Witch’s Will For A Morning In March

My Pick of the Litter Today

And the Most Popular Show on Television Is…

“Pop Culture’s Most Popular TV Show Is — Brace Yourself — The Bible,” Megan Basham writes at Acculturated:

This past Sunday the television industry felt the ground shake when the first installment of the History Channel’s five-part miniseries, The Bible, drew a whopping 14.3 million viewers.  To put that in perspective, those are higher ratings than American Idol drew on Fox in the same week.  Higher ratings than the premiere of Celebrity Apprentice on NBC.  And it officially made The Bible the number one scripted cable broadcast of the year.

The news was apparently so astonishing it prompted Business Week to investigate exactly how the basic cable network pulled it off and inspired Time magazine’s resident T.V. critic, James Poniewozik, to ponder whether The Bible’s success will lead to further mainstream forays into religious-themed entertainment.

What’s more astonishing, given how often pro-faith productions put up massive numbers, is that major media outlets still feel the need to run shocked headlines about it.

First, of course, came The Passion of the Christ.  The highest-earning R-rated movie of all time was expected to issue a wake-up call to the industry about the potential for films based on Scripture.  When it didn’t, a series of indie movies from Sherwood Baptist Church reaped so much cash from their fairly meager showing, the Hollywood Reporter called them, “some of the most profitable films in modern history.”  Then early last year the New York Times noted the success of the pro-Catholic, pro-life film, October Baby.  And late last year American Bible Challenge debuted as the number one show ever to run on the Game Show Network.

All of this should have sent a clear message to network and studio executives long before last Sunday—if you build something of even middling quality (and, unfortunately, middling is generous in The Bible’s case) that is even remotely respectful of Christian faith, Christians of all stripes will tune in or buy tickets to see it.  But it didn’t.  Or at least, it didn’t if Time’s Poniewozik is any indication of what other industry insiders are saying to one another.

Why hasn’t there been another Passion? First of all, Hollywood is under no obligation to produce product that doesn’t reflect its worldview, any more than, say, National Review is obligated to run articles trumpeting the joys of atheism, abortion, and Obama.


More Stuff:

Democrats and Civil Liberties

There were several surprising moments in Rand Paul’s 13-hour talking filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA. But there was one aspect of it that wasn’t surprising at all: Democrats ignored or dismissed it (with the exception of Ron Wyden). Reporters began asking Democrats where they were. You would think, the assumption went, that there would be plenty of Democrats–who were, after all, able to muster a lifetime’s worth of outrage at George Bush–who would feel right at home defending civil liberties from a wartime president.

Buzzfeed published a story getting some pretty weak excuses from Democrats in the Senate. It’s worth reading their explanations while keeping in mind the Democrats’ favorite manufactured storyline–that Republicans are so consumed by partisanship that they won’t even stand with Democrats who agree with them. But by far the best comment comes from this Huffington Post piece on how the liberal network MSNBC covered the filibuster. Aside from Rachel Maddow, who chose principle over partisanship, MSNBC’s viewers were treated to quite a spectacle:

Though the filibuster riveted social media, and was discussed on all of CNN’s prime time shows and every Fox News show except Bill O’Reilly’s, both Al Sharpton and Chris Matthews avoided it, spending none of their segments talking about Paul. Ed Schultz spent 58 seconds on the filibuster, using most of the time to read comments from Facebook followers who called Paul “obstructionist.” By comparison, he spent nearly seven minutes analyzing Bill O’Reilly’s body language.

I haven’t watched Ed Schultz’s show, but it sounds positively disturbing. The most revealing part of the Buzzfeed story is this:

“There was a sense the Paul filibuster was a distraction from the real issues of privacy and civil liberties, and was just not an issue worth spending an entire day on in the Senate,” said the Democratic staffer. “When Senators are getting ready to break ranks, you feel these tremors before it actually hits, and we didn’t hear any of that yesterday.”

Sen. Mark Begich, a Democratic from Alaska [sic], said he shared several of the concerns Paul expressed on the Senate floor, but felt that joining the filibuster would have been a distraction from Congress’s work on the federal budget.

The Democrats in the Senate haven’t passed a budget in years, so Begich’s excuse is laughable. Democrats are apparently working so hard at avoiding their basic constitutional responsibilities they don’t even have time to speak on the Senate floor for a couple of minutes. Perhaps this was Begich’s way of assuring the public they won’t see him on the Senate floor or taking any time off until they pass a budget.


