Witch’s Will For A Sunday In April
True Story For A Sunday Morning:
The last cab ride
For Best Article This Morning:
Race has nothing to do with mass shootings
by Gene Lyons
With the exception of sex and religion, nothing makes people more irrational than race. Given the bloody history of racial disputes in American life, one would think that responsible news organizations would take particular care in addressing inflammatory topics. Then there’s the Washington Post, which actually ran an Easter Sunday opinion column headlined “White men have much to discuss about mass shootings.”
Written by Charlotte and Harriet Childress, identical twins who describe themselves as “researchers and consultants on social and political issues” with a Ph.D. and four master’s degrees between them, the essay argued that something uniquely wicked about “white male culture” is responsible for tragedies like last year’s massacre of 26 schoolchildren and teachers in Newtown, Conn.
“Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country in recent years,” the authors assure us, “not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine — have been committed by white men and boys.”
Neatly airbrushed out of the picture were two of the most notorious mass murderers in recent U.S. history: “Beltway snipers” John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo.
In 2002, they murdered 10 people in the Washington Post’s primary circulation area for explicitly racial reasons having to do with black nationalism.
Also 2007 rampage shooter Seung-Hui Cho, a Korean immigrant who killed 32 classmates and professors at Virginia Tech. Raised in Fairfax County, Va., across the Potomac River from Washington, Cho had been adjudicated “an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness” in a Virginia court, but not hospitalized.
This last is important because another of the Childress sisters’ claims is that “when white men try to divert attention” from their collective guilt “by talking about mental health issues, many people buy into the idea that the United States has a national mental health problem.”
Odd, because yet another mass shooting with a Washington angle involves Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood assassin — an Arlington, Va., native. Whether or not Hasan, a Palestinian-American Muslim many would call a terrorist, should properly be called “white” as the Childress sisters use the word, was debated by many of the thousands of online commentators who gravitated to the Post website to bicker and exchange anonymous racial insults — an entirely predictable outcome of publishing such witless nonsense.
Race tells us nothing about these tragedies. Absolutely nothing.
Opinion From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130406/OPINION01/304060317#ixzz2PmJIdfL1
The Washington Post has shown itself to be less a “newspaper” than a propaganda/leftist agenda rag. Whatever it once was, so far as excellence goes, it has allowed it’s bias to destroy. Sad really. The public deserves more.
Other Interesting Articles
A Reporter Explains Why Gun Coverage Is So Biased
Well, not intentionally.
But Jim Ragsdale of the Minneapolis Star Tribune attended a conference in Chicago on covering gun issues, which he describes this way:
“Covering Guns” brought reporters with front-line experience covering mass shootings in Tucson, Ariz.; Aurora, Colo.; Newtown, Conn., and Red Lake, Minn., to meet with gun experts and advocates and gun trainers. Sponsored by the Poynter journalism center and funded by the McCormick Foundation of Chicago, we gathered in a city that witnessed 506 homicides last year.
The idea, I take it, was to educate reporters so they could do a better job of covering news stories about firearms:
A team led by Don Haworth, a Chicago private investigator and firearms trainer, explained the components of a round, the various sizes of ammunition magazines, even the spiral etching inside the barrel that spins the bullet for accuracy and leaves a ballistic fingerprint.
If the reporters who attended the event came away knowing what a magazine is, they are ahead of the game. But Ragsdale’s account shows what an uphill battle it is to educate reporters. He is endearingly candid in describing the trepidation with which he approached the firing range:
Then someone handed me a Glock.
There suddenly was only one overriding truth and it was exploding in my hands, like a tiny cannon. I held on as my kindly gun-range instructor urged me to breathe deeply and squeeze gently.
“Good, good,” he kept saying, but I felt like I was holding on for dear life. …
But I felt no sense of “gun control” — not much better than the member of our party who screamed and dropped the weapon on a table after it fired.
