TUESDAY MOURNING MANURING

Witch’s Will For A Morning In March

My Pick of the Litter Today

College: Where Free Speech Goes to Die

The value of the university once lay in its providing a nurturing space for what English poet and essayist Matthew Arnold called “the free play of the mind upon all subjects,” which would foster the “instinct prompting [the mind] to try to know the best that is known and thought in the world, irrespective of practice, politics, and everything of the kind.”

Critical to these enterprises is the notion of academic freedom––the ability to study, teach, and talk about subjects, no matter how controversial, without fear of retribution or censorship. For only by discussing openly a wide range of subjects can the liberally educated mind “make the best prevail,” as Arnold put it, and turn “a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits, which we now follow staunchly but mechanically.”

Those days are long gone in American universities today, as Greg Lukianoff’s Unlearning Liberty, a dismal catalogue of campus censorship and enforced conformity, documents. On American campuses, “differences of opinion are not viewed as opportunities to learn or to think through ideas,” Lukianoff writes. “Dissent is regarded as a nuisance at best, and sometimes as an outright threat.” His lively book is at once a relentless exposure of the intellectual intolerance institutionalized in higher education, and a passionate defense of the value of free thought and expression.

Lukianoff is an attorney, self-proclaimed “liberal-leaning atheist,” and president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which for more than a decade has exposed unconstitutional campus speech codes and defended those who have fallen afoul of them. Despite those efforts, higher education’s assault on the First Amendment right to speech continues to subvert the goal of liberal education, drying up Arnold’s “stream of fresh and free thought” and reinforcing, rather than challenging, the “stock notions and habits” of progressive orthodoxy.

As a result, Lukianoff writes, “The only institution that could be helping elevate the national discussion may actually be making it worse” as students graduate never having left the “echo chambers” of their own minds. Instead, they have been subjected to a curriculum and campus life focused on “rewarding groupthink, punishing devil’s advocates, and shutting down discussions on some of the hottest and most important topics of the day.”

more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/04/college_where_free_speech_goes_to_die_117271.html

More Stuff:

  Barack Obama’s Defective Public Character

by Peter Wehner

Sequestration, for all its problems–and I consider it to be an abdication of responsible governance–is helpful at least to this extent: it captures, in a single, still-unfolding act the problematic character of the president.

To understand why, let’s update our effort to follow the bouncing Obama ball. Here’s some of what we know.

(a) The president and his administration are responsible for the sequestration idea.

(b) Before that fact became widely known, Mr. Obama   misled Americans of that fact in a debate with Mitt Romney–and his aides did the same thing in the aftermath of the debate.

(c) Thanks to Bob Woodward’s The Price of Politics, the White House has now been forced to admit that, as top White House adviser Gene Sperling put it on Sunday, “Yes, we put forward the design of how to do that [implement sequestration].”

(d) Over the last several weeks, the president vilified sequestration as a brutal, savage, and inhumane idea.

(e) At a press conference last Friday, when sequestration cuts began and the world as we know it did not end, the president began to moonwalk away from his scorching rhetoric, saying, “Just to make the final point about the sequester, we will get through this. This is not going to be an apocalypse, I think, as some people have said.”

(f) Since the sequestration idea was first signed into law by President Obama in 2011, House Republicans have twice passed legislation to make the cuts more reasonable–and Democrats have refused to act on it.

(g) In the last week, Republicans have tried to give the president greater authority to make more reasonable cuts–but he has refused it, allowing unnecessary pain to be inflicted on Americans in order to blame Republicans.

To summarize, then:

The president has spoken in the harshest possible terms about an idea he and his White House originated and signed into law. He has used apocalyptic language leading up to the sequestration–and then, as the sequestration cuts began, lectured us that “this is not going to be an apocalypse” as “some people have said.”

And Mr. Obama has warned about the devastating nature of the cuts even as he has opposed efforts to make the cuts less devastating.

