Witch’s Will For A Morning In March

I will remain in “mourning” so long as Obama’s unworthy ass sits in the Oval Office.

My Pick of the Litter Today

Can It Happen Here?

by Thomas Sowell

The decision of the government in Cyprus to simply take money out of people’s bank accounts there sent shock waves around the world. People far removed from that small island nation had to wonder: “Can this happen here?”

The economic repercussions of having people feel that their money is not safe in banks can be catastrophic. Banks are not just warehouses where money can be stored. They are crucial institutions for gathering individually modest amounts of money from millions of people and transferring that money to strangers whom those people would not directly entrust it to.

Multi-billion dollar corporations, whose economies of scale can bring down the prices of goods and services — thereby raising our standard of living — are seldom financed by a few billionaires.

Far more often they are financed by millions of people, who have neither the specific knowledge nor the economic expertise to risk their savings by investing directly in those enterprises. Banks are crucial intermediaries, which provide the financial expertise without which these transfers of money are too risky.

There are poor nations with rich natural resources, which are not developed because they lack either the sophisticated financial institutions necessary to make these key transfers of money or because their legal or political systems are too unreliable for people to put their money into these financial intermediaries.

Whether in Cyprus or in other countries, politicians tend to think in short run terms, if only because elections are held in the short run. Therefore, there is always a temptation to do reckless and short-sighted things to get over some current problem, even if that creates far worse problems in the long run.

Seizing money that people put in the bank would be a classic example of such short-sighted policies. After thousands of American banks failed during the Great Depression of the 1930s, there were people who would never put their money in a bank again, even after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was created, to have the federal government guarantee individual bank accounts when the bank itself failed.

For years after the Great Depression, stories appeared in the press from time to time about some older person who died and was found to have substantial sums of money stored under a mattress or in some other hiding place, because they never trusted banks again.

After going back and forth, the government of Cyprus ultimately decided, under international pressure, to go ahead with its plan to raid people’s bank accounts. But could similar policies be imposed in other countries, including the United States?

One of the big differences between the United States and Cyprus is that the U.S. government can simply print more money to get out of a financial crisis. But Cyprus cannot print more euros, which are controlled by international institutions.

Does that mean that Americans’ money is safe in banks? Yes and no.

The U.S. government is very unlikely to just seize money wholesale from people’s bank accounts, as is being done in Cyprus. But does that mean that your life savings are safe?

No. There are more sophisticated ways for governments to take what you have put aside for yourself and use it for whatever the politicians feel like using it for. If they do it slowly but steadily, they can take a big chunk of what you have sacrificed for years to save, before you are even aware, much less alarmed.

more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/26/can_it_happen_here_117629.html

More Stuff:

The Left’s Thought Tyranny and the Right’s Cowardice

David Limbaugh by David Limbaugh

A couple of recent news items illustrate the close-mindedness,  aggressiveness and oppressiveness of modern liberalism’s thought police.

MSNBC’s Toure issued a scathing commentary against the GOP for considering outreach efforts toward African-Americans. Toure said: “Such is the dysfunctional, abusive relationship the GOP insists on with black folks. They say they want a new relationship while continuing to try to screw us over.”

Toure went on to lambaste Dr. Ben Carson, a black person, for daring to stray from leftist ideas and endorsing conservative ones, such as a flat tax. Carson has “intellectual tumors in his mind, like a flat tax, which is regressive and ignorant in the face of American wealth inequality.” Toure continued: “I doubt the GOP would entertain a white non-politician with unserious ideas.” But blacks such as Carson “get raced to the front of the line because then people get to put a bumper sticker on their cars saying, ‘How can I be racist? I would have voted for Carson.”

Another story involves Ryan Rotela, a student at Florida Atlantic University who alleges that he was suspended from his class on “intercultural communications” because he refused to comply with a directive (or request) by the course’s instructor, Deandre Poole.

