Witch’s Will For A Mourning In April
I will remain in “mourning” so long as Obama’s unworthy ass sits in the Oval Office.
My Pick of the Litter Today
Murdered Benghazi Diplomat’s Mother Urges Congress Investigate the Attack
Yesterday afternoon, Congressman Frank Wolf received a phone call from Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, the foreign service officer killed in the Benghazi attack last September. She expressed her support for Wolf’s House Resolution 36 that would form a select congressional committee to investigate the Benghazi attack.
Following up the phone conversation, Mrs. Smith sent the following letter to Wolf:
April 10, 2013
Hon. Frank R. Wolf
This letter is to endorse resolution H. Res. 36 to create a Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks.
I am the mother of Sean Smith, one of the four people murdered in Benghazi by terrorists along with ambassador Chris Stevens and ex-seals Ty Woods and Glen Daugherty. When I was in Wash. DC at the reception of the caskets, I asked for and received promises from Pres. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, VP Biden and several other dignitaries in attendance. They all looked me directly in the eyes and promised they would find out and let me know. I got only one call from a clerk about a month later quoting from the time line, which I already had.
I agree completely with items 1 thru 16 of this resolution. I especially want to know WHY the four were abandoned the way they were. My son told me that he saw someone taking pictures just before this happened and reported it. He told me they asked repeatedly for better security.
Please, Please help me find out who is responsible and fix it so no more of our sons & daughters are abandoned by the country they love. It is very difficult to find out Leon Panetta advised Pres. Obama that the attack was occurring and Pres. Obama went to bed without sending help. It is too late for my son but not too late for those that follow.
I have been following John McCain and Lindsay Graham hoping they had the ability to get some answers but no luck. Hillary finally testified but didn’t answer the questions (i.e. If they were watching this happen in real time, why wasn’t help sent).
Patricia A. Smith Mother of Sean Smith Killed in Benghazi
Ps Sean was in Special Operations in Okinawa before joining the State Dept.
Mrs. Smith’s letter follows the actions of 700 special ops veterans who sent an open letter to Congress also demanding an investigation into the Benghazi attack, including the answer to at least 16 specific questions.
The Thatcher Haters
A pop star named Morrissey shows how it’s done.
“No British politician has ever been more despised by the British people than Margaret Thatcher,” moody crooner Morrissey contends. “Thatcher’s funeral on Wednesday will be heavily policed for fear that the British tax-payer will want to finally express their view of Thatcher. They are certain to be tear-gassed out of sight by the police. United Kingdom? Syria? China? What’s the difference?”
Aside from the smell, a big difference is that people vote in the United Kingdom. In 1979, 1983, and again in 1987, the British people voted for the Conservative Party, which Margaret Thatcher led. If Brits so “despised” Thatcher, why did she hold office longer than any other 20th century UK prime minister? Also, people in the United Kingdom exercise the right to tastelessly celebrate the deaths of political figures. In Syria, opposing a leader means your home gets shelled; in China, one runs the risk of getting run over by a tank. Oh, yeah, China and Syria didn’t produce the Magna Charta, Shakespeare, The Beatles, or Monty Python. But other than that, Morrissey’s analogy holds.
Pop stars, unlike politicians, don’t run the risk of ruin by exhibiting a tenuous relationship to reality. To Morrissey, who quit a job to go on the dole around the time Mrs. Thatcher’s political star rose, “She simply did not give a s#!+ about people.”Moz’s recent string of canceled tour dates, and his misanthropic oeuvre (who wishes for a nuclear Armageddon or getting hit by a double-decker bus?), suggests projection.
Not every fading performer echoed Morrissey. Johnny Rotten, insanely the voice of sanity here, called Thatcher’s tormentors“loathsome.” The Sex Pistols singer explained, “I’m not going to dance on her grave. I was her enemy in her life but I will not be her enemy in her death.” When Spice Girl Geri Hallowell tweeted her respects to the “first lady of girl power,” the venomous reaction from the anti-social types lurking on social media prompted her to apologize to anyone she had offended. It’s a strange world where a condolence prompts controversy.