What a wonderful image! A reporter who covers news stories involving firearms actually fires a gun, presumably for the first time in his or her life, and responds by screaming and dropping the pistol. Priceless!
Just how do you think the screaming ninny will cover this issue? Or wussy reporter Jim Ragsdale who nearly peed himself at the very touch of a “Glock” in his hand. How can anyone with such an overwhelming fear of guns cover the issue with any degree of honesty or integrity?
Dirty pols sink Andy
by Michael Goodwin
There are many who scoff at Andrew Cuomo’s chances in a presidential primary campaign, but I am not among them. His name is an iconic Democratic brand, he’s forceful on the stump and a prodigious fund-raiser. Besides, somebody has to win the nomination.
Of course, there are hurdles. Saint Hillary is gearing up to run, and there will be a scrum among contenders, probably including Vice President Joe Biden, competing just to be Clinton’s top rival.
The scenario, then, is daunting but doable — or at least it was, until federal prosecutor Preet Bharara dropped a big fat scandal bomb on Cuomo’s head.
Even before the smoke clears, it is certain that the sordid revelations damaged Cuomo’s presidential quest. You can’t become president, or even a nominee, if you are tagged with presiding over America’s capital of corruption.
Opponents’ ads write themselves: Snippets of blaring newspaper headlines, a parade of perps and Bharara’s voice denouncing Albany’s “show-me-the-money culture” and asking “How many passed bills were born of bribery?”
Other cases may yet appear, but even if they don’t, Bharara’s closing blast, which could have been aimed at the governor himself, could seal his fate: “No one blew the whistle. No one sounded the alarm. Rather, too many people looked the other way.”
The sensational cases destroy what had been a clever plan for 2016. Cuomo, swept into office during the Tea Party surge of 2010, spent his first year echoing the call for lower taxes and smaller government. He produced a balanced, on-time budget that included spending restraint and property-tax caps.
He then tacked left in 2012, championing gay marriage, imposing a tax hike he vowed he wouldn’t and pandering to environmentalists by offering one reason after another for delaying fracking. Getting the nation’s first tough gun-control legislation passed after the Newtown horror and pushing for virtually unlimited abortions cemented his return to the liberal fold.
From a national perspective, he could assume the record of zigs and zags would fade into the big picture of a governor with genuine appeal to both the Democratic base for the primary and some moderates for a general election. An easy re-election next year would be the kickoff for 2016.
Then came the Bharara bomb. While the sleazy legislators did the alleged crimes, Cuomo is not an innocent victim. He has only himself to blame for setting the wrong ethical tone.
He knew Albany was rotten, saying early on that corruption exceeded that of the notorious Tammany machine and “would make Boss Tweed blush.” Yet Cuomo repeatedly backed down from promised reforms, trading them for agreement on budget and policy issues. In one giddy moment, he bizarrely declared that New York “has the best legislative body in the nation.” That quote alone would make a great ad for an opponent.
The Perversity of Liberal “Rules”
by Carol Platt Liebau
It’s been not at all troubling to me to watch President Obama be pilloried for having the temerity to comment on California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ looks — mostly because of the different standards to which Democrats and Republicans are routinely held on such “women’s” topics by Democrats and the press.
Here’s a news flash for worshippers in the Cult of Obama: The President is just a normal man. Normal men notice women’s looks. And normal men reason — not inaccurately — that most women like to hear that they’re attractive. Only in elite lefty circles in this post-feminist era have there been attempts to codify an etiquette governing when it is politically correct to compliment a woman’s appearance.
The whole episode was silly to the rational mind. But note that President Obama called Harris to apologize for having complimented her (and we all know that the President doesn’t apologize for anything but America with any frequency!). It’s not because Jonathan Chait or other lefties were incensed at his behavior. It’s because he recognized the danger to his political brand among the wider public in allowing this story to keep circulating.