Poole allegedly told his students to write “Jesus” on a sheet of paper, put the paper on the floor and then stomp on it. Rotela, a devout Mormon, said he refused and “picked up the paper from the floor and put it right back on the table.” He said he told the professor he didn’t believe this was appropriate, that it was unprofessional for the professor to have initiated this exercise and that he was “deeply offended” by what he had told him to do.

Todd Starnes of Fox News said that according to documents, Rotela “has been brought up on academic charges by the school and may no longer attend class.” But this “notice of charges,” according to Starnes, is contrary to a statement the university released Friday night, which said no one had been disciplined as a result of the classroom activity.

Regardless, the assignment itself was outrageous and is illustrative of a hostile attitude toward Christianity (and conservatism) on many campuses and elsewhere in our culture today.

The left can vehemently deny it, but does anyone really believe that a professor would still have his job if instead of using the word “Jesus,” he had used “Muhammad” or “Barack Obama” or the name or symbol of any other iconic figure of the left?

more: http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2013/03/26/the-lefts-thought-tyranny-and-the-rights-cowardice-n1548711/page/full/

More on this story:

‘Jesus Stomping’ Professor/ FAU Story Continues With Non-Apology, Then Apology and Now Charges Filed Against Student Who Complained

link: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/03/25/jesus-stomping-professor-fau-story-continues-with-non-apology-then-apology-and-now-charges-filed-against-student-who-complained/?singlepage=true

The saddest part of this whole story is the question asked at the end of this article:

“Why was there only one student in the class who found stomping on Jesus objectionable?”

That question is worth pondering anytime, but especially during Holy Week.

I also have a question for all those “good” Christians who say that Mormons are not Christians. “Where were all the good little Christians in that class when this one kid stood up alone?” Good Christians? I think not! Ryan Rotela was the only “REAL” Christian in that classroom. Student or teacher.

Don’t Nudge Me There

If government may dictate soda size, why not sexual behavior?

by James Taranto

If you want to get published on the op-ed page of a major newspaper, a good way to go about it is to make a reasonable, or at least reasonable-sounding, case for an unpopular and outlandish position. It’s important that the issue be trivial, so that readers will get riled up but no one will really feel offended or threatened.

Philosopher Sarah Conly, author of a new book called “Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism,” has discovered the formula. In a New York Times op-ed titled “Three Cheers for the Nanny State,” she defends Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s almost universally ridiculed (and judicially enjoined) ban on large sodas and other sugary beverages.

Conly’s argument doesn’t seem unreasonable, though it is incoherent in places. In a parenthetical aside, for example, she mocks opponents for objecting over such a trivial matter: “Large cups of soda as symbols of human dignity? Really?” (Note to the editors: That “Really?” is lazy writing. Why not let a rhetorical question stand on its own? See what we mean?) But of course she wants us to take her defense of this silly policy as a serious philosophical argument.

Then there’s this priceless passage: “Do we care so much about our health that we want to be forced to go to aerobics every day and give up all meat, sugar and salt? No. But in this case, it’s some extra soda. Banning a law on the grounds that it might lead to worse laws would mean we could have no laws whatsoever.”

Oddly, Conly bases her reductio ad absurdum on false empirical premises. The benefits and risks of exercise, and of particular forms of exercise, vary from individual to individual. And giving up all meat and salt, unlike sugar, is likely to harm your health.

The best part is that conclusion. Essentially she’s saying that if you accept one slippery-slope argument, you have to accept all slippery-slope arguments. Therefore, slippery-slope arguments are unsound.

more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324105204578382572446778866.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

I do take exception with Mr. Taranto’s statement that giving up ALL meat can be harmful to your health. Quite the contrary. You simply have to get your protein elsewhere. Since I am a vegetarian, not a vegan, I can get plenty from eggs.

Of course any good vegetarian knows that broccoli contains more protein ounce for ounce than steak so you can see that we have no worry about putting dead flesh from animals who are often stuffed full of “suppliments” that we don’t want and don’t need in “our” bodies as being harmful to our health.

I don’t preach the religion of vegetarianism. I simply do it. And I don’t give a rat’s ass if anyone else does or not.

What puzzles me is why so many meat-eaters are downright hostile to vegetarians who are not preaching and not doing them any harm. Why does the very idea enrage them?

What’s Up With the Democrats?

Sen. Tim Johnson to retire, lifting GOP hopes in battle for Senate

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) will not seek reelection in 2014, The Hill has  confirmed, putting another red-state seat up for grabs in the battle for control  of the Senate.
Johnson, who is serving his third term, will announce the  news on Tuesday at the University of South Dakota, his former school. Johnson  will be the fifth Senate Democrat to retire this election cycle.

The decision gives Republicans another prime pickup opportunity as they work  to win back control of the Senate.

Republicans need to gain six seats to flip control of the upper chamber in  2014. Mitt Romney carried South Dakota with 57 percent of the vote in the 2012  presidential election.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee said the seat would have  switched parties whether Johnson retired or not, judging by Romney’s big win in  the state.
“South Dakota voters overwhelmingly rejected the Democratic  agenda by 20 points in 2012 and is a prime pick up opportunity for Republicans  regardless of whose name Democrats put on the ballot,” said Brad Dayspring,  communications director for the NRSC.

more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/290179-sen-tim-johnson-to-retire-on-2014-giving-gop-new-pickup-target#ixzz2OdpVLLfg 

What Up With Republicans?

South Carolina Showdown

By Robert Stacy McCain

Fear and loathing as Mark Sanford faces Curtis Bostic in next week’s GOP runoff.

Democrats were exultant when former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford finished atop last week’s Republican primary in a special election to fill the 1st District congressional seat vacated by Tim Scott’s appointment to the Senate. In a 16-candidate GOP field, Sanford got 37 percent, nearly three times the vote of his nearest rival, former Charleston County council member Curtis Bostic. Sanford’s advantages are even larger than the vote totals would suggest: He reportedly has a 15-to-1 campaign cash edge over Bostic and the former two-term governor is almost infinitely ahead in terms of what political strategists call “name recognition.”

Alas, name recognition is a two-edged sword for Sanford, who is perhaps best known for an embarrassment that made the phrase“hiking the Appalachian Trail” a smutty double-entendre in 2009. One late-June weekend that year — the weekend of Father’s Day, to be exact — the governor’s whereabouts became a national mystery. Neither his family nor his staff nor South Carolina law enforcement could find Sanford, whose name had been bandied about as a possible 2012 Republican presidential contender. Before search parties could be sent to find the allegedly missing hiker, however, Sanford flew back from Argentina to South Carolina and held one of the most surreal press conferences in political history. He told how a “remarkable friendship” with a woman he met in Argentina a year earlier had “sparked into something more than that.” He spoke of “trying to get my heart right” and said he had“spent the past five days of my life crying in Argentina.”Sanford’s description of Maria Belen Chapur as his “soul mate” was, as Daily Caller columnist Yates Walker said, “possibly the most sociopathic moment ever captured on live television.”

Sanford was censured by the state legislature, his wife divorced him, and last year he announced his engagement to his Argentine soul mate. His supporters use the word “redemption” to describe the former governor’s potential comeback, but the reaction of other Republicans could best be described as Fear and Loathing. The fear includes conservatives who warned the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin that Republicans “are absolutely in danger of losing” the otherwise safe seat with Sanford as their nominee and, even if Sanford could defeat Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, he might singlehandedly revive the “Republican war on women” narrative. As for the loathing, Ann Coulter denounced Sanford in no uncertain terms.

“The Republican Party owes Sanford nothing. He had a chance and he blew it,” Coulter declared in a column published the day after the March 19 primary. “If, in some horrible twist of fate that’s been stalking Republicans, Sanford wins the runoff, he will lose the general election. Worse, he might win, making Republicans look like utter hypocrites on family values.”

more: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/26/south-carolina-showdown

Gutfeld Blasts Jim Carrey: ‘Dirty, Stinking Coward’

I watched this segment of “The Five” and cheered every word Gutfeld spoke. Time the rights gets some guts and starts calling these celebutards out for the scum they are.

More on this story:

Jim Carrey Lies: More Demand for Heston’s Movies Than Carrey’s

Question: Why did Jim Carrey do a “Funny or Die” video attacking Charlton Heston and gun owners?

Answer: Because Carrey’s career is in the crapper and this gives him a chance to suck up to “Funny or Die” co-founder, Adam McKay, a blazing leftist who’s managed to keep Will Ferrell on top at the box office. Basically, in order to beg for a job, one-time superstar Jim Carrey has been reduced to making YouTube videos mocking a Hollywood legend who’s been dead five years.

In his Funny or Die stunt, and without irony, Carrey attacks Heston as a has-been whose movies are “no longer in demand.”

What great timing!

Just last week Carrey was dealt yet another flop with “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone.”

But this week, the ABC network will once again turn over nearly five hours of broadcast time to Heston’s “Ten Commandments.”  Why? Because Heston’s film is so much in demand it wins its timeslot year after year after year.

How sad is Jim Carrey’s career? At age 53, he will star in “Dumb and Dumber III.”

Oh, and he’s doing Funny or Die videos.


State of Illinois, meet Reality

Illinois,  while not the most populous state, has led the nation in unfunded pension  liabilities and bond debt. Now, however, its borrowing binge may be ending

The  change has not come about because the state is defaulting on its payments or seeking bankruptcy. As of now Federal bankruptcy  law does not allow states to file in Federal court for bankruptcy  protection. The real reason for the change is that the SEC (Securities and  Exchange Commission) charged the state of Illinois with securities fraud for misrepresenting its financial position from 2005 to early 2009. In  most of those years the Governor of the State was Rod Blagojevich, the carefully  coiffed chief executive who was convicted of trying to sell Barack Obama’s  senate seat when he resigned to run for president.

The  governor was convicted of corruption and is now serving a 14-year sentence. Unfortunately,  the damage he did to the fiscal stability of Illinois and the taxpayers of  Illinois will last much longer than his incarceration. Under his leadership, the  state consistently passed wildly irresponsible budgets, and even though the  state constitution requires a balanced budget, the budget was “balanced” by  issuing bonds every year.

However,  after Blagojevich left, from March 2009 to January 2013, the state of Illinois  saw its credit rating lowered a total of 11 times by Moody’s, Fitch, and S&P  combined. This means Illinois must pay 1.45 percentage points more than the  nation’s AAA-rated states on 10 year bonds. This deprives state programs that  assist the poor of badly-needed services, and led the state to choose to cut  back on Medicaid spending rather than on lavish pensions. It also has a stack of  unpaid bills to vendors amounting to over 7 billion dollars. The Cato Institute  has called Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, who followed Blagojevich, the worst  governor in the nation for failing to show any leadership in either fiscal  responsibility or pension reform.

Today  $96.8 billion dollars of unfunded pension debt looms over the state’s fiscal  future. This will place heavy burdens on the taxpayers of the state for decades  to come. And Cook County, the county that contains the City of Chicago and some  of its satellite suburbs, also has a startling debt of $140 billion of its own  in addition to the state debt. This single county obligation is far greater than  the total debt of most other states.

Since  the SEC has accused Illinois of misrepresenting its debt, however, Illinois may  no longer be able to bail itself out by selling bonds on Wall Street. Just this  past January it tried to raise $500 million by selling bonds and Wall Street  said no. Its borrowing days are over.

Just  a few days ago Illinois passed a new law that will begin to rein in its unfunded  pension liability. Now state workers will no longer have their pensions  increased three percent per year on their entire pension, just the first  $25,000.

For  all but two of the past 30 years the Illinois State House has been run by  Speaker Michael Madigan. He so thoroughly dominates the Illinois legislature  that the state has been renamed “Madiganistan” by Chicago Tribune columnist John  Kass.

more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/state_of_illinois_–_meet_reality.html#ixzz2Oe6lbxMu

It is simply incomprehensible to me that any voter, anywhere would think it just dandy for one man to “run” things in their state for 30 years. You might understand if the state was doing well. It isn’t. And still they vote these theives and robbers into office again and again. I waver between calling it stupid and insane. Perhaps it’s both. What ever it is, it ain’t working.

