Witch’s Will For A Morning In March

My Pick of the Litter Today

Government by Temper Tantrum

As the father of two small boys, I’ve seen some tantrums these last few years. They follow a predictable script.

• Child wants something

• Dad says no

• Child demands something

• Dad says no

• Child begins tantrum

• Dad says no

And so on, until the child realizes that Dad can take the screaming and the tantrum ceases. Or punishment is doled out. Or — sometimes — both.

Witness, if you will, government by tantrum:

The Obama administration denied an appeal for flexibility in lessening the sequester’s effects, with an email this week appearing to show officials in Washington that because they already had promised the cuts would be devastating, they now have to follow through on that.

In the email sent Monday by Charles Brown, an official with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C., Mr. Brown asked “if there was any latitude” in how to spread the sequester cuts across the region to lessen the impacts on fish inspections.

He said he was discouraged by officials in Washington, who gave him this reply: “We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

The government wants something. It wants to spend $3,803,000,000,000. It’s been told that it may only spend $3,759,000,000,000. (Please notice that nine zeroes are left unmolested.)


More Stuff:

Economic Mobility

Thomas Sowell by Thomas Sowell

Most people are not even surprised any more when they hear about someone who came here from Korea or Vietnam with very little money, and very little knowledge of English, who nevertheless persevered and rose in American society. Nor are we surprised when their children excel in school and go on to professional careers.

Yet, in utter disregard of such plain facts, so-called “social scientists” do studies which conclude that America is no longer a land of opportunity, and that upward mobility is a “myth.” Even when these studies have lots of numbers in tables and equations that mimic the appearance of science, too often their conclusions depend on wholly arbitrary assumptions.

Even people regarded as serious academic scholars often measure social mobility by how many people from families in the lower part of the income distribution end up in higher income brackets. But social mobility — the opportunity to move up — cannot be measured solely by how much movement takes place.

Opportunity is just one factor in economic advancement. How well a given individual or group takes advantage of existing opportunities is another. Only by implicitly (and arbitrarily) assuming that a failure to rise must be due to society’s barriers can we say that American society no longer has opportunity for upward social mobility.

The very same attitudes and behavior that landed a father in a lower income bracket can land the son in that same bracket. But someone with a different set of attitudes and behavior may rise dramatically in the same society. Sometimes even a member of the same family may rise while a sibling stagnates or falls by the wayside.

Ironically, many of the very people who are promoting the idea that the “unfairness” of American society is the reason why some individuals and groups are not advancing are themselves a big part of the reason for the stagnation that occurs.


Criminal Justice International Associates (CJIA), a risk assessment and global analysis firm in Miami, estimated in a recent report that the Chávez Frías family in Venezuela has “amassed a fortune” similar to that of the Castro brothers in Cuba.

According to Jerry Brewer, president of CJIA, “the personal fortune of the Castro brothers has been estimated at a combined value of around $2 billion.”

“The Chávez Frías family in Venezuela has amassed a fortune of a similar scale since the arrival of Chávez to the presidency in 1999,” said Brewer in an analysis published in their website.

Brewer said that Cuba is receiving about $5 billion per year from the Venezuelan treasury and in oil shipments and other resources.

“We believe that organized bolivarian criminal groups within the Chávez administration have subtracted around $100 billion out of the nearly $1 trillion in oil income made by PDVSA since 1999.”


Another bunch of thugs who while claiming to “do good” have done very well. For themselves.

What’s Up With the Democrats?

Colorado Democrat Lectures Rape Survivor Amanda Collins About Rape “Statistics”

Colorado’s Democratic lawmakers considering more gun control in the state have once again proven they are way in over their heads when it comes to discussing the issue of rape and concealed carry on campus. Three weeks ago, Democratic Rep. Joe Salazar suggested rape whistles and call boxes were sufficient enough for women to prevent rape. Another Democratic lawmaker, Jesse Ulibarri suggested people use ballpoint pens to fight back against a gun wielding madman on a rampage. The University of Colorado-Colorado Springs suggested women vomit and urinate on their rapist. The school also suggested a woman tell a rapist she is menstruating or carrying a disease in order to prevent rape from occurring.