Thatcher came from the “people” Morrissey claims she didn’t care about. She grew up above her father’s market. In politics she relied on the “practical economics” of her grocer dad, which she articulated as matching the “entirely justified lack of faith in the wisdom of the state” with “a renewed confidence in the creative capacity of enterprise.” By the late 1970s, many British people similarly wondered why their government ran an airline, where a fifth of the British pound’s value had gone in a year, how a trade union leader could halt much of a nation’s production, when it became preferable to collect a check rather than work for one, and who would rescue them from this lunacy. They didn’t much wonder any of this after Thatcher departed as prime minister in 1990.
Why They Won’t Talk About Kermit Gosnell
In 2011, the journalist Mara Hvistendahl published Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, detailing the societal effects of sex-selective abortions that target women the world over and resulted in the absence of perhaps more than 100 million girls who by now should have been born. But Hvistendahl soon learned the downside to uncovering what many believe to be a shocking trend in human rights offenses: people will want to do something about it. And so she lashed out, declaring that “anti-abortion activists have been at work in a disingenuous game, using the stark reduction of women in the developing world” to argue for pro-life policies that could save those women.
Hvistendahl’s plaint recalled the incredible work of Edwin Black, most notably his book War Against the Weak, which detailed the role American eugenics played in the monstrous ethnic cleansing in Europe in the 20th century culminating in the Holocaust. One of the most important personalities in this terrible saga was the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood. Yet like Hvistendahl, Black was concerned about the implications of what he had uncovered. In the introduction, he writes: “Opponents of a woman’s right to choose could easily seize upon Margaret Sanger’s eugenic rhetoric to discredit the admirable work of Planned Parenthood today; I oppose such misuse.”
But what Black and Hvistendahl betray in their defensiveness is an awareness that an ideology that supports unlimited (or practically unlimited) abortion has consequences, and those consequences are exacerbated immensely by the fact that the supposedly “progressive” practitioners of such an ideology resort to the denial of human life where it obviously exists. To dehumanize is to invite a world of trouble. And that world of trouble unfortunately empowers evil such as that displayed by the “doctor” Kermit Gosnell, who stands accused of using his Philadelphia abortion practice to provide what is essentially child execution by killing babies who survive an abortion procedure and are born alive.
The details of Gosnell’s alleged actions are more than unpleasant; they are damned-near soul scarring. And they are coming out because he is on trial for them, because what he is accused of is murder.
You may not have heard much about Gosnell’s case. That’s because the mainstream press has chosen by and large to ignore it. There is no area of American politics in which the press is more activist or biased or unethical than social issues, the so-called culture wars. And the culture of permissive abortion they favor has consequences, which they would rather not look squarely at, thank you very much. The liberal commentator Kirsten Powers has written a tremendous op-ed in USA Today on Gosnell and the media blackout. Powers writes of the gruesome admissions that Gosnell’s former employees are making in court, some of which amount to “literally a beheading” and other stomach-turning descriptions. On the media’s refusal to inform the public, Powers writes:
A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months. The exception is when Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan hijacked a segment on Meet the Press meant to foment outrage over an anti-abortion rights law in some backward red state.
The Washington Post has not published original reporting on this during the trial and The New York Times saw fit to run one original story on A-17 on the trial’s first day. They’ve been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony….
You don’t have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” It’s about basic human rights.
The media should be ashamed beyond description for this behavior. The American left should come to terms with what it means to talk about a human life as if it were a parasite, or merely a clump of cells. And they should most certainly stop lecturing the rest of us on compassion, on pity, on social obligation, on morality.
Powers is right when she says the alleged revelations about Gosnell “should shock anyone with a heart.” Which is precisely what the press is avoiding.
To Beat Terry McAuliffe, Virginia GOP Turns to Anti-Romney Playbook
Democrats bloodied Romney for claiming to create 100,000 jobs. Now McAuliffe’s getting the treatment for his own outlandish claim.
Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic front-runner in the Virginia gubernatorial race, once made an outlandish claim that would make Mitt Romney cringe.
At a debate during his failed 2009 campaign, McAuliffe declared he “created over 100,000 jobs—good-paying jobs with benefits and good wages. That’s what I’ll do as governor.” A Democratic rival scoffed that McAuliffe apparently had created more jobs than Microsoft’s Bill Gates.
McAuliffe’s campaign on Wednesday did not respond directly to questions about whether he stands by the 100,000 jobs—the same number Republican presidential nominee Romney struggled to defend in the 2012 campaign. And in what looks like a reprise of the successful Democratic attacks on Romney, McAuliffe’s business experience is expected to be fodder for a full-blown, multimillion-dollar Republican opposition machine this year, led by party front-runner Ken Cuccinelli and likely backed by conservative super PACs such as the newly formed America Rising.
Whether the flipped script starring Republican attacks on a Democrat’s lucrative business career will stick is one of the biggest questions looming over the marquee campaign in the country in 2013.
McAuliffe is still pitching himself as a job creator, though he apparently hasn’t repeated the 100,000 figure and quietly resigned as chairman of the GreenTech electric car company that he once boasted would employ 900 people. (The company never built a manufacturing plant in Virginia as originally planned, and its facilities in Missisippi have not yet begun major production.)
Cuccinelli’s campaign is assailing McAuliffe’s departure from GreenTech in December in an online ad, in addition to pointing to his $8 million profit from a telecommunications company called Global Crossing that laid off 10,000 employees when it went bust. McAuliffe was an investor and never served as a board member or company officer.
I’m hoping Cuccinelli can put this Clinton POS down for good this time.
Voters make it quite clear that there’s no need for the federal government to raise taxes. They’d prefer more tax cuts instead but are much more closely divided on that question.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 28% of Likely U.S. Voters think additional tax hikes are needed to fund the federal government. More than twice as many (63%) disagree and feel more taxes are not necessary.
What Up With Republicans?
McCarthy: ObamaCare Will Be ‘No. 1 Item in the Next Election’
House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Thursday that the lower chamber’s Republicans “have kind of got their mojo back” over the past couple of months and are ready to charge forward with tax reform.
“We looked at three major obstacles in that time and we were able to make the cuts, save more money, and make the Senate for the first time in the last four years do a budget – the last time they did a budget the iPad wasn’t even introduced yet,” McCarthy said on a conference call with reporters. “But their vote-a-rama also got them on record on a number of different items and we did all that by ignoring the president and going back to regular order and that is how we are moving in a much better direction.”
Of the big things on the horizon, he said, “a major piece of this will be tax reform.”
“This is a key issue all Republicans believe in – making the government smaller, making the economy stronger and letting people keep more of what they earn,” McCarthy added.
With an eye on midterms, though, the whip said the looming implementation date could be the Dems’ downfall.
“I truly think ObamaCare is going to come back and be the No. 1 item in the next election,” McCarthy said. “The dysfunction of this system that was created will fail. Look at what they just did with the program for pre-existing conditions. They don’t have any more money left in it.”
Minority Voters and the GOP: Rand Paul’s Third Way
When confronted with the Republican Party’s poor standing among minority communities, GOP politicians have usually taken one of two approaches: claim these communities constitute “natural conservative constituencies” or advocate a broad change in policy or ideology to attract minority voters. Neither one of these tactics has been effective, for various reasons–chief among those reasons is that the communities under consideration are usually not “natural conservative constituencies.”
Take Hispanics, for example. It is often noted by GOP politicians that Hispanic immigrants are hard-working, family-oriented strivers who tend to be religious. That may be true, but polls showed that while Mitt Romney was generally trusted on the economy more than Barack Obama, Hispanics overwhelmingly trusted Obama on the economy. Whether or not Hispanics share a cultural or social conservatism with the GOP, then, becomes basically irrelevant. I wrote about one poll here that showed 73 percent of Hispanics preferred Obama to Romney on the economy, and 73 percent planned to vote for Obama. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
Conservatives also tried to convince themselves that since black voters were generally disapproving toward gay marriage, they would gravitate toward the GOP. But when it came to national elections, black voters weren’t basing their choices on gay marriage, and now African-American opposition to gay marriage is dropping anyway.