 Bill Maher Upset by ‘Gerrymandered’ Senate Races

On HBO’s Real Time Friday, Bill Maher complained that red-state Democrat Senators bow to pressure from their constituents on gun control “because we are such a gerrymandered country.”

Guest John Feehery quickly reminded Maher that Senate races cannot be gerrymandered, as they are statewide elections. Minutes beforehand, Maher went on a tirade about how the American people are “morons.”

video: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/03/23/Maher-The-American-People-Are-Morons

The Great Recession Has Been Followed by the Grand Illusion

  by Mort Zuckerman

Don’t be fooled by the latest jobs numbers. The unemployment situation in the U.S. is still dire.

The Great Recession is an apt name for America’s current stagnation, but the present phase might also be called the Grand Illusion—because the happy talk and statistics that go with it, especially regarding jobs, give a rosier picture than the facts justify.

The country isn’t really advancing. By comparison with earlier recessions, it is going backward. Despite the most stimulative fiscal policy in American history and a trillion-dollar expansion to the money supply, the economy over the last three years has been declining. After 2.4% annual growth rates in gross domestic product in 2010 and 2011, the economy slowed to 1.5% growth in 2012. Cumulative growth for the past 12 quarters was just 6.3%, the slowest of all 11 recessions since World War II.

And last year’s anemic growth looks likely to continue. Sequestration will take $600 billion of government expenditures out of the economy over the next 10 years, including $85 billion this year alone. The 2% increase in payroll taxes will hit about 160 million workers and drain $110 billion from their disposable incomes. The Obama health-care tax will be a drag of more than $30 billion. The recent 50-cent surge in gasoline prices represents another $65 billion drag on consumer cash flow.

February’s headline unemployment rate was portrayed as 7.7%, down from 7.9% in January. The dip was accompanied by huzzahs in the news media claiming the improvement to be “outstanding” and “amazing.” But if you account for the people who are excluded from that number—such as “discouraged workers” no longer looking for a job, involuntary part-time workers and others who are “marginally attached” to the labor force—then the real unemployment rate is somewhere between 14% and 15%.

imageOther numbers reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics have deteriorated. The 236,000 net new jobs added to the economy in February is misleading—the gross number of new jobs included 340,000 in the part-time, low wage category. Many of the so-called net new jobs are second or third jobs going to people who are already working, rather than going to those who are unemployed.

The number of Americans unemployed for six months or longer went up by 89,000 in February to a total of 4.8 million. The average duration of unemployment rose to 36.9 weeks, up from 35.3 weeks in January. The labor-force participation rate, which measures the percentage of working-age people in the workforce, also dropped to 63.5%, the lowest in 30 years. The average workweek is a low 34.5 hours thanks to employers shortening workers’ hours or asking employees to take unpaid leave.

Since World War II, it has typically taken 24 months to reach a new peak in employment after the onset of a recession. Yet the country is more than 60 months away from its previous high in 2007, and the economy is still down 3.2 million jobs from that year.

more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323393304578364670697613576.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

NBC’s Jerry Sandusky Debacle

John Ziegler is steamed that Today didn’t give his Penn State theories a fair shake, focusing only on the coach—and the network is getting flak for having him on at all.

Ziegler says that he had given the Today show considerable amounts of new information about what he found to be unfair circumstances surrounding the firing of Penn State’s iconic head football coach, Joe Paterno, and felt duped when instead the interview focused on Sandusky’s comments from behind bars. Ziegler had come on the program to tout his upcoming documentary Framing Paterno and its companion website, but found himself hardly able to mention the conflicting evidence he claims will prove that Paterno was railroaded by the university.