During a recent hearing about legislation in Colorado that would ban concealed carry on college campuses, rape survivor Amanda Collins whose story we documented two weeks ago, testified. As a reminder of her story:

Amanda Collins is a young rape survivor. While in college in 2007, she was raped 50 feet away from the campus police department office at the University of Nevada-Reno and was lucky to get out alive. Her attacker was James Biela, a serial rapist who raped two other women and murdered another. He attacked her at gun point in a gun free zone. At the time of the attack, Collins was in possession of a concealed weapons permit but was not in possession of her firearm due to university policies prohibiting carrying concealed weapons on campus. She was also a second degree black belt at the time and walked to the parking garage with a large group of people.
“If I had been carrying that night, two other rapes would have been prevented and a young life would have been saved,” Collins said. “All of these are just sentiments that give a false sense of security. In my experience I know that the university that I attended, the University of Nevada-Reno, they didn’t didn’t have any call boxes the night I was attacked. They afterwards installed them but I can tell you that a call box above my head while I was straddled on the parking garage floor being brutally raped wouldn’t have helped me one bit. The safe zone? I was in a safe zone and my attacker didn’t care,” Collins said. “It’s known that I could see the police cruisers less than 50 feet away from me, from where I was being attacked but the moment I saw those cruisers, I knew at the same time that no one was coming for me….they were all off duty. The offices had closed. They weren’t in their cruisers, there was no one there. A whistle wouldn’t have gotten anybody’s attention. It was isolated, it was late at night. It’s really frustrating that I’m supposed to hand over my own protection to a man but they’re not able to guarantee our protection and the comments that this representative made about women not knowing if they’re going to be raped or accidentally shooting the wrong person was extremely offensive because he specifically targeted female students. So, is he saying that all women are unable to make sound decisions in the midst of that, that we should go against our God given gut instinct that something was wrong? I knew something was wrong the moment I was grabbed from behind.”
Red-tape and university policies led to this happening and empowered Biela while punishing Collins.
I was legislated into being a victim,” Collins said.

After her testimony, Collins was met with a factually deficient lecture from Democratic State Senator Evi Hudak, who told Collins “statistics aren’t on your side” and pointed out that Collins wasn’t able to overpower her attacker despite being an expert in martial arts. This is where the “Hudak can’t be serious moment” comes in.

“I just want to say statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get than from you and possibly use it against you,” Hudak said.

Collins responded by saying, “Respectfully Senator, you weren’t there…I was there, I know without a doubt in my mind at some point I would have been able to stop my attack by using my firearm. He already had a weapon of his own, he didn’t need mine.”


Just wondering where all those irate female critters are who come out of the woodwork every time a Republican says something stupid or insensitive about rape and rape victims. Stupid remarks by stupid people on this subject should be treated as the swill they are. As should the human swill that say them.

Politics is what counts with these peoople, not honesty or the truth. A double standard on this issue is past reprehensible.

What Up With Republicans?

  Tom Coburn’s Lonely Campaign Against Government Waste

 Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is a real-life Murray Blum.

Blum, played by Charles Grodin, is the president’s accountant in the comedy “Dave,” which I think of every time we have one of these spending dramas in Washington. In my favorite scene in the movie, President Dave Kovic, played by Kevin Kline, asks Blum to the White House for a budget-cutting session. Kovic wants to find $650 million in the budget to rescue the first lady’s pet project, a homeless shelter. Blum breaks out some thick ledgers and a calculator, and they get to work. The homeless shelter is saved.

Yes, this is Hollywood, and yes, I realize that the U.S. government’s deficit can’t be erased by a couple of wonks pulling an all-nighter. But I confess to a weakness for the simple idea that the federal government shouldn’t waste money, and that calling attention to that waste is a valuable service.

In 2011 and again last year, the folks at the Government Accountability Office issued thick reports detailing the opportunities for the government to reduce waste and save money. Together, the reports run to more than 700 pages.

Coburn loves to cite these reports, and has his own tales to tell: of the thousands of federal housing administrators in Oklahoma, for example — including one for a town called Picher, which is a Superfund site and has been depopulated.

Add up all the programs like that and you end up with real money, Coburn says: about $364 billion. Even when his colleagues have the evidence in front of them that “one-third of what we do doesn’t accomplish what it’s supposed to,” Coburn says, they don’t vote to “kill a program but to add another on top of it.”