Backlash Builds Against Chicago Media for Attacks on GOP’s McKinley

The GOP primary in the race to replace Jesse Jackson, Jr. received little to no coverage leading up to the February 26 ballot from the mainstream Chicago media. Since winning the Republican nomination, however, the media have fixated on Republican winner Paul McKinley and his criminal past.

Despite campaigning openly as an “ex-offender” since the beginning of the race, several local Chicago mainstream media outlets have made it their mission to reconvict McKinley on their own terms.

And yet, the voters aren’t having it; in fact, after a particularly vicious series of pieces about McKinley featuring blatant, redundant, and relentless attacks, members of the Chicago Media are now facing a backlash from the public and numerous “new-media outlets.”

There is little doubt that if McKinley were a Democrat, the headlines would proclaim a different narrative. Something along the lines of, “McKinley Turns Life Around, Wins Primary,” or “Primary Winner with Troubled Past Proves There is Still Hope for Less Fortunate.”

Local Chicago media outlets, specifically the Tribune’s Bill Ruthhart and WFLD Fox 32 Chicago’s Mike Flannery, however, seem to see it as their role to concentrate solely on McKinley’s past instead of his remarkable turnaround story and campaign for office, reconvicting McKinley for crimes he committed over 30 years ago and for which he served his time.

The Tribune’s Bill Ruthhart dug up McKinley’s records from over three decades ago, records so old “it took more than three weeks” to track them down. In recounting what they reveal about the crimes McKinley committed in his teens and early twenties, Ruthhart weaves a story that goes back and forth in time repeatedly.

Ruthhart’s carefully crafted article uses quotes from McKinley today that deceptively creates the impression that after each crime McKinley repented, only to return to a life of crime.

McKinley informed Breitbart News he appealed his sentence all the way to the United States Supreme Court, a fact that he also told Ruthhart. However, Ruthhart disregarded this development, leaving it out of his report when explaining McKinley did successfully get his 50 year sentence reduced to 20.

In reaction, the Chicago Tribune received and published the following letter to the editor this week, which came from Hinsdale, one of Chicago’s wealthiest suburbs:

I’m disgusted with the media, including the Chicago Tribune, for continually posting negative news about 2nd Congressional District candidate Paul McKinley.

They are crucifying him even before all the votes are in. The latest results from the primary election showed that Paul McKinley won the Republican nomination by 23 votes. This was a legitimate primary, and the voters chose him to be their leader.

I realize that McKinley spent 20 years in prison and that he committed some violent crimes in the past. But he was punished and served time for his acts. Now, he’s punished again by the press.

There are plenty of criminals on the streets who have committed crimes more serious than McKinley’s but have never been caught nor have they served time in prison.

Who do you think is a better servant in public office: a criminal who hasn’t been caught and believe me, there are plenty of them), or someone who has paid for his crimes and is now rehabilitated?

Let the voters decide who they want as their leader. McKinley says that he wants to turn his attention on the real gangsters, the ones that don’t wear pistols – the machine. Let’s give him a chance & see that he does it!

WFLD Fox Chicago’s Mike Flannery also has placed McKinley’s past at the top of his hit list since election day. On more than three occasions, Flannery has reminded his viewers about McKinley’s “life of crime” and “time behind bars.”


Rand Paul and the Rest of You Damn Conservatives Need to Get Off John McCain’s Lawn!

I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding, an unequivocal, “No.” The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet.Rand Paul

I do not believe that question deserves an answer.Lindsey Graham

Mr. Holder’s letter answers Mr. Rand’s question, “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill Americans not engaged in combat on U.S. soil. The answer to that question is ‘no.’”Jay Carney

I don’t think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people. — John McCain

Poor, poor John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Here they were discussing new tax hikes and amnesty with Barack Obama over a sumptuous dinner and that rakish scamp Rand Paul made it impossible for them to enjoy the fine cuisine.

It was bad enough that he was picking a public fight with Barack Obama, but that scalawag actually confronted Obama over a constitutional issue! Didn’t he understand that just isn’t done in Washington?

