investment on his tax returns,” and that this information is not news.

The investment in question is a ” Citigroup employee investment fund called Citigroup Venture Capital International Growth Partnership II.” The address for the fund, in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, is listed as “South Church Street, Ugland House, Georgetown, Grand Cayman, Cayman Island.'”

As Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) noted, Obama has criticized such investments and once called “Ugland House” one of the biggest tax scams on record during the 2008 campaign.

“That makes this Cayman Islands investment of his top official and now Treasury secretary nominee worthy of attention,” Grassley said.


More of those infamous liberal double standards. Republicans do it = wrong, dishonest, crooked and worthy of contempt. Democrat does it = nothing to see or worry about.

Suddenly Obama Cares About Jobs?

After ignoring unemployment, Obama seeks to convince Americans it’s his top priority

  by Byron York

White House spinners are working furiously in the final 72 hours before President Obama’s State of the Union speech.  Their job: convince the recession-scarred American public that economic recovery is Obama’s top priority — after everything he has said and done to suggest otherwise.

The unemployment rate is 7.9 percent — one tenth of a point higher than it was when Obama took office in January 2009.  But the true toll of joblessness is far higher.  The Labor Department’s so-called U-6 rate, which includes people who want a job but have become so discouraged they have quit looking, is 14.4 percent.  And a new study, by Rutgers University scholars, shows that 23 percent of those surveyed have lost a job sometime in the last four years, while another 11 percent have seen someone in their household lose a job.  That is one-third of the American people who have experienced unemployment during Obama’s time in office, along with many more who have experienced other hardships of the economic downturn.


A Temporary Majority

The problem Democrats can’t solve.

A tradition after each national election, presidential or midterm, is for the pundit class to pontificate on whether and how the results point to a realignment. This exercise dates back at least to the publication of The Emerging Republican Majority by Kevin Phillips in 1969, and it continues to this day. Now, of course, the hot topic is the so-called emerging Democratic majority, dominated by young people, nonwhites, and upscale social liberals. Pundits across the political spectrum are offering free advice to the Republican party on how to change its ways lest it face extinction at the hands of this “coalition of the ascendant.”


Media Malpractice:

Parody or Does She Believe It? CNN Anchor Blames Asteroid on Global Warming


Good lord, no wonder so few people watch CNN any more if they are punishing their viewers with pinheads like this twit!

Worth a Read:

Texas teacher suspended after she emptied PENCIL SHAVINGS into student’s mouth


I don’t understand why there is any question about firing this POS. She is unfit to be around children let alone “teaching” them.

Killing Nemo: Weather Channel’s Storm Name Irks Some


I think naming winter storms is silly. JMO.

‘Trust me’ is not enough on drone warfare


Oh-oh, someone woke Dana Milbank up again and told him to act like an actual reporter. Don’t worry Dems, he’ll get back in line real soon. As in ASAP!



Quote For A Sunday Morning:

  I’ve  always felt, in all my books, that there’s a deep decency in the American people  and a native intelligence – providing they have the facts, providing they have  the information. ~ Studs Terkel

Ah, there’s the problem, if the have the facts and information. Something the media is supposed to provide. Instead they have turned themselves into slobbering press agents. They are thus traitors to their profession and their country and beneath contempt.

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