Scenes from the Sequestrocalypse: TSA to spend $50 million on new uniforms

Say, are you getting frustrated by long lines at the airport?  Janet Napolitano wants you to know that the sequester is to blame for your woesFollowing up on a more general warning she gave a week ago about the impact of the sequester, the DHS Secretary said yesterday that wait times had already gone up 150% to 200% at major airports, even if TSA didn’t show any unusual delays at all:

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on Monday cautioned airline passengers to get to the airport extra early because U.S. spending cuts have already led to long lines at some security checkpoints, and said the coming furloughs will only make the situation worse.

Napolitano said mandatory spending cuts ordered on Friday by President Barack Obama have led to the elimination of overtime for Transportation Security Administration officers and customs agents. She said TSA would begin sending out furlough notices to employees on Monday. Hiring freezes have also prevented any open positions from being filled.

“We are already seeing the effects at some of the ports of entry – at the big airports, for example. Some of them had very long lines this weekend,” Napolitano said at a “Politico Playbook” breakfast event.

She pointed to Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport as examples of those with long lines.

Napolitano said delays were between 150 percent and 200 percent at certain airports, although the TSA website did not show any major delays at any U.S. airport on Monday morning.

While you’re waiting in those longer lines that may or may not exist, you’ll have extra time to admire the new uniforms TSA bought just before the sequester hit.  DHS signed a $50 million deal to buy uniforms just before the sequester hit, some of which will be made in Mexico.


   The Climate and the Constitution

On Monday, President Obama announced the appointments of Gina McCarthy to run the Environmental Protection Agency and Ernest J. Moniz to take charge of the Department of Energy. In a week when the country is focused on the issue of the debt, the sequester and the budget, these nominations are not generating as much interest as the question of whether the administration is orchestrating government cutbacks to increase pressure on Congress to raise taxes. But their significance should not be underestimated.

As the president indicated, he is planning on using these two agencies and their leaders to pursue an aggressive climate change agenda in his second term.

The debate about global warming and the hysteria that has become an integral part of the environmentalist agenda is one thing. But the key issue involved in these appointments and the president’s intentions for the next four years is one that revolves around legal issues as much as it does scientific disputes.

It doesn’t matter whether you are in full agreement with the president on this issue or buy into only a part of it or none at all. The question before the nation here is whether the executive branch can or should give itself the power to run roughshod over Congress and unilaterally implement new regulations that will give the force of law to the president’s climate beliefs. If McCarthy and Moniz intend to use their regulating power to redraw the laws concerning fossil fuel emissions or the ability to explore or drill for new energy sources, then the result will be as much of a Constitutional crisis as anything else.

As the New York Times reports:

The E.P.A., which the Supreme Court granted authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, is in the midst of writing regulations governing such emissions from new power plants. Those rules, expected to be completed this year, would essentially bar construction of any new coal-fired power plants unless they included the means to capture carbon gases, a technology that does not yet exist on a commercial scale.

But to make a real dent in the nation’s emissions, the agency must then devise emissions limits for existing plants, a hugely controversial project that could force the shutdown of dozens of older coal-burning power plants, cause a steep drop in domestic demand for coal and trigger a sharp rise in energy prices.

No matter how carefully written — and Ms. McCarthy is an expert on federal air quality law — any such regulations would be subject to intense opposition in the courts, and in Congress, which could seek to overturn the regulations.

The problem here is that the Court’s decision about the EPA as well as the Clean Air Act that Congress already passed gives the executive branch far-reaching powers to transform the American economy without congressional approval. That means the president could potentially draw up rules that could not only have a deleterious impact on fuel exploration and recovery methods like fracking, but also force American industries and businesses to go implement costly changes to satisfy the whims of environmentalists that could cost the country jobs and reduce the chances for growth.


It’s “I Told You So” on ObamaCare

By Jonah Goldberg

“What we’ve learned through the course of this program is that this is really not a sensible way for the healthcare system to be run.”

That was Gary Cohen, director of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, talking. He was specifically responding to the apparently surprising need to halt enrollments in a program designed as a temporary bridge for people with preexisting conditions who couldn’t wait until the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) fully kicks in next year. The program was allocated $5 billion, but some estimate it will take $40 billion to fund the effort.

Such surprises are becoming routine. The New York Times has reported that many small and mid-size firms may be opting out of Obamacare entirely. “The new healthcare law created powerful incentives for smaller employers to self-insure,” Deborah J. Chollet of the Mathematica Policy Research told the paper. “This trend could destabilize small-group insurance markets and erode protections provided by the Affordable Care Act.”

It turns out that Obamacare actually makes self-insurance less of a gamble because you can always throw workers on public exchanges without penalty. Naturally, the administration’s response is to look for ways to tighten the ratchet and make self-insurance harder. It’s a typical response. The shortcomings of a wildly ambitious law only justify more regulatory strong-arming.

As Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center notes, the NYT never paused to ask why it’s OK that “a design flaw in the law somehow empowers” regulators to punish private employers. But this is typical of so much coverage of Obamacare. It is just taken for granted that thing must be made to work.

Although it’s true that we collectively spent a lot of time shouting about Obamacare, we spent precious little time actually debating it. Most of the media covered the discussion as if it were a spectator sport, with the Democrats the hometown favorite. And much of the remainder seemed to assume that healthcare reporting amounted to explaining why Obamacare was a good idea. The facade of objectivity was often maintained by citing carefully crafted CBO projections that reflected political assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.

Reality is teaching the propeller-heads a lesson. Despite President Obama promising that his plan would not add “one dime” to the deficit, the Government Accountability Office announced last week that it would more likely add 620,000,000,000,000 dimes (or $6.2 trillion) over 75 years.


  Holder: Obama could order lethal force in U.S.

President Barack Obama could order the use of deadly force against an American inside the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) released Tuesday.

Paul and other senators had asked various administration officials whether deadly drones strikes like the ones the U.S. carries out in Pakistan, Yemen and other foreign countries could ever be used in the U.S. Paul said he would seek to block the confirmation of John Brennan as Central Intelligence Agency director if the question was not answered. (Brennan’s nomination was endorsed by the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon in a 12-3 vote.)

In the one-page letter dated Monday, Holder said: “The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.” The attorney general argued that law enforcement is best suited to resolve such threats “in this country.”

However, Holder says that in situations akin to the 1941 assault on Pearl Harbor or the September 11, 2001 attacks, the president might have to order the use of deadly force in the U.S.

“The question you have posed is entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront,” Holder wrote. “It is possible, I supposed, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the President could concievably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.”

Paul said in a statement that he was deeply disturbed by Holder’s views.

“The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” Paul said.

Police, of course, regularly and lawfully use deadly force inside the U.S. in cases where criminals are presenting a imminent threat to others. They can also use lethal force under the so-called “fleeing felon” rule to stop a dangerous individuals.

However, the Obama Administration has claimed authority to use armed drones abroad under a more relaxed standard of imminence, embracing situations where an individual has organized terrorist attacks in the past and has not renounced such activity. In addition, the administration has carried out so-called “signature strikes,” where a group of suspected terrorists is attacked based on their pattern of activity even though the U.S. lacks specific intelligence about their identities.

More from our “Justice” Department …

Obama Admin Wants to Deport Homeschoolers

The Romeike family fled their German homeland in 2008 seeking political asylum in the United States – where they hoped to home school their children. Instead, the Obama administration wants the evangelical Christian family deported.

The fate of Uwe and Hannelore Romeikie – along with their six children – now rests with the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – after the Dept. of Homeland Security said they don’t deserve asylum.

Neither the Justice Dept. nor the Dept. of Homeland Security returned calls seeking comment.

“The Obama administration is basically saying there is no right to home school anywhere,” said Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. “It’s an utter repudiation of parental liberty and religious liberty.”

The Justice Dept. is arguing that German law banning home schooling does not violate the family’s human rights.

“They are trying to send a family back to Germany where they would certainly lose custody of their children,” Farris told Fox News. “Our government is siding with Germany.”

Farris said the Germans ban home schools because “they don’t want to have religious and philosophical minorities in their country.”

“That means they don’t want to have significant numbers of people who think differently than what the government thinks,” he said. “It’s an incredibly dangerous assertion that people can’t think in a way that the government doesn’t approve of.”

He said the Justice Dept. is backing that kind of thinking and arguing “it is not a human rights violation.”

Farris said he finds great irony that the Obama administration is releasing thousands of illegal aliens – yet wants to send a family seeking political asylum back to Germany.

“Eleven million people are going to be allowed to stay freely – but this one family is going to be shipped back to Germany to be persecuted,” he said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”

The fear of persecution is why an immigration judge granted the family political asylum in 2010.

German authorities demanded the family stop home schooling. They faced thousands of dollars in fines and they initially took away their children in a police van.

German state constitutions require children attend public schools. Parents who don’t comply face punishment ranging from fines to prison time. The nation’s highest appellate court ruled in 2007 that in some cases children could be removed from their parents’ care.


  Most Back Cuts Overall – But Not to the Military

For all the dire warnings, most Americans welcome a five percent cut in overall federal spending this year. But the defense budget is another matter.

The public by nearly 2-1, 61-33 percent, supports cutting the overall budget along the lines of the sequester that took effect last Friday. But by nearly an identical margin, Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll oppose an eight percent across-the-board cut in military spending.


  Obama and the Media: Old Policy Resurfacing

The Woodward imbroglio isn’t the only incident of bullying the press by this White House.

When Amory Gutierrez from the Pleasanton Weekly wanted to do a puff piece on the Obamas’ helicopter, “Marine One,” the White House put out the welcome mat. After all, Pleasanton is a very upscale bedroom community attached to Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Democrats outnumber Republicans there more than two to one. Gutierrez, however, did not keep to the anticipated script.  Her piece gushed over the helicopter flown by a Marine crew, but then went on to repeat what the Marines had told her.  In nearly four years of flying the Obamas, Michelle Obama had never so much as verbally acknowledged the crew’s existence.

Intentional or not, the one line in the otherwise celebratory piece made the first lady look aloof and disdainful of the military — or as some people put it, just plain snooty.  The White House moved decisively into damage-control mode.

Now, one might see this move as more than a bit of an overreaction. After all, the Pleasanton Weekly is not exactly the Washington Post. But, in many circles, Michelle Obama has a major image problem.  There is her statement that she was not proud of her country that seems continually to follow her. Then, there were the vacations that were roundly criticized for masquerading as state visits. Consequently, this small weekly in an overwhelmingly Democratic district was being pressured to remove the line that further tarnished the first lady’s image.

Did the Marines not say this? Was the line inaccurate? Gina Channell-Allen, the president of the Pleasanton Weekly, never contested the veracity of the line. In justifying her yielding to the “request” from the White House to have it removed, she made an argument so torturous as to remind us that the First Amendment is too important to be left to journalists to defend.

Channell-Allen told readers that she had been asked by the White House to take out something that compromised the president’s security, and while she was doing this, taking out the other line was no big deal. In fact, Channell-Allen conflated the two requests as if one were part of the other. Here is how she put it: “They also mentioned taking out a line that could be misconstrued about the first lady. It wasn’t going to change lives or destroy administrations by leaving it in or taking it out. When you’ve just been asked to do something to keep the president of the United States from harm, taking a line out about something like that is not a question.  Even journalists have to choose our battles.”

Asking the Office of the First Lady for a comment on why it was necessary to pressure a small weekly newspaper to edit its story, The Daily Caller received an email from Michelle Obama’s press secretary, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, that denied the office knew of the story or ever had interacted with the paper.

At the same time, the San Francisco Chronicle, no member of the infamous right-wing conspiracy, came in for similar treatment. On April 20, 2011, Obama came to San Francisco for a fund-raiser at the St. Regis Hotel, which was interrupted by local activist, Naomi Pitcairn, who had paid $76,000 to attend, so that she and a group of fellow progressives could spontaneously serenade the president with a mocking ditty on behalf of Wikileaks source Private Bradley Manning.

The press attending the event had been restricted to pencil and paper, no cameras, no recorders.  Seeing the protest serenade as news in the making, Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci whipped out her smart phone and captured a stunned president being harassed by his ideological base.

After filing her pool report, Marinucci uploaded a video of the a capella  protest to S. F. Gate, the Chronicle’s web site. A senior reporter with impeccable liberal credentials, Marinucci found that she was not immune to the wrath of the White House.  The White House communications office  issued a heated warning that Marinucci was banned from all future presidential events and that if the Chronicle went public with the story of her banishment, the entire Hearst chain, of which the Chronicle is part, would find all its reporters banned.


Media Malpractice:

Media Attack Ann Romney for Suggesting They Helped Obama Win

It didn’t take long for liberal members of the press to spew venom at Ann Romney  after she stated during an interview on last weekend’s edition of “Fox News  Sunday” that she’s “happy  to blame the media” as one of the reasons her husband, GOP former Mass.  Governor Mitt Romney, lost the 2012 presidential election.

The fast and  furious insults have ranged from a declaration  by Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post that she “is suffering a  serious case of sour grapes” and “needs to move on” to a sarcastic  Tweet about her from David Bernstein of the Boston Phoenix as “still  blaming media” even though he “lost count of stories she and Mitt  refused to participate in.”

One of the most curious comments regarding the interview came from Nicole  Wallace, a panelist on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program who stated  on Monday:

The Romneys are trying — have been dignified in defeat,  but I think whenever you come out and talk about what went wrong, there’s just — it sort of reeks of the bitterness and the regret. It’s hard to watch.

Wallace added that “it takes years to get over losing a presidential  campaign” and is especially hard for the candidate’s family, including Ann  Romney — who is “still angry” over the election results.


They just can’t stop bashing the Romneys can they? How dare she suggest they were biased? Their high dudgeon would be funny if it wasn’t so repulsive. Every day in so many ways the MSM and their bias shows them to be petty, ugly, little people. Much like the POS they support. Who by the way dislikes them immensely. How’s that for irony?

 Hugo Chavez Anointed Successor Already Polishing Anti-America Credentials, Hammers Obama For “Lavishing Hatred” On Chavez…


Even The Soros-Funded Tools At Think Progress Are Warning Democrats Not To Eulogize Hugo Chavez…


And as might be expected, Michael Moore is praising Chavez.

Worth a Read:

Reuters: Obama Job Approval Plummets to 43%


Hume: Obama Needs To Put On His “Big Boy Pants And Prepare To Shoulder The Responsibility”


Lot of O’Reilly before you get to Hume. It’s worth the wait IMO.

Krauthammer On Chavez: “He Was A Thug, Tried To Dismantle Democracy”


Bill Cosby Rants Against Republicans, Compares Them to Segregationists for Not  Applauding Obama



  Political  ideology can corrupt the mind, and science. ~
E. O. Wilson


  1. Another great disappointment to me — Bill Cosby. There was a time when I could sit and watch Cosby comedy all day, and laugh just as hard as anyone else. His family program as the Doctor-father wasn’t bad either. These days he makes me sick. Was he always this way, and waited until we made the mistake of letting our guard down to pounce? He has turned into a complaining, grouchy, demanding old worshiper at the feet of his illustrious POTUS, and thinks we should also bow down. No Thanks! I choose my own idols, and they are very far apart and few between, no help needed, thank you, Bill. It’s time to retire that long-playing record, of one of your night-club performances that I have had for ages – it no longer entertains me.

    • I suspect that with Bill Cosby, as with many black entertainers, there was a hidden resentment/hatred of whites for some treatment by some racists. Now with a black, or 1/2 black man in the White House, all that resentment/hatred shows itself in an obsessive belief, and I do believe that he and others like him believe, that any dislike or disagreement with Obama or his policies is based purely on the color of his skin. Like any other “belief” based on a deep rooted anger/resentment it doesn’t need facts because it feeds on emotion. I was once a fan. No more. Ditto Morgan Freeman who was one of my favorite actors and Samuel L. Jackson who was also someone who’s talent I enjoyed. I find these days that when it’s time to select a movie or program to watch, or buy, a little voice in the back of my mind reminds me that these people are “racists” and that I do not now and never have done anything to support racists. And racists do not only come in the color “white”. Barack Obama, and these stupid AA celebrities have done more to set back race relations than anything I can think of over the past 40 years. Just like the aging white bigots they diminish our country and themselves with every stupid, racist comment they make. If I didn’t loathe them so much I might almost pity them. Because they, and their antiquated ideas and feelings are pathetic. Repulsive, but pathetic.


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