First, as the Washington Free Beacon points out, it plays into a dangerous image of Obama that already exists — as Sexist-in-Chief — based on the dearth of powerful women on his staff, the lower pay his female employees receive, the alleged “hostile environment” of the Obama White House, and more. Obviously, had he been a Republican, the tension between these facts and the oft-invoked “war on women” supposedly waged by Obama’s political opponents would be more widely circulated by the press and known by the public. But the longer the story drags on, the greater the chance such stories would appear, and so Obama nipped it in the bud.
Vice President Joe Biden called the U.S. economic figures for March “disappointing” on Friday but said America “remains better positioned than any country in the world to be the leading economy” of the 21st century.
“The economy has now added private sector jobs every month, disappointing this month, but they nonetheless added jobs,” said Biden at the Export-Import Bank conference in Washington.
“Even so we’ve still found that at the time there’s a need for an ambitious affirmative agenda. We strengthened and signed three free trade agreements.”
Biden said he’s not optimistic out of “naivety” but because he knows the history of America.
“I know I’m referred to in the White House as the White House optimist. I read that all of the time like I’m the new guy. As my grandfather would say, ‘like I just fell off the turnip truck yesterday,’” Biden said.
“In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve been there longer than any of them and I hope you all haven’t noticed.”
The private sector added 95,000 jobs and payrolls rose by 88,000 workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In response to the jobs numbers, the White House said the economy is “continuing to recover” from the financial crisis.
In Biden’s view, the “affirmative task we have now is to actually create a new world order because the global order is changing again and the institutions of the world that worked so well in the post-World War II era for decades, they need to be strengthened and some have to be changed. So we have to do what we do best. We have to lead.”
He added, “This is not a zero sum game. It’s overwhelmingly in our interest that China prosper, that Mongolia prosper.”
Biden said the global “playing field” needs to be “leveled” so competition is fair and healthy.
With a level playing field, Biden said American ingenuity would compete with anyone in the world.
I have until recently had faith in American Ingenuity to overcome almost any odds. Now? Not so much. The American Education, which once taught children to read, write, do math and to think no longer does that. A global playing field requires an educated population. We no longer have that. We traded education for “feel” good and the dunces we graduate, through no fault of their own, aren’t equipped to compete.
“New World Order”? That ought to get the conspiracy folks all riled up.
Gun control may have to wait
No matter what gun control bill passes the Senate, and it is highly unlikely one will, the National Rifle Association has already won this round. An assault weapons ban is off the table. There is no hope for restricting high-capacity magazines. Now even the once bipartisan idea of expanding background checks is nearly dead.
Democrats and advocates of new gun restrictions are clinging to the hope that Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) could step into the fray to rescue their efforts. They shouldn’t hold their breath. Coburn is under well-publicized pressure from an outfit called Gun Owners of America, which, according to The New York Times, boasted its members “irritated” the senator with constant pleas against background checks but nonetheless succeeded in changing his mind.
Democrats have dug up an ad McCain cut in 2000 in which he declares he has evolved on the issue of background checks, and that “with rights come responsibilities.” At this point it won’t be easy to bring Coburn back to the table, and without Coburn, McCain would just be dismissed as having one of his fits of mavericky-ness that was sure to pass.
Pro-gun Democrats from states where Mitt Romney crushed President Obama in 2012 are hardly ready to walk that tightrope without some Republican skin in the game.
Pope orders Vatican officials to tackle child sex abuse scandals
Pontiff’s call dismissed by victims’ groups as simply rhetoric designed to try to woo back disgusted Catholics to the church
Sounds to me as if the “victim’s groups” don’t want the church to do anything about the sex abuse scandals. Why else such an immediate negative response? If the Pope’s call does nothing then they have a right to complain. Now they seem more fearful that they might lose a chance to bash the church than in coming to a result that satisfies both church and victims.
By Clarice Feldman
In one of his more well-publicized gaffes, Vice President Biden said of John McCain:
“Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs.”
Actually, of course, it’s a four-letter word, and it was his job and the president’s to create a climate for job expansion, and they failed. The evidence is now overwhelming: they have created the worst employment climate in decades.