NBC News, meanwhile, has been criticized for giving Ziegler a platform to say anything at all, despite the bonanza ratings potential. Gawker labeled the filmmaker a “Penn State truther”. Sexual-abuse advocates voiced their frustration at seeing Sandusky in the spotlight again. Even the family of the late Paterno, the man whose reputation Ziegler is out to redeem, called the interview “an insult to the victims and anyone who cares about the truth in this tragic story.”

An NBC spokesperson said the network stands by its reporting, which was “fair and accurate.”

more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/26/nbc-s-jerry-sandusky-debacle.html

While I feel that Ziegler is indeed a Sandusky “truther” I am also quite sure that the scum at NBC are incapable of being “fair” or “accurate.”


Barack Obama’s imperial presidency is just what his controversial predecessor wanted.

by Jonathan Turley

This month, I spoke at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal with some of its survivors at the National Press Club. While much of the discussion looked back at the historic clash with President  Nixon, I was struck by a different question: Who actually won? From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon’s impending impeachment,  the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an “imperial presidency” with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:

Warrantless surveillance

Nixon’s use of warrantless surveillance led to the creation of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). But the reform turned out to be more form than substance. The secret court turned “probable cause” into a meaningless standard, virtually guaranteeing any surveillance the government wanted. After hundreds of thousands of applications over decades, only a couple have ever been denied.

Last month, the Supreme Court crushed any remaining illusions regarding FISA when it sided with the Obama administration in ruling that potential targets of such spying had to have proof they were spied upon  before filing lawsuits, even if the government has declared such evidence to be secret.  That’s only the latest among dozens of lawsuits the administration has blocked while surveillance expands exponentially.

Unilateral military action

Nixon’s impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress’ sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. In the Libyan “mission,” Obama announced that only he had the inherent authority to decide what is a “war” and that so long as he called it something different, no congressional approval or even consultation was necessary. He proceeded to bomb a nation’s capital, destroy military units and spend more than a billion dollars  in support of one side in a civil war.

Kill lists

Nixon ordered a burglary to find evidence to use against Daniel Ellsberg, who gave the famed Pentagon Papers to the press, and later tried to imprison him. Ellsberg was later told of a secret plot by the White House “plumbers” to “incapacitate” him in a physical attack. It was a shocking revelation. That’s nothing compared with Obama’s assertion of the right to kill any U.S. citizen without a charge, let alone conviction, based on his sole authority. A recently leaked memo argues that the president has a right to kill a citizen even when he lacks “clear evidence (of) a specific attack” being planned.

Attacking whistle-blowers

Nixon was known for his attacks on whistle-blowers. He used the Espionage Act of 1917 to bring a rare criminal case against Ellsberg. Nixon was vilified for the abuse of the law. Obama has brought twice as many such prosecutions as all prior presidents combined. While refusing to prosecute anyone for actual torture, the Obama administration has prosecuted former CIA employee John Kiriakou for disclosing the torture program.

Other Nixonesque areas include Obama’s overuse of classification laws and withholding material from Congress. There are even missing tapes. In the torture scandal, CIA officials admitted to destroying tapes that they feared could be used against them in criminal cases. Of course, Nixon had missing tapes, but Rose Mary Woods claimed to have erased them by mistake, as opposed to current officials who openly admit to intentional destruction.

Obama has not only openly asserted powers that were the grounds for Nixon’s impeachment, but he has made many love him for it. More than any figure in history, Obama has been a disaster for the U.S. civil liberties movement. By coming out of the Democratic Party and assuming an iconic position, Obama has ripped the movement in half. Many Democrats and progressive activists find themselves unable to oppose Obama for the authoritarian powers he has assumed. It is not simply a case of personality trumping principle; it is a cult of personality.

more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/25/nixon-has-won-watergate/2019443/

Media Malpractice:

Report: Rachel Maddow Thinks Obama Avoids MSNBC Because He’ll Get Asked Tough  Questions

If the New Republic‘s Rebecca Dana is correct, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow  is more deluded than anyone thought.