Worse yet, Rand Paul won and he WON BIG! He made Obama look bad, got Democratic Senator Ron Wyden to join in on his filibuster, and he thrilled the conservative base in the process. Obviously, exciting conservatives is a terrible idea because John McCain didn’t take a single stand that electrified conservatives in his entire presidential campaign and look how well that turned out!

As a result of this whole fiasco, the Obama Administration is now admitting that it doesn’t have the right to use a drone to kill American citizens on American soil. Is that really the road Republicans want to go down? High profile confrontations with the Democrats on conservative issues directly relating to the Constitution that can be turned into big political winners?



 Sen. Rand Paul: My filibuster was just the beginning

If I had planned to speak for 13 hours when I took the Senate floor Wednesday, I would’ve worn more comfortable shoes. I started my filibuster with the words, “I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak” — and I meant it.

I wanted to sound an alarm bell from coast to coast. I wanted everybody to know that our Constitution is precious and that no American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime. As Americans, we have fought long and hard for the Bill of Rights. The idea that no person shall be held without due process, and that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted, is a founding American principle and a basic right.

My official starting time was 11:47 a.m. on Wednesday, March 6, 2013.

I had a large binder of materials to help me get through my points, but although I sometimes read an op-ed or prepared remarks in between my thoughts, most of my filibuster was off the top of my head and straight from my heart. From 1 to 2 p.m., I barely looked at my notes. I wanted to make sure that I touched every point and fully explained why I was demanding more information from the White House.

Just before 3 p.m., Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) came to the Senate floor to help out. Under Senate rules, I could not yield the floor or my filibuster would end, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could have shut me down. The only way for me to continue and allow Sens. Lee and Cruz to speak was to yield the floor for questions.

Their presence gave me strength and inspiration. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) also arrived to help. Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the only Democrat who came to my defense, explained how we have worked together to demand more information from the White House about the rules for drone strikes. At about 4:30 p.m., Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) joined. I was flagging for a while, but these senators kept me going.

Sen. Reid came to the Senate floor to ask me when I would be done so he could schedule a vote. But I wasn’t ready to yield. I felt I had a lot more explaining to do.

At about 6:30 p.m., something extraordinary happened. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who has been recovering from a stroke, came to the floor to give me something. I was not allowed to drink anything but water or eat anything but the candy left in our Senate desks. But he brought me an apple and a thermos full of tea — the same sustenance Jimmy Stewart brought to the Senate floor in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” That was a moment I will never forget.


What Up With Republicans?

Paul, Cruz, Rubio: Loyal Opposition Emerges in Senate

Since the 2010 midterm elections, conservatives have looked to Speaker Boehner and House Republicans to provide a vanguard against Obama’s radical agenda. It has been a disheartening experience. In fairness to House Republicans, there is little one legislative chamber can do to affect the direction of the federal government. The tools they do have, however, they have often declined to use. Paul’s filibuster of the Brennan nomination on Wednesday, however, showed the emergence of a new opposition to Obama. Based in the Senate, it is providing the American public a stark contrast to Obama’s ever-expanding government.

Paul’s filibuster was not based on a traditional partisan issue. Its goal was simply to clarify that the President did not have the authority to assassinate American citizens, on domestic soil, who are suspected of cooperating with terrorists. Such clarity ought not require a 13 hour filibuster. The event, however, exposed the public to a reasoned articulation of conservative, constitutional principles. It was a brilliant counter-point to Obama’s doctrine of expanding government power in every direction.

On Friday, Sen. Marco Rubio joined Sen. Ted Cruz in announcing his opposition to any continuing resolution funding the government that didn’t also defund ObamaCare. House Republicans have long since given up this fight, passing a continuing resolution this week that continues to fund ObamaCare’s expansion. Sixteen House Republicans bucked their leadership and opposed the move, but enough Democrats joined Republicans to pass the measure.

With this week’s moves, the center of political gravity has shifted to an emerging band of leaders in the Senate. Sens. Paul, Rubio, and Cruz are providing the nucleus of a new and robust conservative opposition to the Obama Administration. They will likely lose most of their battles. Unlike House Republicans, however, they understand that their primary responsibility is to articulate to the American public an alternative vision for the country. It requires one to pick an occasional battle and present one’s case to the public.

House Republicans are obsessive about “governing,” even though they lack the levers of power to do so. They would rather put off an ideological fight on principle in order to pass legislation. This may make sense tactically, but strategically it’s a losing bet. Worse, it denies the American public a clear choice. A party ought to articulate why it should be entrusted with legislative power.

Sens. Paul, Rubio and Cruz understand this. They are providing the tip of the spear ahead of the 2014 midterms. Based on initial responses to Paul’s filibuster this week, they will have an army behind them.


 The Paul Principle

Looking back to the Republican rout of Bill Clinton and the Democrats in 1994, Clinton looked like he was a goner in 1996, plaintively remarking at a press conference in early 1995 that “I’m still relevant.”  It is clear that Bill Clinton’s comeback began with the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, which enabled him to deploy his best “I feel your pain” schtick, and to demagogue conservative talk radio.  It was an amazingly opportunistic performance, but it worked to turn around his sagging fortunes.

Something of the same dynamic may have taken place yesterday for Republicans with Rand Paul’s theatrical, old-school filibuster conducted in the age of new-school social media and a 24/7 news cycle.  Coming only a few days after Obama’s inverse “relevant” flop (“I’m not a dictator”), Senator Paul pointed out how Obama (or a future president) might in fact wish to behave like a dictator, even if the claim was thin.  It “changed the narrative,” as the postmodernists like to say.  It caught Democrats flat-footed, and the media by surprise.  Democrats were totally AWOL on the Senate floor, except for Sen. Ron Wyden, who sympathizes with Sen. Paul.  (Needless to say, if President Bush made as extensive use of drones as Obama is doing, the Left would be rending every garment and staging hunger strikes.)

Even better, as our Paul Mirengoff noted, it exposed the weary, used-up quality of the GOP old guard in the Senate.  This also reminds me of how the “young turks” in the House (especially Newt but also Jack Kemp) in the late 1970s and early 1980s began to turn out the old “go-along,” Stockholm-syndrome Republicans of the time.  The dynamic yesterday and today between McCain and Graham, and Paul-Rubio-Cruz-Lee and Toomey shows whose time is up, and whose time is coming.

I’m not sold on Rand Paul, but mark your calendar: yesterday was a turning point.  And it may have just elevated Rand Paul to the top tier of GOP candidates for 2016.

The Drama Over, Time For Smart Budget Cuts

Since 2002, total federal spending has increased nearly 89% while median household income has dropped 5%.

 by Senator Tom Coburn

Now that budget sequestration is under way, it looks less like the fiscal apocalypse that had been predicted and more like a long-overdue intervention with politicians who are addicted to borrowing and spending.

I agree with President Obama that sequestration’s across-the-board rather than specific cuts are a “dumb” way to reduce spending. That is why I voted against the plan two years ago. But if sequestration is dumb, it’s even dumber not to cut spending at all.

Cutting spending can be a powerful pro-growth strategy, but the outcome of sequestration depends on how the administration chooses to cut. Not all dollars are spent equally: The Obama administration’s decision to spend federal dollars studying how cocaine affects the reproductive habits of Japanese quail didn’t multiply anything other than quail.


The Pop-Tart terrorist

by George F. Will

Rodney Francis is insufficiently ambitious. The pastor of the Washington Tabernacle Baptist Church in St. Louis has entered the fray over guns, violence and humanity’s fallen nature with a plan for a “buyback” of children’s toy guns. And toy swords and other make-believe weapons. There is, however, a loophole in the pastor’s panacea. He neglects the problem of ominously nibbled and menacingly brandished breakfast pastries.Joshua Welch — a boy, wouldn’t you know; no good can come of these turbulent creatures — who is 7, was suspended from second grade in Maryland’s Anne Arundel County last week because of his “Pop-Tart pistol.” While eating a rectangular fruit-filled sugary something — nutritionist Michelle Obama probably disapproves of it, and don’t let Michael Bloomberg get started — Joshua tried biting it into the shape of a mountain but decided it looked more like a gun. So with gender-specific perversity, he did the natural thing. He said, “Bang, bang.”

But is this really natural? Or is nature taking a back seat to nurture, yet again? Is Joshua’s “bang, bang” a manifestation of some prompting in our defective social atmosphere, and therefore something society could and should stamp out?

While some might enjoy dog-paddling around in this deep philosophic water, Joshua’s school, taking its cue from Hamlet, did not allow its resolve to be “sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought.” More eager to act than to think, the school suspended Joshua and sent a letter to all the pupils’ parents, urging them to discuss the “incident” — which the school includes in the category “classroom disruptions” — with their children “in a manner you deem most appropriate.”