Tyler Durden at Zerohedge sums up the week’s bad economic news:
Things just keep getting worse for the American worker, and by implication US economy, where as we have shown many times before, it pays just as well to sit back and collect disability and various welfare and entitlement checks, than to work. The best manifestation of this: the number of people not in the labor force which in March soared by a massive 663,000 to a record 90 million Americans who are no longer even looking for work. This was the biggest monthly increase in people dropping out of the labor force since January 2012, when the BLS did its census recast of the labor numbers. And even worse, the labor force participation rate plunged from an already abysmal 63.5% to 63.3% — the lowest since 1979! But at least it helped with the now painfully grotesque propaganda that the US unemployment rate is “improving.”
With so many out of work, the administration safely counts on a feckless media and an equally feckless opposition to be distracted by issues like gay marriage, immigration, and guns.
As the sensible Alicia Colon observes of the gay marriage kerfuffle, a typical Democrat ginned-up social issue that has nothing to do with the most significant domestic and national security problems facing us:
Never once discussed, however, by advocates is how this issue has anything to do with the economic state of the nation today. Legalizing gay marriage will not improve the economy nor is it really that important to the average homosexual. Celebrity nuptials and endorsements may garner news coverage stressing it as a civil rights issue but ironically these come from a wealthier than average demographic. The average homosexual has concerns that are much more aligned with the general population — jobs.
Nor will the laws allowing same-sex marriage impact our national security so why is it even being discussed as a potential hot-button issue for conservatives? Why are we seeing more and more articles on the discord in the GOP between the social conservatives and the moderates? For the Republicans to regain the Congress they are going to have to wake up and smell the coffee. Social issues are emotional weapons that the Democrats use to obscure the fact that they haven’t one good idea on how to save our economy.
When the GOP candidates are asked what their positions are on the hot social issues like same-sex marriage, contraception and abortion, they should fire right back with the questions,
“What does that have to do with saving our country? How are these issues affecting the economy? Why aren’t you concerned with that and our national security?
Why aren’t you more interested in closing the borders to terrorists? Why are you ignoring the continual threat against us by radical Islamists? Why aren’t you wondering why the State Department didn’t respond to Ambassador Stevens’ request for additional security before he was brutally attacked and murdered?
How come you’re not interested in the Fast and Furious scandal in the Justice Department? Do you think that’s just the name of a movie instead of the Justice Department and ATF giving weapons to gun cartels that ended up with hundreds killed and maimed including a U.S. Border agent?
If you want to know our positions on social issues, read the party’s platform. We are all pro-life and for the sanctity of traditional marriage. That’s all you need to know. Now for once ask me an intelligent and pertinent question.”
Where once the left and the media could blame everything on climate warming, now it’s the sequester they reach for as the bogeyman.
“Look: We all over-shot it,” [Austan] Goolsbee said on CNBC, referring to the projections of much higher job gains. “This is a punch to the gut. This is not a good number. And I think now you’re going to interestingly start seeing a lot of discussion about maybe the sequester’s a bigger deal than people thought it was.”
The jobs report showed the unemployment rate dropping a bit, to 7.6 percent. But the number of jobs created — 88,000 — was far less than expected, and a big reason the unemployment rate fell is because nearly half a million people dropped out of the workforce.
By W.A. Beatty
Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama loves to quote (and misquote) the Bible in order to lend credence to what he is saying. For example, he (actually, his speechwriter), in Newtown, Connecticut, quoted several Bible verses, including Matthew 19:14: “Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.'”
Bible quotes, in and of themselves, are fine. But when Obama misquotes and/or misinterprets what he quotes, that is not fine. For example, on March 30, 2012, in an address to supporters at the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont, Obama said, “I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper.” He was speaking about values and thought this misquote would further his cause. That Bible quote came from the fourth chapter of Genesis. The actual verse is: “Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is your brother Abel?’ ‘I don’t know,’ he replied. ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?‘” Cain said this to God after murdering his brother Abel and was trying to hide the act from God.
