Witch’s Will For A Mourning In May

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

Tennyson: 10 essential quotes

  Here are 10 quotes by Tennyson that may ring a bell.

1. “Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die.”

From The Charge of the Light Brigade, the poem tells of the famous and brutal military disaster in the Crimean war. Nowadays, the saying is often used in the workplace and encourages one to press on no matter what the task.

Though the narrative as a whole tells the story of soldiers, pieces of the text can be applied to modern situations. “Readers can detach lines from their context and enjoy rolling them around in their mouths and heads,” says Oxford University literature professor Dr Robert Douglas-Fairhurst.

2. “Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.”

Perhaps the most well-known of Tennyson’s quotes comes from “In Memoriam”, a tribute to one of his late friends.

The saying, which is most commonly used to console someone after a break-up, tugs at the heartstrings and serves as a comfort for those with tumultuous love lives.

3. “If I had a flower for every time I thought of you… I could walk through my garden forever.”

This romantic sentiment may sound like the message on a greeting card, but it now makes its way into wedding speeches and toasts.

4.“Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.”

From the dramatic monologue Locksley Hall, this poem tells the story of a soldier who stays behind to reflect on childhood struggles.

This simple phrase insinuates that knowledge is pieces of information that aren’t always retained, but wisdom is a deeper understanding based on life experiences.

5. “A lie that is half-truth is the darkest of all lies.”

“His poems are full of concentrated lines and phrases that linger in the mind because of their shape, their sound, their mouthability. They ask to be read and then re-read,” explains Douglas-Fairhurst.

6. “I am a part of all that I have met.”

In Ulysses, a dramatic monologue detailing the Greek hero’s escapades, Tennyson succinctly offers his view that humans are shaped by a combination of all life’s experiences.

7. “Better not be at all than not be noble.”

In The Princess, Tennyson tells the story of a heroine who refuses to marry, and instead ends up founding a women’s university. After a long pursuit and a series of trials, the princess eventually falls in love with a prince.

Tennyson’s musing on nobility suggests that there is nothing worse than poor character.

8. “No man ever got very high by pulling other people down. The intelligent merchant does not knock his competitors. The sensible worker does not knock those who work with him. Don’t knock your friends. Don’t knock your enemies. Don’t knock yourself.”

This is the kind of maxim that The Office’s David Brent might consider framing.

“Often he composed individual lines before working out where to fit them into a poem, and just as he sometimes treated these lines like pieces of lego he could build up into bigger blocks of writing,” according to Douglas-Fairhurst.

9. “Who are wise in love, love most, say least.”

In Merlin and Viviene, Tennyson tells the passionate love story of a woman seducing a man.

In this particular line of the poem, Tennyson suggests that someone who is in love should show love, not just vocalise their admiration.

10. “Nor is it wiser to weep a true occasion lost, but trim our sails, and let old bygones be.”

“Many of Tennyson’s poems are concerned with memory – what we should hold onto from the past, and what we should abandon,” says Douglas-Fairhurst. “His best poems don’t just describe the workings of memory – they also enable it by making themselves so memorable.”

The Hottest Selling Political Bumper Sticker

Finally, a new bumper sticker for BOTH political parties.

This hottest selling political bumper sticker comes from New York State:


Democrats put it on the rear bumper.

Republicans put it on the front bumper.

My Top 3 Stories:


Obama: The fall


Fate is fickle, power cyclical, and nothing is new under the sun. Especially in Washington, where after every election the losing party is sagely instructed to confess sin, rend garments and rethink its principles lest it go the way of the Whigs. And where the victor is hailed as the new Caesar, facing an open road to domination.

And where Barack Obama, already naturally inclined to believe his own loftiness, graciously accepted the kingly crown and proceeded to ride his reelection success to a crushing victory over the GOP at the fiscal cliff, leaving a humiliated John Boehner & Co. with nothing but naked tax hikes.