Ah, yes. The all-purpose adjective “appropriate.” The letter said “one of our students used food to make inappropriate gestures” and, although “no physical threats were made and no one was harmed,” the code of student conduct stipulates “appropriate consequences.” The letter, suffused with the therapeutic ethic, suggested that parents help their children “share their feelings” about all this. It also said the school counselor is available, presumably to cope with Post-Pastry Trauma Syndrome.

By now, Americans may be numb to such imbecilities committed by the government institutions to which they entrust their children for instruction. Nothing surprises after that 5-year-old Pennsylvania girl was labeled a “terroristic threat,” suspended from school and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation because she talked about shooting herself and others with her Hello Kitty gun that shoots bubbles.

But looking on the bright side, perhaps we should welcome these multiplying episodes as tutorials about the nature of the regulatory state that swaddles us ever more snuggly with its caring. If so, give thanks for the four Minnesota state legislators whose bill would ban “bullying” at school.



Symbolism Fail: John Brennan Took Oath On Constitution With No Bill Of Rights…

Oh, dear. This is probably not the symbolism the White House wanted.

Hours after CIA Director John Brennan took the oath of office—behind closed doors, far away from the press, perhaps befitting his status as America’s top spy—the White House took pains to emphasize the symbolism of the ceremony.

“There’s one piece of this that I wanted to note for you,” spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at their daily briefing. “Director Brennan was sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington’s personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.” […]

The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points out that what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. (Caution: Marcy’s post has some strong language.)

That means: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and no right to a jury trial.

How … symbolic?


How come this “transparent” administration does so much of the “swearing” in behind closed doors? What the hell is transparent about that? What are they hiding? And this swearing in is humorous in that these “smart” people outsmarted themselves. Again.

Critics hold the line on pro-Obama lobbying group: ‘Shut it down’

Organizing for Action has given up corporate cash, but watchdog groups won’t  be satisfied until it’s shut down for good.

Organizing for Action has given up corporate cash, but watchdog groups won’t  be satisfied until the pro-Obama nonprofit is shut down for good.

The  lobbying group, which was built from the remnants of President Obama’s  reelection machine, has come under intense pressure from good-government  advocates who say it’s ripe for corruption.

 “We continue to call on  President Obama to shut it down,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy  21. “President Obama should have never gotten into this in the first place, but  it’s not too late for him to correct this by having this entity shut down  promptly.”

When Organizing for Action (OFA) was formed, the group  reportedly planned to accept money from corporations.

But Jim Messina,  the chairman of OFA and manager of Obama’s reelection bid, reversed course on  Thursday and said the group would not accept money from corporations, foreign  donors or registered lobbyists. He also promised that the group would disclose  every contribution of $250 or more on a quarterly basis.


School Confiscates Cupcakes Decorated with Toy Soldiers

A Michigan elementary school is defending its decision to confiscate a third-graders batch of homemade cupcakes because the birthday treats were decorated with plastic green Army soldiers.

Casey Fountain tells me that the principal of his son’s elementary school called the cupcakes “insensitive” — in light of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

“It disgusted me,” he said. “It’s vile they lump true American heroes with psychopathic killers.”

Fountain’s wife made a batch of 30 chocolate cupcakes for their son Hunter’s classmates at Schall Elementary School in the town of Caro. The 9-year-old helped decorate the treats with plastic figurines representing World War Two soldiers.

The following morning Fountain said his wife delivered the cupcakes to the front office. The secretary complimented her on the decorations and then took the cakes to Hunter’s class.

“About 15 minutes later the school called my wife and told her the couldn’t serve the cupcakes because the soldiers had guns,” Fountain said. “My wife told them to remove the soldiers and serve the cupcakes anyway — and I believe she may have used more colorful language.”

The school complied and confiscated the soldiers — sending them home with Hunter in a bag.

“I was offended,” Fountain said. “I support our soldiers and what they stand for. These (plastic soldiers) are representations of World War Two soldiers – our greatest generation. If they aren’t allowed in our schools — who is?”

Principal Susan Wright released a statement to local media defending the decision.

“These are toys that were commonplace in the past,” she wrote. “However, some parents prohibit all guns as toys. In light of that difference, the school offered to replace the soldiers with another item and the soldiers were returned home with the student.”

“Living in a democratic society entails respect for opposing opinions,” she stated. “In the climate of recent events in schools we walk a delicate balance in teaching non-violence in our buildings and trying to ensure a safe, peaceful atmosphere.”

Fountain said it was beyond outrageous to compare American soldiers to deranged mass murderers.

“In our politically correct society they can’t separate the good from the bad,” he said. “I’m sure hammers are allowed in schools — although a lot of people are killed by hammers.”

Principal Wright explained in her statement that she meant no disrespect to the military.

“By not permitting toy soldiers on cupcakes at school, no disrespect for our military or for the brave men and women who defend our rights to have our differences was intended,” she wrote. “Our commitment is always to our children and creating a safe place for them to learn, grow and have respectful dialogues about their differences.”

Fountain said his little boy is aware of the controversy but doesn’t quite understand what all the fuss is about.

“He’s nine-years-old,” Fountain said. “He was just glad to get his soldiers back.”

“It’s not about a toy,” he said. “It’s not about a cupcake. It’s what the toy represents — and we’re just taking political correctness too far.”

If Principal Susan Wright actually believes that there should be “respect” for opposing views then why must this little boy and his parents views not be respected and the other side have to suck it up? This is nuts! Although the little boy is lucky he didn’t have a Pop Tart or he’d have been in real trouble.

Media Malpractice:

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien Embarrasses Herself Attacking Fox News Chief Roger Ailes

While being ignorant of the facts is not as bad for a journalist as  deliberately suppressing them, not knowing what you’re talking about can be far  more embarrassing—and amusing.

Soledad O’Brien, the soon-to-be-former host of CNN’s “Starting Point,” proved that point in spades yesterday when she revealed that she had basically  no knowledge of the new favorite story among left-of-center journalists, the  supposed racism of Fox News president Roger  Ailes.

As  NewsBusters readers are aware by now, the remarks in question are comments that  Ailes made to biographer Zev Chafets in a 2012 interview in which he said he  believed that President Barack Obama is “lazy” in several ways.

As NB readers also know, Ailes was referencing an earlier statement by Obama  in which he said he had “laziness” in himself and said he  thought it was his worst characteristic.

Furthermore, Ailes had made that comment in direct response to an earlier  quip by liberal pundit Hilary Rosen that Mitt Romney’s wife Ann had “never  worked a day in her life” because she had always stayed at home to care for her  children.

In other words, Roger Ailes had idleness on his mind, not racism. Here is  the relevant passage from Roger  Ailes Off Camera for those keeping score:

[Brian Lewis, his spokesman] then read Ailes a summary of the flap over  Democratic operative Hilary Rosen’s comment that Ann Romney, mother of five, had  never worked a day in her life. Ailes spun it without hesitation. “Obama’s the  one who never worked a day in his life. He never earned a penny that wasn’t  public money. How many fund-raisers does he attend every week? How often does he  play basketball and golf? I wish I had that kind of time. He’s lazy, but the  media won’t report that.” He noticed my arched eyebrows and added, “I didn’t  come up with that. Obama said that, to Barbara Walters.” (What Obama said was  that he feels a laziness in himself that he attributes to his laid-back  upbringing in Hawaii.)

But such context is utterly irrelevant to the Fox haters, a small group of  rabid leftists who are enraged daily at the fact that a popular cable news  channel exists which does not have a liberal bias. For the Fox haters, stripping  away the context of Roger Ailes’s quip in order to accuse him of using a racist “dog whistle” is too good of an opportunity to pass up. And, as we’ve been  reporting here at NewsBusters, they’ve  been doing it with gusto.

Whether her producers dropped the ball or she simply just went with the Fox  haters, Soledad O’Brien was completely unaware of the background on the “lazy” quote. Fortunately, her education was captured on video during yesterday’s  show.

She began the segment with confidence, telling viewers that she was about to  tell them about Ailes’s “true feelings for President Obama and the vice  president, Joe Biden.”

After putting onscreen a partial quotation from the Chafets book, O’Brien  proceeded to cluck her tongue against such “not nice” language—because everyone  knows television newsrooms are places where only flowers grow and birds  sing.

Sadly for the viewers looking for a laugh, the setup to the joke ended there  as The Blaze writer Will Cain interrupted her to point out the fact that Ailes  was actually quoting Obama’s own words.

“Roger Ailes did go on to say that I’m only quoting from the president  directly and he talks about an interview that President Obama gave to Barbara  Walters, where he said I grew up in Hawaii it was pretty laid back,” Cain  said.

O’Brien was unconvinced. “Okay so the pretty laid back to lazy is a little  bit of a leap to me,” she asserted.

John Berman, her fellow CNN anchor, helped set her straight. “Barack Obama  used the word lazy,” he said.

“Oh, interesting, I did not realize that,” O’Brien said. She then fumbled  around for a few seconds, repeating the word interesting three more  times as she struggled to recover.


Phoenix mayor, council open the women’s bathroom door for men

On  Feb. 26, the Phoenix City Council passed the so-called “Bathroom  Bill,” which will allow not only “transgendered” men, but also any man who  thinks he is a woman to use many of the same public restrooms that women and  young girls use.

The  bill, which passed 5-3, is a sterling example of how a mayor and city council  can quickly forego their duty to protect women and children in order to win the  praise and support of special-interest groups in the  community.

While  opening the women’s bathroom door to  “transgendered” individuals and men who claim to be women, the new rules  unwittingly provide a sterling opportunity for sexual predators to avail  themselves of a target-rich environment.

After  all, by supporting the measure, the mayor and city council have literally  outlawed your ability to limit the female restroom to females.

Just  weeks ago, a story broke about a college student at Villanova University who  allegedly hid his smartphone  in a women’s restroom and secretly recorded videos and pictures of them  changing clothes.  He then allegedly uploaded the material to pornographic  websites.

With  the “Bathroom Bill” in effect, sexual predators in Phoenix will not have to  sneak in to hide video equipment in bathrooms; they will simply be able to walk in whenever  they want.  Once in, they will be able to hold their phones over the doors or walls of the toilet stalls and record video of  the women and children inside.

And  those who want to do even worse things will have easy access to the women and  girls they want to hurt.

While  everyone should have deep sympathy and concern for those men who truly suffer  from gender confusion, crafting a law that invades the privacy of women and  children and puts them at risk is not the answer.


Perhaps “everyone” should have deep sympathy for those men who suffer from “gender confusion” but I don’t. If they have a penis, and can stand to pee and not get their shoes wet, it’s a man and doesn’t belong in a Ladies Room. No confusion for me about that!


Worth a Read:

Court curbs Homeland Security’s laptop border searches

Appeals court slaps down Obama administration’s claim that customs agents can peruse Americans’ electronic devices for evidence — without having even a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.


If this had been happening under a GOP administration the left would have been going ballistic! Hypocrisy is rampant in the media and the Democrat Party.

Health Care Law Now Faces Biggest  Challenge: American Consumers

By Scott Rasmussen


McCain, Graham Need to End the Super-Hawk Crap If They Want Any Kind of Hawkishness In American Foreign Policy At All


Heller Bests Reid in Judicial Nomination Fight


No one should sit on a court, any court, unless they agree to support our 2nd Amendment rights. That should be fundamental. If this woman cannot or will not do that she should not sit on a federal bench. Or any bench except a park bench IMO.


Francis Bacon, Sr. quotes “The speaking in perpetual hyperbole is comely in nothing but love” ~ Francis Bacon, Sr.


  1. No WH Tours for the school children, but plenty of money to bring Islamic women to the U.S. for awards for their outstanding performances relating to Anti-American activities. The WH tours are actually part of an American student’s education in Civics, and I think this is just another example of Obummer’s desire to quash all information about our past and any exposure to the Founders of our country and what they stood for. If they could get by with it, I think the Obummers would strip the WH of all things important to our past history, and replace it with the modernistic junk that he prefers. The White House is OUR house, and our school children deserve and own the right to visit it at appropriate times. The cost is far less than the plane fare to bring an Islamic activist to town and house and feed her, before paying her way back home .

    • As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, the cost is also far less than the cost of Obama’s golf outing with Tiger Woods. Everytime Air Farce One is cranked up it costs $180,000.00. That would pay for 2 1/2 weeks of tours. It’s all supposed to make the Republicans look bad. But this time it backfired and Obama is the one that looks bad. This time his petty b.s. was so bad that even the lap dog media can’t cover for him!


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