When taken in its entirety, not just as one verse Obama lifted out of context, the verses present an entirely different interpretation from what Obama intended.
The misquote was not about values at all. Obama’s misquote and misinterpretation was an attempt to twist the Bible to further his personal political agenda.
“… From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” — in an effort to justify his “fair share” tax agenda.
Again, Obama took a part of a Scripture verse out of context. In verses 42-48, Jesus is telling the parable of the wise steward. The meaning of the verse is quite different when taken in its entirety:
“But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” Jesus is speaking, in this verse, about how to avoid the blows of punishment by living within the limits set by our parents and/or our legal system. He is not talking about taxes.
If we take Obama’s partial quote in good faith, it still doesn’t convey the meaning for which he is searching. The verse can be, taken alone, interpreted as being about personal stewardship. Taken in that context, one must ask: “Who is doing the giving and demanding?” Obama would say government, whereas Jesus would say God.
Four AP Reporters Make Excuses, All Unacceptable, for Weak March Jobs Report
After telling the world on Thursday that “Gone are the fears that the economy could fall into another recession,” it seems that the Associated Press’s Christopher Rugaber needed some help explaining away Friday’s weak jobs report from the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The AP had four reporters on Friday evening’s coverage, all seemingly in search of a viable excuse for another “unexpectedly” disappointing report: Rugaber, co-author Paul Wiseman, and contributors Jonathan Fahey and Joyce Rosenberg in New York.
DIM LABOR REPORT SHOWS US ADDED JUST 88K JOBS
A streak of robust job growth came to a halt in March , signaling that U.S. employers may have grown cautious in a fragile economy.
The gain of 88,000 jobs  was the smallest in nine months.
… Friday’s weak jobs report from the Labor Department caught analysts by surprise and served as a reminder that the economic recovery is still slow, nearly four years after the Great Recession ended. 
… Economists had no single explanation for why hiring weakened so sharply and broadly – from retailers and manufacturers to electronics and building materials companies. Some said deep government spending cuts that began taking effect March 1 might have contributed to the slowdown, along with higher Social Security taxes.  Others raised the possibility that last month was just a pause  in an improving job market.
Whatever the reasons, slower job growth will extend the Federal Reserve’s policy of keeping borrowing costs at record lows. 
March’s job gain was less than half the average of 196,000 jobs in the previous six months, raising the prospect that for the fourth straight spring, the economy and hiring could show strength early in the year, only to weaken later. Some economists say weak hiring may persist into summer before rebounding by fall. 
… Longer-term trends have helped keep the participation rate down. The baby boomers have begun to retire. The share of men 20 and older in the labor force has dropped as manufacturing has shrunk. 
… An intensifying European financial crisis depressed hiring in 2010. Japan’s earthquake and tsunami also disrupted U.S. manufacturing in 2011. Last year, an unusually warm winter caused employers to do more hiring early in the year, cutting into hiring that normally happens in spring. 
 — This “robust job growth” refers to the past four months, which, looking at the raw (not seasonally adjusted) figures after revisions, were no better than the same four months a year earlier. 1.521 million jobs were lost from November 2011 through February 2012. From November 2012 through February 2013, the loss was 1.515 million.
 — There is no defensible excuse for not describing the result as “seasonally adjusted.” The term is not in the report. The average reader will assume that 88,000 jobs were actually added. The fact is that BLS believes 759,000 were added. The problem is, that’s the worst March result since the recession officially ended, worse than 2012 (901,000), 2011 (907,000), and even 2010 (835,000).
 — This would have been the perfect opportunity to tell readers that this is by far the worst “recovery” since World War II. But of course not.
 — Excuses, excuses. The reason AP had to be so vague (“some said”) about the “deep government spending cuts” copout is that almost no one outside the government or who isn’t an Obama administration alum agrees that the “cuts,” which are really reductions in projected spending growth, contributed to yesterday’s pathetic results. As to taxes, it’s interesting that the tax increases on upper-income Americans resulting from the fiscal cliff deal and as a result of ObamaCare weren’t mentioned.