In her lengthy piece  about MSNBC president Phil Griffin, Dana claimed Maddow believes the reason  President Obama hasn’t given the cable network an interview since 2008 is  because “his people know he’s going to get asked difficult questions”:

Many of MSNBC’s hosts are  also more liberal than the White House is, particularly on issues like drone  warfare, indefinite detention, and relief for the financial sector. And Maddow  argues that Obama avoids the network (he hasn’t agreed to an interview since  2008) in part because his people know he’s going to get asked difficult  questions. “What MSNBC has done is help create something of a North Star for a  lot of progressive opinion to follow,” says Erik Smith, a senior media adviser  to both Obama campaigns. “But as quickly as they’re with you, they can be on the  left of you. It’s not like it’s a booster club on the air.” Axelrod noted the  network’s lack of support after Obama’s poor first debate performance. “I wasn’t  terribly happy about it,” he says of the MSNBC backlash, “but there’s no doubt  they were opinion leaders.”

Can you imagine any of Obama’s biggest cheerleaders in the media – Maddow,  Martin Bashir, Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell – asking Obama a single tough question?

The reality is Obama has no reason going on MSNBC.

His shills there are already reading his talking points verbatim 24 hours a  day 7 days a week.


We are constantly told that Rachel Maddow is soooo smart. If that is so, then she must be one of media’s biggest liars. Because a “smart” person wouldn’t, couldn’t believe 1/2 of the swill she peddles. However a little thought reminds us of how often the media feels a need to remind us about how “smart” Obama is too.

Hey Rachel, you being so “smart” an all, didn’t anyone ever tell you that there’s no reason to buy the cow when you are getting the milk for free?

Sixth-grader status might not seem so bad to Dianne Feinstein now

When Ted Cruz raised with Dianne Feinstein the question of the constitutionality of legislation she was proposing, the Senator from California reacted testily, stating that she is not a sixth-grader. I would have thought that, if anything, Cruz’s attempt to engage her in a discussion about the Constitution showed respect for Sen. Feinstein.

Too often, Feinstein (a non-lawyer) has marginalized herself as a Judiciary Committee member by opting to play Oprah, rather than engaging in meaningful legal analysis. During the Roberts confirmation hearings, for example, Feinstein famously tried to have the nominee speak to her as a father and a husband, rather than a jurist. No wonder she worries that she’s not taken seriously.

Cruz offered Feinstein the opportunity to join the adults. Feinstein not only turned it down, she complained that the offer was demeaning.

What, then, does Feinstein make of Harry Reid’s decision to strip her proposed ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines from the gun legislation to be proposed to the Senate? Talk about disrespect. This is a signature piece of legislation for Feinstein, who became mayor of San Francisco after the 1978 assassinations of the City’s Mayor and City Supervisor. Reid’s decision to exclude her contribution from the bill led Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post to conclude that Feinstein had “the worst week in Washington.”

Feinstein, I assume, will decide not to take Reid’s decision personally. After all, he pulled her legislation because it doesn’t have enough votes.

But shouldn’t a senior Senator of any stature expect her own party to permit an up-or-down vote on her pet legislation, favored by the party, on an important issue? As President Obama shouted (several times) in his State of the Union speech, the Newtown victims DESERVE A VOTE.

It seems to me that Feinstein has been exiled to the “kids’ table.” Not by Ted Cruz, or through her own antics, but by her party’s Majority Leader.


polls 3Poll: Support for new gun control drops by double-digit margin since Sandy Hook

Support for new gun control  measures has dropped 10 points from the days following the December shooting at  a Newtown, Conn. elementary school, according to a survey released Tuesday by  CBS News.

According to the poll, 47 percent believe gun control laws should  be more strict, while 11 percent want fewer regulations on gun purchases and 39  percent say laws should be kept as they are. That’s a substantial drop from  December, when 57 percent backed stronger new gun controls.

There remains a sharp partisan split, with two-thirds of Democrats  saying they believe gun control laws should be more strict, while 52 percent of  Republicans believe they should be kept as they are. Independents are nearly  evenly divided, with 43 percent advocating stricter gun control laws and 39  percent preferring the status quo.More than half of women (55 percent) say they support new measures, while just  39 percent of men want stricter laws. Half of current gun owners say they want  to keep gun regulations as they are, while a quarter back stronger gun control  measures.

Still, support for new gun controls remains higher than it was  following mass shootings in Aurora, Colo. and Tuscon, Ariz. — evidence that the  Newtown killing spree, which left 20 schoolchildren and six educators dead, has  had particular resonance.

And other polls show broad support for individual gun control  measures. A Quinnipiac University poll released last week showed that 88 percent  of Americans back universal gun background checks.

more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/290269-poll-support-for-new-gun-control-drops-by-double-digit-margin-since-sandy-hook?utm_campaign=briefingroom&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterfeed

Worth a Read:

‘We Are F*cking Powerless!’: Stewart Laments Obama’s–And Every Other President’s–Failure In Middle East

link: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/we-are-fcking-powerless-stewart-laments-obamas-and-every-other-presidents-failure-in-middle-east/

Conquering Loserville: MSNBC’s Griffin Should Be More Worried About Zucker Than Beating FOX

link: http://www.mediaite.com/online/conquering-loserville-msnbc%e2%80%99s-griffin-should-be-more-worried-about-zucker-than-beating-fox/

Rather odd to be calling an entity that whips your ass regularly a “loser” donchathink?

All Eyes on Supreme Court as Activists Descend on D.C.

link: http://www.rollcall.com/news/all_eyes_on_supreme_court_as_activists_descend_on_dc-223434-1.html?pos=hftxt

Top 10 allegations of ‘bias or hate’ at Ohio State that we swear we did not make  up

link:  http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/26/top-10-allegations-of-bias-or-hate-at-ohio-state-that-we-swear-we-did-not-make-up/#ixzz2OefnrtxX


   I  detest politics, to be honest with you. It’s a cesspool. And I don’t think I  would fare well in that cesspool because I don’t believe in political  correctness and I certainly don’t believe in dishonesty. ~ Benjamin  Carson


  1. The huge crowds outside the Supreme Court signify the immense amount of interest in the gay marriage farce. It’s encouraging to know that so many people are willing to put down their daily chores, etc.,and rally around a matter that means so much to them. Whether the Pro or Con is in the majority, I don’t even hazard a guess. My country has changed so much that I scarcely recognize it any more. IMO, there are so many more important things that need to be supported/protested than this pitiful, personal, selfish question. Our marriage status has brought us and this once great country a long way since its founding, I fail to see what earth-shaking improvement would occur just by granting same-sex couples the same statu;s as hetero-sex couples. The children must be as confused as he## over these shenanigans. God and the Bible have been taken out of their schools, and now there is a movement afoot to take them out of their homes, also.

    And with the children in mind, wouldn’t it be nice if some of this interest boiled over into things that really matter to give them a better life? With all the unemployment, the poverty, the violence on the streets and everywhere else, the lack of decent housing, the lack of adequate food and clothing, it seems to me that some of this energy should be directed at these items. Rather bemoaning the lack of private privilege, why not use some of this energy attempting to vanquish the Pedeophile who is lurking for his/her chance to abuse an innocent child. It’s this ME attitude that gets to me. Just another “feel better personal benefit”, its ME, ME, ME. It would sure be nice to have this much energy unleashed against the things that REALLY endanger humanity.

    • I have nothing for or against gays. I have two friends, not a couple, who are gay. One is male, sorta, and one is female. Their “sex” life really doesn’t interest me. But no matter how often they tell me that I “must” support gay marriage I tell them I do not and I will not. Mostly I don’t care. I support civil unions and I am against any one any where any time not having the same rights as someone else. Thus if the courts say marriage is fine for gays across the country I won’t be too upset although I will think that the court has no right to shove this down our throats. Nothing anyone says has as yet changed me from believing that a marriage is a contract between one man and one woman to protect any children they might have and sworn to in the sight of God. If that makes me a bigot or a homophobe, so be it. As Popeye says, “I yam what I yam.”


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