But there is a third way, in fact, to try to appeal to minority voters, and it was typified in Rand Paul’s speech to the predominantly black Howard University yesterday. This strategy may not work either, but it is certainly worth trying. Paul’s third way had two elements. The first, and obvious, one is to show up in the first place. Conservatives cannot expect minority voters to come to them; if you want someone’s vote, you have to prove it–and earn it.
This is my shocked face. The price tag of Obamacare has already jumped at pretty much every level — for families, individuals, businesses, and the federal government — so stories like these are par for the course:
The $1.3 trillion U.S. health-care system overhaul is getting more expensive and will initially accomplish less than intended. Costs for a network of health-insurance exchanges, a core part of the Affordable Care Act, have swelled to $4.4 billion for fiscal 2012 and 2013 combined, and will reach $5.7 billion in 2014, according to the budget President Barack Obama yesterday sent to Congress. That spending would be more than double initial projections, even though less than half the 50 U.S. states are participating. The unanticipated spending is a consequence of an ambitious timetable dictated by Congress and a complex new way of offering people medical coverage, say analysts, lobbyists and administration officials. Combine that with a majority of Republican governors declining to cooperate with a Democratic president and U.S. regulators are left grasping to get the 2010 health law up and running by a Jan. 1, 2014, deadline. For the areas that money can’t solve, the Obama administration is opting for delay. It temporarily backed off some provisions of the law, including restrictions on coverage for executives and a promise to offer small businesses greater choices of health plans.
Costing more, and doing less. What a deal. Remember, the federal government simply assumed that every state would set up its own exchange — despite strong public opposition to the law, and high associated costs coupled with heavy-handed federal mandates with scant flexibility. More than half of the states have thus declined to bear the burden of these exchanges, requiring the feds to step in. This outcome was apparently unforeseeable to Obamacare’s brilliant advocates and administrators.
Fox’s Megyn Kelly Reports On New York State Confiscating Weapons From Law-Abiding Citizen
According to a report on Fox News Channel with host Megyn Kelly, the state of New York recently accessed an individual’s medical records and determined that they should be ineligible to possess a firearm. The state ordered that this individual surrender his weapons, which he did. However, as Kelly reported, the individual told to surrender his weapons was inaccurately identified as a threat. Today, that individual is suing the state, and a local government official in New York has said “we all look foolish.”
Kelly said that a new law, passed in New York in the wake of the Newtown massacre, requires mental health providers to notify government officials as well as gun licensers if they believe an individual is libel to hurt themselves or others. Those officials will then determine whether or not the individual in question should retain their gun permit.
One person has already been misidentified as a threat and had his firearms permit revoked. He was ordered to and complied with the mandate to surrender his firearms to the state.
“The letter that he got said that if he didn’t turn his guns in they were going to come to his house and get his guns” said Fox News reporter Trace Gallagher.
Gallagher reported that New York’s new gun law allows the government to use the privacy provisions within HIPAA, ensuring that the state has the right to “protect the public’s health and wellbeing,” as the legal justification to forcibly confiscate firearms from people determined to be a threat to themselves of others.
Gallagher said that no one turned this individual into the authorities, but that officials confiscated weapons from the wrong person. “[N]ow we all look foolish,” said an Erie County official in a press release.
Kelly reported that it was only after the individual retained counsel and sued the state did he find out that he was not the intended target of this particular firearms confiscation.
Worth a Read:
The War on the Family Enters a New Stage
Connecticut gunmakers mull moving after losing gun law fight
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
If your memory of Samuel Adams is a fuzzy as mine was, here’s his entry at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams