Witch’s Will For A February Morning
Obama’s SOTU speech
Same old, same old from Obama
by Kirsten Powers
The president has only a few opportunities to speak to the nation, and he blew this one.
If the State of the Union address Tuesday night is any indication, it appears President Obama’s chief speechwriter has been replaced by a cliché-generator circa 1960. His erstwhile oratory was a melee of cringe-inducing lines ripped straight from a sit-in.
The commander in chief waxed about children being important for our future and how we should be a country where “if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead.” Which we are for the most part, anyway. Also, isn’t there a rule about how many times you can use the same line in a speech? Doesn’t basic etiquette and decency prevent us from ever hearing this again: “A tax code that ensures billionaires with high-powered accountants can’t pay a lower rate than their hard-working secretaries.” Yes, we know: Warren Buffett is your friend and his secretary pays a higher tax rate that he does. Is this really the only way to demonstrate the tax code needs to be reformed?
The president has only a few opportunities to speak to the nation, and he blew this one. It was so hackish, so devoid of any theme or purpose, that it makes one wonder whether part of Obama just wants to see how bad he can be before his cultists in the news media can see it. Every speech is exactly what they wish it to be, regardless of reality. His mainstream inaugural speech was treated as a liberal call to arms when it was no such thing. Of course, conservatives thought that. If Obama had announced he just joined the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh would have seen it as proof that he was a socialist. But why liberals would confuse a boilerplate middle-of-the-road inaugural speech with Das Kapital will be forever befuddling.
Contrary to the claims of both sides, Obama is not a liberal visionary with deep desires to institute a progressive agenda. If he is, he’s a miserable failure. You need look no further than his own record (starting with foreign policy) and then Tuesday night’s speech for evidence. Banalities and tropes are not a governing philosophy or a plan. The immigration piece was good, but hardly a profile in courage. After all, even the GOP wants immigration reform now. There is also the small fact that Obama promised to deal with immigration in his first term.
Once again Kirsten Powers shows herself to be a woman of integrity. I may not, will not, ever, agree with her on many things. But I can respect her. And that’s a rare thing for me to say about a liberal.
What’s to Like?
Precious little, it turns out, in a decidedly uncool SOTU.
by Ben Stein
I try very hard to like Barack Obama. And sometimes he helps me out. For example, at the beginning of his State of the Union address yesterday, he made what seemed to me to be some sense about the budget. And he offered excellent free advice to the GOP. Why, he asked, should we hamstring all of our other attempts to work on the budget crisis because some of the GOP are trying to protect the tax breaks of the very richest among us? Why is the GOP going to the mat to defend the richest people in the country — and he might have added, “Most of whom are liberals in New York and L.A. and the Silicon Valley, who don’t vote Republican anyway?”
That made sense, at least to me.
But he soon wandered off the reservation of rationality and into two adjoining realms: the commonplace perpetual fantasies of liberals and his own special fantasyland.
Let’s start with the worst part of the speech: the part about what the liberals used to call global warming and now, since they can’t back up that “global” part, call “climate change.”
Mr. Obama asked the audience, in essence, “Are you so stupid that you think it’s just coincidence that this country had some unusually hot years recently, and also had a big storm called Sandy, and also had some big brush fires? Or do you agree with me that it’s the result of a conspiracy by American industry? And don’t you think I should bypass Congress to assault the problem from the White House?”
Well, as a matter of fact, “NO.”
First, as to the science: for him to pick a few data points —temperatures in the U.S., a drought, and a big storm — out of literally trillions of data points of weather all around the globe for all of the earth’s history, and ask us to disregard everything but those three data points, is silly.
Yes, the USA has been warmer than usual lately, but many parts of the earth were cooler than usual. Yes, there were some big brush fires lately, but this is largely because of U.S. government policies that prevent thinning of forests by cutting down dead, tinder dry trees. Mr. Obama apparently thinks those fires were caused by uniquely severe droughts. But there is no evidence of that at all. We have had far drier years in many regions of this country over the past century long ago than we have had in recent years.