That’s quite a hat trick.

more: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/03/04/barack-obamas-defective-public-character/#more-819854

Brian Williams Claims His Reporting is ‘Cleansed of Political Opinions,’ ‘Down  the Middle’

Appearing on left-wing actor Alec Baldwin’s weekly WNYC talk radio show, Here’s The Thing, NBC Nightly News anchor  Brian Williams laughably asserted that his reporting was void of any political  bias: “My work has been so cleansed, as I see it, and as I’ve tried, of  political opinions over 27 years….I can try to call it down the middle, and  try to be fair about it, and do a ‘just the facts’…” [Listen to the audio  or watch the video after the jump]

Throughout the interview,  Baldwin gushed over how supposedly objective Williams was: “Although loud  personalities with extreme views gobble up more air time, television news is an  industry that still rewards unbiased, thoughtful, and direct reporting….many  people in your business, you can feel little belches and little fissures of  their opinions coming through, or a sense of that, and with you, there’s  none….I think that’s what makes your program so successful. That’s why I watch  you.”

more:  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2013/03/04/brian-williams-claims-his-reporting-cleansed-political-opinions-down-m#ixzz2Mfl3uSIO

Budget Politics

Thomas Sowell by Thomas Sowell

Back in my teaching days, many years ago, one of the things I liked to ask the class to consider was this: Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency’s budget were cut, what would it do?

The answer, of course, is that it would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would be what was most likely to get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place.

The example was deliberately extreme as an illustration. But, in the real world, the same general pattern can be seen in local, state and national government responses to budget cuts.

At the local level, the first response to budget cuts is often to cut the police department and the fire department. There may be all sorts of wasteful boondoggles that could have been cut instead, but that would not produce the public alarm that reducing police protection and fire protection can produce. And public alarm is what can get budget cuts restored.

The Obama administration is following the same pattern. The Department of Homeland Security, for example, released thousands of illegal aliens from prisons to save money — and create alarm.

The Federal Aviation Administration says it is planning to cut back on the number of air traffic controllers, which would, at a minimum, create delays for airline passengers, in addition to fears for safety that can create more public alarm.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have offered to pass legislation giving President Obama the authority to pick and choose what gets cut — anywhere in the trillions of dollars of federal spending — rather than being hemmed in by the arbitrary provisions of the sequester.

This would minimize the damage done by budget cuts concentrated in limited areas, such as the Defense Department. But it serves Obama’s interest to maximize the damage and the public alarm, which he can direct against Republicans.

President Obama has said that he would veto legislation to let him choose what to cut. That should tell us everything we need to know about the utter cynicism of this glib man.

more: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/03/05/budget-politics-n1525553

What’s Up With the Democrats?

Poll: 41% of Dems think president should have power to kill suspected American terrorist on American soil

“On his own.” To be clear, they think he should have the power to do this “on his own.” This is what years of screeching during the Bush era about “the unitary executive” has come to.

I feel like I should issue a correction here. Back when Rand Paul was stumping against John Brennan on grounds that he wouldn’t give a straight answer about whether the White House can order a U.S. citizen killed on U.S. soil, I argued that Brennan’s silence wasn’t a big deal because the public simply wouldn’t stand for drone attacks here and O would surely realize that. Correction: A big chunk of the public, nearly a majority, would stand for it just fine.

more: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/04/poll-41-of-dems-think-president-should-have-power-to-kill-suspected-american-terrorist-on-american-soil/

What Up With Republicans?

Tag-teaming Obama

Don’t tell the Tea Party, but the tag team of John Boehner and Mitch  McConnell are currently mopping the floor with Barack Obama.

The president convincingly won a second term in November, but since that  time, the congressional Republican leadership has outfoxed, outmaneuvered and  plain out-strategized him on just about every issue.

On taxes, McConnell (R-Ky.) just flat-out beat Joe Biden. He preserved 98  percent of the Bush tax cuts in perpetuity, which from a policy perspective is  huge. He also made sure that the payroll tax holiday came to a conclusion,  thereby making sure that every American would feel the tax increase that  President Obama has long been fighting for.

By agreeing on a smaller tax increase, McConnell also inoculated Republicans  from Obama’s demands for higher taxes later on. Hey, Mr. President, we just  raised taxes, and you want to raise taxes again? That dog simply doesn’t hunt  with most voters, and Obama has taken to the less politically explosive position  of closing tax loopholes.  Boring.

On spending, the Republicans haven’t gotten everything they wanted. But they  did get the rebranding opportunity that they so desperately needed. They are  once again champions of spending cuts, and the American people now believe  them.

And thanks to Boehner’s (R-Ohio) nimble reshuffling, they were able to get  rebranded as spending cutters without having to resort to defaulting on the debt  or closing down the government.

more: http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/john-feehery/286101-tag-teaming-obama#ixzz2MfYVheLO

I’m not sure I buy this but I sure wish/hope/want to believe it could be true. 

Meanwhile Janet, aka Cassandra, Napolitano at Homeland Insecurity is still
crying woe. Didn’t she get the cease and desist memo or is she to be the
sacrificial goat?

  SOMETHING TO BRING A SMILE …

Gallup: Obama’s Job Approval Dives to 46%

Though there have been examples of statistical noise over one or two days, for most of the year, Gallup has consistently recorded Obama’s job approval rating at or above fifty-percent. Since Friday, though, the three-day average dipped to a startling 46%.

02/27-03/1 : 47 approve — 45 disapprove

02/28-03/2: 46 approve — 46 disapprove

03/1-3/3: 46 approve — 46 disapprove

This could again be statistical noise or related directly to the sequester negotiations. As much as Democrats and the media want to blame the GOP, people still see Obama as in charge. Moreover, thanks to conservative media and a very few brave mainstream media journalists willing to tell the truth, the president’s credibility has taken a real hit.

More than once, Obama and his White House have been caught telling bald-faced lies about Obama’s role in birthing sequester, how much discretion he has over spending cuts,  and the crying of wolf over what to expect when the cuts hit.

link: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/04/Gallup-Obamas-job-Approval-Dives-to-46

Has Obama Suffered a Serious Setback?

That’s what Dan Mitchell argues today:

[President Obama] miscalculated in thinking that the fiscal cliff tax hike somehow meant that he had permanently neutered the GOP, and he definitely goofed when he tried to use the sequester as a weapon to bully Republicans into another tax hike.

Ignoring the President’s hyperbole about the supposed catastrophic effects of a very modest reduction in the growth of the federal budget, Republicans have held firm.

And the President has suffered a painful political and policy defeat.

That’s chicken in the bush or a bird in the egg or something that I’m not yet ready to count.

The White House still has plenty of tools at its disposal to paint the GOP as the bad guys in the sequester, and Complicit Media to help every step of the way. Hungry school kids, frustrated travelers, laid-off janitors — the Tear Factory is just getting warmed up.

more: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/03/04/has-obama-suffered-a-serious-setback/

Dispatches From the Front Lines of Socialized Medicine

Don’t get sick in Britain, man. It’s free, but you get what you pay for:

As many as 1,165 people starved to death in NHS hospitals over the past four years fuelling claims nurses are too busy to feed their patients.

The Department of Health branded the figures ‘unacceptable’ and said the number of unannounced inspections by the care watchdog will increase.

According to figures released by the Office for National Statistics following a Freedom of Information request, for every patient who dies from malnutrition, four more have dehydration mentioned on their death certificate.

Critics say nurses are too busy to feed patients and often food and drink are placed out of reach of vulnerable people.

Well, it’s a hospital, not a bleedin’ restaurant!

Vulnerable Martin Ryan starved to death in an NHS hospital 26 days without proper nourishment in 2005.

The 43-year-old, who had Down’s syndrome, was admitted to Kingston Hospital after he suffered a stroke which left him unable to swallow.

But a ‘total breakdown in communication’ meant he was never fitted with a feeding tube.

The case was highlighted by Mencap in 2009. An internal inquiry by the hospital found that doctors had thought nurses were feeding Mr Ryan, from Richmond, south-west London, through a tube.

By the time they found out this was not the case, he was too weak for an operation. He died in agony five days later.

Worcestershire Acute NHS Hospital Trust was forced to pay out more than £400,000 last year in compensation after a patient starved to death and another was left unwashed for 11 weeks.

In one of the worst ever cases of multiple NHS failings, patients were left begging for water or left hungry after trays of food were dumped too far from their reach.

The 84-year-old starved to death in 2009 after being admitted following a fall.

The man, who has not been identified at the request of his relatives, could only manage certain foods, but he was not fed properly and died two months later.

On his death certificate, inanition, a clinical term for starvation, was recorded as the cause of death.

Imagine that. A government-run service where institutional apathy runs amok. As Oscar Wilde might have put it, to starve one patient is a tragedy; to starve 1,165 (and dehydrate four times more) begins to look like carelessness.

http://bloodthirstyliberal.com/2013/03/03/dispatches-from-the-front-lines-of-socialized-medicine-9/

  Environmental activists reeling as Keystone pipeline gains momentum

Green groups are reeling after the release of a draft State Department report  that seemed to put the Keystone XL oil pipeline on track for approval.

Opponents of Keystone are furious at State’s environmental assessment of the  project, which brushed aside of one of their central arguments against it:  namely, that it would exacerbate clime change by expanding the use of oil  sands.

more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/286151-green-activists-reeling-as-keystone-gains-momentum-#ixzz2MfsKRQ6T

  Ice-Free Arctic Predictions in the Toilet

It appears to us that all those predictions of the Arctic being ice-free are about as impressive as predicting dinosaurs are having a comeback and will reappear any decade now, but we just don’t know what one. Why do we say this?

It appears that the arctic ice is indeed making a comeback, not receding. As you can see from this article at The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the ice is back and could even set a new record:

It is very likely 2013 will go down in the history books as having the 2nd highest Antarctic sea ice minimum of all time. In 2013 there was 1.4 million sq km more sea ice than there was in 1997 at minimum.

Top 6 Minimum Extents:

Year Day Minimum Extent
2008 51 3.69176
2013 50 3.6504
2003 48 3.6257
2001 50 3.44094
1995 55 3.32988
2004 51 3.25927

Lowest 6 Minimums:

Year Day Minimum_Extent
1997 58 2.26415
1993 50 2.28078
1984 58 2.38292
2006 51 2.4866
1992 54 2.49238
1980 57 2.52686

You can plainly see from the below chart that there’s plenty of ice this year. To reiterate, it could even be a new record.

Antarctic_Sea_Ice_Extent_Zoomed_2013_Day_55_1981-2010

So what about all those dire predictions telling us that by such and such a year you’ll be able to circumnavigate the North Pole in your kayak? Well, frankly, there’s so many predictions that someday, it may be one of them will get lucky, but only because it will be like the stopped clock that’s correct twice per day. It will be due to blind luck and not those garbage-in-preferred-result-out computer models.

link: http://co2insanity.com/2013/03/04/ice-free-arctic-predictions-in-the-toilet/

 Michelle Obama gave out the award for Best Picture at the Oscars. Real “down-home common folks” optics there. Like Marie Antoinette giving the award for Best Cake. 

Six Million To Pay ObamaCare Penalty

  by Katie Pavlich

If you don’t have health insurance it’s probably for two main reasons. The first being that you can’t afford it or two, you’re a healthy young person who doesn’t feel like they need it at this point in life. Others may not have health insurance due to lack of employer coverage. Regardless, under new ObamaCare rules lacking health insurance results in a large ObamaCare fine/tax, something that forces people to pay for something they can’t afford and young people to pay for something they don’t need. Not to mention, when people are paying a fine and not receiving healthcare insurance in return, they’re simply throwing money into a black hole that could have been saved to eventually purchase a plan.

Now, the Congressional Budget Office is out with new numbers showing an additional two million people will opt to pay the fine instead of purchasing healthcare. This brings to total number of people to six million.

Under the law, Americans must be insured starting in 2014 or pay a penalty assessed on their tax returns.

Shortly after the legislation passed in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office, working alongside the Joint Committee on Taxation, estimated that in 2016 roughly four million people a year would opt to pay the penalty instead of getting coverage.

On Wednesday, the CBO and JCT revised that figure up to six million, citing legislation passed since 2010 as well as the weaker economic outlook.
Of those people who opt for the penalty, 10% are projected to be below the federal poverty level for 2016, which the CBO and JCT estimate will stand at about $12,000 for an individual or $24,600 for a family of four.

In 2014, the penalty will be no more than $285 per family, or 1% of income, whichever is greater. In 2015, the cap rises to $975, or 2% of income. And by 2016, it reaches $2,085 per family, or 2.5% of income, whichever is greater.
The dollar amounts for a single adult would be $95, $325 and $695 during that same time period.

But these aren’t just individuals choosing to simply pay the fine instead of purchasing insurance, employers across the country are choosing to pay the fine instead of providing employer based health insurance because it’s cheaper under the new ObamaCare system.

A report from the House Ways and Means Committee finds that 71 of the nation’s top 100 companies would find it far more economical to drop their health care plans and simply pay the penalty for not complying with the Obamacare employer insurance mandate.

more: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/03/05/six-million-to-pay-obamacare-penatly-n1526185

Your Money at Work: UN Diplomats Drunk on the Job

Have you ever wondered why the UN is such a worthless money pit? We may now know the answer.

Ambassador Joseph M. Torsella, who represents the U.S. on the U.N.’s budget committee, said Monday that the tense process of negotiating the world body’s annual budget is made more complicated by the number of diplomats who turn up drunk.
The U.N. budget is finalized in December, when holiday parties apparently lead to some revelry spilling over into budget negotiations.
The U.S. is making “the modest proposal that the negotiating rooms should in future be an inebriation-free zone,” Torsella said during a private meeting of the budget committee. The U.S. mission released a transcript of his remarks.

Drunk corruptocrats? That sounds about right. As a reminder, U.S. funding for the UN recently reached an all-time high totaling more than $6 billion.

more: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/03/05/your-money-at-work-un-diplomats-drunk-on-the-job-n1526190

Media Malpractice:

Liberal Radio Host Mike Papantonio Smears Scalia Elder as Fascist Leader

I always look forward to Mike Papantonio’s appearances on radio, since he  invariably says something that leaves me shaking my head in bemusement and  pity.
Papantonio, an attorney and co-host of the “Ring of Fire” radio  show, was guest hosting on Ed Schultz’s radio program Friday and talking about  the legal challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before the Supreme Court. (audio clips after page break)

Not surprisingly, Papantonio turned most of his scorn toward remarks by  Justice Antonin Scalia that indefinite continuation of the law amounts to  “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Papantonio lashed out with a dubious claim  about Scalia’s grandfather (h/t for audio, Brian Maloney at mrctv.org)  –

Let me just tell you something, you go back and look at the history of  Scalia. This guy’s grandfather was head of the New York Fascist Party, I’m not  making that, head of the New York Fascist Party. And I gotta tell you something,  the nut does not fall far from the tree.

Yes — the “New York Fascist Party.” Well, heck, everybody’s heard of that,  right?
Turns out Papantonio made a similar but significantly different  claim in a column at Huffington Post three years ago. Here’s  what he wrote

Alan Dershowitz wrote a book years ago where he pointed out that Supreme  Court Judge Antonin Scalia’s father was an active member of the American-Italian  fascist party. In fact, Dershowitz points out that as a child, Scalia was placed  in a military school where many children of the American-Italian fascist party  were educated. Antonin obviously paid attention in class.

Father, grandfather, great-aunt, whatever. While young Scalia was “obviously  paid attention in class” — he was a brilliant student, not incidentally —  Papantonio is too lazy to recall his previous assertions that it was Scalia’s  father, not grandfather, who was active in the “American-Italian fascist party,”  not the “New York Fascist Party.”
In his HuffPo posting, Papantonio also  couldn’t bring himself to the bare minimum required for substantiating such a  claim, which would be citing the title of Dershowitz’s book where the claim  allegedly originated. Including the actual passage, assuming it even exists,  would been helpful as well, though such an endeavor might have required several  minutes of Papantonio’s time. Perhaps this was not included because it was, uh,  difficult to find.

Another odd thing about Papantonio’s HuffPo posting — comments were closed  for it after all of three, count ‘em, three comments, which might set a record  for fewest ever at the site.
I contacted Dershowitz’s office at Harvard  Law School to see if he would substantiate or refute Papatonio’s claims and, as  I expected, Dershowitz declined. “He is not interested in responding to this,”  wrote Dershowitz assistant Sarah Neely.
This dubious claim about  Scalia’s fascist elder(s) does show up elsewhere online, on left-wing sites that  parrot Papantonio word for word and also cite his attribution to  Dershowitz.
In a two-part profile  of Scalia nearly five years ago by “60 Minutes,” no mention was made of the  alleged fascism of Scalia’s father, though presumably those producing the show  would not shied from the claim if there was any evidence to back it up.

The allegation is rejected outright at wiki.answers.com, in response to the  question, “Who is the US Supreme Court justice whose father was a founder of the  American Fascist Party.” Here’s the answer  provided at the site –

None of the Supreme Court justices, or their relatives, have been  associated with fascism.

There is an indefensible rumor circulating on the Internet that Justice  Antonin Scalia’s father, S. Eugene Scalia, founded the American Fascist Party in  1934. Although we unintentionally helped perpetuate this misinformation,  research indicates the rumor is false.

Salvatore Eugene Scalia was a  first-generation Italian immigrant who obtained a Ph.D from Columbia University  and taught romance languages at Brooklyn College. He translated a number of  books from Italian to English, including Philip Mazzei’s memoir, “My Life and  Wanderings.”

There is no evidence that Scalia’s father even supported fascism, although  that was a common allegation against Italians in the years between WWI and  WWII.
Lawrence Dennis, an American diplomat and author, advocated  fascism and talked of founding the “American Fascist Party” in the years  following the Great Depression, but the group never materialized. Dennis and  others were tried for sedition under the Smith Act in what became known as The  Great Sedition Trial of 1944. The case ended in a mistrial when the judge died  of a heart attack.
It appears the closest organization to an American  fascist party was the German-American Bund, supporters of Nazi Germany.

Unfortunately  for Papantonio, there is another figure from the 1930s who is remembered as  overtly sympathetic toward fascism — Joseph P. Kennedy — grandfather (how  about that) of his radio show co-host Robert Kennedy Jr.

Franklin Roosevelt appointed Joseph Kennedy as ambassador to Great Britain in  1938, but the appointment was rocky from the start as Europe careened toward  World War II. Two years later, after Kennedy’s admiration for Nazi Germany had  become widely known, he told a Boston newspaper that “democracy is finished in  England” and America could be next. Kennedy was forced to resign within weeks.  He disappeared from public view for the next 20 years, reappearing on the day  after his then-eldest son won the presidency in 1960, having bankrolled the  campaign.

more:  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2013/03/04/liberal-radio-host-mike-papantonio-smears-scalia-elder-fascist-leader#ixzz2MfwFNHPE

Papantonio is another in a long line of lib-talkers who runs his mouth without care for truth or honesty. He is despicable.

  We Have Ted Cruz’s List: Harvard Law Really Is Littered with  Communists

By Matthew  Vadum

It  turns out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was correct when he claimed Harvard Law School  had significant numbers of what might reasonably be called  “communists.”

Anyone  who knows the Ivy League knows the question shouldn’t be, Who at Harvard is Marxist? but Who at Harvard isn’t  Marxist?

Cruz,  a U.S. senator for almost two months now, made the offending statement in a  speech almost three years ago.  He described Barack Obama as “the most  radical” president “ever to occupy the Oval Office.”

Obama  “would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School” because “there were  fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than communists!”  said Cruz.  “There was one Republican. But there were 12 who would say they  were Marxists who believed in the communists’ overthrowing the United States  government.”

Dan  McLaughlin, a law school classmate of Cruz, confirms  that the senator “is absolutely right on the basic point here:  there were  multiples more Marxists on the Harvard Law faculty at the time than open  Republicans.”

more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/we_have_ted_cruzs_list_harvard_law_really_islittered 

Hey libs, you don’t have to “like” what Ted Cruz said, but that doesn’t make it any less true. But then what does truth matter to a liberal?

Washington Post report confuses one prostitute with another in bid to debunk  Menendez allegations

The Washington Post mistook one prostitute for another Monday in a report  that initially seemed to debunk a November 2012 Daily Caller  exposé of New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez.

While the Post said it had an affidavit from a woman in the Dominican  Republic admitting she fabricated claims Menendez paid her for sex, that woman  was not one of the two prostitutes TheDC interviewed for a Nov. 1  report.

The Post identified the woman as  23-year-old Nexis de los Santos Santana.

more:  http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/05/wapo-report-confuses-one-prostitute-for-another-in-bid-to-debunk-menendez-allegations/#ixzz2MfyexR00

Worth a Read:

More Reporters Step Forward to Discuss Obama White House’s Petty Treatment of  Press

link:  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/howard-portnoy/2013/03/04/another-reporter-steps-forward-discuss-obama-white-house-s-petty-tre#ixzz2MfJguIvX

Poll: 70% Of Americans Support Building Keystone Pipeline…

link: http://weaselzippers.us/2013/03/05/poll-70-of-americans-support-building-keystone-pipeline/

Why House Conservatives Cheered the Sequester

link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/why-house-conservatives-cheered-the-sequester-20130303

Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she’s got at least two years left

link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/04/ruth-bader-ginsburg-says-shes-got-at-least-two-years-left/

I loathe these old farts that refuse to step down. And her, I loathe on several counts. One consulation is that if the old fool drops dead in harness Obama cannot replace her with anyone worse!

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

  “I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labour of the industrious.”  ~ Thomas Jefferson

2 thoughts on “TUESDAY MOURNING MANURING

  1. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is older than dirt, but she still wants to hold on until the end. Is she afraid that if she retires, we might actually get someone in there who will do an adequate job? She needn’t worry, Obummer would just appoint another marxist to fill her seat. Those two lovely ladies that he recently appointed are not only outstandingly socialistically oriented, but are also very rude. Good luck getting a word in edgewise with one of them. I believe it was Santomayer (sp?) who kept interrupting the proceedings at one session. Did her high fangled education not teach her any manners, or does her exalted position put her above such petty nonsense? There is no couth in the Supreme Court, anymore. With John Roberts at the helm we’ve lost our dazzle and trust.

    • Since Sotomayor considers herself a “wise Latina” perhaps she thinks she’s above such things are good manners and couth. I find her repulsive and arrogant. She is also more ideologue than jurist and not qualified to sit on the highest court in the land IMO. John Roberts has shown that he cannot be trusted to protect the constitution or the people of this country from ideology. He can vote for those things until he too is a dessicated old prune sitting in judgment of better men and women than himself and he will never be forgiven for his treason vis a vis obamacare. He betrayed all the things he was supposed to be. Some things can never be forgiven. No matter who replaces Ginsberg they cannot be worse. If that’s a consolation.

      ________________________________

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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