Thus emboldened, Obama turned his inaugural and State of the Union addresses into a left-wing dream factory, from his declaration of war on global warming (on a planet where temperatures are the same as 16 years ago and in a country whose CO2 emissions are at a 20-year low) to the invention of new entitlements — e.g., universal preschool for 5-year-olds— for a country already drowning in debt.To realize his dreams, Obama sought to fracture and neutralize the congressional GOP as a prelude to reclaiming the House in 2014. This would enable him to fully enact his agenda in the final two years of his presidency, usually a time of lame-duck paralysis. Hail the Obama juggernaut.Well, that story — excuse me, narrative — lasted exactly six months. The Big Mo is gone.It began with the sequester. Obama never believed the Republicans would call his bluff and let it go into effect. They did.Taken by surprise, Obama cried wolf, predicting the end of everything we hold dear if the sequester was not stopped. It wasn’t. Nothing happened.Highly embarrassed, and determined to indeed make (bad) things happen, the White House refused Republican offers to give it more discretion in making cuts. Bureaucrats were instructed to inflict maximum pain from minimal cuts, as revealed by one memo from the Agriculture Department demanding agency cuts that the public would feel.



Stalking Kelly Ayotte and Common Sense

The video of a relative of a victim of the Newtown massacre confronting Senator Kelly Ayotte at a New Hampshire town hall meeting has been all over the cable news channels, as the effort to shame those who opposed efforts to expand background checks for gun purchases escalated this week.

Other objects of the increasingly aggressive gun-control lobby like Arizona Senator Jeff Flake have also been subjected to attempts by gun violence victims’ relatives to embarrass him for voting against the Manchin-Toomey amendment. But if these supporters of gun-control bills are really interested in getting something passed, they should listen to one of the measure’s co-sponsors.

Senator Pat Toomey made headlines for saying yesterday that he believed Republicans shied away from his legislation in large part because they were disinclined to support anything that President Obama wanted. This is being interpreted as proof that a) Republicans are obstructionists who are the main reason why Congress is dysfunctional and b) the gun bill was stopped out of sheer malice rather than on the merits.

But if you read what he actually said to his hometown paper, the Allentown Call-Chronicle, you’ll find he said something very different from the spin that has been put on his comments by liberals looking to exploit the gun issue:

Toomey asserted that the passionate minority who railed against the measure simply didn’t trust putting more authority over guns in the hands of the Obama administration.

“I would suggest the administration brought this on themselves. I think the president ran his re-election campaign in a divisive way. He divided Americans. He was using resentment of some Americans toward others to generate support for himself. That was very divisive, that has consequences, that lingers,” Toomey said over breakfast in the Senate member’s only dining room.

“I understand why people have some apprehension about this administration. I don’t agree with the conclusion as it applies to my [background checks] amendment, but I understand where the emotion comes from.”

Toomey is right about what happened among Republicans. Advocates of more gun control can cite the huge majorities polls show backing background checks, but the more they rely on demagogic attempts to smear their opponents as being somehow responsible for tragedies like Newtown, the less likely they will be to persuade many Republicans to join their ranks.



Does the Obama Government Really Want to Catch Anyone Involved in the Benghazi Attack?

A day after the FBI released photos of individuals it says it’s seeking in connection with the Benghazi terrorist attack, I’m still scratching my head. Eight months after an attack that left four Americans dead, this is all the FBI has?

These grainy photos are obviously from security cameras posted at or near the scene of the attack. The images are sufficiently grainy that it’s difficult to discern any close details of the individuals in them. The men have all had eight months to cut or grow their hair, cut or grow their beards, dispose of the clothing they’re wearing, and alter their appearance in other ways. They could have traveled to any place on the globe by now.

Meanwhile, this guy has been clearly celebrating the Benghazi attack on the Internet for months. This photo was taken during the attack, obviously on the scene.

Here he is in another photo of him, attributed to Getty Images. He has been all over the net and cable TV — well, Fox anyway — for months now.

He was obviously involved in the attack. Who is he? What’s happened to him in the eight months since the attack? Beats me. Beats the FBI too. They’re apparently not looking for this clearly seen guy, and are focused on the individuals in the grainy surveillance cams. Maybe they were leaders and this guy was not. But he may know who the leaders were. His clear image started appearing online with a day or two of the attacks. As far as its public communications go, the FBI never sought him. The Bureau didn’t even investigate the attack scene itself until a month after it happened. By then, the media and anyone else who wanted to had had the opportunity to traipse all over the unsecured crime scene and contaminate evidence to their heart’s content.

What else is on those surveillance cameras the FBI pulled its useless stills from? Beats me. The FBI isn’t saying. But surely there’s more evidence on the recordings than nearly useless still frames of three fairly nondescript men who could be anywhere in the world, or dead one way or another, by now. The FBI appears to be sitting on that evidence.

The FBI is part of the Justice Department. Over in the State Department, the bureaucracy is foot dragging. State employees with knowledge of the attack want to talk. At least one will testify in the House next week. But the State Department, all the way up to Secretary of State Kerry, are not helping these employees talk. Instead, from Kerry on down State is saying nothing.

The employees have legal counsel, Victoria Toensing. Toensing needs to be granted a security clearance so that she can learn what her client(s) know. But State, all the way up to Kerry, are not granting her that clearance or even beginning the process of granting that clearance, effectively cutting Toensing off from her client(s) and silencing them. If they speak to her before she has the security clearance, they can be charged with mishandling classified information. They face termination and possible prison time.

Toensing is no security risk. She was the first head of the Justice Department’s Terrorism Unit. She has undoubtedly held security clearances in the past. She has supporters and friends on both sides of the aisle.

State’s inertia resembles the FBI’s over in the Justice Department. Neither has acted quickly at all, on the night of the attack or at any point afterward.


Worth a Read:

   Is Obama a Lame Duck Already?

by Peggy Noonan

Not quite, but he sure is quacking like one.


Karen Heller: From silent Gosnell, a gathering storm


The Howard Kurtz saga


Tsarnaev Was Too Dangerous For Mecca, But Not  Boston


Media Malpractice:

NBC Protests Gosnell Trial Too Gruesome; Yet They Covered  Casey Anthony

  by Brent Bozell

Last night, NBC Nightly News deliberately censored the grisly  details of abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s alleged crimes. Claiming that they’re  “too gruesome” to be discussed on television is absolute nonsense. NBC News  covered the Casey Anthony child murder trial 12 times on Nightly News  in 2011, including multiple graphic descriptions of that crime. If they can talk  about Caylee Anthony’s body decomposing in the trunk of a car, they can talk  about Gosnell “snipping” spinal cords to kill babies born alive.

The difference is that the details of this murder trial raise serious  questions about abortion, the liberal media’s most sacred cow.

If NBC thinks one Gosnell story with no details is enough, they’re wrong. If  CBS thinks two stories on This Morning are enough, they’re wrong. And  if ABC thinks their complete blackout on World News and Good  Morning America hasn’t done major damage to their brand in the eyes of the  American people, they’re outright delusional.

This is what it looks like when networks have a political agenda. They are  in lock-step in defense of the abortion industry. It doesn’t matter how many  babies are murdered. All that matters to the Big Three is hiding the truth about  the horrific violence of abortion.

Gosnell may go down as the most lethal, depraved serial killer in American  history, and the nation’s three biggest television news outlets refuse to tell  the truth about him. It’s disgusting on every level.

Editor’s note: For our archive of coverage on Gosnell bias, click here. For  today’s MRC press release, click  here.


Last but not least…

Census Report Shocker

The  issue of “who’s minding the kids” is now taking back seat to “who is having the  kids.” The just-released Census Bureau Report, “Social and Economic Characteristics of Currently Unmarried Women With a Recent  Birth, 2011,” (SECCUM) describes for the first time the demographic details of  non-marital childbearing — and it is not a pretty picture.  The report reveals dramatic increases in non-marital births and is the first  Census Bureau report showing the relationship of non-marital births to  geographic variations and educational attainment.

It is depressing yet  unsurprising that with median age of women at first marriage approaching 27  years of age, 62 percent of women ages 20-24 who gave birth in 2011 were  unmarried.  Among new moms ages 25-29, 32 percent are unmarried, with 17  percent of those in their late 30s not married. The steady increase in  non-marital births, as well as the marked increases in recent years, have been  noted by social scientists, but largely ignored by the general public.

Likewise,  social scientists have noted the significant demographic divides related to  fatherless families — huge education, economic, racial, and geographical  divides — and a mountain of data has accumulated over the past decade  documenting these facts; I have reported extensively on these problems in my  columns and in my book, Children at Risk: The Precarious State of Children’s  Well-Being in America (Transaction Publishers, 2010).  The prevalence  of the problem and the demographic divides are there for anyone to see who  ventures out in public or talks to public school teachers, or sadly, to law  enforcement officers or social workers.

We  can no longer ignore the costly effects to both the children involved and  societies at large of the increases in non-marital households simply because the  political correctness police make it uncomfortable to address these facts; too  much is at stake for the nation’s children. The single biggest factor related to a child’s well-being is  having a married couple mom-and-dad family.

It is long past time to stop  ignoring the clear implications of the growing body of empirical research  showing the critical importance of married moms and dads to children’s  development and well-being; nor can we continue to give a polite nod to the  ludicrous claim that all family structures are the same.

As the SECCUM report  shows more than half of unmarried mothers lack a high school diploma (57  percent) as compared with only 9 percent of college graduates who are unmarried  mothers. Further, the report reveals nearly 70 percent of unmarried mothers earn  less than $10,000 (which put them well below the poverty level and dependent  upon welfare to survive). In short, the cold, hard fact is that unmarried  mothers are less educated, have lower incomes, are predominantly black and  Hispanic, and are located in poorer states or inner cities.

The  public costs of single motherhood — over $112 billion annually — were exposed  earlier this year by the Institute for American Values in their report, “The  Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing.” In addition to the harm to  individual children’s well-being, there are the staggering social costs of their  dysfunctional propensities that weigh down the effectiveness of public education  and fill up correctional and penal institutions. In the end, it is the taxpayers  who are paying through the nose for divorce and non-marital births. The rate of  poverty for unmarried mothers is 5 times higher than for married couple  families; poverty and fatherless families are inextricably linked.

Social  scientists across the political and ideological spectrum have documented with  reams of data and evidence that kids need a married mom and dad.  For  decades, liberals, progressives, feminists and welfare advocates have tried to  get to the bottom of the problems associated by the triad of out-of-wedlock  childbearing, single motherhood, and child poverty.  Heretofore, the  solutions have been abortion and increased welfare dependency. I don’t need to  ask, “How is that working for us?” The answer is obvious to anyone who will face  the realities that are evident should one take a risky drive into certain  neighborhoods of our cities or choose the safer route of reading about the  dramatic increases in non-marital births documented in the SECCUM  report.

The  nation’s founding fathers first instituted a national census so that the nation  could “mark the progress of society.”  They would roll over in their graves  to see that the nation they founded with great hope and based on principles of  personal and civic responsibility, instead of progressing, has instead become  mired in reckless self-indulgence and thus regressed in terms of people’s well  being.

We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the past four  decades trying to alleviate the consequences of poor and irresponsible choices  only to reap a harvest of greater dependency than ever before and several  generations of children at risk for all the negative outcomes that parents hope  to avoid (truancy, delinquency, substance abuse, etc). It is not merely the  demographics of non-marital child bearing that need to be publicized but an  honest, extensive reporting of the damages as well.

When  the sum total of our morality, both personal and public, consists of not being  judgmental, we should not be surprised to find that there is little will to be  concerned with more than the pursuit of whatever brings a moment of pleasure  today with no regard for the effects this will have for anyone’s well-being  tomorrow.

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