And yes, the big storm, Sandy, was a terrible storm and innocent people suffered terribly. But we have had far worse hurricanes, even in the northeast, within the past hundred years. A big storm in one small region of the globe is not an unusual event, even if that region is where Mr Obama’s most fervent media and finance supporters live.
The unusual event is Mr. Obama taking these data points and ignoring the other data, especially what effect on climate the immense dumping of pollutants into the air by China, India, Brazil, and Russia might have. Whatever changes we make in the USA will be nothing in the global balance of pollution compared with what China alone is forcing into our atmosphere. If we are absolutely certain that industrial and transportation effluence should be curbed (and I think it should, mostly for pulmonary reasons), we are just whistling past the graveyard unless we get the BRIC countries on track.
But what’s far worse in Mr. Obama’s contempt for the Constitution. If Congress does not want to act on a problem, the Constitution does not say that the legislative power defaults to the Executive. Congress would then have spoken and Mr. Obama cannot simply override it and the law. Mr. Obama apparently thinks he has legislative power. He doesn’t.
Was Mr Obama really a professor of Constitutional Law or was that just some fantasy gift title from Harvard Law School?
FACT CHECK: Overreaching in State of Union speech
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama did some cherry-picking Tuesday night in defense of his record on jobs and laid out a conditional path to citizenship for illegal immigrants that may be less onerous than he made it sound.
A look at some of the claims in his State of the Union speech, a glance at the Republican counterargument and how they fit with the facts:
OBAMA: “After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs.”
THE FACTS: That’s in the ballpark, as far as it goes. But Obama starts his count not when he took office, but from the point in his first term when job losses were the highest. In doing so, he ignores the 5 million or so jobs that were lost on his watch, up to that point.
Private sector jobs have grown by 6.1 million since February 2010. But since he became president, the gain is a more modest 1.9 million.
And when losses in public sector employment are added to the mix, his overall jobs record is a gain of 1.2 million.
OBAMA: “We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas.”
THE FACTS: Not so fast.
That’s expected to happen in 12 more years.
Under a deal the Obama administration reached with automakers in 2011, vehicles will have a corporate average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, twice the 27 miles per gallon, on average, that cars and trucks get today. Automobile manufacturers won’t start making changes to achieve the new fuel economy standards until model year 2017. Not all cars will double their gas mileage, since the standard is based on an average of a manufacturers’ fleet.
OBAMA: “Already the Affordable Care Act is helping to reduce the growth of health care costs.”
THE FACTS: The jury is still out on whether Obama’s health care overhaul will reduce the growth of health care costs. It’s true that cost increases have eased, but many experts say that’s due to the sluggish economy, not to the health care law, whose main provisions are not yet fully in effect.
OBAMA: “Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship — a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.”
THE FACTS: The seemingly stern admonition that illegal immigrants must go to the back of the line, often heard from the president, doesn’t appear to have much practical effect except in the most obvious sense. Everyone who joins a line, whether for a movie, a coffee or citizenship, starts at the back of that particular line. It’s not clear he is saying anything more than that illegal immigrants won’t get to cut in line for citizenship once they’ve obtained provisional legal status.
Like those living abroad who have applied to come to the U.S. legally, illegal immigrants who qualify for Obama’s proposed path to citizenship will surely face long waits to be processed. But during that time, they are already in the U.S. and will get to stay, work and travel in the country under their new status as provisional immigrants, while those outside the U.S. simply have to wait.
Sending illegal immigrants to the “back of the line” is something of a distinction without a difference for some legal immigrants who dutifully followed all the rules before coming to the United States.
For instance, some legal immigrants who are in the U.S. on an employer-sponsored visa can’t easily change jobs, or in some cases take a promotion, without jeopardizing their place in line to get a green card. In other cases, would-be legal immigrants in other countries wait for years to be able to settle in the U.S.
Obama is using “back of the line” somewhat figuratively, because there are multiple lines depending on the applicant’s relationship with family already in the U.S. or with an employer. Generally, a foreign-born spouse of a U.S. citizen or someone with needed skills and a job offer will be accepted more quickly than many others.
But even as a figurative point, his assertion may cloak the fact that people who came to the U.S. illegally and win provisional status have the great advantage over applicants abroad of already being where they all want to go.
OBAMA: “Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. … And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives. … Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than $7 later on — by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime.”
THE FACTS: Dozens of studies have shown Head Start graduates are more likely to complete high school than their at-risk peers who don’t participate in the program. But a study last year by the Department of Health and Human Services that found big vocabulary and social development gains for at-risk students in pre-kindergarten programs also found those effects largely faded by the time pupils reached third grade. The report didn’t explain why the kids saw a drop-off in performance or predict how they would fare as they aged.
A Message to Obama, Served Cold
by Jonah Goldberg
In an earlier era, Dr. Benjamin Carson’s speech before the National Prayer Breakfast last week would have been a really big deal rather than mere fodder for a brief squall on Twitter and cable news.
Born in crushing poverty to an illiterate single mother dedicated to seeing her children succeed, Carson became the head of the department of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins medical institutions when he was 33. He’s been a black celebrity role model ever since.
Even if you didn’t like the substance of what Carson had to say at the breakfast, his speech made for great political theater. President Obama was seated on the stage, just a few feet away, and he didn’t look like he was having a good time.
Intellectual historians of black America might make a great deal out of the image of a frowning Obama listening as Carson inveighed against a culture of victimology and dependency. It’s too trite to say that the president is the incarnation of W.E.B. DuBois and Carson of Booker T. Washington. After all, DuBois renounced his American citizenship, became a communist and moved to Ghana at the end of his life. Obama, the son of a leftist (if not an actual communist) from Africa, went on to become the president of the United States — a significantly different story, to put it mildly.
But as Mark Twain allegedly said, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. The great argument between DuBois and Washington is often boiled down to integration versus self-help. Washington believed that blacks should emphasize education and self-advancement first and worry about integration later. DuBois favored a civil-rights-first strategy combined with reliance on the leadership of technocrats, including what he called the “talented tenth,” or the best African-Americans.
Culturally, DuBois won the argument and the allegiance of liberals and the left, while Washington has often been unfairly cast as an Uncle Tom (despite fighting against racial injustice his whole life).
But in a country that’s elected a black president — twice — and passed the Civil Rights Act half a century ago, even if Washington was wrong about the sequence of priorities, it seems fair to ponder whether the time has come for his philosophy to get a second look.
Although much of Carson’s speech focused on personal responsibility, he offered two concrete policy ideas. The first is a flat tax. The Bible endorses the idea, Carson explained. Everyone should tithe — give 10 percent — in good times and bad. It doesn’t have to be 10 percent, he conceded. It’s the principles of proportionality and simplicity that matter.
What Up With Republicans?
Sens. Marco Rubio, Rand Paul deliver blistering rebuttals to Obama
The Florida senator delivered his party’s official rebuttal to Obama’s speech, but he wasn’t the only Republican responding Tuesday night. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, another potential Republican presidential contender, responded to Obama’s talk on behalf of the tea party.
Rubio challenged Obama’s commitment to preserving and growing the nation’s middle class by expanding the role of the federal government and raising taxes on wealthy earners.
“Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity,” Rubio said in prepared remarks. “But President Obama? He believes it’s the cause of our problems. . . . And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.”
Rubio told viewers that he is firmly planted in the middle class, a legacy from his bartender father and a mother who worked as a cashier and maid, who came from Cuba “in pursuit of the opportunity to improve their life and give their children the chance at even a better one.”
“Mr. President, I still live in the same working-class neighborhood I grew up in,” he said. “My neighbors aren’t millionaires. They are retirees who depend on Social Security and Medicare. They’re immigrants, who came here because they were stuck in poverty in countries where the government dominated the economy.”
He added: “Mr. President, I don’t oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors.”
At one point Rubio paused for a quick sip of water. He went on to assert that Obama’s proposals will hurt middle-class families, cost jobs and harm senior citizens because they do “nothing to save Medicare and Social Security.”
“In order to balance our budget, the choice doesn’t have to be either higher taxes or dramatic benefit cuts for those in need,” he said. “Instead we should grow our economy so that we create new taxpayers, not new taxes, and so our government can afford to help those who truly cannot help themselves.”
While Obama implored Congress to vote on gun control legislation, Rubio acknowledged “the rise of violence in our country,” but he warned against weakening the Second Amendment.
Rubio said that if the economy could grow by 4 percent a year, the nation could create more jobs and reduce the deficit by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade. He proposed doing so by, in part, encouraging growth in the energy industry including solar, wind, coal, oil and natural gas.
He agreed with Obama on the need to fix Medicare in a way that doesn’t harm senior citizens.
“It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity,” he said. “And it pays for the care my mother receives now. I would never support any changes to Medicare that would hurt seniors like my mother. But anyone who is in favor of leaving Medicare exactly the way it is right now, is in favor of bankrupting it.”
Rand Paul had harsh words for Obama, Democrats, and his own party on federal spending and the reluctance by them to take a realistic approach in cutting it.
“Both parties have been guilty of spending too much, of protecting their sacred cows, of backroom deals in which everyone wins, but every taxpayer loses,” he said. “It is time Democrats admit that not every dollar spent on domestic programs is sacred. And it is time Republicans realize that military spending is not immune to waste and fraud.”
Paul advocated letting the sequester, an $85 billion round of automatic cuts that would take effect March 1 if Congress fails to act, happen.
“Not only should the sequester stand, many pundits say the sequester really needs to be at least $4 trillion to avoid another downgrade of America credit rating,” he said. “Both parties will have to agree to cut, or we will never fix our fiscal mess.”
SOMETHING TO SMILE ABOUT… Or ain’t it the truth?
Q: What do Barack Obama & Tiger Woods have in common?
A: They are both trying to screw everybody!
The Super Bowl Farmers
by Victor Davis Hanson
Chrysler’s Super Bowl Ram Truck commercial praising the American farmer was an unexpected big hit and is still being replayed around the country on talk radio. Rich Lowry and Peggy Noonan both contrasted the authenticity of that commercial fantasy with the falsity of the real event.
And why not? Even if the clip was a bit corny and overdone, the late Paul Harvey was a masterful throaty narrator in the romantic age before the onset of America’s now ubiquitous metrosexual nasal intonation. Harvey just didn’t sound different from the present generation, but from what we suspect, he sounded different from most generations to come as well. One reason that our age cannot make a Shane, High Noon, or The Searchers is that most of our suburban Hollywood actors cannot even fake the accent of either the frontier or the tragic hero anymore. When Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duvall go, so goes too the last link to the cinema’s Westerner. There are no more voices like Slim Pickens or Ben Johnson. One of the successes of the commercial is that the photographed farmers did not speak, and left the impression of mute superiority.
It was not just Harvey’s mid-20th century voice that intrigued millions, but his unapologetic praise of the farmer’s work ethic, religiosity, and family values that he implied were at the core of American greatness, and were shared by all sorts of other American originals: the truck driver, the steel worker, or waitress whom we now all praise and yet prep our children not to be. We suspect that our kids would be better off at forty for spending a summer on a tractor at fifteen, but we just can’t seem to risk the loss of a season’s computer camp or eco-camp in the bargain.
The commercial’s platitudes were cleverly juxtaposed with grainy pictures of un-Botoxed people doing real physical work and in concert with each other, using big machines, and looking the worse for wear from it. True or not, we at least were to believe that no one in those still shots had hair plugs, bleached teeth, or faux tans in the manner of our vice president, who tries so hard to be an oh-so-authentic “Joey.” In that regard, Clint Eastwood’s resonance hinges in part on the fact that his lined and craggy face does not resemble what has happened to Sylvester Stallone’s, and he did not engage in the sort of embarrassing, obsequious fawning about George Bush that a Chris Rock or Jamie Foxx has monotonously done about Barack Obama. Americans still admire authenticity, and that too explains the later YouTube popularity of the commercial. When the Obama team released pictures of Obama “skeet shooting” or with a furrowed brow following in real time the ongoing shooting and killing in Benghazi, we knew it was all show, all Dukakis in a tank. The only thing worse than being cut off from the premodern world is faking participation in it.
I suppose the images resonated in 2013 in a way that they would have seemed passé in 1950, but not just because farmers then were about 15% of the population and now make up less than 1%, and so currently earn the added intrigue accorded to vanishing in the manner of the rhino or blue whale. The commercial instead was mostly a hit because of the sharp contrast, not just with the Petronian spectacle of today’s Super Bowl extravaganza, but also with the general tenor of the times of 2013 in particular.
I tried to post the ad but it is “currently unavailable.” Will post it when I can.
A recent report of some importance seems to have escaped the eagle-eyes of the MSM, so it is worth bringing to light here.
It turns out that even though unions reached the zenith of power with the re-election of their tool Obama last year, they hit a nadir of support. In 2012, union membership dropped an incredible 400,000 nationwide, which is a half-percent drop in just one year. Union membership is now down to 11.3% of American workers, the majority now being government workers. Thirty-five point nine percent of public-sector workers are union members — a drop from 37.0% in 2011 — while only 6.6% of private-sector workers are union members — down from 6.9% in 2011.
Michigan, which just enacted a right-to-work law, saw the greatest percentage drop in union membership — dropping from 17.5% in 2011 to 16.6% last year, a loss of 42,000 members from union ranks. And the number of “agency shop” workers — i.e., workers represented by unions but not members of those unions — dropped from 18.3% in 2011 to 17.1% last year.
AFL-CIO head (and Obama hod-carrier) Richard Trumka offered a pathetic excuse: “… our still struggling economy, weak laws, and political as well as ideological assaults have taken a toll on union membership[.]” Teamsters head (and Obama myrmidon) Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. offered equally pathetic cheer-leading: “It was collective bargaining that helped bring back the auto industry. It was unions that led the effort on the ground to re-elect President Obama. The labor movement has had its ups and downs over the past 150 years, but I’m seeing a new energy on our unions.”
Of course, it never occurs to Hoffa that the corrupt crony rescue of GM and Chrysler will wind up costing the American taxpayer in the range of $35 billion and so is hardly a bragging point — unless you are on the receiving end of the stolen taxpayer loot!
Then there is the recent news that Big Labor may now be feeling buyer’s remorse regarding the very bill that they were most responsible for inflicting on the innocent public: ObamaCare!
Really, a team of the best comedy writers couldn’t dream this up. The obtuse union bosses are finding that many of the law’s provisions are driving up costs on health plans union members have and making union members even less competitive than they already are.
A Real State of the Union
by John Stossel
We’ve heard another State of the Union speech, and my president said grand things like:
“Think about … a future where we’re in control of our own energy … I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China … I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury poisoning …”
Actually, he said that in 2012. I write before this year’s speech, but he says basically the same thing every year: With more spending, government can fix everything.
But I have this dream — one where my president walks to the podium, and he instead says this:
I’m so happy I won again. Now that I don’t have to suck up to my base, I will be the grown-up in the room.
Yes, I know John Boehner claims I said, “We don’t have a spending problem.” Maybe I said that — I don’t remember. But we do have a spending problem.
Now that I’m concerned about my legacy, I looked at the numbers, and they are scary. I made so many promises that there’s no way we can pay for them.
Take climate change. I think it’s real and that man contributes, but even if America spent trillions to try to lower our carbon output, that would only make a microscopic change in world temperatures. The earth wouldn’t notice.
Some of my anti-poverty plans are worse. Now that I’ve been re-elected, it dawns on me that those programs I said need more investment — always more — well, they didn’t work. They perpetuate poverty by making Americans dependent.
The key to helping the poor — and being rich enough to adjust to things like climate change — is growth.
America grew fastest when government was tiny. Government at all levels was only about 8 percent of gross domestic product in 1912. In the hundred years prior to that, we made the Louisiana Purchase and settled the West. Americans went from subsistence-level farms to the highest standard of living on the planet.
Spending shot up during the world wars, but in peacetime it grew very little. Even the big boom in domestic spending during the New Deal resulted in government spending per person that was only about half what it is today — half — even as government went on to build dams, the interstate highway system and spacecraft. Spending was still only about $3,000 per person in today’s dollars.
Then came Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. We would cure poverty! Government grew so much that now, at all levels, it spends $20,000 per person per year.
But we didn’t cure poverty. Americans had been lifting themselves out of poverty — on their own — but when government stepped in, we stopped that progress. We encouraged people to be dependent. The poor stayed poor.
My friend Bill Clinton put us on a better track. He didn’t want to end welfare as we know it — Republicans forced him to make good on his promise — but I now must admit that welfare reform was a good thing. And during the Clinton administration, the economy grew, and we actually balanced the budget.
But then President Bush happened. He added social programs, hired 90,000 new regulators, created a whole new Cabinet-level department (for homeland security), and bailed out banks and automakers. Whew! Then I got elected, and we spent even more.
But now I look at the numbers and get dizzy. We’re eating our future!
Déjà Vu — You Think?
Fault the well off; invest more borrowed money in more federal programs that have no demonstrable record of success; blame the bad news on others; ignore the $1 trillion-plus annual borrowing; threaten to use more executive orders; demonize the opposition; take bad news abroad and declare it good, and fluff everything up with the hope-and-change cadences that address the trivial and avoid the fundamental.
Words That Saved Millions
By Michael Gerson
WASHINGTON — Even among the few, odd, nerdy children who want to be speechwriters when they grow up (I was one), none dream of writing a State of the Union address. These tend to be long and shapeless affairs, lumpy with random policy, carried along by strained applause lines, dated before they are transcribed.
There are a few exceptions: Lyndon Johnson announcing a War on Poverty; Bill Clinton, as a scandal unfolded, undismayed in the lion’s den. And then there were these sentences in the 2003 address 10 years ago: “Tonight I propose the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief,” said President George W. Bush, “a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts to help the people of Africa. This comprehensive plan will prevent 7 million new AIDS infections, treat at least 2 million people with life-extending drugs and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS and for children orphaned by AIDS.”
In retrospect, the words were not particularly memorable. But the moment was remarkable. An initiative of this scale and ambition — the largest effort to fight a single disease in history — was utterly unexpected. Bush’s strongest political supporters had not demanded it. His strongest critics, at least for a time, remained suspicious. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) existed entirely because of a willing leader, a creative policy team, a smattering of activists and a vast, bleeding need.
Dr. Ben Carson Reviews Obama’s State of the Union Address
Scarborough SOTU Response Rips Obama’s Failed Economic Record
In just 58 seconds, Joe Scarborough has managed to render an imagined response to last night’s SOTU that demolishes President Obama’s failed economic record.
Delivered on today’s Morning Joe, Scarborough scalded PBO’s pitiful performance on the economy. Highlights from the Hall of Shame: four million more Americans out of work today than when Barack Obama became President; average income down 5% since the end of the recession. View the video after the jump.
State of the Union: Four worrisome issues for 2014 Democrats
By: James Hohmann
President Barack Obama filled his State of the Union with carefully-phrased rhetoric designed to sound reasonable, attract widespread support and not give fodder for his enemies to attack. But some appeals to key elements of his base Tuesday – from environmentalists and Latinos to gays — seem likely to cause at least some heartburn to red-state Democrats.
Six Senate Democrats face reelection next year in states carried by Mitt Romney last November: Alaska’s Mark Begich, Arkansas’ Mark Pryor, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, Montana’s Max Baucus, North Carolina’s Kay Hagan and South Dakota’s Tim Johnson.
Obama’s name will not be on the ballot in 2014, but it’s a good bet that the GOP will try to link each of these incumbents to the sitting president. And they will face an even more conservative electorate in the lower-turnout midterms than Obama did in 2012.
Worth a Read:
The Stoning of Dr. Ben Carson
If the Crowley cow was a “real” reporter she would have simply asked what they thought of Dr. Carson’s speech not put the word “offened” in her question. But then we know that the Crowley cow is just another biased POS liberal masquerading as a reporter. And not doing a very good job of it.
DWS: Obama Gave Me Goosebumps During SOTU
What? No tingle up her leg?
Why the Liberal Hatred of Citizens With Guns
Who’s the Racist? Sam Tanenhaus, Meet Dr. Benjamin Carson
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed. ~ I. F. Stone