 — Economies don’t “pause” without a reason.
 — Sure, let’s keep covering the government’s deficits and applying artificial stimulus. That has done so much for economic growth since the recession — not.
 — Sure, it will only be for a few months, and things will get better after that indefinitely. Just like the past three years — not.
 — Seriously, why should the decline of manufacturing automatically lead to reduced male employment? It’s as if this is the only sector in which men can work. Really?
 — The three items cited were not major factors in the years involved. The 2012 excuse about the warm winter is a real howler. None of these events would have held back a sufficiently robust economy properly driven by appropriate public policy.
So the economy went from recession-proof to “fragile” in a day. Amazing. This should be professionally embarrassing. Is it, Chris? Do you even care?
The ‘scoop’ on wind
It took an energy insider this past week to expose the dirty little truth about the future of wind energy — it’s too costly, too unreliable and only getting more so because of government subsidies.
Take that, you green zealots.
Patrick Jenevein, CEO of Tang Energy Group in Dallas, the nation’s largest producer of wind energy, actually deplores the government subsidies, which he wrote in an oped piece in the Wall Street Journal, are ruining the industry.
Patrick Jenevein, CEO of Tang Energy Group in Dallas, the nation’s largest producer of wind energy, actually deplores the government subsidies, which he wrote in an oped piece in the Wall Street Journal, are ruining the industry.
“Government subsidies to new wind farms have only made the industry less focused on reducing costs,” he wrote. “In turn, the industry produces a product that isn’t as efficient or as cheap as it might be if we focused less on working the political system and more on research and development.”
The feds have poured about $8.4 billion into wind energy since 2009, succeeding largely in raising the price to consumers — a phenomenon we here in Massachusetts are anticipating with the construction by Cape Wind of that wind farm in Nantucket Sound. According to the Energy Department’s own figures, the per megawatt-hour price for wind increased from $37 in 2005 to an average of $54 today. “It is possible that developers have seized this limited opportunity to build out the less-energetic sites,” conceded a report by the Department of Energy.
The 8.7 percent “haircut” for wind energy brought about by sequestration could be a blessing in disguise, Jenevein concludes, especially if it brings about a reevaluation of the subsidy program.
Rebuilding a Ruined City
That city was once the picture of American industrial might. Henry Ford deployed the production line there and helped create the modern middle class. During World War II, more than a third of U.S. war material was manufactured in the city. And during the post-war boom, cars made in Detroit embodied the American success story.
Getting people on disability has become big business for law firms like New York’s Binder & Binder — while taxpayers foot the bill
You’ve seen Charles Binder and his 10-gallon hat on the late-night TV commercials. You may mistake him for an ambulance chaser, but he isn’t. He’s the Welfare Cowboy, vowing to ride the high country on your behalf. You want to live on the ranch of the state, nuzzling the sweet green grass of government aid? Give him a holler. He’ll wrangle you a regular check.
Binder & Binder, the Hauppauge, NY, law firm founded by brothers Harry and Charles, make for a clownish presence with their $20 million a year worth of TV spots. But what they’re doing is serious business: Last year they pocketed $88 million of taxpayer dollars by being the nation’s leading advocate for individuals seeking disability benefits from the government.
Worth a Read:
Obama Budget Is Dismissed by G.O.P. and Attacked by Left
Hollywood’s Come to Jesus Moment?
Hollywood Moonbat Bette Midler: “Climate Change Deniers” Have “Smaller Brains”….
Another damn liberal POS who won’t be benefitting from any money from me for her “product”. My own little boycott movement. If I don’t “like” them, I don’t “watch” or enriche them.
Which makes me wonder, by the way, what the hell has she done worth watching since “The First Wives Club”?
Quote For A Sunday Morning: